Pornography is considered by many to be an unwelcome and distasteful part of our society. However, I argue that it is necessary to voice the unpopular viewpoints, under the Constitution. This paper is a defense of pornography as a constitutional right of free expression, under the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. In illustrating this argument, I will first define pornography as a concept, and then address central arguments in favor of pornography remaining legal and relatively unregulated – such as the development of the pornography debate throughout modern US law, and how activist groups address the censorship of adult entertainment. In addition to bolstering my argument in favor of pornography, I will also demonstrate the strength the argument has in modern discourse by dispelling common myths in favor of the censorship of pornography, such as the increase in violence towards, the subjugation of, and objectification of women, and I will subsequently offer a substantial rebuttal. DEFINITION OF PORNOGRAPHY To sufficiently take a side in the ever-growing debate of pornography, one must first define the concept around which this discourse surrounds itself. A working definition for pornography is a piece of material that has the object purpose of arousing erotic feelings. Radical feminists, however, strictly define it as “the act of sexual subordination of women” (Dworkin 1986). The existence of pornography is not a new invention. For years, humans have found certain depictions to be sexually arousing. Holmes and Holmes (2009), for example discuss how in ancient civilizations, Mesopotamia, for example, there were depictions of men and women in sexually explicit scenes on various household goods, such as plates and washbasi... ... middle of paper ... ...of pornography as an expression that should be defended. I have described ways that pornography is currently being battled for in modern legislation, as well as the Liberal Feminist arguments for pornography as expression. The Radical Feminist arguments against pornography were addressed and negated, as not having any empirical support to their theoretical claims. Pornography has no substantial evidence in favor of harm to women, in terms of subjugation or violence, and therefore cannot be regulated as a form of free speech. In conclusion, pornography is the perfect example of an unpopular form of speech. It is despised by many, but is nonetheless a necessary part of our society. Without the protection of unpopular speech, we cannot move forward as a society that fosters new ideas. If we do not protect the voice of the unpopular, then we cannot call ourselves free.
A pornographic world [What is normal] by Robert Jensen takes an inside look at the culture of masculinity and what role pornography takes in shaping that culture. Jensen describes how he was forced to play a “macho” role as a child out of fear of being bullied and ridiculed for not being manly enough. Pornography use started for him and his friends in grade school – they would steal magazines and hide them to share in a group later. He talks of how he learned of a social concept, called the “ideal of prostitution” (the notion of men “buying” women in various forms of undress, solely for their pleasure), at a young age. While there has always been a stigma around pornography, whether stemming from moral or religious reasons, Jenson continued to use porn until his 30s.
The word Pornography is defined as "writings, photographs, movies, etc., intended to arouse sexual excitement". With each year that passes pornography has been more and more accepted, it can be seen in books, magazines, cable television and most of all through the internet. Many religions go against it, but at the same time people know that there is a reason why people go into the business and accepted it an other people just like it. In this paper I will talk about pornography and how it is viewed by the four ethical standards (Utilitarian, Kant, Human Rights and Justice is Fairness).
Let’s Put Pornography Back in the Closet” is an persuasive essay written by Susan Brown Miller stating and giving her reasons on why she thinks pornography should be removed from all the shelves in America. She goes on to state what kind of influence porn has negatively on society, and how it’s no good in our society to persuade readers that pornography should be taken off of public shelves. In her article, she does state very valid points and substantial reasons why pornography should be removed from shelves. But also, she does sound a lot like a person who is very critical of something that she believes is wrong morals wise because that’s how she was raised perhaps. Some of the methods she uses are the analogy method, quantitative method, and some emotional appeal as well. She also has some unsupported generalizations that she had made up herself. Either way, there were a few instances to where I was completely against with Miller’s arguments, but they were outweighed by the instances where I did agree with Miller. In all, this essay persuades me to support her opinion on pornography being taken out the public shelves because of the valid reasons and points that she used to support her opinion.
Proof of this is women becoming more free during the Jennings 6 Counterculture of the 1960s, but also Playboy rising in popularity at the same time. Wolf is sure to clarify that sexual explicitness is not the issue at hand. The real issue lies in the interpretation of what sexual explicitness is. She argues that if the full spectrum of erotic images were shown with no censor, beauty pornography would be harmless. Instead, we are fed images of “living mannequins, made to contort and grimace, immobilized, and uncomfortable under hot lights” (136).
In her essay “Let’s Put Pornography Back in the Closet,” Susan Brownmiller, a prominent feminist activist, argues that pornography should not be protected under the First Amendment (59). Her position is based on the belief that pornography is degrading and abusive towards women (Brownmiller 59). She introduces the reader to the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment, and explains how it relates to her beliefs on censoring pornographic material (Brownmiller 58). In addition, she provides examples of First Amendment controversies such as Miller v. California and James Joyce’s Ulysses to explain how the law created a system to define pornographic material (Brownmiller 58). She described the system that used a three-part test as confusing (Brownmiller 58). Regardless of whether or not the First Amendment was intended to protect obscenities, she and many others believe that the legislatures should have the final say in the decision of creating and publishing pornography (Brownmiller 60).
‘I can’t define pornography, but I know it when I see it.’ (P. Stewart, US Supreme Court’) Justice Potter Stewart’s remarks in the Jacobellis Vs. Ohio Supreme Court case are infamous in both American law and pop culture. Since the inception of the first amendment, American law has excluded the use of profanity or obscene content from protected free speech. However, as Justice Stewart stated, courts and lawmakers have routinely struggled to outline what constitutes obscenities…… This struggle is largely in part to the fluid dynamic of morality in society.
