Words Worth Sharing

Articles, Essays & Poetry

Book

Under construction

Introduction

 

Given the highly charged atmosphere that tends to surround sexual matters, it is likely that people will object to both the pro- and anti-censorship arguments that are to follow. Some shocking, confusing, even contradictory things must be said: the language of prudery and prurience is echoed in the murmurings of lust and love. There will at times be a need for comedic figures and gestures, as when Germaine Greer stood in front of a crowd holding a banana and demanding satisfaction.

Some say that it is only permissible to talk about sex and to show dirty pictures when there is a ‘serious purpose.’ Others point out that resorting to comedy is cowardly when instead of open and honest discussion there is guilty refuge in crudity and sarcasm. But an incredible tension surrounds the sordid past of pornography and the messy debate over obscenity, and humor serves as a two-way prophylactic: it shields the speaker from accusations of being too preachy on the one hand or too immoral on the other; and it reminds the audience not to take things too seriously, challenging us to be open-minded by pointing out the ridiculous contradictions of erotica versus obscenity that we experience in our own lives. Henri Bergson theorizes, rather dryly, that a laugh is the result of an absurd contrast between two independent series of events that collide producing two entirely different meanings simultaneously. Ideally, in moments of mirth the seriousness and the silliness of sexuality can coincide in a pleasurable way, thus opening the door for physical, emotional, intellectual and spiritual growth.

In all discussions of sexuality and what constitutes normal sexual behavior there is "no truth independent of power relations, no truth without a politics of truth”. Yet as an artifact, porn predates any political attempts at regulation; it is ephemeral and ubiquitous because sex is one of humanity's greatest preoccupations. Sex is a great part of what it means to be alive: “everything that people do is connected with ‘sex’: politics, religion, art, the theater, music, is all ‘sex’.” Humans are hardwired to respond to sexual stimulus and to enjoy pleasure. The brain evolved in such a way as to enable the creation and enjoyment of sexy images and language. Apart from its connection with reproduction and pleasure, sex is an avenue of deep connection with other people; social identity is defined by sexual relationships. The body, mind, personality, even the soul seems inextricably linked with our sexual self in ways that can be malignant or benign; likewise, pornography and the dialogue surrounding it and its censorship is part of a powerful and influential social phenomenon that can be organic, personalized, civilized and spiritual, or else dehumanizing and destructive, the critical factor being the attention and care given to the matter.

A zesty love life is, generally speaking, a psychologically healthy one. It is, however, not always one that is easy to live out. We are the only species for whom public nakedness is humiliating. We cover up, both literally and figuratively, the very organs we most want and need to use (at the appropriate times and places, of course). Given the complications of our biology, psychology, sociology and spirituality, it can be quite challenging to deal with ‘sex.’ Political pressures, as well as those exerted by internalized forces of repression operating through mechanisms of guilt and shame, shape the entire debate over porn. It is difficult to know in our thinking, in our systems of values and in our hearts, what it means to be a sexual being and how to express ourselves in language, art and deed.

 

Debate Critical on Issue of Erotica

Attempting to determine what is appropriate in terms of the consumption and display of sexually explicit material, it is imperative that society take risks and participate in the public forum on sexuality. Whether one enjoys erotica or debates censorship, they are engaging in political expression and are contributing to the larger dialogue regarding cultural values. Such discourses are critical in attaining and maintaining democratic principles, and they serve as a yardstick by which success is measured. In many societies, the notion of being accountable to posterity is at the heart of the entire moral system.

 

To explore the convoluted histories of erotica and obscenity with humility is to become immune to naive absolutist claims. There are many perspectives worth considering in the quest to restore the lost sacredness of sex, and new moral and legal issues have arisen, especially in the realm of digital porn--the arrival of cyberspace as a new medium requires a re-examination of obscenity law. The central question here is not simply whether porn causes harm, nor how government should function in regulating porn, nor even whether the whole point is moot given the advent of the World Wide Web. What is crucial is whether people are inhibited in their ability to produce and consume good material (i.e. the erotic), and whether they are able to participate in public arguments over the how and why of censoring bad material (i.e. the obscene).

Frank discussion about sex is infrequent and insufficient—though there are lots of lies and laughs. There is an ongoing and pervasive inability to even admit the importance of the erotic. Whenever we enjoy erotica or discuss the pros and cons of obscenity or its censorship (especially when done in ways that stray from cultural or community standards), we risk recrimination. Porn is everywhere and its presence evokes much anxiety and uncertainty. Try engaging in a serious discussion on porn and how it relates to our civic rights and social responsibilities, and find crusty condemnation or, worse, patronizing praise. Try standing up to promote the erotic or criticize the obscene, and be branded a prude or a libertine. Trying to determine what is appropriate in terms of the consumption and display of porn, and to participate in the public forum on sexuality, is to confront many challenging social issues.

 

The sexually explicit narratives and images commonly found in porn have a predictable effect on people. But what is really meant by all the loud condemnation and muted applause? Is the Classical Priapus a crude relic from an uncivilized past or a potent male fertility image? Depending upon one’s definition, a Playboy centerfold, Goya’s Venus de Milo and bare breasted natives in National Geographic might all be considered equally obscene. What is meant by real or depicted harm? If real harm is portrayed, does that mean that someone’s freedoms were violated, or did they consent to being abused? If the harm depicted is not real, could its depiction still cause real harm to someone else? If laws are broken in the production of a picture or movie, should the pictures, such as those depicting actual murders, suicides, traffic violations or drug use be illegal? How are lawmakers supposed to legislate against fictionalized crime? Are they more concerned with sex per se than with violence in all its depravity, and is one type of graphic material more harmful than another? Is porn free expression or harmful diversion? Are there legitimate depictions of sexual organs and acts for artistic purposes? Is there a need for laws that restrict ‘dirty’ words and images, or does censorship do more damage than good? In the absence of restrictions, would porn actually cause any of these harms? American Supreme Court Justice Stewart Potter was justly ridiculed for saying he cannot literally define obscenity but he knows it when he sees it—yet he did inadvertently help spawn discussion about how criminality must be based upon clearly articulated principles and not upon the basis of blind impulse.

