A few years ago, an eternity in "Internet Time", I started writing a column I titled "Thought for the Day." For a while, I managed to actually post a new column (almost) everyday. I even submitted my writings to on-line "papers" in the hopes of being included in their editions. Oh, don't get me wrong, I wasn't doing it for any other reason than to hear myself talk, but still, I always hoped to reach as wide an audience as possible.
The internet-boom was followed by the inevitable "bust" and although I never saw a nickel for my efforts I was read by a few thousand web-surfers. I finally reached a point where I stopped to reflect and decide if I was doing the right thing for me and for my family. Was it a worthy use of time to gather news and information and try to post a meaningful analysis of that?
Well, what I decided is that "Yes, for me it IS worthwhile." Regardless of how many people read my writings it is worthwhile to me to have written down my feelings and thoughts on issues that are/were important at the time. And so, without further ado, let me get (back) down to business.....
CBS News is running some stories in advance of their TV special on "Porn" that give background and perspective on the business of pornography. But before I comment on that, perhaps some definitions are in order. Some people, dare I say, many people, don't actually know what "pornography" is. Some people think that ANY picture that shows so much as a female nipple is "porn." This ignorance is part of the problem. According to the courts of the United States of America, pornography is the:
Patently offensive representations or descriptions of ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated.
That's a bit vague isn't it? Yes! Because it is supposed to allow judges and juries to apply their standards to the cases at hand. There isn't a complete, legal, definition that separates acceptable from unacceptable writings or pictures. What is lewd and lascivious to one person might be artistic (or at least interesting) to someone else. As an example of this, here is a picture of my paternal grandparents on their wedding day.
To me, this is a quaint photo of a couple I never met. The man died long before my birth, and the woman is much different in my memories. And yet, in some parts of the world, this is “pornography”!!! Scandalous!!! You can actually see her FACE!!! Shocking!!! Obscene!!! She should be stoned to death for such a sacrilege!
Hopefully, that sounds as stupid to you as it does to me. But seriously, there are parts of the so-called modern world where it is “obscene” for a woman's face to be revealed to males. The practitioners of this religion don't think they're unreasonable. Women are property like goats and chickens. They must be protected. And if you allow other men to see your woman, then they might be aroused and need to have sex with her. It wouldn't be the man's fault. If he raped your wife/daughter then you would need to kill HER.
So, sometimes, what is proper to one person, is ridiculous to another. How is society to judge? Well, by leaving the laws vague and malleable. We allow much that is probably without any artistic value to stand unchallenged so that we don't trample on the liberty of others. We admit that just because we can't see the value in a thing doesn't mean that the value doesn't exist. And that brings me (finally) to the quote from the CBS story.
"Because there's a social stigma still attached to [pornography], you can charge a premium for it, the profit margin is higher. ... It makes pure economic sense.”
EXACTLY! Because some people try to stigmatize the display of erotic images (those images/movies that inspire sexual thoughts and feelings) they make the business of distributing those images much more profitable than it otherwise would be.
Let's face it, although virtually no woman can live up to the Hollywood definition of what “beautiful” is, every woman has the basic equipment that we males have been “programmed” to desire. WHOA THERE! Programmed? Am I referring to some media-conspiracy to use sex to sell products? Naw, I'm referring to the fact that men are genetically programmed to desire sex. And so are women, a fact that many religions work furiously to ignore.
WAIT A SECOND THERE DAN... most women you meet don't look like the 19-year-olds I see in Playboy or Maxim. True. That's actually the part of this story where “media manipulation” DOES come into play. Women come in a wondrous variety of shapes, sizes and colors. Some are larger or have various parts that are larger than other women. Some have damaged limbs, scars and markings. Some have been surgically enhanced to trigger specific reactions from viewers. But to someone, they are EACH “beautiful.” TV Commercials and magazine ads frequently use a perceived “ideal” for marketing. They don't show women outside a narrow, commercially profitable, demographic. Heck, for a long time in America non-white women weren't used in sexy commercials. After all, who could find a black woman attractive? (D'oh!)
One more time, “What the hell are you rambling on about?” That men find women sexy and will eagerly pay money to see them. Even if the woman in question isn't what YOU personally find as desirable. You can try to make it harder (meaning “more expensive”) to see a naked woman, but all that does is makes more money for the person distributing the pictures and make the model more of an outcast. I once heard a made-up quotation supposedly from a movie-maker “There are two truths about breasts. All women have them and all men want to see them.”
Ah Ha! Got you Dan! What about women who have had cancer and had their breasts removed? Nope, you've missed the point. The pre-programmed imperative we each carry is much stronger and more undeniable than that. Perhaps if you were faced with a harem of wives and not allowed to form attachments to any of them (as in some lame sexual fantasy) you might discard someone because of their imperfections. But that behavior is unsustainable and counter-productive. Raising human offspring requires a lot of energy. Successful parenting demands a committed relationship to ensure the children survive and are, in turn, sucessfull. That survival trait is called “love” and having it provides an extra chance for your offspring to survive. So, would I still love my wife and find her desirable, even if she was disfigured? Of course. She is, and will remain, beautiful and desirable to me.
Ok, it's obvious to me, and I hope to you, that this topic is much too big for one column (or one lifetime). I promise I'll write more if you are interested in reading it. Let me just sum up “porn” like this, The worst thing that could happen to the BUSINESS of pornography would be if it was openly acceptable. If everyone agreed that it is very nice to see a woman that they, personally, found attractive, then how would anyone make money on it? After all, over half the population of the world HAS female breasts!