The Observer, December 7, 2007
Volume XL, Issue 13
Pornography is not harmless pleasure
To the Editor:
In a previous editorial about the event Porn Nation [Nov. 30], it seems that pornography was being regarded as a sociocultural artifact and that those who put on the Porn Nation event are unjustly condemning pornography. This conclusion entirely misses the purpose of the event. The event was to elucidate that pornography is not a harmless pleasure. Michael Leahy is a living testimony of all the damage that pornography can do. He lost everything! He lost his six-figure job, his kids, his wife, his friends, his family. Everything gone because of some small guilty pleasure. That's why he goes around campus to campus telling students about pornography. He doesn't mean to judge you or make you think the way he does. He simply shows the effects of porn that no one seems to want to know about.
And yes, it is oversimplifying matters to say that porn is all to blame. It isn't, and yes, he made his choices that led him to his demise. But he's only human. Aren't we all? I think it's important to realize that porn isn't the source of evil, but amplifies the small mistakes we might make. It snowballs until, before we know it, we've come to a bad place and wonder how we got there.
As for the argument that porn contributes to the sociocultural picture of our modern society, what contribution does it make? It's important to draw the line between art and porn. Never during the event did it condemn the naked body as an art form. But in pornography, the naked body is not art. Pornography degrades humans, animals, and children. There is no cultural value in pornography. There is no productive purpose. Victorian ads that were risqué for their time are sociocultural artifacts because they demonstrate the change of social economy from productionism to consumerism. They show how advertising became a significant player in this shift. What contribution does pornography make to our society? None.
Lastly, I make an argument that may be too subjective for the scientific minds here at Case. But I ask that you reach for the human in you. What is the first reaction at the first glance of porn? It's to look away, an instinctive response to put these images away from you. Your instinct says that porn is wrong. And you should trust in your instincts. Why is this the instinctive response? There are many reasons. You can decide what the reason is, and whether the reason matters. But consider this, if pornography is supposed to be accepted in modern society, why does it continue to be sold behind dark tinted windows? If it is OK, then why is there illegal sex trafficking, many victims of which end up as the "stars" of porn? Is bestiality okay? Is child porn okay? How can one decide that some parts of porn are bad and other parts are good? Isn't porn just porn?
Clara Kwon
Undergraduate student
