Site Meter

A Law Porn Blog

You may also like...

13 Responses

  1. Eric Goldman says:

    And we should create a neww .xxx TLD for it. :-) Eric.

  2. It must have been quite a trick to find the image for this post. I imagine a google image search for “porn protest” wouldn’t have cut it….

  3. anon says:

    This is a bit underinclusive because it doesn’t cover papers published, but it certainly covers speeches, colloquium, and conferences/symposia:

    htt://www.legalscholarshipblog.com

  4. anon says:

    This is a bit underinclusive because it doesn’t cover papers published, but it certainly covers speeches, colloquium, and conferences/symposia:

    htt://www.legalscholarshipblog.com

  5. Ann Bartow says:

    I’m curious, why is the analogy/metaphor law PORN?

  6. Mike Madison says:

    Instead of law PORN, how about a ratings system for promotionial mailers? We’ll need a ratings board, and “voluntary” participation by law schools.

    Fill in the appropriate descriptors next to parallels for the MPAA ratings: G // PG // PG-13 // R // NC-17 // XXX (not an official rating!).

    Or, since law schools are arguably trying to “game” the US News system, borrow the ratings from the Entertainment Software Rating Board: EC (Early Childhood) // E (Everyone) // E-10+ (Everyone 10 and older) // T (Teen) // M (Mature) // AO (Adults Only).

  7. Just Sayin' says:

    Isn’t Leiter’s blog essentially a law porn blog?

  8. Brian says:

    If you think my blog is “law porn,” then you must never have seen the real thing!

  9. Bridget Crawford says:

    Ann raises an excellent question. I have two working hypotheses.

    First, for some people, these glossy brochures are a “guilty pleasure,” like pornography. Just as noone wants to admit looking at Playboy for anything other than the articles, noone (written gender neutral, but more accurately, no male blogger) wants to admit looking at these brochures.

    Second, the glossy brochures present an airbrushed and limited view of a law school’s intellectual life, just as pornography presents an airbrushed and limited view of women (and sometimes men). The brochures do not show us faculty members who haven’t written a law review article in years or who haven’t attended conference in recent memory don’t make it into the glossy brochures. So, too, pornography rarely shows us women with natural bodies. Instead, pornography presents an unrealistic, distorted image of women’s bodies, pleasure and pain for purposes of (mostly) male consumption. Law “porn” distorts a law school for purposes of consumption by U.S. News rankers. (Full disclosure, I filled out my survey last week. If I interpreted the glossy brochures with irony, does that mean I couldn’t possibly have a false consciousness?)

    We know, however, that some real women (and men) are hurt in making some pornography. Only a law school’s budget gets hurt in making those glossy brochures.

    (Cross-Comment from FeministLawProfs)

  10. Thanks for raising the nomenclature question, Ann. I want to renew my dissent to the silly term “law porn,” as explained in my posting from October 2005, “more bad neology: “law porn” – http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ethicalesq/2005/10/26/more-bad-neology-law-porn/

  11. Larry Flynt says:

    The use of the term “law porn” is an insult to we legitimate pornographers.

  12. Ann Bartow says:

    Okay, here’s the thing: The comment above by Larry Flynt is funny at first, but then it isn’t, if you really think about it. And that’s why calling brochures “law porn” troubles me. If everybody appearing in “actual” porn was there voluntarily, and there was a high likelihood they were safe and well paid, that would be one thing. But that isn’t the case, and there is nothing funny about high risk unsafe sex, forced drug dependence or filmed rapes.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the word.
Anti-spam image