I stumbled upon this Facebook page called Pornography Harms yesterday after a conversation with Angela on Twitter about One Million Moms. I recognized the page because I’d seen it in my recommendations at one point. Someone from YSA had sent all the other YSA folks the link at some point because members of the Mormon church are supposed to be vehemently opposed to any incidences of pornography that may exist. (The definition of porn for some of those folks includes ads for weight loss products, bikinis, tank tops, etc.) I never liked the page, though, because I just thought it was a bit ridiculous.
While I visited the page yesterday, I started noticing some very, very ridiculous things. I captured some of them, but there are still others, and I can’t help but be amazed at the ridiculousness of some of their claims.
First of all, there is the woman getting upset at the cover of the latest issue of Glamour, which features a topless Kate Hudson. She calls this pornography because Kate Hudson’s breasts are not covered by clothing. (She failed to notice that her arm and her hair manage to cover most of her.) I don’t understand how this image is porn. Is it sexual? Is it obscene? No. If anything, it’s almost innocent in nature.
Then there are the people obsessed with having the FCC crack down on the heavy sexual content on broadcast television, aka (with ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, The CW, PBS), which was shocking to me. Has anyone really seen a lot of heavy sexual content on broadcast television? I know I haven’t and my TV is always on. There are some references to sex and to sexuality, but American television shows are not really known for being overtly sexual. Hell, most of the world thinks that we’re prudish weirdos because we usually avoid showing sex, mentioning sex, etc., while we’re more than okay with the idea of killing people off, blowing things up, and making violence look like it’s the coolest thing ever.
The last thing that irked me was a person who mentioned someone involved in BDSM killing someone and them possibly becoming a serial killer. Though she said that it isn’t very common, I think it’s so strange that she thinks that being into BDSM is somehow the reason that the person would become a serial killer. To me, the idea that someone’s interest in BDSM makes them more of a threat to society is about as weird as thinking that someone’s interest in antiques or coffee or black and white photography could make them a serial killer.
To me, the idea that we can just blame everything bad in society on pornography and that we should censor network television even more than it already gets censored is ludicrous. And how do we really end up defining what constitutes porn? Is it too sexual to see a kiss between two males on television? Or is that okay? Does the acceptability of that idea change if it’s two women? If a magazine has a man with “man boobs” on the cover, is that porn? What sexual acts can be mentioned? Should we go back to having a husband and wife on a television series sleeping in twin size beds? Can we not see pregnant bellies on television anymore because that might make us think of teh sex?
via Tumblr http://janersm.net/post/46184140692