Philosophy / Why Pornography Shouldn'T Be Banned

Why Pornography Shouldn'T Be Banned

This essay Why Pornography Shouldn'T Be Banned is available for you on Essays24.com! Search Term Papers, College Essay Examples and Free Essays on Essays24.com - full papers database.

Autor:  anton  28 September 2010
Tags:  Pornography,  Shouldnt,  Banned
Words: 1296   |   Pages: 6
Views: 316

Why Pornography Should Not Be Banned

It seems to me there are two ways of defending pornography. The first is pornography does not harm anyone, and so it should not be banned. The second is pornography can't accurately be identified between what pornography is and what it's not. With these two main points I will prove pornography should not be banned.

Pornography does not harm anyone. In mainstream pornography, all parties are willing participants. The women who grace the pages of Playboy, Penthouse, Hustler, Swank, etc. are paid to do so. They have entered into a contract in which they sell their services. Their services in this case are the displaying of their naked bodies for the "masturbatory delight" of millions of readers and viewers. The pornography critic will point out that these women are harming themselves by volunteering to be an object like this. They will argue that a world in which these women's best possible source of income is to be used as a simple object. I respond that all work-for-wages jobs are an example of simplified human behavior. For example when I apply to flip hamburgers on the grill at my local Burger King, the manager does not hire Donald Hamilton. He hires a body to serve a purpose. As soon as I put a Burger King Paper hat on my head, I become not a person, but a tool. I exist, as far as Burger King is concerned, as a hamburger flipper and nothing more. Pornography does reduce the men and women who star in it down to a mere tool for hire. But so does every single situation in which a person is paid wages for their work. Furthermore, I suggest that this simplification in pornography brings with it a level of individuality unheard of in most other work-for-wage jobs. The popularity surrounding a particular "porn star" (Jenna Jameson, for example, a star of pornography in whose honor entire festivals are thrown) is something that could never be found in my local Burger King, no matter how well I flip the hamburgers. The fact that the stars of pornography are simple objects does not mean that they are harmed. Indeed, the real harm would come in taking away an opportunity currently available to them (probably the most efficient opportunity currently available to them) to make money.

We can never draw the line accurately between what is pornography and what it's not. The problem comes when the government or public are of the opinion that it is wrong. When that happens, they attempt to identify what is pornography, and what is art. Those who try to define pornography (and who want so-called art like Lady Chatterley's Lover and Michelangelo's David excluded from that definition) will typically create some sort of test to define the difference between pornography and art. This is no answer at all. One of two arguments will defeat it, depending on one's viewpoint. For example whether a particular piece of would-be-pornography is art or not is determined by the creator or a consumer. A certain piece is defined by what the creator intended it for or by what consumers (government and critics) believes it to be. If the distinction between art and pornography is based on intentions, then the response is that we never can accurately and actually know the intention of the artist. Just as I believe we could never really begin to accurately describe the intentions of our fore fathers when they came up with the U.S. Constitution. If the distinction is based on the interpretation of the courts, then we can accurately say the problem lies with unqualified tastes of who currently resides as a court official or judge. All it does is create an artificial distinction based on one person's (or one small group of people's) views and experiences. Any defining test (to determine art or pornography) will have to rely either on the creator or on the consumer.

I have narrowed it down to three reasons why a person may think pornography should be banned. (1) It is sex without love and affection, (2) there is an invasion of privacy, and (3) it overly simplifies the erotic experience. Regarding the first point, I can only say that it is right. Pornography does represent sex without love. But that is not a bad thing. Sex is about love. It is also about reproduction. And it is about recreation. Although it is true that pornography removes much of what makes sex a unifying act, it is not true that pornography rips everything away from sex. Pornography celebrates recreation, which is one of the things that make sex so great. To prove that sex is about recreation think about the clitoris. Scientists have not found any reproductive purpose either for the clitoris or the female orgasm. The clitoris exists to assist in the female orgasm and to increase the pleasure for the female during intercourse. Is pornography sex without love? Yes, but that is not wrong, because sex is not just about love; it is about love, reproduction, and recreation (pornography exemplifies this). Regarding the second point, there is no invasion of privacy; pornography (at least mainstream pornography) is consensual. An invasion of privacy is a lack of consent. The willing participant in pornography is inviting an audience to what would normally be a private act. Therefore the participant loses all rights of privacy. For those would be pornographers who without consent video tape theirs and others sexual acts are not considered main stream pornographers. The third and final point of overly simplifying the erotic experience is correct. Pornography not only overly simplifies the erotic experience, it also downgrades the individuals being depicted as mere tools. As I discussed earlier in this paper, simplification is not wrong. Simplifying a human being is a fact of our existence, not an evil of pornography in particular. Being simplified or reduced is not wrong, and the fact that pornography assumes an element of being simplified does not make it wrong. Rather, the fact that pornography assumes an element of simplification puts it in company with virtually every human venture ever attempted. Each of these three arguments falls short; this is because pornography is not wrong and should not be banned.

In conclusion I am strongly pro pornography. I feel if it does not hurt anyone than it should not be an issue. What can we define as pornography anyway? We can't accurately do so; therefore there is no real argument against it. Pornography is a free, open, and exhilarating act for those who perform in it. In the same right it is a fantasy world that most of us find our selves in when watching it. Pornography does about as much harm as regular T.V. now days. At least Pornography gives it all to you and doesn't tease the individual watching it. I would be as bold to say that T.V. with its daily sexual teasing can lead to a person's frustration and eventual demise. Pornography is a tool for one to use as a relief or empowering experience. There is nothing physically, mentally, or emotionally wrong with pornography; therefore there is no real argument in banning it.



Get Better Grades Today

Join Essays24.com and get instant access to over 60,000+ Papers and Essays

closeLogin
Please enter your username and password
Username:
Password:
Forgot your password?