A Philosophy of Pornography
A Classification of Everyday Life.
You are probably beginning to read this article with a belief in mind, and probably a little curiosity, and probably many preconceived notions.
Why is the word probably used three times in the sentence above? Is it a badly constructed sentence? Some purists would describe it as a linguistic obscenity. They would be happier with this:-
“You are probably beginning to read this article with a belief in mind, and likely a little curiosity, and maybe many preconceived notions.”
Have you lost interest in reading an article about A Philosophy of Pornography yet?
Philosophy and pornography both have the capacity to induce intense boredom, so firstly we need to explain why you should look beyond this tedious and possibly irrelevant opening to the discussion to come.
Philosophy and pornography dominate your life, unless you are a rock living under a pile of stones, in which case you may be better reading this article on panpsychism.
As many have pointed out before, though maybe not directly to you, pornography is like time, everyone knows what it is until they try to explain it.
Please note before we continue that this discussion is not concerning itself with any form of standard definition of the term pornography, an example of which may be-
“...the graphic sexually explicit subordination of women through pictures and words”
Pornography as presented to society today is a vast and complex mix with a very simple and fundamental underlying principle that locks it into life in a very generalised sense.
What we call pornography has a number of primary intentions:-
- 1. Stimulation.
That is a very short list, the number of primary intentions amounts to one. A single intention.
From this single intention comes an ever growing list of conflicting opinion regarding sex, religion, entertainment, social rights and responsibilities, the rights of the individual, personal and social psychology...its a long list... beauty and obscenity... and control.
So lets start with beauty and obscenity... and control.
The object of this essay is to consider everyday life as pornographic, certainly as much as anything else you may choose to give that appellation to.
So why entitle it A Philosophy of Pornography? Having a "philosophy of" some subject is to hold an encompassing world-view that you accept and adhere to. A view that is personal to you as an individual, something you may not openly discuss with others but nevertheless is a formative part of your life. Note I refer to it as A philosophy not The philosophy of pornography. More on this ...here
Beautiful Obscenities
Counterintuitive identities
Beauty and the obscene are both stimulants. Stimulants of all kinds have long been regarded as "fair game" for the legal profession who have the authority of parliaments and public to persue miscreants involved in their distribution. "Fair game" implies that there is something about the thing or persons that justify criticism, or in the legal sense prosecution and punishment.
Beauty and the obscene are the central themes of the entertainment industry. Entertainment is about stimulation.
Pornography is about stimulation.
The entertainment business is pure and simply about stimulation. Your TV and mobile phone are entertainment centres.
The three ladies in the video above made personal choices to enter the pornographic entertainment industry, two to make money, one I'm not so sure about.
Lets look a little closer at their stories and the controversial notion of obscenity. The term obscenity is discussed in more detail here.
Note the illustration in the opposite column, an image of the front cover of a "tabloid newspaper". In keeping with the theme of society being fundamentally pornographic in nature the tabloid press function almost totally on blatent sensationalism to stimulate their readership.
The story heading that particular newspaper is an example of the press deliberately putting sexual imagery into the homes of a willing readership for financial gain. An attempt to use the socially acknowledged boundaries of childhood and adulthood as a source of temptation and tittilation is the sort of issue that defines pornography in many eyes.
It also raises an interesting debate concerning arguments around the title of this essay, beauty and obscenity. Why do some feel the beauty of youthfullness something to classify as obscene?
This needs to be looked at through a senario of a pornographic actuality. Sex is a very personal event, as such the majority do not treat it as something for open debate, discussion, or personal public display.
Control- Who and Why?
Controlling your mind.
At the time of writing (September 2020) There is probably a host of good news in the world, but the world news as reported in the mainstream media is nothing less than obscene. If you want a definition for what is meant by "obscene", you have your own understanding of the word, and are highly unlikely to change it for someone else's ideas.
The same applies to the word "pornography", you 'know it when you see it' and will not likely change your views for another's opinion.
The word obscene is often defined in terms of what are described as the accepted standards of the times.
The phrase "accepted standards of the times" is worth spending some time discussing, particularly as I intend describing our current social norms as psychologically pornographic.
The video in the adjacent coloumn ends with an 18 year old young lady exposing her artificially enhanced breasts for the viewer to ogle at. (You need to be viewing on a PC or large screen to see this page in two-column mode.) Over thirty years ago the British tabloid press put similar photographs of sixteen year old schoolgirls (with no need for enhanced breasts) in the pages of their newspapers. It became an acceptable standard of the time. The Protection of Children Act 1978 defined children as those under the age of 16, the Sexual Offences Act 2003 raise that to 18.
Consequently...
...in 1983 it was acceptable to put 16 year old Sam Fox on the front cover of a major Sunday newspaper. Miss Fox was a 16 year old schoolgirl at the time, so the newspaper could legitimately display her naked breasts to their readership, but to show the same picture on TV in 2020 invites prosecution.
The newspaper is being held up to the camera by Samantha Fox herself, at 56 years old unable to sanction public viewing of a photograph of her 16 year old self without the TV show portraying this image risking prosecution.
Vivamus fermentum
Morbi interdum mollis sapien
Cras aliquet urna ut sapien tincidunt, quis malesuada elit facilisis. Vestibulum sit amet tortor velit. Nam elementum nibh a libero pharetra elementum. Maecenas feugiat ex purus, quis volutpat lacus placerat malesuada. Praesent in sem ex. Morbi mattis sapien pretium tellus venenatis, at egestas urna ornare.