Show a number of different people a simple piece of paper consisting of nothing

more than a red blotch of paint and ask them what they see. The responses will
vary from objects such as a cherry, to more simply, just plain red paint. This i
s an indication of the individuality, or sum of qualities that characterize and
distinguish an individual from all others, instilled in every human being. Just
as facial features and hair color differ among individuals, similar distinctive
ness is found among personalities and opinions. Because of prominent variance i
n belief among many individuals, a number of topics and issues have become contr
oversial in society today.
Similar to the varied responses to the red splotch of paint, photographs, video
tapes and paintings portraying nudity and sexual content receive a number of cla
shing opinions. There are artists who paint and photograph nudity and pornograph
y who find the human body and sex portrayed in many forms to be beautiful. Howe
ver, there are also many extremely conservative individuals who take offense to
such "artwork" and find its contents appalling. And those who enjoy the nudity
and sexual content exhibited in pornographic materials should marvel and delight
in its details. Those who do not should simply look away. In the words of Just
ice William O. Douglas, "no one is compelled to look" (Brownmiller 663).
There is no concrete manner to define materials that are "obscene" or "offensive
" because various images come to mind among individuals when words similar to t
hese are used to describe pornography. To classify a distasteful picture from a
beautiful one comes down to a matter of opinion and taste. In previous instances
, such as the Miller
Case of 1973, the Court attempted to define which materials could be judged as
lewd or indecent:
The materials are obscene if they depict patently offensive, hard-core sexual co
nduct; lack serious scientific, literary, artistic, or political value; and appe
al to the prurient interests of an average person-as measured by contemporary co
mmunity standards (Brownmiller 662).
In accordance with the opinions of Susan Brownmiller in her essay, "Let's Put Po
rnography Back in the Closet," most would agree that description such as "patent
ly offensive," "prurient interest," and "hard-core" are "indeed words to conjure
with" (662).
Elimination of pornography is not the key to social equality, partly since no on
e can define what porn is and because censorship is never a simple matter. First
, the offense must be described. "And how does one define something so infinite
ly variable, so deeply personal, so uniquely individualized as the image, the wo
rd, and the fantasy that cause sexual arousal" (Strossen 4)? Pornography cannot
be recognized as easily as the Court involved with the Miller Case implied. "Co
ntemporary community standards" do not exist in that individuals and families al
ike have strongly different ideals and ethics on issues such as sexual content,
nudity and pornography. While some parents allow their children to view rated R
movies containing sexual content and nudity, others restrict their children fro
m attending sexual education classes in high school. Finding a median between t
wo strongly differing standards similar to these would be rare. Thus, to accept
or reject, like or dislike pornography is a personal opinion that is often too
divided to differentiate.
Besides the difficulties of definition, there are varying degrees of intensity i
n the porn images themselves. One of the more prominent arguments against porno
graphy is that "it represents the hatred of women, that pornography's intent is
to humiliate, degrade and dehumanize the female body for the purpose of erotic s
timulation and pleasure" (Brownmiller 663). Although in some instances women are
portrayed as being stripped,
bound, raped and tortured in pornographic scenes, not all pornography is this ex

