|
|
Add to My Group
Introduction In our society, pornography is considered something immoral, pernicious, shameful, scandalous. Those who produce it, and those who are its audience, are seen as disreputable. (Pornography I am defining as any media that depict sexual matters and whose purpose –whatever the nature of the depiction (however subtle or blatant)—is to produce intense sexual arousal in its audience. Such media include pictures, stories, and videos.) Looking at the whole universe of today’s pornography, one can certainly find much to object to in terms of what’s healthy for human relationships and what’s moral. But the American condemnation of pornography tends not to be confined to any particular kinds of pornography, but rather objects in principle to depictions whose purpose is the arousal of “prurient interest.” It is in this more comprehensive condemnation that the defects in American morality’s relationship to sexuality are revealed. Indeed, I would argue that in a moral and sexually healthy society, there would be a respectable place for some kinds of pornography. And I would venture further that what’s wrong with the pornography in today’s America is merely the counterpart with what’s wrong with our culture’s sexual morality. Where Does Sexuality Fit Into the Human Good?
Can you imagine any fully explicit depiction of people engaging in sex that you would think to be a good thing for some adults to make and for other adults to watch? If not, why not? If all these feelings can be the legitimate outcomes of our experiences of media (literature or film or painting or whatever), why should sexual arousal be different? Is it because there’s some reason why sexuality uniquely should be kept private? But why should it be acceptable for our media to explore all kinds of other aspects of our lives in intimate detail but somehow must stop short of getting deeply into a sexual space? Is your objection based on the idea that the conditions under which people are brought in to participate in the production of much of today’s pornography are exploitive or coercive? If so, would you approve if the conditions of such employment were fair and if the participation were freely chosen? Or do you maintain that no pornography could be produced if fairness and freedom of choice were protected? Is it your belief that in a healthy society, for no one would it be an acceptable and wise choice to participate in the creation of the pornography (issues of consumption aside)? If you disapprove of all explicitly sexual, deliberately arousing media – if you disapprove of all pornography—is it because you think that there’s something fundamentally wrong, or base, or sinful, or dirty about sexuality? This certainly has been a widespread attitude in the history of our civilization. But what is the justification for it? Sexuality is not only necessary for the transmission of life, but sexual passion is one of the most powerful avenues along which people experience a gladness to be alive. If “Therefore choose life” is supposed to be the injunction from the God of the Bible, why would the arousal of sexual desire be contrary to our notion of the sacred in human life? Indeed there are some religious traditions –including some threads in the Judeo-Christian line—in which sexuality is seen as connected with the sacred.
Andrew Bard Schmookler's website www.nonesoblind.org is devoted to understanding the roots of America's present moral crisis and the means by which the urgent challenge of this dangerous moment can be met. Dr. Schmookler is also the author of such books as The Parable of the Tribes: The Problem of Power in Social Evolution (SUNY Press) and Debating the Good Society: A Quest to Bridge America's Moral Divide (M.I.T. Press). He also conducts regular talk-radio conversations in both red and blue states.
Copyright © OpEdNews, 2002-2008 |
|
