What is pornography?

One of the challenges I hear from people who defend the sex industry is, “Who says this stuff is pornography, anyway?”  Over the last few decades our culture has become so saturated with sexual imagery and innuendo that collectively we’ve lost the ability to blush.

So, I suppose it’s both fair and instructional that, if we believe pornography to be harmful to society, we ought to be able to define it.  The American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy provides a pretty illuminating definition:

“Books, photographs, magazines, art, or music designed to excite sexual impulses and considered by public authorities or public opinion as in violation of accepted standards of sexual morality. American courts have not yet settled on a satisfactory definition of what constitutes pornographic material.”

What an interesting last sentence; it manages to be right and wrong at the same time.   The landmark Supreme Court case Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973), established three distinct criteria for defining obscene (pornographic) material which is not protected under the First Amendment (and which is prosecutable.)  Here is the so-called Miller test:

·         the average person, applying contemporary community standards (not national standards, as some prior tests required), must find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;

·         the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law; and

·         the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

Since to this date Miller v. California has not been overturned, it would seem that American courts have settled on a satisfactory definition, yes?  So why aren’t there more obscenity cases tried?   The problem is that while the judiciary has settled on what defines obscene material, the “contemporary community standards” of the Miller test have plummeted lower than Enron stock, which brings us back to the original question:  What is pornography?

I would define it as any material, in any form, that exists primarily to stimulate sexual arousal in its user or viewer.  That’s a very broad swipe, I know.  I’m not attempting to have the definitive say here; I’m attempting to get you to think. 

We live in a culture in which Playboy bunnies get their own reality TV show, and Hollywood celebrities shrug off sex tapes like they were caught double parking.  We have technology that allows us – and our children – access to an unimaginable (and seemingly ubiquitous) array of imagery.  How can we expect to stem the tide of porn when communities are so inundated with it that we actually take it for granted?

How do you define pornography?  Do you believe the term only applies to X-rated material, or would you include Playboy magazine?  What about the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue?   What is pornography, and what should be done about it?

 

 

Hola

As my proficiency in Spanish has been expended in the title of this post, I will now revert to English for the forseeable future.

Welcome to ROCKnthetTruth, the official blog of Reclaim Our Culture, Kentuckiana, or ROCK.  I am your host, Bill Womack.  I’ll be following up soon with my first ‘real’  post, but I’ll go ahead and lay out some ground rules now since I’m in the neighborhood.

 

ROCK exists to help build stronger communities and families.  Here in Louisville and southern Indiana, that is partially defined by speaking out against the negative effects of sexually-oriented businesses on families, neighborhoods, and the culture.  I’ll be writing on that topic but not that topic alone.

My hope is that this becomes a safe place for discussion and even debate among civilized folks.  In fact, the two influences (aside from Jesus, the obvious Sunday-school answer) that I hope hold sway over the exchange of ideas here are as follows:

Paul’s example in Athens from Acts 17 in which he reasoned with men of varying philosophical backgrounds.

The Socratic method of dialogue, which requires three ingredients: intelligence, candor, and good will. 

I can’t promise that a little sarcasm (okay, maybe more than a little) won’t creep into the mix, but I try really hard to attack ideas and not people.  I hope all who drop by here will attempt to do the same.

From what I understand about this here blog thingy, I have ADMINISTRATIVE POWER over blog entries.  I promise to only use this power for good; never evil.  However, if I determine that the language being used is offensive or if someone has crossed the line into nasty personal attacks?

See ya.

 

All right then.  I’m going to spend some time trying to gussy up the place (if I can figure out how to do that) and then I’ll be back with something a bit more substantive.

 

Until next time.