Walter Lippmann notes that it is “not possible to be indifferent” about important issues like divorce, contraception, monogamy, and prostitution. Likewise with porn, one cannot just abstain from judgment, though we can withhold it. One can dismiss the issue saying “I do not know about it,” “live and let live,” “I am sickened and angered by it,” “I profit by it,” “I enjoy it.” Or one can feel threatened, puzzled, intimidated or intrigued by porn, sometimes even simultaneously. We can insist that the law should not enforce any restrictions whatsoever, or argue strenuously for more censorship. Either way, as George Orwell says, “it’s difficult to discuss obscenity because people are afraid of appearing either scandalized or not scandalized enough”. There is an urge to identify with one group or another because otherwise we fear getting caught in the crossfire. Polarization leads to incessant squabbling, not debate and resolution, and when a single aspect of life, our sexuality in this case, bears the full force of a major ideological battle, the results are truly obscene.

People tend to judge porn users according to the worst of them, and likewise they assess the debate about porn in terms of its most extreme participants whose legal definitions, moral proscriptions and self-interested promotions often approach the fanatical. As Eric Hoffer, a fanatic about fanatics, puts it, the game of history is usually played by the best and the worst over the heads of the majority in the middle; that is, the average person is shaped by minorities at each end of the social spectrum, by the superior individual in politics, literature, science, commerce or industry, who plays a large role in shaping a nation, and by those at the other extreme, the failures, misfits, outcasts, criminals. This fallacious exclusion of the middle ground is philosophically limiting and slants the argument by presenting ready answers that preclude all independent thought. Subsequent problem solving uses only circular techniques that pre-determine the nature of the solutions.

Alternately being pilloried or praised, according to the political will of the moment, sexual expression is made out to be something distinctly different from the rest of the myriad forms of relating and existing. Cognitive categories and oppositions can be helpful in the quest to make meaning of the world, but when the debate over porn degenerates into hermetically isolated monologues there will be no collective sense of the true, the good and the beautiful. The absence of any kind of structuralized picture of not only sexuality but also of the world at large undercuts any ability or willingness to take part in the debate, and reinforces a reliance upon others to impose order on sexuality in society. Will the winner be Eros or Thanatos?

Issue of Porn Brings up Same Old Battles

 

A legacy of repressive attitudes and fault-ridden efforts at censorship have pasted pejorative definitions onto all sexual instincts and behaviors, and well-entrenched into even the most progressive community are a plethora of diverse ethical and legal claims about porn. Walter Kendrick argues that we keep on fighting the same old battles "incessantly" because the issue of porn has never been openly addressed. Perhaps there are no final answers, and for sure the issues are complicated, in part, because the scientific and legal facts keep changing. However, basic questions still need to be addressed through personal, creative and even humorous dialogue.

Public debate over the uses of obscenity reflects, and simultaneously reinforces, particular mindsets and distinct ideological stances regarding sexuality. The most powerful players polarize the issue, typically viewing obscenity as a matter of sinful degradation or erotica as positive function of cultural evolution. They either emphasize the need for continuity in terms of basic sexual mores, definitions of the obscene and the erotic, and the proper use words, images, and other shared symbols, or else focus on the need to adapt to changing social and technological conditions. Both lines of thought are essential to understanding the issue, but both also pose problems: radical lawfulness is as damaging as radical non-conformism. When one condemns or condones porn, when the primary concern is to attack obscenity or defend erotica, the world-view being expressed is either Conservative or Liberal. Midway between these two points of view stands a third.

 

To use the analogy of a game the golden mean is the ideal “umpire” who enforces the rules but tries, however unsuccessfully, to not interfere with the flow of the game. The goal is to reconcile soul-splitting dichotomies such as the obscene versus the erotic, or the mind versus the body. (The early Greeks associated the rational Conservative force with Apollo and the knowledge of causality and order, and the vital Liberal force was represented by Dionysus and pleasure in chaos. Prometheus was the umpire whose wisdom and humanity symbolized a creative harmony where ambiguity and paradox are not philosophical obstacles but opportunities for consensus-building and personal growth.) The middle way is the juggling act of synthesis with the traditional values of reason and organization (the thesis) on the one hand and progressive values of feeling and freedom (the antithesis) on the other. In this game, regardless of what position we end up playing (the Conservative, the Liberal or the Umpire), what matters most is balancing freedom of speech against the victims of obscenity who suffer harm—a concept that must be constantly re-negotiated not only within the boundaries of the law, but also in terms of biology, psychological, sociology and spirituality.

 

Before dealing with dauntingly complex arguments about erotica and obscenity we shall first survey the major issues surrounding the debate over pornography and its censorship, the character of the players and the quality of their play. It should be fun, but it quickly gets serious; if moralists and hedonists agree on one thing it is that sex has the power to destroy as well as to create both vast civilizations and private reputations.