The Supreme Court ruled, material is considered obscene based on, “(a) whether ‘the average person, applying contemporary community standards’ would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest…(b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value” (“Miller v. California.”). According to this definition, every television show and commercial is obscene. Further to the point, discrepancies arise when determining who an average person is and what the community standards are. Leaving arbitrary regulations to civic leaders, charismatics, moneyed persons, or religious groups will always lead to tyranny. Although our society is based on democratic principles, America is a republic. Allowing majority rule to apply to community standards will trample individuality and is an affront to the Constitutional right of liberty and the pursuit of happiness. “As democracy is conceived today, the minority's rights must be protected no matter how singular or alienated that minority is from the majority society; otherwise, the majority's rights lose their meaning” (Chenoweth). Depending on individual points of view, values are perceived according to social norms, spiritual beliefs, or market analysis. Concurring to the latter, obscenity is in high demand.
Still, everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. Most mothers and fathers do not want to expose their children to obscenity, even if said parents regularly view pornography, rated R movies, or listen to contemporary comedians. Conversely, each of us has equal rights to live without hostility towards our predilections, given that no harm is brought to another person. Yet, even within our legal system the definition of harm is subjective. Am I harming my neighbor if I sunbathe on my property in the nude? Several factors dictate the response: is my neighbor agreeable to my body, am I assuming a level of privacy behind a fence or wall, are my behaviors being interpreted as lewd? In California or Florida my actions may be considered eccentric and legally protected. In Kansas I will probably be arrested. One person’s lewd is another’s lifestyle.
Modern controversy erupted over the exposure of Janet Jackson’s breast during the 2004 Super Bowl half-time show. Families traditionally gathered to watch this major sporting event. Therefore many children were viewing a dance routine between Jackson and Justin Timberlake at that time. The irony with Jackson’s exhibition was that her semi-nude nipple was considered by many to be obscene during a sporting event that, in my opinion, glamorizes violence. The immediate reactive firestorm that followed ushered in the increased fines for indecent and obscene broadcasts to “$500,000 for each violation” (Upton, 2004). The escalation in penalties and the threat of license revocation forced Clear Channel Radio to drop several of the simulcasts of Howard Stern’s radio show. Stern chose to move his act to satellite radio. Although many of his fans bought the equipment and pay for the service, true freedom of choice has been taken away from people who cannot afford the cost. There are senators and congress-people that still want to regulate indecency on pay services. Nevertheless, we cannot allow the policing of personal choice in the guise of combating obscenity.
The obscenity statute “assumes a degree of homogeneity which can no longer be assumed, and probably couldn’t ever be assumed, and most certainly not after the sixties and seventies” (Anthony and Petley 50-58). I dye my hair blue and I am told at formal events that my appearance is disrespectful. “According to who?” I ask. We are a divergent society. The figurative melting pot of cultures is embodied in our creed: “Give me your tired, your poor/Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free/The wretched refuse of your teeming shore/Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me” (Lazarus). These words that are inscribed at the base of the statue of liberty would fall hollow on the ears of any pilgrim if their moral standards were not equally recognized. Since every level of the American community contains so many views we must be careful to protect individual ideals while honoring majority principles. The vagueness of the obscenity definition is purposeful. Community attitudes change over time. The provocative music videos currently shown on MTV would have caused pandemonium in the 1950s. Likewise, the hopelessly schlocky monster movies of that era would have been deemed satanic during the Puritanical Salem Witch Trials. Consequently, any characterization must be fluid. Even so, there is too much possibility of conjecture as the Supreme Court decision stands.
Is it art or is it pornography? This is a simple question, but one that begs us to ask, “does it truly matter?” I have extensive Japanese style tattoos. To further my search for designs I purchased a book of prints by Hokusai. Amongst the beautifully detailed work I found an 1814 painting titled “A Pearl Diver And Two Octopuses.” The image portrays a large octopus performing cunnilingus on a young woman while a smaller one kisses her. Is it art or pornography and does it matter? The detail is riveting even if the subject matter is rather absurd. A fine line exists between personal freedom and the majority contention against indecency. As a parent, I do not allow my children to view the book of Hokusai paintings. However, I am considering having the “A Pearl Diver And Two Octopuses” image tattooed on my thigh. Since I only wear shorts that go to my knees I do not have the immediate possibility of offending others. Nevertheless, do I have the right to present this image on my own body? Will I possibly run the risk of arrest if I go swimming in a hotel pool while visiting friends in the Mid-West? Could my gym ban me from certain activities that push my shorts up and display the offending tattoo?
Censorship exists everywhere. Because of our diverse tastes and standards there will always be contention between what is acceptable and what goes too far. “I had more than a suspicion that Lady Chatterley’s Lover, Margaret Laurence’s The Diviners, and indeed most books by most serious modern authors would have ended up as confetti” (Atwood 281-82). Further to the point, there are people who even consider tattoos sinful. In the tiny universes of human interaction, anyone choosing to express their individuality can expect to be treated with casual disdain, mockery and in extreme cases, violence. “The absence of empathy, the conviction that our adversaries are weird and entirely unlike us (and correspondingly, that people who seem weird are our enemies), is also at the heart of today’s obscenity policies” (Koppelman 70). The hostilities expressed to non-conformism forces people to hide who they are and is an affront to personal freedom.
