Pornography: An Agenda for the Churches

by Mary Pellauer







Pornography and the Laws. Even defining pornography is complicated. The word itself comes from the Greek words for "writing" (graphein) and "whores" (porne), and it once meant precisely that -- writing about whores. The difficulty in defining pornography is a problem not only for ordinary discussions about it but for the courts as well. In a landmark 1957 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court asserted that obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment. In doing so, it defined obscenity, not pornography. The justices said, "A thing is obscene if, considered as a whole, its predominant appeal is to prurient interest, i.e., a shameful or morbid interest in nudity, sex or excretion, and if it goes substantially beyond customary limits of candor in description or representation of such matters."

As any citizen might do, the court appealed to Webster’s to define "prurient": "having a tendency to excite lustful thoughts; uneasy with desire or longing; having itching, morbid or lascivious longings," etc. Later the justices referred to "sexual responses over and beyond those that would be characterized as normal," emphasizing that they did not intend to include "material that provoked only normal, healthy sexual desires." At other times the court has affirmed that obscenity applies to material depicting sexual matter "in a patently offensive way." Other qualifications have been made by the court. To be judged obscene, sexual materials must be "utterly without redeeming social value," lack any "serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value," and portray sexual conduct "for its own sake and for the ensuing commercial gains." As is well known, the court leaves many such judgments to the "average individual" and local community standards. On the other hand, judgments of redeeming social value are subject to national standards, not to local ones.

The effect of these broad judgments has been to limit obscenity prosecutions to hard-core porn. The best description of hard-core porn may still be Justice Potter Stewart’s 1964 comment -- that he wouldn’t attempt to define it but he knew it when he saw it. Evasive as that may sound, after nine years of investigating porn, I have a similar response. What is obscene or pornographic can be dramatically relative. For instance, an acquaintance of mine on the national staff of a Protestant denomination was deeply disturbed when an evangelical conference on porn used a photo of a woman’s naked breast among its examples -- hardly a case of the material available in porn shops. On the other side of the spectrum, feminists object to the portrayal of rape scenes in classic films and to the portrayal of violence against or exploitation of women in advertisements that don’t feature nudity. A new genre of ads (both print and film) , many with an "Old West" theme, features cowboys "roping" women or a group of menacing-looking men approaching a woman who has fallen from a horse (these ads are usually for blue jeans).


As a feminist theologian, the greatest concerns I have about porn are not easily addressed by government regulation or prosecution. I am as concerned with the great pool of public sentiment out of which the laws arise and are applied -- the "ethos" of the people that is the subject of "ethics" -- as I am with the legal issues. Whether or not we favor stepped-up prosecution of obscene materials, those of us in religious communities have a special interest in the formation of character and dispositions -- in the moral atmosphere of our society and in a whole range of symbolic concerns. In the nature of the case, these do not bear directly on the legality of acts. The law provides a floor, a minimal standard below which acts of the community are not allowed to fall. Without de-emphasizing the crucial nature of the nation s laws in social-justice matters, we must recall that our theological heritage calls us to far more than the law can pursue.

Pornography and the churches. Churches have shown a new activism and concern about pornography. For example, the American Lutheran Church has updated its 1974 statement on pornography. The United Church of Canada has also created a new statement, responding largely to concerns about sexual violence. Ecumenical leaders in states such as Pennsylvania have joined to oppose porn. Evangelical groups, such as the National Coalition Against Pornography, claim a burgeoning membership and make use of activist tactics. The newer Religious Alliance Against Pornography, composed of both liberals and conservatives, sponsored a White House Conference last fall and has begun organizing local groups around the country. A 1985 report on "Violence and Sexual Violence in Film, Television, Cable and Home Video" by the National Council of Churches of Christ suggested that the churches give "priority attention" to the "glut of violence and sexual violence" in the media.

The NCCC report led to a 1986 Policy Statement by the General Board of the National Council which "affirms . . . adherence to the principles of an open marketplace of ideas and the guarantees of the First Amendment to freedom of speech, of the press and of religion," but which also called on the communication and entertainment media to regulate themselves before censorship returned. In its statement the NCCC called for greater involvement by the Federal Communications Commission in guarding the public airwaves. It also urged churches to assist their members in becoming more sensitive to the impact of media violence on families.

Certainly the portrayal of rape as something women desire proceeds out of and reinforces rapist perspectives. Some sex offenders do speak about their use of porn. Many porn scenarios are strikingly similar to the motives and concerns of the assailants we know as "power rapists." The chosen woman/victim says "No, no, no" but ends up begging to be conquered. The basic plot of many kinds of porn is the overcoming of a woman’s resistance so thoroughly that she is gratefully orgasmic. Other plots more directly assert that people derive sexual pleasure from being hurt or hurting others.

