WHAT IS PORNOGRAPHY?

by Beth Kelleher

This is a respo11sc10 1he Edi1or of the Toque :v decision to include 011 excerpr fro111 a piece I wrote - at their r('(J/lest- entitled "What is Pornography'!"

S111•emlweeks ago, I attended a Toque staff 111eeti11g - back 1Vhe11members of the Toque swff were still ntte111f)ti11g to recruit me to their project - and found myself debating morality issuesfor 111os1 of the meeting. At 1he time, editot: Kris Lind did a stellar job maintaining objectivity - a11effort that he is to be co111me11dedfor. Ar the e11dof the meeting, it wa.v s11gg<'Slc:dthm I 1vrite a "cross-Jire·· article on thl' specific issue of pornography, whirh Ivas discussed at length.

I did so and submitled it to the Toque well before their deadline, fitlly intending for my article to be published as writ/en in their next issue. Several days qfter sending my s,ory, I bumped imo a couple of rhe Toque staff' Ine111berswho it!fonnecl 111ethat they /1(u/ both read my piece, 1hecross~/ire had11'1been written yet, and thl'y Wl'l'f pla1111i11g to cw1cel the cro.1·.1·:firero/1111111.They l'ir,i111edthat my editorial Ivus "ud homo• 11y111i1111<1111/'e ·• and that they didn '1 wunt 10 print so111etltingrhc// appenred ro a/lack i11dl11hl1wlpeo1ile. A/1hough my piece Iva.,· never inte11,/edro /Je a perso11alartock i11 a11yway, I trnstt•t/ t/teJc so-caffecl 'joum,tf. ists •,o 11rint what 1sfni1·and li1•eb\' rite pm, ciples the,· pmcloi111c•cl10me. Just to h,, sI11·.-,though, I requested t!tot I he al;le to previ<'W o copy o( whatawr the) d,•rld<'d 10 /Jf'illt vf my article he.fnre it wa.I· sent to tlw pl'iII/ers, I al.10 /ook,:d i11111pub· fishing poli<•ies. 011d was told 11,1r1D'iciolfy that the s1r111t/cmlcop\'l'ight I prr111ow11a.l'hip sto11dardsare rhc// ll'hme,·er is ,rnlm1it• r,•d to a publil' papn i.v pm1Ierry of' Iha1 paper ON!,Y AFTER IT IS ?UB/,JSIIJ::[) (grn111edrhe Toque i,,, 1101 a puh/ic papt!I'), I a.1su111ed,hm1•e1•,•1:that I .l'till nw11<'dIIIy 1vri1i11g{If /ea.H duri,1~ the 10 days <4tt'I' it Wll.\' wri11e11.befo1'1? it 11•111·puh/ished (1l'hie'lt I 11•a.1·told it lt'</.1·110/ going to /Je). hy a si111ilar ,•rhlc.

I lo11•e1•e1;to<lny I /1icf..ed11/Ja copy rf the /011g-awa1h•dsecond edition <f rhe Trique only to fi.11tlap11m,1i111aIelr/Oo/cof my orrirlc appeared i11the letter·to·the-ediror .wrtio11. fr WUJ C1lTompw1iedhy r, l'cply that claimed tha, "the le/la wr/fer (/111')would• 11'r know sexunlity if It .~lapped ha aao.1·.1· the jc,ce" Thm {lf>JJ<'<Into bl' a /u'r,w11al arwck, does it 1101?

Firsr of all, 11111ilI•eIy recently. I had the u11dl'r,1·tn11di11g rltat I fwd a srmng, positive. working relt1tio11sltipwith members <!I' tltl! 1bq1w. I a,111101,and never was, i11/erested in rt 11111cl-slh1xi11,/,/mmc/1 with them, wul do 1101 11•ishtn a/lack any of them in wIy ll'ay. 'J'/l('ir papa io1prt•,ue.1·111e.in xeneral, and 1f 11·,• 11•<'re to xer perso11nl. I 1vasoriginally ltrmored h, t/1eir o/fi•r w wri11 1 .ftir 1ftc111, hecm1.1eI 1ecog11i::etlu•11111s e.\f'<'l'ie11ced mril ru!t·111edi11C!it·idua/1·.

Se,·,111dlr,rny i11rt'/ii'cffwl /Jl!r.l'/U!cti1 11' ,111 por,wgm11hy hos lilfll!. i{ w11·thi11g,ro r/11

11·itlt"'-' 1n•rso11a/,1cwalit,·. I 1111,h•ntcmd that tfte edito1; 11,Jw,,·rote the r,:ply to my Jliece, i.1·actually .w111eo11e/'1•e only 111et tll'ice a11cldo Iw1 know, 011dtherefore has 110 basis for co111me,,ri11,<011my se,x.ualiry. Aside /mm the fact 1hnr rhe 11rit11edparngraph was rake11out of comext, and the reply a/lacked me p<:rsonally, ir ,ilso mcmip• u/ated the wordiflg of that paragraflh 10soy what it wam 't 111ea11t to say. The phrase ",vould seem to BORDER ON soft-<'ol'e pomography" wltich appeared in 111yarticle, should 1101ltove been challR<'rl10 "whllr size claims to BE f'O/'llography " i11 rite reacrio11.

Of co11rse.I (as well as other Cascader.l') were L/f'SCI witft this issue of rhe Toque (regarding huf/1 fl<!/'S0nal isrnes and its attack on 11t,, Cascade as a wltole ). However this orric/e is 11or111ea111 10 be a11 anRI')' reaction: I 011/ywant facts and opi11• ion.~to he nmveyecl trnthfully and accurately. I ro111ple1elyagree wirh Cascade a11d Toque members alike in the recent decisio11 10 e11dthe UCFV newspaper wa,: "Good Joumalis111" is objecrive, 1101per.l'onal, right?

