Pornography

No one ever has to explain their interest in pornography, although many of us try to make excuses for it. I have always loved pornography, in magazines and in film. It feels nasty, dangerous, exciting and is one of the few things left on Earth that will get you in trouble with just about anybody and everybody in some way. Attempting a written history of pornography, like the one that I had just threatened Holte Ender with in an earlier post today is as alluring an enterprise as it is elusive. I don’t really think I could do it with all the time in the world. Pornography as a general term covers so many different activities and different media across the millennia that it’s hard to believe one word covers it, and yet the word “pornography” does covers it all quite well, doesn’t it?: because we’re sure we all know it when we see it, and we’re pretty sure we all know what to call it when we do… or at least we think we do:

Definitions range from these first two, -clearly written by pretentious snobs in tweed jackets:
“The explicit description or exhibition of obscene literature, art or photography, generally intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings.” www.qgcio.qld.gov.au/QGCIO/RESOURCES/GLOSSARY/Pages/glossaryp.aspx

-And-
“…creative activity (writing or pictures or films etc.) of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire.”
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

-to this one which was obviously written by someone who enjoys it:
“Pornography or porn is the portrayal of explicit sexual subject matter for the purposes of sexual excitement and erotic satisfaction.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography

and this one, a doozy that defines porn so broadly it could land many respected works of art and science on a “banned” list:
A work featuring graphic/explicit sex between characters. http://public.clunet.edu/~research/definitions.html

And leading to my my personal favorite below, (because it implies it doesn’t even necessarily have to be about sex, which is even dirtier somehow…)
“The explicit depiction of sexual subject matter, especially with the sole intention of sexually exciting the viewer; The graphic, detailed, often gratuitous depiction of something.”
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pornography

But some of the thorniest problems surrounding pornography, (all my tongue-and-cheek glibness aside,) are the subjective interpretations of what it is. Calling something pornography is to claim that it has no value other than to get a viewer “off.” Pornography isn’t just another label, it’s kind of “banning” from the mainstream experience, from centralized commerce and an intentional marginalization from accepted common culture and society. Pornography, as a classification or charge, has been made of entire bodies (pun intended) of works, particularly in literature, in order to stop them from reaching minors or reaching larger audiences at all. The motivations behind this have been political (e.g. George Orwell) and in other cases religious, social and cultural conventions (as in Henry Miller’s numerous bannings).
Much of the discourse in post war media criticism and in the mainstream public arena surrounding pornography have also centered on what are legitimate concerns about exploitation within pornography as an actual labor industry. After the 1960s many have come to equate all pornography as exploitation, or at the very least ascribed exploitation of the ‘objects’ (actors, performers et al) as an obligatory or manifest ingredient in pornography. While we all formulate rationalizations about what adults do, and why they do what they do on camera for money, no one (except molesters) would argue that pornography involving minors isn’t exploitation and ultimately criminal.
With those legitimate concerns noted, it cannot be denied that pornography continues to be used a convenient pejorative for politically or socially undesirable art, or media that upsets the establishment. It would seem some thinking needs to be devoted not just to the term pornography and its application, but to the various guises, motives and intents under which it is utilized by censors.

A case it point: in the 1980s, few were pushing the line of what was “acceptable” entertainment (and in some cases just language) in media than a disc jockey named Howard Stern. The FCC, a non elected, federally appointed regulatory body that governs broadcasting in all its forms, from the quality and strength of radio signals to the awarding of licensing for TV stations all the way down to what constitutes “indecency” and “obscenity” focused in on Howard Stern’s afternoon show very early on. One particular incident involved Howard Stern (broadcasting from Washington DC at the time) asking a woman on the phone in California to straddle her stereo speaker, so that he could make burping and humming noises, the vibrations of which coming over the radio and out of her speaker would bring her the orgasm her husband had routinely failed to provide…
If you’re too young to remember, I’m sure you can easily imagine the firestorm of protest, and actual charges this brought: from transporting pornography over state lines, to unlawful sexual acts (in whatever states across the country it was broadcast were cunnilingus was illegal) et cetera, et cetera. Howard Stern was been labeled some variation of “pornographer” ever since. The label was not a descriptor; -it was an attempt at prohibition.

I watch carefully for the word “pornography” today. I watch for its calculated and intentional misuses ever since the late Senator Jesse Helms went after the NEA.

I proudly say that I write for Mad Mike’s America, and I just wrote about pornography.

Which is not to say that what I wrote is pornography, although some fundamentalist reactionary wishing to smother the questions I raised, may very well call it and label it such.

… and the FCC can go suck on that.
-SJ

Happy

0 0 %

Sad

0 0 %

Excited

0 0 %

Sleepy

0 0 %

Angry

0 0 %

Surprise

0 0 %