| Controversial Pornography Essay, Research Paper
Controversial Pornography
by: Nicole Lamberson
Ms. Susan Trabert
English 102-060
December 12, 1996
Show a number of different people a simple piece of paper consisting of nothing
more than a red blotch of paint and ask them what they see. The responses will
vary from objects such as a cherry, to more simply, just plain red paint. This
is an indication of the individuality, or sum of qualities that characterize and
distinguish an individual from all others, instilled in every human being. Just
as facial features and hair color differ among individuals, similar
distinctiveness is found among personalities and opinions. Because of prominent
variance in belief among many individuals, a number of topics and issues have
become controversial in society today.
Similar to the varied responses to the red splotch of paint, photographs, video
tapes and paintings portraying nudity and sexual content receive a number of
clashing opinions. There are artists who paint and photograph nudity and
pornography who find the human body and sex portrayed in many forms to be
beautiful. However, there are also many extremely conservative individuals who
take offense to such “artwork” and find its catchword appalling. And those who
enjoy the nudity and sexual content exhibited in pornographic materials should
marvel and delight in its details. Those who do not should simply look away. In
the words of Justice William O. Douglas, “no one is compelled to look”
(Brownmiller 663). There is no concrete manner to define materials that are
“obscene” or “offensive” because various images come to mind among individuals
when words similar to these are used to describe pornography. To classify a
distasteful picture from a beautiful one comes down to a matter of opinion and
taste. In previous instances, such as the Miller
Case of
1973, the Court attempted to define which materials could be judged as lewd or
indecent:
The materials are obscene if they depict patently offensive, hard-core sexual
conduct; lack serious scientific, literary, artistic, or political value; and
appeal to the prurient interests of an average person?as measured by
contemporary community standards (Brownmiller 662).
In accordance with the opinions of Susan Brownmiller in her essay, “Let’s Put
Pornography Back in the Closet,” most would agree that description such as
“patently offensive,” “prurient interest,” and “hard-core” are “indeed words to
conjure with” (662).
Elimination of pornography is not the key to social equality, partly since no
one can define what porn is and because censorship is never a simple matter.
First, the offense must be described. “And how does one define something so
infinitely variable, so deeply personal, so uniquely individualized as the image,
the word, and the fantasy that cause sexual arousal” (Strossen 4)? Pornography
cannot be recognized as easily as the Court involved with the Miller Case
implied. “Contemporary community standards” do not exist in that individuals
and families alike have strongly different ideals and ethics on issues such as
sexual content, nudity and pornography. While some parents allow their children
to view rated R movies containing sexual content and nudity, others restrict
their children from attending sexual education classes in high school. Finding
a median between two strongly differing standards similar to these would be rare.
Thus, to accept or reject, like or dislike pornography is a personal opinionthat
is often too divided to differentiate.
Besides the difficulties of definition, there are varying degrees of intensity
in the porn images themselves. One of the more prominent arguments against
pornography is that “it represents the hatred of women, that pornography’s
intent is to humiliate, degrade and dehumanize the female body for the purpose
of erotic stimulation and pleasure” (Brownmiller 663). Although in some
instances women are portrayed as being stripped, bound, raped and tortured in
pornographic scenes, not all pornography is this explicit and violent. In any
case, the intent of such scenes is not to “degrade and dehumanize” the entire
female gender but to simply satisfy those individuals who enjoy poses and
pictures containing such violent erotic content. Brownmiller argues that these
images of violent pornography? “have everything to do with the creation of a
cultural climate in which a rapist feels he is merely giving in to normal urge
and a woman is encouraged to believe that sexual masochism is healthy, liberated
fun” (663).
