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 contents 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 personas measured by contemporary community standards (Brownmiller 662).

In accordance with the opinions of Susan Brownmiller in her essay, “Lets 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 pornographys 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, ound, 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 rights claims that representation of gay and lesbian lives are going to cause homosexualityI dont see imagery whether its 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, as learned that he will never please everyone (Nichols 60).

He has been both praised and reviled. “Ive 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.

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:

Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.