Let me be frank...I think that there is a very reasonable argument to be made that there are certain things in this world that are objective. The topic I'm about to put forth I'm sure is a very hot button topic for men and women everywhere, both positive and negative, which is why I thought it prudent to open it up to a thoughtful discussion.
I'm going to talk about pornography and open the following question for discussion: What is it about pornography that makes it universally recognizable and identifiable?
We live in a world where people, and rightfully so, have multitudes of opinions on any given subject. We know that things aren't always black and white, and every topic has its grey areas, as well as room for nuance, perspective and exceptions, while simultaneously being subject to praise and criticism.
An example of an opinion: The Beatles is the greatest rock band of all time!
Now this opinion can be subject to all kinds of scrutiny.
Examples:
- The Beatles are overrated.
- I like the Beatles, but I prefer the Rolling Stones over them.
- I love the Beatles, but I don't care for John Lennon.
- The Beatles are great, but Ringo Starr is the biggest mooch in rock and roll history.
- I love The Beatles, but I can't stand Let It Be.
- George Harrison is the only exceptional musician in the band.
- The Beatles wouldn't ever have happened if it hadn't been for the rock achievements of Elvis Presley and Chuck Berry.
- I hate The Beatles, but I really do love Come Together.
- Yoko Ono ruined everything.
- I don't know enough about The Beatles to have an opinion.
- Paul McCartney? Isn't he the guy from Wings?
You get the idea. The topic of The Beatles is subject to enormous discussion and scrutiny, as well as very passionate emotions, but positive and negative. While many people would agree that The Beatles are the greatest band of all time, others wouldn't agree. But regardless of one's opinion as to their musical merit, I think that if you inquired long enough, you're likely to encounter individuals who haven't heard of The Beatles and can not identify them nor recognize their music.
So here is where I dive into the bulk of what I hope to discuss today. I am attempting to reason through what about pornography makes it universally recognizable and identifiable.
Think about it. Anyone who takes a look at it, whether intentionally or unintentionally, is going to have some kind of reaction, whether positive or negative, physically, emotionally, mentally, severely or subtly. It doesn't matter how much someone denies they react to it. The very act of denying reacting to it is in fact...a reaction.
We may have seen this debate go on for decades...sure since the dawn of photography which led to the inevitable inception of cinema. But I'm sure this conversation was had when Gutenberg's printing press was introduced...and before that when the greatest extent of crafted imagery was sculptures, paintings, and tapestries. And I'm sure even as far back as cave man drawings.
In modern history, a great quote comes to mind. In 1964, during Jacobellis v. Ohio, the United States Supreme Court attempted, with no true avail, to define obscenity. It was in a concurring opinion that Justice Potter Stewart wrote: "I know it when I see it." The full quote is below:
"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that" - Justice Stewart
And it is that quote that has always stuck with me: "I know it when I see it".
I'm sure you readers out there have had this discussion privately at home among friends, significant others, and even publicly whether in school or in other social settings. And I'm sure at any point in these discussions, gory details are mentioned as to what actions constitutes full or partial intercourse and how much of the activity captured for viewing by a third party defines it as hardcore or softcore.
And I'm sure this has led to even more heated discussions regarding the appropriateness of who and when and where such material should and/or should not be consumed, and the ethical questions that are raised. And finally, I'm sure such heated discussions inevitably lead to the questions of whether there are any grounds for morality, speaking of spirituality/theology, or even of morality from a strictly secular perspective...or all of the above.
This is not what I'm aiming to discuss in this post today. And again, I come back to my previous question: what about pornography makes it universally recognizable and identifiable.
This is why I shall quote Justice Stewart once again: I know it when I see it.
Really think about it. If you see a provocative magazine cover with an individual posing in a seductive manner, immediately your mind is going to make a judgement as to if that magazine is just another issue of Cosmopolitan containing steamy images and articles, or if that magazine is an issue of Penthouse containing more graphic content. (And no, I'm not just talking about the blatantly obvious title difference.) I'm talking about what is in the magazine and the images one could expect to see.
One could argue that in one magazine, it is just images of scantily clad women, and in the other one, there are women posing in the nude. Okay that may be true, but what is to make that magazine different than an issue of National Geographic that captures native cultures that don't clothe themselves, whether due to poverty or cultural norms? Or what is to make that magazine different than a book containing naked men and women posing so an artist can study the human form? And what is to make that magazine of Penthouse different than a medical textbook so a student can learn about male and female anatomy?
Justice Stewart would probably look at those materials and say "I know it when I see it."
Let's take another topical example. You are watching Game of Thrones on HBO and it's the first season...yes you get the picture. Then after Game of Thrones, and you wait a few hours, and the late night programming on HBO starts...again you get the picture. Or another example. You are on the internet and there are videos, similar to the material previously mentioned in National Geographic. And also on the internet, you type the letter "p" in the Google search bar...once again, you get the picture. Clearly in these cases, anyone can identify and recognize the differences. Why?
This leads to my next portion of this post. Bear with me.
In Plato's dialogue, Euthyphro, Socrates and Euthyphro engage in a classic Socratic dialogue where Socrates gets closer to the truth in the best way he knew: to keep asking questions.
Eventually it leads to the Euthyphro Dilemma: Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?
In other words, is something significant because the beholder recognizes and identifies that it is significant regardless of one's bias, or is something significant only because the beholder declares it to be significant regardless of its merit?
And I think when contemplating that dilemma, it may bring me one step closer to answering the question: What is it about pornography that makes it universally recognizable and identifiable?
Is it that the act of human sexual intercourse is universally recognizable and identifiable only because it is an objectively extraordinary human activity?
Or is it that the act of human sexual intercourse is universally recognizable only because people, culture and society has developed in a certain way and therefore declare it to be an extraordinary human activity?
When I say extraordinary human activity, I mean that it is distinguishable and held in higher esteem and regard than other human activities, ie. shaking hands, dancing, playing music, writing Steemit posts, etc.
In one case, suppose Scenario A, we have it where human sexual intercourse in an extraordinary activity, simply because it truly is an extraordinary activity, and thus human beings naturally recognize, identify and accept it as such.
In the other case, let's say Scenario B, we have that human sexual intercourse was at one point an ordinary activity, but then human beings for whatever the reasons, have elevated their regard for it as an extraordinary activity, greater than many others. And it is only through that development, that human sexual intercourse enjoys the esteem that is does today, and it has for as long as there are records for mankind's history.
But then these scenarios raise two more questions. In Scenario A where human sexual intercourse is an objectively extraordinary human activity and people simply recognize and identify it as that, we have the question: What was it that made it that way?
In scenario B with human sexual intercourse, where it is only by man's fiat that has elevated sexual intercourse from the status of ordinary to extraordinary, the question is: what is it that is keeping it that way? And is it possible that people can change their minds about human sexual intercourse and it should go back to being an ordinary activity, one that is no different than shaking hands, dancing, playing music, writing Steemit posts, etc?
I look forward to the great conversations that such a topic is sure to arouse (pun intended). I'll admit that my mind is not made up on this issue. And while I can't imagine how the truth will manifest itself through these discussions, I'll know it when I see it.
- Frank