Pornography and "Freedom"

Pornography claims that its basis is "freedom," particularly "freedom of expression." But pornography relies in part on the titillation, the brazen baring of the usually hidden breast, sex organs, and sex acts, to create superficial, temporary arousal. Pornography would lose some of its appeal if women were routinely topless in society. Pornographers, while exposing the female body, exploit and degrade women, defining women against their will. One result is that women are restricted or discouraged from going topless. In publicly baring her breasts, a woman may unwittingly invite comparison to and association with pornography.

The majority of people believe pornography can safely and surely be defined as words and images depicting explicit sexual acts. There is little agreement beyond that, nor is there broad agreement about whether the availability of pornography should be more restricted than it presently is. The disagreement has generated inertia and a lack of action. Because it is difficult to determine the distinction between erotic art, which edifies and uplifts, and pornography, which denigrates and objectifies, does not excuse society from the task.

Many less explicit images will be seen as pornographic by some. For example, the simple exposure of a woman's vulva. Pornography takes something that is inherently beautiful, the act of sex relations, and by commercializing it, debases and exploits it. It demoralizes the sexual act.

Pornography replaces a genuine, native, erotic desire—the desire for another as an individual—with generalized titillation and shame. It displaces real feelings of attraction and erotica, the possibility of relationship, with short-term, immediate gratification in the form of lust. It trains people to see others as objects solely for their sexual gratification.

"The big problem with pornography is defining it. You can't just say it's pictures of people naked. For example, you have these primitive African tribes that exist by chasing the wildebeest on foot, and they have to go around largely naked, because, as the old tribal saying goes: "N`wam k`honi soit qui mali," which means, "If you think you can catch a wildebeest in this climate and wear clothes at the same time, then I have some beach front property in the desert region of Northern Mali that you may be interested in." So it`s not considered pornographic when National Geographic publishes color photographs of these people hunting the wildebeest naked, or pounding one rock onto another rock for some primitive reason naked, or whatever. But if National Geographic were to publish an article entitled "The Girls of the California Junior College System Hunt the Wildebeest Naked," some people would call it pornography. But others would not. And still others, such as the Spectacular Rev. Jerry Falwell, would get upset about seeing the wildebeest naked."
- Dave Barry

Pornographers continue to frame control of the distribution of pornography as a censorship issue. Some attempt to paint those against pornography as automatically endorsing censorship. The implication is that any kind of censorship is wrong, more wrong than pornography. Many citizens are unhappily confused by the issues of so-called freedom of the press vs. their own right to be free of vulgarity and depravity. The issue is not censorship. The issue is about a society's right to choose what kinds of ideas, images, and learning their children are subject to. The issue is about an individual, especially women, being free from images and ideas that they find degrading, harassing, or demeaning. One person's right only exists so long as it does not trample on the rights of others.

Further confusing the issue of pornography, which is definitely sexist, are some feminists who would like to prohibit via government control (i.e., censor) "sexist" advertising. This is advertising which uses "female flesh" to sell products and in the women's mind demeaning to women. By Islamic standards, much of what is considered normal in American advertising is actually pornographic.

However, the absolute nature of pornography is a greater debate than we can tackle here. Others have tried and done better.

What is certain is that the commercialization of women's sexuality turns women into objects and dehumanizes them so that responding to a simple issue such as public toplessness or nudity becomes very complicated. Yet the debasement of the female image must be overcome if the exploitation is to be stopped.