plicit and violent. In any case, the intent of such scenes is not to "degrade an
d dehumanize" the entire female gender but to simply satisfy those individuals w
ho enjoy poses and pictures containing such violent erotic content. Brownmiller
argues that these images of violent pornography... "have everything to do with
the creation of a cultural climate in which a rapist feels he is merely giving i
n to normal urge and a woman is encouraged to believe that sexual masochism is h
ealthy, liberated fun" (663).
Women such as Brownmiller who spend most of their time blaming rape on pornograp
hy should spend more of that time educating women on personal safety so they can
protect and empower themselves. To attribute rape cases to sexual pictures is
similar to blaming drunk driving accidents on alcohol. The individual who chose
to drink and then drive is at fault, similar to the man who decided to continue
with sex when a woman resisted. To depict pornographic scenes as the cause of r
ape and degrading of women is simply masking the actual grounds of such acts. Ho
lly Hughes states,
if you argue that getting the Playboys out of the 7-Eleven is going to drive dow
n the rape rate, then you also have to give credence to the religious right's cl
aims
that representation of gay and lesbian lives are going to cause homosexuality...
I don't see imagery - whether it's pornography, hate speech, or lesbian imageryas causing a certain kind of behavior (43).
Simply because one is a consumer of pornography does not mean they have to go o
ut and do everything they see.
Possibly pornography abets some sex crimes. But according to Ernest Van Den
Haag in his essay. "Learning to Live with Sex and Violence,"
those disposed to sex crimes may also be inclined to consume pornography as an e
ffect, not a cause, of their pre - existing criminal disposition. More important
, if there is a disposition to sex crimes, an almost infinite variety of things
may trigger criminal action. A rapist does not need pornography. The sight of a
woman, or even of an advertisement for lingerie may be enough" (59).
However, for most people pornography is no more damaging, or habit - forming, t
han coffee. Simply because there is no way to eliminate stimuli, there is no re
ason to believe that pornography is indispensable to sex crimes or sufficiently
at fault to justify controlling it.
Despite complaints and criticisms from individuals and groups alike, pro
ducers will continue to create pornography and those individuals who enjoy it wi
ll continue to
purchase it. Because of strong support from a number of people... "the porn ind
ustry has become a mulitmillion dollar business" (Brownmiller 663). To attempt t
o do away completely with such a prosperous business would be virtually impossib
le. The reality is
that millions and millions of Americans consume various kinds of sexually explic
it materials every month. Although their numbers are large, their rights are und
er attack in virtually every segment of society. But forming laws restricting po
rnography from viewers would be similar to restricting cigarettes from smokers.
The outrage and protest would be uncontrollably extreme. And laws are only obey
ed by people who believe in them. There are a lot of laws against drugs. Has it
stopped anyone?
Kyle Jorgensen, a man involved in the adult sex industry for seven years,
has learned that he will never please everyone (Nichols 60). He has been both p
raised and reviled. "I've had women come in the door or write letters thanking m
e for saving their marriages," he claims. "At the same time, I have letters from
special - interest groups condemning me for destroying the world" (Nichols 60).
Ultimately, the assemblage of people who object to pornography must learn to tu
rn their heads and look away. Those who do enjoy the content of pornography shou
ld continue to enjoy it without, however, imposing on those who choose not to su

bject themselves.

Controversial Pornography:
Revision- Paper # 3

by:
Nicole Lamberson

Ms. Susan Trabert

English 102-060
December 12, 1996

Works Cited
Brownmiller, Susan. "Let's Put Pornography Back in the Closet." Current Issues a
nd
Enduring Questions. Sylvan Barnet and Hugo Bedau, eds. Bedford: Boston,
1996.
Hughes, Holly. "Pornography: Does Women's Equality Depend on what we do
About it?" Ms. Jan./ Feb. 1994: 42-45.
Nichols, Mark. "Viewers and Victims: Pornography and Sexual Offenses." Maclean'
s
11 Oct. 1993: 60.
Strossen, Nadine. "The Perils of Pornophobia." The Humanist. May/June 1995: 79.
Van Den Haag, Ernest. "Learning to Live with Sex and Violence." National Review
.
1 Nov. 1993: 56-9.

Show a number of different people a simple piece of paper consisting of nothing

more than a red blotch of paint and ask them what they see. The responses will
vary from objects such as a cherry, to more simply, just plain red paint. This i
s an indication of the individuality, or sum of qualities that characterize and
distinguish an individual from all others, instilled in every human being. Just
as facial features and hair color differ among individuals, similar distinctive
ness is found among personalities and opinions. Because of prominent variance i
n belief among many individuals, a number of topics and issues have become contr
oversial in society today.
Similar to the varied responses to the red splotch of paint, photographs, video
tapes and paintings portraying nudity and sexual content receive a number of cla
shing opinions. There are artists who paint and photograph nudity and pornograph
y who find the human body and sex portrayed in many forms to be beautiful. Howe
ver, there are also many extremely conservative individuals who take offense to
such "artwork" and find its contents appalling. And those who enjoy the nudity
and sexual content exhibited in pornographic materials should marvel and delight
in its details. Those who do not should simply look away. In the words of Just
ice William O. Douglas, "no one is compelled to look" (Brownmiller 663).
There is no concrete manner to define materials that are "obscene" or "offensive
" because various images come to mind among individuals when words similar to t
hese are used to describe pornography. To classify a distasteful picture from a
beautiful one comes down to a matter of opinion and taste. In previous instances