Women such as Brownmiller who spend most of their time blaming rape on
pornography should spend more of that time educating women on personal safety so
they can protect and empower themselves. To attribute rape cases to sexual
pictures is similar to blaming drunk driving accidents on alcohol. The
individual who chose to drink and then drive is at fault, similar to the man who
decided to continue with sex when a woman resisted. To depict pornographic
scenes as the cause of rape and degrading of women is simply masking the actual
grounds of such acts. Holly Hughes states, if you argue that getting the
Playboys out of the 7-Eleven is going to drive down the rape rate, then you also
have to give credence to the religious right’s claims that representation of gay
and lesbian lives are going to cause homosexuality?I don’t see imagery ? whether
it’s pornography, hate speech, or lesbian imagery- as causing a certain kind of
behavior (43).
Simply because one is a consumer of pornography does not mean they have to go
out and do everything they see.
Possibly pornography abets some sex crimes. But according to Ernest Van Den
Haag in his essay. “Learning to Live with Sex and Violence,” those disposed to
sex crimes may also be inclined to consume pornography as an effect, not a cause,
of their pre ? existing criminal disposition. More important, if there is a
disposition to sex crimes, an almost infinite variety of things may trigger
criminal action. A rapist does not need pornography. The sight of a woman, or
even of an advertisement for lingerie may be enough” (59).
However, for most people pornography is no more damaging, or habit ? forming,
than coffee. Simply because there is no way to eliminate stimuli, there is no
reason to believe that pornography is indispensable to sex crimes or
sufficiently at fault to justify controlling it.
Despite complaints and criticisms from individuals and groups alike, producers
will continue to create pornography and those individuals who enjoy it will
continue to purchase it. Because of strong support from a number of people?
“the porn industry has become a mulitmillion dollar business” (Brownmiller 663).
To attempt to do away completely with such a prosperous business would be
virtually impossible. The reality is that millions and millions of Americans
consume various kinds of sexually explicit materials every month. Although their
numbers are large, their rights are under attack in virtually every segment of
society. But forming laws restricting pornography from viewers would be similar
to restricting cigarettes from smokers. The outrage and protest would be
uncontrollably extreme. And laws are only obeyed by people who believe in them.
There are a lot of laws against drugs. Has it stopped anyone?
Kyle Jorgensen, a man involved in the adult sex industry for seven years, has
learned that he will never please everyone (Nichols 60). He has been both
praised and reviled. “I’ve had women come in the door or write letters thanking
me for saving their marriages,” he claims. “At the same time, I have letters
from special ? interest groups condemning me for destroying the world” (Nichols
60). Ultimately, the assemblage of people who object to pornography must learn
to turn their heads and look away. Those who do enjoy the content of pornography
should continue to enjoy it without, however, imposing on those who choose not
to subject themselves.
Works Cited
Brownmiller, Susan. “Let’s Put Pornography Back in the Closet.” Current Issues
and Enduring Questions. Sylvan Barnet and Hugo Bedau, eds. Bedford: Boston,
1996.
Hughes, Holly. “Pornography: Does Women’s Equality Depend on what we do
About it?” Ms. Jan./ Feb. 1994: 42-45.
Nichols, Mark. “Viewers and Victims: Pornography and Sexual Offenses.”
Maclean’s 11 Oct. 1993: 60.
Strossen, Nadine. “The Perils of Pornophobia.” The Humanist. May/June 1995: 7-
9.
Van Den Haag, Ernest. “Learning to Live with Sex and Violence.” National Review.