Some studies indicate that those exposed to sexually violent depictions are more likely to accept rape myths, the "need" for violence between men and women, and "adversarial" views about sex. Under laboratory conditions, the viewing of scenes of sexual violence correlates with increased aggression toward women. This effect appears to hold true especially when subjects are previously incited to anger at women. (A second large category of rapists is motivated by anger.) And after viewing depictions of sexual violence, subjects in simulated court cases are more likely to blame victims and less likely to convict offenders. These findings have extremely serious implications about the effects of porn on the health and safety of women.

Many observers of porn believe that its overtly violent content has increased significantly in recent years. Anyone who looks at porn wares will be struck by the frequent theme of "bondage" or "discipline." Certainly I will never forget some images: the black woman chained astraddle a stepladder with an apple in her mouth; the needle-nosed pliers coming toward a woman’s nipple; whips used and sexual organs wielded like punishing tools, to "teach a lesson." And violence lurks on the edges of pornographic material which is not explicitly violent. It is only a short step from systematically degrading people to harming them (as we have learned from our nation’s racist violence at home and abroad).



If the churches are to deal responsibly with porn, they must also affirm and celebrate healthy human sexuality. While many people may agree that depictions of sexual violence in porn are harmful (half to two-thirds of respondents did so in polls last summer) , whether all sexually explicit material is harmful is a matter of heated debate. Answers to this question involve the broadest evaluations of sexuality and sexual ethics: What is healthy or unhealthy sexuality? What belongs in public and what in private? What is legitimate education about sexuality? What differences are there between sexuality itself and depictions of it in film or print media? These questions are deeply relevant to porn, and many judgments on them are embedded in the Supreme Court’s decisions about obscenity. For instance, what is "healthy" and what is "morbid" sex may be strongly debated. What exactly goes "beyond the limits of customary candor"? Could that mean sexual contact between two unmarried persons, or between two persons of the same gender?

If we look to the Christian tradition for guidance, the answers are disquieting. Any sexuality uninterested in the "procreative end" of the acts, any sexual conduct focused on sexual joy for its own sake, has historically been condemned. To use contraception in marriage was called criminal, flagitious and debauched; to Augustine it represented "cruel lust or lustful cruelty" (to take but one classic example). In the Middle Ages, masturbation and "unnatural positions" were considered more severe offenses against the ordinances of God than were rape or incest.

These distorted views of sex were not limited to the time before the Reformation (as though Protestants have gotten our theology about sexuality straight). In the mid-19th century, the heyday of Protestant power in the U.S., women were condemned not for being too lusty, as in earlier centuries; rather, Victorians proclaimed women’s pure, high and spiritual -- i.e., nonsexual -- nature. "Purity" was extolled to the extent that women were thought to lack sexual feelings altogether. (Only in the 1970s did we learn that sexual anesthesia is a frequent consequence of sexual abuse.)


Finally, unless churches take the economic issues of pornography seriously, we have little hope of being effective in the efforts against it. Christians who may agree that the symbolic dimensions of porn are a serious concern may be wary about tackling its financial side. We often ignore the "material" realities: how much things cost, what the profit is, where the money comes from and goes. We act as though the spiritual and the material were mutually exclusive -- itself one of the sexist dualisms of the tradition. But the production and profits of porn are part of its meaning. We have not truly grasped this subject until we see into the shady and exploitative finances of porn.

Some economic dimensions are easier to learn than others. For example, the prices of porn picture magazines and video cassettes are exorbitant. Picture magazines run between $20 to $40. (In areas where video competition is keen, "sales" are common.) These prices are not due to the high costs of producing porn, which is well known for its sleazy pay scales. In March of 1986 a Newsweek reporter provided some specific figures. A porn movie was made on $120,000 in five days, with a 27-page script, no rehearsals and 18 crew members. If this film attracted an average audience, it would sell about 10,000 video cassettes at $70.00 each; it would also make larger profits from foreign sales and a simultaneous "softer" version peddled to cable television. It was not the "stars" of this porn flick, however, who raked in cash. The male lead earned $750 per day, the female lead $1,500 per day (top money for the industry) -- a pittance in the whole financial deal. But those sums represent big money in comparison to the average woman worker’s earnings, and the money often looks good to women with few financial options. This example is among the most benign (see Linda Marchiano’s descriptions of the filming of Deep Throat for worse) Many porn products are made in "cottage industry" conditions by small-time operators who do not hesitate to use force, violence, blackmail and drugs on the "actors." Porn producers speak of themselves as a legitimate entertainment industry, but their practices are far from legitimate.






