Are librarians prudes?
The popular stereotype (pornographic at least) would tell you that librarians are repressed nymphomaniacs desperately trying to maintain decorum. Its a nice thought. . .
I’ve been wanting to write about sex in libraries for ages and something happened this week that drove it to the forefront. Little do you know but this week witnessed an annual cultural moment that *concerns* many librarians. .
I’ve never thought much of the Swimsuit Edition one way or another. There are certainly more revealing photographs in various popular magazines all the time. Granted, I live in the South where the grocery store puts modesty guards over Allure, Cosmopolitan, and even Shape magazines as well. I was surprised this week to notice about 15 other library students most of whom currently work in libraries grappling with the question of the Swimsuit Edition.
The first shocker is that it is a question at all. The original poster asked about it with disdain and some assumption that certainly librarians needed to lock away these shocking, disgusting images of . . . the female body! The responses varied but most gave a level-headed reply that it was handled like any other issue of Sports Illustrated (put on the browsing shelves and almost immediately stolen.) Other librarians pointed out that young adults are savvy and know exactly where to find the sex books in libraries already and that hiding these things away just makes something natural an issue to snicker over.
The thing that bothers me about this exchange isn’t the conclusions that the future librarians came to. No one advocated banning the Swimsuit Edition or was even particularly offended by it (except perhaps the person who originally asked the question.) But librarians are particularly susceptible to societal pressures and many have convinced themselves that the risk of someone seeing something pornographic at a library is absolutely terrifying. I’ve seen dozens of intelligent conversations on offering digital information to patrons devolve into “how do we stop them from looking at porn?!” hysteria.
Of course there are several practical reasons why openly viewing pornography in a library should be prevented. And unfortunately, common sense and social etiquette of patrons does not necessarily pick up the slack. However, I’m not sure that I’m convinced that sex is the most pressing issue facing libraries today and I wonder if it is a waste of resources worry about it so extensively.
This issue touches on the development of library collections (what books and periodicals appear in the library), the training of reference staff (which questions are appropriate to answer), and access to electronic resources (requirements to use an internet terminal and whether or not that internet access is filtered.)
So, I propose an experiment! I intend to visit the public library in my medium-sized Southern city and attempt access at several websites. I suspect that the filtering software will stop me from viewing many informative sites and blogs that are not pornographic but are about sex or pornography. Conversely, I suspect that it will allow me access to sites that perhaps should be filtered but are smaller. How do I know this? A preliminary experience with the filtering software allows my site (maybe it shouldn’t, I post filthy stories and pictures – it is almost certainly pornographic) but does not allow access to (that site has always intentionally been non-pornographic and is a source of business information.)
I have a list of sites that I want to test this theory with but I’d like more suggestions. Post links as a comment and I’ll include them in the “study”.
If you've wondered what it would be like to get me on the phone, no need to wonder anymore!
(1.99/min.)
No Response for "Sex in Libraries: An Introduction"
My six-foot tall, purple-haired and pierced lesbian best-friend-from-childhood is a librarian in Tennessee. She’s not a prude. However, most of the blue-haired older ladies she works with are. I think librarians of the past turned to books as a refuge from life, gaining comfort in the order of the dewey decimal system, and tend to lean towards the prudish. But I like to hope that the younger generations of librarians are turning to books to expand their lives, gaining knowledge in the exploration of new ideas, and tend to be a little more open.
Or maybe that’s just my dream for hot, young librarians everywhere…
I think you are right and that the younger generation is pretty different. Hell, I’m not even saying that the older generation are prudes. It seems that most librarians, though, are caving to certain pressures in their communities about sex. I just don’t know when porn became the biggest menace to libraries! – ellie
I can see why SugarBank was blocked and Lumpesse.com wasn’t: Two reasons. First, SugarBank’s recently rated with ICRA, which feeds data to filtering software, while I’m gathering your blog isn’t; second, it’s got more porn-related linkage and was more likely to be precategorized.
You should check out Peacefire.org, if you haven’t already. Bennett’s been covering the filtering issue since I’ve been online and has documented many of the flaws in the systems, including known filtering of “clean” sites, including non-porn related but “controversial” topics such as Wicca, and exemption of very sexual materials. The technology is bad, has been for years, and the companies are not properly addressing the issue.
Thanks for the link, I have it bookmarked. As for the reasons for Sugarbank being filtered, the second is quite possibly true. But, I ran into filter problems at the library months ago (well before the ICRA listing.) Either way, it proves that the filters don’t work. – ellie
When I used to work in a library, the swimsuit issue was always a huge problem – it’d be stolen within 5 minutes of putting it out, and a lot of people wanted to read it! We bought lots of extra copies.
Yeah, the chance of theft seems like the only reason to treat it specially at all. But since it is just a magazine, it makes sense to just order some extra copies. – ellie
I’m in a library, but IT, not a librarian. We only filtered quite recently, as in the last couple of months, after the local rag ran a headline along the lines of ‘OMG PUBLIC INTARWEB PR0N SHOCKER LOL.’ Many of ‘us’ (librarians included) were quite shitty about the censorship implications. It was a directive from the top of the tree after the press kerfuffle.
Our filter uses a database, not really anything that resembles ‘smart’ filtering. so I could post naughty on my site – which doesn’t exist in our filter’s database – and hit it ALL NIGHT LONG. It might turn up in the filter sometime. My god it’s crap.
That said, I heartily approve of blocking spyware sites and so on, from a don’t-bugger-the-infrastructure perspective.
The more critical concern (IMHO) is access to hate speech by children, rather than porn.
Additionaly, there is a difference between the school setting where the librarian is acting “in loco parentis” in place of the parent and the public library where no such legal requirement (but perhaps a societal expectation)exists.
I would be curious to see what your conclusions are following the experiment. As I am sure you are aware there are volumes of research concerning the “filtering issue”
I came to this post thinking someone had finally written a tutorial based on my eccentric fantasy life. Alas.
Filtering and censoring software is, as you know, not particularly intelligent. It took a lot of knocks in the late nineties, when a number of popular news vendors featured articles in which teenagers easily by-passed such software, or which non-objectionable content was filtered but objectionable content was left intact. I remember, for example, a filtering software package that held a stranglehold on one’s entire operating system – it censored everything from web traffic to what you wrote in Microsoft Word. This was really annoying – you’d get as far as “fuc” and suddenly what you were writing would convert to “f***”. The funny thing, though, was that it left racial slurs untouched.
So, while filtering software will catch a big hunk of objectionable material, a significant portion will still make its way through – institutions with public terminals, such as libraries, rely on social pressure (the fact that it’s a public terminal) to take up the slack. The software knows if a site is on its filtering list or not – you know if the site is dirty. It’s a pretty theory, but in practice it’s messy.
Do remember, as you venture off into this experiment, that the Patriot Act is about to be renewed – don’t test those filters too hard.
Trackbacks
Leave a reply