, such as the Miller

Case of 1973, the Court attempted to define which materials could be judged as
lewd or indecent:
The materials are obscene if they depict patently offensive, hard-core sexual co
nduct; lack serious scientific, literary, artistic, or political value; and appe
al to the prurient interests of an average person-as measured by contemporary co
mmunity standards (Brownmiller 662).
In accordance with the opinions of Susan Brownmiller in her essay, "Let's Put Po
rnography Back in the Closet," most would agree that description such as "patent
ly offensive," "prurient interest," and "hard-core" are "indeed words to conjure
with" (662).
Elimination of pornography is not the key to social equality, partly since no on
e can define what porn is and because censorship is never a simple matter. First
, the offense must be described. "And how does one define something so infinite
ly variable, so deeply personal, so uniquely individualized as the image, the wo
rd, and the fantasy that cause sexual arousal" (Strossen 4)? Pornography cannot
be recognized as easily as the Court involved with the Miller Case implied. "Co
ntemporary community standards" do not exist in that individuals and families al
ike have strongly different ideals and ethics on issues such as sexual content,
nudity and pornography. While some parents allow their children to view rated R
movies containing sexual content and nudity, others restrict their children fro
m attending sexual education classes in high school. Finding a median between t
wo strongly differing standards similar to these would be rare. Thus, to accept
or reject, like or dislike pornography is a personal opinion that is often too
divided to differentiate.
Besides the difficulties of definition, there are varying degrees of intensity i
n the porn images themselves. One of the more prominent arguments against porno
graphy is that "it represents the hatred of women, that pornography's intent is
to humiliate, degrade and dehumanize the female body for the purpose of erotic s
timulation and pleasure" (Brownmiller 663). Although in some instances women are
portrayed as being stripped,
bound, raped and tortured in pornographic scenes, not all pornography is this ex
plicit and violent. In any case, the intent of such scenes is not to "degrade an
d dehumanize" the entire female gender but to simply satisfy those individuals w
ho enjoy poses and pictures containing such violent erotic content. Brownmiller
argues that these images of violent pornography... "have everything to do with
the creation of a cultural climate in which a rapist feels he is merely giving i
n to normal urge and a woman is encouraged to believe that sexual masochism is h
ealthy, liberated fun" (663).
Women such as Brownmiller who spend most of their time blaming rape on pornograp
hy should spend more of that time educating women on personal safety so they can
protect and empower themselves. To attribute rape cases to sexual pictures is
similar to blaming drunk driving accidents on alcohol. The individual who chose
to drink and then drive is at fault, similar to the man who decided to continue
with sex when a woman resisted. To depict pornographic scenes as the cause of r
ape and degrading of women is simply masking the actual grounds of such acts. Ho
lly Hughes states,
if you argue that getting the Playboys out of the 7-Eleven is going to drive dow
n the rape rate, then you also have to give credence to the religious right's cl
aims
that representation of gay and lesbian lives are going to cause homosexuality...
I don't see imagery - whether it's pornography, hate speech, or lesbian imageryas causing a certain kind of behavior (43).
Simply because one is a consumer of pornography does not mean they have to go o
ut and do everything they see.

