THE POLITICS OF OBSCENITY

© 1985 by Stuart Norman

Appeared in RFD #42, Spring ‘85, “Rx For Delight”
If pornography can be defined as appealing to prurient interests. i.e., to excite one sexually, then I’m all for it. Whether it depicts its characters in a degrading and socially stereotyped manner is a different issue entirely. Not a reason to ban it, but to force the producers to make socially responsible porno.


        Amid the issues dear to religiously motivated conservatives is the growing battle against pornography. Surprisingly, some supposedly liberal feminists are prepared to join the New Right in their fight to abolish pornography. Some feminists charge that pornography degrades women and men, that it makes women sex objects, and that it incites men to violence such as rape and spouse abuse against them. Feminists say that pornography is a violation of their rights, and that they should be able to sue porno producers who depict them as exploitable objects.
        Granted, a lot of straight pornography does promote the stereotyped, patriarchal sex roles and degrades women or treats them as second class citizens, and a little of it does depict fantasies of violence. But there is little evidence that even violent pornography incites the reader to violent acts. In fact, there is some indication that it channels off violent tendencies.
        Certainly women, especially straight women, should be concerned with the blatant inequality that their gender is represented in straight porn. But it seems that part of the women’s movement is gearing up to fight all pornography - gay and straight. And they are falling into the trap of the New Right conservative factions who would put women “back in their place.” Feminists and the New Right could forge an unholy alliance in their different anti-pornography views. The feminists see it as furthering women’s liberation, but the New Right only sees it from age-old religious views; read it as cultural control and sexual repression. With the return of Christian Fundamentalism, guilt and sexual repression are raising their ugly heads. It is a resurgence of western cultural Puritanism - an anti-pleasure principle underlying our society.
        Many women are angry about pornography because they see it produced by uncaring men who become rich from it; thus they feel exploited. They may have some valid points here. But, among some feminists there may be an overreaction which could create nasty consequences for all. What is at issue here is the freedom of speech and expression.
        We’ve all heard that pornography or obscenity is in the mind of the beholder. What is blatantly pornographic to one is only mildly erotically stimulating to another, if at all. There are no definable standards for pornography except those that the community will accept. To some people anything dealing with sex, even in a medical or biological context, is dirty and should be censored. These people want to protect their psyches from having to deal with personal sexual issues. And others do not see anything obscene in the most blatant porn.
        Some feminists attempt to make a distinction between what is erotic and what is pornographic. To them, pornography is obscene because it depicts the sexist, objectified, degrading and violence-prone aspect of the literature. But the issues become more complex when we deal with gay and lesbian pornography. Do the charges apply to it? Is it prejudicial as is straight porn? Is it degrading to men and women? Does it incite the reader to violence? Is it sexist? There seems to be an equality and love of the erotic depicted in gay porn. Then is this obscene?
        But is this bad? And what of SM porn which depicts a play of dominance and submission and violence? Is the issue clear that those who play SM see it as a game, not of force, but of voluntary interaction and trust-building in which there is an equality of opposite roles? Nevertheless, some SM porn would seem to suggest the use of force to subdue a sexual partner. And some straight SM porn does appear to be a put-down of women. Will the feminists turn their attentions to this form of the literature?
        Pornography is fantasy. Yet the question should be asked: Does violent porn influence individuals to commit violent or forceful, nonconsensual acts? Or is porn harmless? Does its influence depend only upon the psyche of the individual?
        The feminists bring up the issue of desensitization - a theory that the reader of porn will need ever stronger erotic stimulus to reach a level of satisfaction, thus the reader becomes hooked and seeks more violent and perverted means of sexual fantasy. But does it stay within the realm of fantasy or will it spill over into real life? That is what anti-pornography crusaders fear. Yet the theory cannot apply to most stable individuals who are able to realize the differences between fantasy and reality. The fears of feminists are probably groundless and very similar to the debunked theory that marijuana use leads to heroin use. It simply isn’t true.
        It seems to me that feminists do have a valid issue here. If pornography fosters sexist attitudes towards women, it should be changed. But that seems to me applicable only to straight pornography. Instead of focusing only on pornography, if women would focus on the attitudes towards violence in general in our culture, it would be better for all of us. Violence is the real obscenity, not the depiction and practice of open sexuality. In reality, we do violence to our sexuality and have created a sexually handicapped culture by repressing it.
        In larger issue, socially, this repression of sexuality is symptomatic of personal unfreedom and can translate into social and political oppression. Those who would suppress pornography and other social openness do so to protect themselves from having to deal with their inner problems that openness brings to their consciousness. That is why they cannot leave others alone, and they are driven to deny the pleasures of freedom to everyone. They cannot stand being exposed to other ways of behavior that do not fit their belief systems. But they cannot admit this to themselves, so they rationalize excuses and justify reasons that pornography and other controversial issues and behaviors should be censored for the good of all.
        What is the weapon we can use against this unreason and fear? Faery sexual openness, self-confidence, playfulness, and most of all, laughter. It is magic in the truest sense. Only laughter can debunk the self-righteous seriousness of the repressive, conservative, paranoid viewpoint. Only laughter can melt their dark, negative view of life. We must retain our ability to laugh at the ridiculous antics of the New Right, otherwise we could get caught in the trap of their guilt-mongering and become as fearful, drab and gray as they. Our laughter represents our freedom from inner self-oppression. If we can still laugh, then they have no power over us.
        Of course, laughter alone is not enough. We do have to work seriously and with great effort to stem the tide of oppression. Our ability to laugh and be open will keep us sane. A repressive mind is a weak mind. We must remember that. An open mind is strong; it knows itself, its weaknesses and strengths. The repressive mind is hiding from itself and can only think in terms of force to protect itself. It cannot know its weaknesses and strengths. So, our fight for openness is to remain open and be examples to others of the happiness that being open can bring. That is a power no one can take from us. It is the ultimate power for good and for the brotherhood of all.

Contents The Politics and Test of AIDS The Pendulum Swings