So in <:onc:lusion, I would like to at-long-last p11blish rhe original, 11011-attacking,defensive article "Wt,a, is Pornography?"

What is Porno~raphy'!

by Beth Kelleher

I allt:nded my lirst 'official' stnff meeting nf the Toque ft1ll of ideas but so111t:whathcsi tant lo <liw into something dull Sl'Cms tl1 me to l-w;hoth a journali~tic mid political flail for all em ion as well as a pct•projec1 bw 11 merely out of !>pile and vengeance wwurd~ S111<lentUnion Society. However, it \\ as,i' 1 until abollt half way into the 111ee1inglln11 that it dnwneLI on me that my pmblen: was mH ith the Toque Ideology itself. but rntiler with purtit:ular ethical Is~IIes raised by sc11I1efellow 'foque volunteers.

The particular <lchate UI h,tnd was thnt of 'whm con~tilutc~ pornogrnphy: a t.liscussion inspired by both thc story ·'Whl're Sex and Sports tvket" and the pulilically and sexually crude cartnon of ( ieorge W. Bush and f3in Lrndin that appeared in our last i!>suc. A~ providence would h.we it, I l'nun<lmy),elf in the ccnter of n heated moral debate that la~lcJ the duration of 1iur meeting, but I11orc over has been an cver-rresent mnnil Llispute for centuries.

Sll ju~t what IS pornography? It's n question I'd never really consiLlcre<l before - at least not academically • but definitely one for which I had a passionate anu innate reaction! ] 11foct, the concept, u~ n wlwlc is one I so fervemly opposed to, thnt I'd imH.1• vertcntly rejected anything with even the most re11101eassociation. However after some enlightening di!,cussion. and much thought, I now h.ive so111clogical n:asoning for rcacting as I <li<l.

"I think that pornogrnphy 1s wrung in any sense'' HSSertst1 like minded student conscr vative morality. "il's the perversion of God, design." Whether you're li Christian or otherwise. 111()~1 peoplu believe thut thcre is something <1wesnmcand he,1util'ul about the human body: it hus over 2000 purts that each pcrf'orn1 i-pc1.:ificand vital functions in 1.:omplexsy~tems that :dlo\\ u, to exist and dn tht: countll'ss and 111tricatt:things v,e do We were not invented. cannot he ma11ui'HcIured, and arc capable of' profoumJ r11rinnnl Iht1LJghtand that sets us apart fru111c,ery· thing dsc nn this planet, thus. at least lo u cenain degree, human beings arc sacred.

It is true that we urc created as sexual beings, und the natural expression of this nature is completely acceplable. pornography is sexually explicit material that promotes the perversion of or our natural sexuality. Tht: human race depends on sexual reproduction, so in that context. sex it vi1nl to our society. And sex in the context of a committed love relationship (111arl'inge)is a beautiful and nutural thing tha1 can be enjoyed, However, it is clearly not a biological instinct to procreate nor the intimate pleasure of relationship that leads people to show off their bodies !'or mass sex appeal in the media!

Pornography is when you cross the line from simple nudity. to nudity that is deformed or llaunte<l for sexual intent. Thus pornography is clearly not a natural expression ol' gender identity: it perverts people's concept and understanding their gender identities and threatens the truly unique and perfect purposes of our sexuality. Being that the goal of pornography is to play with people's lust, pornography also gives society as a whole a distoried view of sexuality. It ruins marriages, corrupts teens, and scares those immersed in its production and trudt:, ft directly promotes illicit sex, and indirectly promotes, lying. chcatini;. and gcnerul dissatisfaction wi1h reality. Pnrnognrphy cats away at society from the im,idt:, fro111the core. by toying with the l'antasics Inust invnlved won't nd111it tu having.

A fine line exists het,\een nudity dcpictt:d in art form or objective reJ')l>rtingand pornography. Nudity will alway~ contain ll <legrl't ul'sexuality. hcrncver, ntttltly nm.Ipornogra• phy are not synonymou$. I believe that lhis delicate boundary is crossed when an image is exploited or displayed with irnrnnral intent as u tool lo lake advantage of hidden innate weaknesses of in<lividuul~ or a socie• ty. l cringed, for example. When I saw a 15 year okl boy pick up a wpy of the Toque, flip through it's pagc~. and stop to gawk for a full minute at the accompanying ric1ure, before reaJing Ihe article about Sex and Sports. That picture, though J' rn told it was necessary as "objectively reportecl news," would seem to border on soft-core pornography ns it pnradcs sexuality into an area thnt docs not requin; it nor benefit from it. And al the very least, it caused a boy who's struggling to come to terms with what sexuality is nnd isn't to needlessly faller in his morul effort. Similarly. the graphic and i.;ruue cartoon of Bin Laudin and Bush. which was idcntifit:S a1, "political art," wus guilty of subtly planting rude and vulgar thoughts in reader's minds that they do not benefit from having. Thus publishing such i,;ontent for pure shock-vnluc or out of unadulterated moral insolence, is publishing mnterinls with pornogrnphic c:onlcnl.

'I'wo hours after I entered the ineeting. I left the makt:shift Toque office (set up in the apartmcnt of a bi1.arre. blinke,ed. yet benevolent stall-member) thorn11ghly deter111ined to complctely reject the imn10rnl11y the "'hole ~ubjec:l. A wt:ck. and 900 wnrds Inter. I have completely <lone so - or nt the very least I have defined the is!'.ue f'or lllyself' - which is what 111yrn-dehaters challe1I1,1ellI11eto <lo in the f1rst place.