Possibly pornography abets some sex crimes. But according to Ernest Van Den
Haag in his essay. "Learning to Live with Sex and Violence,"
those disposed to sex crimes may also be inclined to consume pornography as an e
ffect, not a cause, of their pre - existing criminal disposition. More important
, if there is a disposition to sex crimes, an almost infinite variety of things
may trigger criminal action. A rapist does not need pornography. The sight of a
woman, or even of an advertisement for lingerie may be enough" (59).
However, for most people pornography is no more damaging, or habit - forming, t
han coffee. Simply because there is no way to eliminate stimuli, there is no re
ason to believe that pornography is indispensable to sex crimes or sufficiently
at fault to justify controlling it.
Despite complaints and criticisms from individuals and groups alike, pro
ducers will continue to create pornography and those individuals who enjoy it wi
ll continue to
purchase it. Because of strong support from a number of people... "the porn ind
ustry has become a mulitmillion dollar business" (Brownmiller 663). To attempt t
o do away completely with such a prosperous business would be virtually impossib
le. The reality is
that millions and millions of Americans consume various kinds of sexually explic
it materials every month. Although their numbers are large, their rights are und
er attack in virtually every segment of society. But forming laws restricting po
rnography from viewers would be similar to restricting cigarettes from smokers.
The outrage and protest would be uncontrollably extreme. And laws are only obey
ed by people who believe in them. There are a lot of laws against drugs. Has it
stopped anyone?
Kyle Jorgensen, a man involved in the adult sex industry for seven years,
has learned that he will never please everyone (Nichols 60). He has been both p
raised and reviled. "I've had women come in the door or write letters thanking m
e for saving their marriages," he claims. "At the same time, I have letters from
special - interest groups condemning me for destroying the world" (Nichols 60).
Ultimately, the assemblage of people who object to pornography must learn to tu
rn their heads and look away. Those who do enjoy the content of pornography shou
ld continue to enjoy it without, however, imposing on those who choose not to su
bject themselves.

Controversial Pornography:
Revision- Paper # 3

by:
Nicole Lamberson

Ms. Susan Trabert

English 102-060
December 12, 1996

Works Cited
Brownmiller, Susan. "Let's Put Pornography Back in the Closet." Current Issues a
nd
Enduring Questions. Sylvan Barnet and Hugo Bedau, eds. Bedford: Boston,
1996.
Hughes, Holly. "Pornography: Does Women's Equality Depend on what we do
About it?" Ms. Jan./ Feb. 1994: 42-45.
Nichols, Mark. "Viewers and Victims: Pornography and Sexual Offenses." Maclean'
s
11 Oct. 1993: 60.
Strossen, Nadine. "The Perils of Pornophobia." The Humanist. May/June 1995: 79.
Van Den Haag, Ernest. "Learning to Live with Sex and Violence." National Review
.
1 Nov. 1993: 56-9.

\
Show a number of different people a simple piece of paper consisting of nothing
more than a red blotch of paint and ask them what they see. The responses will
vary from objects such as a cherry, to more simply, just plain red paint. This i
s an indication of the individuality, or sum of qualities that characterize and
distinguish an individual from all others, instilled in every human being. Just
as facial features and hair color differ among individuals, similar distinctive
ness is found among personalities and opinions. Because of prominent variance i
n belief among many individuals, a number of topics and issues have become contr
oversial in society today.
Similar to the varied responses to the red splotch of paint, photographs, video
tapes and paintings portraying nudity and sexual content receive a number of cla
shing opinions. There are artists who paint and photograph nudity and pornograph
y who find the human body and sex portrayed in many forms to be beautiful. Howe
ver, there are also many extremely conservative individuals who take offense to
such "artwork" and find its contents appalling. And those who enjoy the nudity
and sexual content exhibited in pornographic materials should marvel and delight
in its details. Those who do not should simply look away. In the words of Just
ice William O. Douglas, "no one is compelled to look" (Brownmiller 663).
There is no concrete manner to define materials that are "obscene" or "offensive
" because various images come to mind among individuals when words similar to t
hese are used to describe pornography. To classify a distasteful picture from a
beautiful one comes down to a matter of opinion and taste. In previous instances
, such as the Miller
Case of 1973, the Court attempted to define which materials could be judged as
lewd or indecent:
The materials are obscene if they depict patently offensive, hard-core sexual co
nduct; lack serious scientific, literary, artistic, or political value; and appe
al to the prurient interests of an average person-as measured by contemporary co
mmunity standards (Brownmiller 662).
In accordance with the opinions of Susan Brownmiller in her essay, "Let's Put Po
rnography Back in the Closet," most would agree that description such as "patent
ly offensive," "prurient interest," and "hard-core" are "indeed words to conjure
with" (662).
Elimination of pornography is not the key to social equality, partly since no on
e can define what porn is and because censorship is never a simple matter. First
, the offense must be described. "And how does one define something so infinite
ly variable, so deeply personal, so uniquely individualized as the image, the wo
rd, and the fantasy that cause sexual arousal" (Strossen 4)? Pornography cannot
be recognized as easily as the Court involved with the Miller Case implied. "Co
ntemporary community standards" do not exist in that individuals and families al
ike have strongly different ideals and ethics on issues such as sexual content,