1 Nov. 1993: 56-9.
Show a
number of different people a simple piece of paper consisting of nothing more
than a red blotch of paint and ask them what they see. The responses will vary
from objects such as a cherry, to more simply, just plain red paint. This is an
indication of the individuality, or sum of qualities that characterize and
distinguish an individual from all others, instilled in every human being. Just
as facial features and hair color differ among individuals, similar
distinctiveness is found among personalities and opinions. Because of prominent
variance in belief among many individuals, a number of topics and issues have
become controversial in society today. Similar to the varied responses to the
red splotch of paint, photographs, video tapes and paintings portraying nudity
and sexual content receive a number of clashing opinions. There are artists who
paint and photograph nudity and pornography who find the human body and sex
portrayed in many forms to be beautiful. However, there are also many extremely
conservative individuals who take offense to such “artwork” and find its
catchword appalling. And those who enjoy the nudity and sexual content exhibited
in pornographic materials should marvel and delight in its details. Those who do
not should simply look away. In the words of Justice William O. Douglas, “no
one is compelled to look” (Brownmiller 663). There is no concrete manner to
define materials that are “obscene” or “offensive” because various images come
to mind among individuals when words similar to these are used to describe
pornography. To classify a distasteful picture from a beautiful one comes down
to a matter of opinion and taste. In previous instances, such as the Miller
Case of
1973, the Court attempted to define which materials could be judged as lewd or
indecent: The materials are obscene if they depict patently offensive, hard-core
sexual conduct; lack serious scientific, literary, artistic, or political value;
and appeal to the prurient interests of an average person?as measured by
contemporary community standards (Brownmiller 662). In accordance with the
opinions of Susan Brownmiller in her essay, “Let’s Put Pornography Back in the
Closet,” most would agree that description such as “patently offensive,”
“prurient interest,” and “hard-core” are “indeed words to conjure with” (662).
Elimination of pornography is not the key to social equality, partly since no
one can define what porn is and because censorship is never a simple matter.
First, the offense must be described. “And how does one define something so
infinitely variable, so deeply personal, so uniquely individualized as the image,
the word, and the fantasy that cause sexual arousal” (Strossen 4)? Pornography
cannot be recognized as easily as the Court involved with the Miller Case
implied. “Contemporary community standards” do not exist in that individuals
and families alike have strongly different ideals and ethics on issues such as
sexual content, nudity and pornography. While some parents allow their children
to view rated R movies containing sexual content and nudity, others restrict
their children from attending sexual education classes in high school. Finding
a median between two strongly differing standards similar to these would be rare.
Thus, to accept or reject, like or dislike pornography is a personal opinion
that is often too divided to differentiate.
Besides the difficulties of definition, there are varying degrees of intensity
in the porn images themselves. One of the more prominent arguments against
pornography is that “it represents the hatred of women, that pornography’s
intent is to humiliate, degrade and dehumanize the female body for the purpose
of erotic stimulation and pleasure” (Brownmiller 663). Although in some
instances women are portrayed as being stripped, bound, raped and tortured in
pornographic scenes, not all pornography is this explicit and violent. In any
case, the intent of such scenes is not to “degrade and dehumanize” the entire
female gender but to simply satisfy those individuals who enjoy poses and
pictures containing such violent erotic content. Brownmiller argues that these
images of violent pornography? “have everything to do with the creation of a
cultural climate in which a rapist feels he is merely giving in to normal urge
and a woman is encouraged to believe that sexual masochism is healthy, liberated
fun” (663). Women such as Brownmiller who spend most of their time blaming rape
on pornography should spend more of that time educating women on personal safety
so they can protect and empower themselves. To attribute rape cases to sexual
pictures is similar to blaming drunk driving accidents on alcohol. The
individual who chose to drink and then drive is at fault, similar to the man who
decided to continue with sex when a woman resisted. To depict pornographic
scenes as the cause of rape and degrading of women is simply masking the actual
grounds of such acts. Holly Hughes states,
if you argue that
getting the Playboys out of the 7-Eleven is going to drive down the rape rate,
then you also have to give credence to the religious right’s claims that
representation of gay and lesbian lives are going to cause homosexuality?I don’t
see imagery ? whether it’s pornography, hate speech, or lesbian imagery- as
causing a certain kind of behavior (43). Simply because one is a consumer of
pornography does not mean they have to go out and do everything they see.
Possibly pornography abets some sex crimes. But according to Ernest Van Den Haag
in his essay. “Learning to Live with Sex and Violence,” those disposed to sex
crimes may also be inclined to consume pornography as an effect, not a cause, of
their pre ? existing criminal disposition. More important, if there is a
disposition to sex crimes, an almost infinite variety of things may trigger
criminal action. A rapist does not need pornography. The sight of a woman, or
even of an advertisement for lingerie may be enough” (59).