Pornography affects people differently. The majority of people can view an advertisement for Kohl’s and perhaps be moved to purchase clothing. Yet, there are individuals who become aroused at the models depending on his or her particular fetish. Some persons will masturbate, while others simply take a cold shower. Are we supposed to ban advertisements because of the potential for sexual arousal? The answer is no because sexuality is a human trait. All people have desires and fetishes.
“Animals do not have fetishes or need to act out sexual scripts. These are distinctively human activities. They reveal the creative potential of the human mind. For that reason, they have a dignity of their own. If people are entitled to respect, then their sexual desires are entitled to respect. People live better lives if they have some space in which those desires are not judged. The impulse to crush what is strange and disgusting is as dangerous here as it is in Iran” (Koppelman 71).
What the censor-crazed zealots fail to realize is that if we strip society down and become a sterile environment devoid of any suggestive imagery, discussions, and actions, humans will still have their imaginations. Sexual desire is a product of our minds. Pornography exists because we, as a species, love sex. Even the Bible is rampant with carnal episodes to stoke the fires of ingenuity.
Child pornography is strictly banned universally. The majority of people are appalled by it. Several laws exist to prosecute the proliferation of these materials and the adults who manipulate children into performing in them. I propose that we can reach a equally general agreement regarding violent sexual content. The porn industry already classifies pornography as softcore, hardcore, and extreme. Softcore pornography usually includes full and partial nudity, simulated sex such as the content of a rated R movie, and classic erotica. Playboy magazine is an example of softcore pornography. Hardcore pornography includes graphic depictions of sex in as many varieties as the imagination can perceive as well as light bondage. Typical hardcore pornography includes movies such as Deep Throat and Debbie Does Dallas as well as websites like NaughtyAmerica.com Extreme pornography includes intense bondage, sexual mutilation, depictions of rape, necrophilia, urolagnia, vorarephilia, coprophilia, emetophilia, algolagnia, dacryphilia, necrozoophilia, zoophilia, zoosadism, and even murder.
The regulation of extreme pornography in which actual and perceived victims exist must be enacted. Depictions of sexual violence can desensitize a viewer and have the effect of normalizing the represented behavior. I realize the hypocrisy of this statement, given the argument presented in this essay. However, softcore and hardcore pornography are considered contractual activities between consenting adults. Contrarily, extreme pornography has victims. In addition, it idealizes violence and cruelty as well as homicidal tendencies. Any variety of sexuality is fine and can be a healthy release of life’s stress factors as long as no humans or animals are harmed. By simply categorizing pornography as soft, hard and extreme we can separate the distasteful from the harmful.
The labeling of pornographic degrees should involve the people it directly affects. Expert sexologists, psychologists, religious leaders, and senators should all design the legislation by committee. Allowing only a one-sided myopic view always leads to tyranny, thus a balance must be struck. Although I cannot say whether any extreme pornography should be outlawed, the harmful effects on viewers must be considered; warnings should accompany all material. Stiffer penalties should be executed on individuals who victimize others as a result of viewing extreme pornography, while ensuring lesser forms of BDSM between consenting adults are never penalized. Provided major laws concerning death and destruction are observed, most liaisons between individuals of legal age should be afforded a latitude of respect and privacy. Even so, fetishes exist that can lead an individual into danger.
“In 2003, a German computer expert named Armin Meiwes advertised online for someone to kill and then eat. Incredibly, 200 people replied, and Meiwes chose a man named Bernd Brandes. One night, in Meiwes's farmhouse, Brandes took some sleeping pills and drank some schnapps and was still awake when Meiwes cut off his penis, fried it in olive oil and offered him some to eat. Brandes then retreated to the bathtub, bleeding profusely. Meiwes stabbed him in the neck, chopped him up and stored him in the freezer. Over the next several weeks, he defrosted and sauteed 44 pounds of Brandes, eating him by candlelight with his best cutlery.” (Marantz Henig 280).
The term consenting adults does have its share of victims after all.
In conclusion, I propose that we lessen the censorship of softcore and hardcore pornography as well as obscenity. We should have a healthy attitude towards the human body and sexuality. I can see the merits of making sure that children under the age of 18 cannot view hardcore pornography. However, let the adults choose for themselves what is acceptable entertainment. I also recommend that we begin regulating and prosecuting the proliferation of extreme pornography. Since we all have the right to exist without the fear of victimization we must safeguard this liberty by not condoning intentional cruelty for sexual gratification.
Works Cited
Chenoweth, Eric. “Majority Rule/Minority Rights: Essential Principles.” Democracy Web: Comparative Studies in Freedom Web. 27 Jun 2011.
Julius, Anthony, and Julian Petley. "Crimes of transgression." Index on Censorship 38.1 (2009): 56. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 26 June 2011.
Koppelman, Andrew. "Reading Lolita at Guantánamo." Dissent (00123846) 53.2 (2006): 64-71. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 26 June 2011.
Lazarus, Emma. "The New Colossus." Poets.org. The Academy of American Poets, 1883. Web. 27 Jun 2011.
Marantz Henig, Robin. "The Psychology of Bliss." New York Times (2010): 280. Web. 1 Jul 2011.
"Miller v. California." Supreme Court Cases: The Dynamic Court (1930-1999) (1999): N.PAG. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 27 June 2011.
Upton, Fred. 108th Congress, (2004). Broadcast decency enforcement act of 2004 (H.R.3717). Washington, D.C.: The Library of Congress. Retrieved from http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:HR03717:@@@D&summ2=m&
No comments:
Post a Comment