The word “obscenity” is seldom used positively, and more or less categorizes the “dirty laundry” that society prefers to keep hidden far away from the eyes of malleable and easily influenced children and young adults. Obscenities are the intrinsic evils that exist only to pollute the minds of the innocent. This is the view held by active Christians, feminists, intellectuals, politicians, policemen, mailmen, garbage men, bank clerks, my mom, your mom, President Barack Obama, leaders of the Taliban, and the list goes on and on. Social discouragement of obscenities has no define cultural, gender, age, or religious boundaries. Two people on different poles of the planet might agree on a particular image being obscene, while two lifelong neighbors might disagree and vary on the image’s classification. Apparently showing the American people Sadaam Hussein’s hanging or Kaddafi’s last bloody minutes is perfectly morally acceptable, but Pamela Anderson’s breasts will poison the minds of millions of horny teenagers. The other issue with classifying something as obscene is that it is completely subjective and correlates directly with time. What might have been obscene ten years ago is now perfectly acceptable and perhaps celebrated within society. How would have French society reacted in the 15th century if Joan of Arc posed for a painting in a bikini?
The subjective ideological social arguments regarding obscenities repeatedly occurred throughout the life of the infamous founder of Hustler Magazine, Larry Flynt. In 1974, when he published the first issue of Hustler Magazine, the “nudie pictures” in its contents were considered by some so obscene that numerous court battles resulted. The central arguments revolved around whether or not free speech, secured by the Constitution’s 1st Amendment, could or should protect obscenities. Within the realm of feminism, in 1987, Melinda Vadas responded to the growth of pornography with “A First Look at the Pornography/Civil Rights Ordinance: Could Pornography be the Subordination of Women?” published in the Journal of Philosophy, Inc. The “super feminist” Vadas passionately expressed her anti-porn views by ranting for about twenty pages, including examples of transsexuals, animals, and sadomasochism. In her call for a “holy crusade” against pornography, Vadas claims pornography subordinates women but ironically fails to mention that paid porn stars volunteer to be presented in the way Vadas despises. I don’t really see where Vadas draws the line between the multi-billion sex industry and basement made “snuff films” but either way I don’t think you can really compare the two: Freedom of expression 1, Melinda Vadas 0.
So now that I covered the feminists, we can move on to the Bible belt fanatics. It’s strange how religious individuals worship holy texts that advocate the acceptance and love for fellow man but then often regress into racism, pedophilia, and trying to ban porn. People really are crazy. So when I dive into these arguments I always try weigh out which side seems more rational. So, you have the side that claims pornography will distort reality for the naïve and vulnerable and result in the wide scale rape and violence towards the female gender and then the rebuttal, nations are formed on the foundation of free-expression, obscenity is subjective, correlation vs. causation regarding pornography and violence, and why should the government control sexual fantasies? In 1986, Tom Minnery, a writer for Christianity Today, called pornography “The Human Tragedy”. So before he considered greed, poverty, the Holocaust, or drugs, Minnery blames porn for our estranged existence. Need I say more? But it doesn’t matter what I think, but before we part ways I’ll leave you with this. What’s next after pornography?
No comments:
Post a Comment