When deliberating over whether access to pornography should be prohibited, four areas of contention must be elaborated upon and evaluated critically to provide a sensible basis on which a judgement can be made. Firstly, it must be concluded whether pornography can be classed as a form of speech, and whether it enjoys the same protections as art and literature under the principle. Secondly, works such as those of Catherine MacKinnon can be drawn upon to offer a feminist perspective of the effects of pornography on the treatment of women within modern democratic society. Moreover, the principles of Devlin and Feinberg offer relevant acumen regarding the criminalisation of pornographic media. Overall, this essay will argue that whilst access to pornography should not be entirely prohibited; publications that depict ‘extreme’ situations should be subject to regulation and restriction.
In their work, Penley et al. define feminist pornography as, “[using] sexually explicit imagery to contest and complicate dominant representations of gender, sex, race, ethnicity, class, ability, age, body type, and other identity markers” (2013: 9). By depicting marginalized identities as desirable and in positions of control, feminist pornography seeks to challenge heteronormative representations of sex and gender where men are dominant. It also seeks to display alternative forms of attraction and pleasure that are not portrayed in the media in an attempt to destigmatize wide a range of sexual acts and identities. Penley et al. further define feminist pornography as a political movement; thus, pornography can be used to transform how sexuality is expressed and practiced throughout society
Susan Brownmiller’s essay Let’s Put Pornography Back in the Closet is the argument as to whether or not pornography should be protected by the first amendment. Her essay also brings up points regarding pornography that is degrading to women and how some consider educational material to be pornographic.
Again, there are different ideas of what is considered pornographic from artwork, movies, and books. While one may look at a painting that depicts nude forms or read a book that includes sexual acts may not see this as a form of pornography while others would find it morally offensive. Feminist would argue that the morality of porn is it is degrading and humiliating to those involved, not of its sexual nature. Their concern is that it promotes sexism and violence against women or children. “What is objectionable about pornography…is its abusive and degrading portrayal of females and female sexuality, not its content or explicitness” (Rodgerson & Wilson, 1994) However, others may feel that it is sexually liberating and in no way degrading to those involved. Those women feel in control of their sexuality and choose to participate in acts as a way of expressing themselves while feeling it has no barring on their moral character. While others would argue that it promotes immoral behavior which would lead to criminal acts or an unhealthy obsession with sex. “The most commonly feared adverse effects of pornography include undesirable sexual behaviors (e.g. adultery), sexual aggression, and loss of respect for traditional family structures and values, loss of respect for authorities, and a general nonspecific moral decay.” (Hald & Linz,
The First Amendment was established to protect the citizens of the United States from the government overstepping their power. Since pornography is a form of expression many feminist writers like Susan Jacoby and Susan Brownmiller have argued on whether or not pornography should be protected by the First Amendment. Jacoby, writer of “A First Amendment Junkie” argues that “any form of censorship of pornography is wrong” (46). Brownmiller, the writer of “Let’s Put Pornography Back in the Closet”, on the other hand, argues that “using realistic and humane contemporary community standards” legislators should decide “what can be displayed and what cannot” (60). Both Jacoby and Brownmiller make solid points to help sway their audience to agree with
Laura Kipnis has described pornography as “an archive of data about...our history as a culture”. Therefore if, she described it as such, what can it tell us about the sexual history of the 20th century? Examining the history of the forms of archive from pornographic playing cards to blu-ray discs and the internet, this shows the ever changing form of how as a society we view pornography. From the forms of archive come the social implications of pornography. This will be examined through the 1986 Meese Commission in the United States of America into the pornographic industry. Finally, this exposition will also examine the differing views of Gay and Straight pornography and the changes that have taken over the 20th century. Overall, the 20th century was a fundamental shift in sexual attitudes towards pornography.
Sven Birkerts, as noted in Tribble and Trubek, speaks about the downfall of printed text. "This shift [from printed word] is happening throughout our culture, away from the patterns and habits of the printed page and toward a new world distinguished by its reliance on electronic communucatuins"(63). Pornography has not been left in the dark regarding this phenomenon, and is blazing its own trail as it goes. Internet porn is breaking ground for a “sexual liberation” of sorts as well as becoming a full-fledged addiction for some and a means for artistic expression for others.
To some, pornography is nothing more than a few pictures of scantily clad Women in seductive poses. But pornography has become much more than just Photographs of nude women. Computer technology is providing child molesters and child pornographers with powerful new tools for victimizing children. Pornography as "the sexually explicit depiction of persons, in words or images, Sexual arousal on the part of the consumer of such materials. No one can prove those films with graphic sex or violence has a harmful effect on viewers. But there seems to be little doubt that films do have some effect on society and that all of us live with such effects.
Pornography in legal terms is “any sexually explicit work deemed obscene according to legal criteria and therefore exempt from freedom of speech protections (Hock, 569). My definition of pornography would consider any printed or visual material that contains the explicit display of sexual organs or activity, with the intent to stimulate erotic behavior. I believe wholeheartedly that pornography is very discriminating towards women and I agree with the five basic ideas that Catherine MacKinnon advocates. Her basic ideas are as follows: Pornography, by its very nature, is discrimination against women which in turn advocates and justifies rape. The distinctions between sexually explicit materials and actions they depict are meaningless. Pornography reflects and constitutes male domination and dehumanization of women as well as objectifying women by portraying them as nothing more than tools or male pleasure. Pornography represents men’s power over women in society and embodies the dehumanization of women in an already male dominated world (Hock, 573).