However, for most people pornography is no more damaging, or habit ? forming,
than coffee. Simply because there is no way to eliminate stimuli, there is no
reason to believe that pornography is indispensable to sex crimes or
sufficiently at fault to justify controlling it.
Despite complaints and criticisms from individuals and groups alike,
producers will continue to create pornography and those individuals who enjoy it
will continue to
purchase it.
Because of strong support from a number of people? “the porn industry has
become a mulitmillion dollar business” (Brownmiller 663). To attempt to do away
completely with such a prosperous business would be virtually impossible. The
reality is that millions and millions of Americans consume various kinds of
sexually explicit materials every month. Although their numbers are large, their
rights are under attack in virtually every segment of society. But forming laws
restricting pornography from viewers would be similar to restricting cigarettes
from smokers. The outrage and protest would be uncontrollably extreme. And laws
are only obeyed by people who believe in them. There are a lot of laws against
drugs. Has it stopped anyone? Kyle Jorgensen, a man involved in the adult sex
industry for seven years,
has learned that he will never please everyone (Nichols 60). He has been both
praised and reviled. “I’ve had women come in the door or write letters thanking
me for saving their marriages,” he claims. “At the same time, I have letters
from special ? interest groups condemning me for destroying the world” (Nichols
60). Ultimately, the assemblage of people who object to pornography must learn
to turn their heads and look away. Those who do enjoy the content of pornography
should continue to enjoy it without, however, imposing on those who choose not
to subject themselves.
Controversial Pornography: Revision- Paper # 3
by: Nicole Lamberson
Ms. Susan Trabert English 102-060 December 12, 1996
Works Cited
Brownmiller, Susan. “Let’s Put Pornography Back in the Closet.” Current Issues
and
Enduring Questions. Sylvan Barnet and Hugo Bedau, eds. Bedford: Boston,
1996. Hughes, Holly. “Pornography: Does Women’s Equality Depend on what we do
About it?” Ms. Jan./ Feb. 1994: 42-45. Nichols, Mark. “Viewers and
Victims: Pornography and Sexual Offenses.” Maclean’s
11 Oct. 1993: 60. Strossen, Nadine. “The Perils of Pornophobia.” The
Humanist. May/June 1995: 7-9. Van Den Haag, Ernest. “Learning to Live with Sex
and Violence.” National Review.
1 Nov. 1993: 56-9.
\
Show a
number of different people a simple piece of paper consisting of nothing more
than a red blotch of paint and ask them what they see. The responses will vary
from objects such as a cherry, to more simply, just plain red paint. This is an
indication of the individuality, or sum of qualities that characterize and
distinguish an individual from all others, instilled in every human being. Just
as facial features and hair color differ among individuals, similar
distinctiveness is found among personalities and opinions. Because of prominent
variance in belief among many individuals, a number of topics and issues have
become controversial in society today. Similar to the varied responses to the
red splotch of paint, photographs, video tapes and paintings portraying nudity
and sexual content receive a number of clashing opinions. There are artists who
paint and photograph nudity and pornography who find the human body and sex
portrayed in many forms to be beautiful. However, there are also many extremely
conservative individuals who take offense to such “artwork” and find its
catchword appalling. And those who enjoy the nudity and sexual content exhibited
in pornographic materials should marvel and delight in its details. Those who do
not should simply look away. In the words of Justice William O. Douglas, “no
one is compelled to look” (Brownmiller 663). There is no concrete manner to
define materials that are “obscene” or “offensive” because various images come
to mind among individuals when words similar to these are used to describe
pornography. To classify a distasteful picture from a beautiful one comes down
to a matter of opinion and taste. In previous instances, such as the Miller
Case of
1973, the Court attempted to define which materials could be judged as lewd or
indecent: The materials are obscene if they depict patently offensive, hard-core
sexual conduct; lack serious scientific, literary, artistic, or political value;
and appeal to the prurient interests of an average person?as measured by
contemporary community standards (Brownmiller 662). In accordance with the
opinions of Susan Brownmiller in her essay, “Let’s Put Pornography Back in the
Closet,” most would agree that description such as “patently offensive,”
“prurient interest,” and “hard-core” are “indeed words to conjure with” (662).
