Porn: the ambiguous word
Porn bugs me. Not the material, but the word. On the one hand, it is not specific enough to explain what you and I mean by porn. On the other hand, it is a word loaded with negative meaning: porn by some definitions is inherently bad.
But what surprises me about the use of the word porn, is that with so many points of view, we haven't really bothered to clarify its use.
So when I hear someone argue that porn should be banned, I wonder whether they mean everything that includes a naked buttock, or anything that is deemed illegally pornographic (whatever that means).
Justice Potter Stewart tried to explain "hard-core" pornography, or obscenity, by saying, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced . . . but I know it when I see it . . . (Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184, 197 (1964)).
It is clear that pornography is not only subjective, but the other vital criteria is context. When we stand naked in front of mirror, we see a non-pornographic image of ourselves. When someone else stands naked in front of a public-facing window, the image becomes potentially pornographic, and and perhaps more or less so, depending on whether that person is an old person, someone in their prime, or a child. In other words, a sexually explicity image is not necessarily pornographic.
So does porn apply only to humans? Naked animals don't seem to fall into the category, but copulating animals could. And you would think that objects have nothing to do with porn, except that nude representations of people (ie. statues and paintings) are thought to be pornographic by some, and the Ron Jeremy 10-inch lifelike dildo leaves nothing to the imagination.
So here's my new all-encompassing definition of porn:
Pornography: a subjective, sexually provocative image, that we consider is seen in an inappropriate context.
It is acknowledged that (1) pornography is subjective (2) That an image needs to remind us of sex; nudity does sometimes (3) that there is a time and a place for everything, and this may change depending on culture, religious reasons, etc.
All we need to do now, is define various categories of porn, for example, non-consensual porn, non-violent porn, child porn, that adequately allows us define when we mean that porn is acceptable, or not. But we'll save that for another day.
6 Comments:
Wow! I like your thoughts and suggested new definition for porn.
I will come and write something a little more intelligent another time but just wanted to say something now :)
An interesting definition. The one i usually use is "sexually explicit material designed primarily to sexually arouse". And whilst some people make a distinction between 'erotica' and 'porn', i don't like to make such a distinction, myself - especially as the distinction seems to often have a snobby and/or classist basis.
Indeed, I think that definition works as a good generalization, but blurs slightly with ambiguous imagery.
Naturist magazine aren't really sexually explicit, and arguably aren't designed to sexually arouse. But perhaps that's precisely why some people find them sexy.
I think the word has fallen into a derogatory sense as it has been associated with exploitation or where people, especially young girls who have been seized or forced to perform these acts against their will. So, there is a sense of violence, sleaze and overall disapproval associated with the word, given the history.
It is only in recent times that conditions have improved, not only for the performers but also their customers, who no longer had to sneak into a dirty cinema or peep show in a really bad part of town.
The proper definition of pornography is the one given by hierodule_of_baphomet. Any connotation of "good" or "bad" is imposed by the viewer. When it is seen as "bad," it is generally by individuals who are uncomfortable with their own sexuality.
Good subject by the way. Keep up the good work.
I have been looking at what could be called Porn since I was a young man, and without any bad effects that I can tell. Yes, males like to look at naked females! That is understood and accepted by most everyone. Without that need, the population would begin to decline. It is built into our psyches to want to look at the sexual parts of women's bodies. We should not have to apologize for this need. There is also a great desire, by many, to view sexual activity, and to exhibit sexual activity to others. My attitude would be that if someone wants to fuck where I can watch, and I want to watch, then it is no one else's business. Whether it is in person, or in films, it is the same. Where consenting adults are concerned, no one else has the right to say what we can and cannot see.
Post a Comment
<< Home