nudity and pornography. While some parents allow their children to view rated R
movies containing sexual content and nudity, others restrict their children fro
m attending sexual education classes in high school. Finding a median between t
wo strongly differing standards similar to these would be rare. Thus, to accept
or reject, like or dislike pornography is a personal opinion that is often too
divided to differentiate.
Besides the difficulties of definition, there are varying degrees of intensity i
n the porn images themselves. One of the more prominent arguments against porno
graphy is that "it represents the hatred of women, that pornography's intent is
to humiliate, degrade and dehumanize the female body for the purpose of erotic s
timulation and pleasure" (Brownmiller 663). Although in some instances women are
portrayed as being stripped,
bound, raped and tortured in pornographic scenes, not all pornography is this ex
plicit and violent. In any case, the intent of such scenes is not to "degrade an
d dehumanize" the entire female gender but to simply satisfy those individuals w
ho enjoy poses and pictures containing such violent erotic content. Brownmiller
argues that these images of violent pornography... "have everything to do with
the creation of a cultural climate in which a rapist feels he is merely giving i
n to normal urge and a woman is encouraged to believe that sexual masochism is h
ealthy, liberated fun" (663).
Women such as Brownmiller who spend most of their time blaming rape on pornograp
hy should spend more of that time educating women on personal safety so they can
protect and empower themselves. To attribute rape cases to sexual pictures is
similar to blaming drunk driving accidents on alcohol. The individual who chose
to drink and then drive is at fault, similar to the man who decided to continue
with sex when a woman resisted. To depict pornographic scenes as the cause of r
ape and degrading of women is simply masking the actual grounds of such acts. Ho
lly Hughes states,
if you argue that getting the Playboys out of the 7-Eleven is going to drive dow
n the rape rate, then you also have to give credence to the religious right's cl
aims
that representation of gay and lesbian lives are going to cause homosexuality...
I don't see imagery - whether it's pornography, hate speech, or lesbian imageryas causing a certain kind of behavior (43).
Simply because one is a consumer of pornography does not mean they have to go o
ut and do everything they see.
Possibly pornography abets some sex crimes. But according to Ernest Van Den
Haag in his essay. "Learning to Live with Sex and Violence,"
those disposed to sex crimes may also be inclined to consume pornography as an e
ffect, not a cause, of their pre - existing criminal disposition. More important
, if there is a disposition to sex crimes, an almost infinite variety of things
may trigger criminal action. A rapist does not need pornography. The sight of a
woman, or even of an advertisement for lingerie may be enough" (59).
However, for most people pornography is no more damaging, or habit - forming, t
han coffee. Simply because there is no way to eliminate stimuli, there is no re
ason to believe that pornography is indispensable to sex crimes or sufficiently
at fault to justify controlling it.
Despite complaints and criticisms from individuals and groups alike, pro
ducers will continue to create pornography and those individuals who enjoy it wi
ll continue to
purchase it. Because of strong support from a number of people... "the porn ind
ustry has become a mulitmillion dollar business" (Brownmiller 663). To attempt t
o do away completely with such a prosperous business would be virtually impossib
le. The reality is

that millions and millions of Americans consume various kinds of sexually explic
it materials every month. Although their numbers are large, their rights are und
er attack in virtually every
\