Elimination of pornography is not the key to social equality, partly since no
one can define what porn is and because censorship is never a simple matter.
First, the offense must be described. “And how does one define something so
infinitely variable, so deeply personal, so uniquely individualized as the image,
the word, and the fantasy that cause sexual arousal” (Strossen 4)? Pornography
cannot be recognized as easily as the Court involved with the Miller Case
implied. “Contemporary community standards” do not exist in that individuals
and families alike have strongly different ideals and ethics on issues such as
sexual content, nudity and pornography. While some parents allow their children
to view rated R movies containing sexual content and nudity, others restrict
their children from attending sexual education classes in high school. Finding
a median between two strongly differing standards similar to these would be rare.
Thus, to accept or reject, like or dislike pornography is a personal opinion
that is often too divided to differentiate.
Besides the difficulties of definition, there are varying degrees of intensity
in the porn images themselves. One of the more prominent arguments against
pornography is that “it represents the hatred of women, that pornography’s
intent is to humiliate, degrade and dehumanize the female body for the purpose
of erotic stimulation and pleasure” (Brownmiller 663). Although in some
instances women are portrayed as being stripped, bound, raped and tortured in
pornographic scenes, not all pornography is this explicit and violent. In any
case, the intent of such scenes is not to “degrade and dehumanize” the entire
female gender but to simply satisfy those individuals who enjoy poses and
pictures containing such violent erotic content. Brownmiller argues that these
images of violent pornography? “have everything to do with the creation of a
cultural climate in which a rapist feels he is merely giving in to normal urge
and a woman is encouraged to believe that sexual masochism is healthy, liberated
fun” (663). Women such as Brownmiller who spend most of their time blaming rape
on pornography should spend more of that time educating women on personal safety
so they can protect and empower themselves. To attribute rape cases to sexual
pictures is similar to blaming drunk driving accidents on alcohol. The
individual who chose to drink and then drive is at fault, similar to the man who
decided to continue with sex when a woman resisted. To depict pornographic
scenes as the cause of rape and degrading of women is simply masking the actual
grounds of such acts. Holly Hughes states,
if you argue that
getting the Playboys out of the 7-Eleven is going to drive down the rape rate,
then you also have to give credence to the religious right’s claims that
representation of gay and lesbian lives are going to cause homosexuality?I don’t
see imagery ? whether it’s pornography, hate speech, or lesbian imagery- as
causing a certain kind of behavior (43). Simply because one is a consumer of
pornography does not mean they have to go out and do everything they see.
Possibly pornography abets some sex crimes. But according to Ernest Van Den Haag
in his essay. “Learning to Live with Sex and Violence,” those disposed to sex
crimes may also be inclined to consume pornography as an effect, not a cause, of
their pre ? existing criminal disposition. More important, if there is a
disposition to sex crimes, an almost infinite variety of things may trigger
criminal action. A rapist does not need pornography. The sight of a woman, or
even of an advertisement for lingerie may be enough” (59).
However, for most people pornography is no more damaging, or habit ? forming,
than coffee. Simply because there is no way to eliminate stimuli, there is no
reason to believe that pornography is indispensable to sex crimes or
sufficiently at fault to justify controlling it.
Despite complaints and criticisms from individuals and groups alike,
producers will continue to create pornography and those individuals who enjoy it
will continue to
purchase it.
Because of strong support from a number of people? “the porn industry has
become a mulitmillion dollar business” (Brownmiller 663). To attempt to do away
completely with such a prosperous business would be virtually impossible. The
reality is that millions and millions of Americans consume various kinds of
sexually explicit materials every month. Although their numbers are large, their
rights are under attack in virtually every
\
339
|