Is It Porn or Is It Art?
One man's answer to the eternal question.

My mailbox was filled with crap, per usual, but there was one piece of crap I wasn't really expecting to find there...Cosmopolitan magazine. I inspected the cover, the pretty face, the "tasteful" show of skin, the bold print, the letters S, E, and X strung together--surprisingly sparsely for them--just 4 times. And just above the web address, a label with my neighbor's name and address. It was meant for Yer Thao in number 8, but the postman made a mistake. So, being the good neighbor that I am, I took the magazine and deposited it safely inside my house.

That was six months ago, about, because the issue dates back to June. I was cleaning through a pile of stuff when I came across it today. And before I chucked it, I noticed that about six months back I had apparently written a note to myself which explained why I saved it.

Although I was frightened it would combust from all the hot sex advice, I carefully opened it.

The cover stories are all pretty worthless, but one in particular deserves mention. "The thing every man needs a woman to say!" What a phrase. It only implies that (1) every man is basically the same, that (2) all men want the same things, and (3) we all need a woman to say some particular something or other, or else we won't function properly. A feminist could take offense to the reverse statement, and she'd have every right to because it's bullshit. Instead of saying what someone "needs to hear," I have one alternative approach to consider: tell the fucking truth.

This magazine is found in Supermarket impulse-aisle racks, so I've read the cover before. And nearly every issue I've ever seen of this magazine purports to offer NEW sex positions. Forgive me, but how exactly is that possible? That's like saying there's a new way to jump. Not just running, standing, or crouching -- but from a lying down position, head first, into a forward flip, through two full rotations, landing on your back, lying directly back down again. There are finite limits to physical activities. Look in the Kama Sutra! That was written 1800 years ago and if you can do all the positions in there, you're already some kind of gymnast. There's no new secret position that the editors of Cosmo are privy to...People have been boning in these ways for a long, long time.

Besides their cover stories and a lot of advertising, what else have I found this unique issue to be good for?

#1 - Nothing.

#2 - A laugh.

What is this magazine? It's a bunch of pictures of attractive people, laced with advertising and pappy filler that no one ought to bother reading. In other words, it's porn.

Okay, not really, but bear with me. Bill Hicks, a comedian who was famous for tackling absurdities in American culture in the 80's and 90's, made the following statement in a routine:

Supreme Court says pornography is anything without artistic merit that causes sexual thought, that's their definition, essentially. No artistic merit, causes sexual thought. Hmm. Sounds like... every commercial on television, doesn't it? You know, when I see those two twins on that Doublemint commercial? I'm not thinking of gum........I'll tell you the commercial they'd like to do, if they could, and I guarantee you, if they could, they'd do this, right here. Here's the woman's face, beautiful. Camera pulls back, naked breast. Camera pulls back, she's totally naked. Legs apart. Two fingers, right here, and it just says, "Drink Coke."

You can read about the history of defining obscenity and pornography, but, basically, Hicks got it right. When it first came to define it in court, they had so much trouble that Supreme Court justice Potter Steward said, "I may not be able to define it, but I know it when I see it." Not surprisingly, their subsequent 1957 definition didn't work too well, and in 1973 it was changed to what Bill Hicks referenced. And, by that standard, Cosmo is pretty damn pornographic.

(a) It causes sexual thoughts: I leafed through it, and got a woody.

(b) It has serious literary, artistic, political, scientific value pictures.

Can anyone out there honestly claim they see artistic or journalistic merit in more than 1% of what gets printed in Cosmopolitan? And by so loose a standard, as Hicks observed, in order to be consistent we'd have to start adding quite a bit of pop culture into the category of pornography. Case and point: Britney Spears. Shouldn't an artist who sells sex labeled as "music" be kept a safe distance away from children? For God's sake, it takes about 40 seconds at a computer to find pictures of her vagina. And that's me looking. I'm 23. Online, the younger you are the less time it takes.

  In an Internet search contest, babies would rock your ass. If they could type.

If it takes me 20 seconds, someone half my age would probably only spend 10 seconds to find such a photograph (or pic...as the kids are calling them). This is scientifically proven, I'm pretty sure. And, if no one has claimed it yet, I'd like it named after me, or titled "The Law of the Inverse Correlation between Internet Aptitude and Age." Your call.

Just what happens when young girls start to follow the examples set by Britney and the other former Disney-circuit pop stars? Preteens start dancing in ways so overtly sexual that they end up dabbling in bestiality. If it weren't the funniest thing I'd ever seen, I'd think it was wrong but, luckily, it's the funniest thing I've ever seen.

2:05 is my favorite part.

I'm not one of those people who thinks sheltering needs to last a long time, but at least until you have no other choice. By middle school, they're probably better off knowing the facts. But before that, it's just going to confuse them. (Joseph Abrams even comically suggests the conservative route of never telling them about sex, ever, instead taking every possible step to avoid disclosure of any information whatsoever. The best thing about his article is it really might be serious.)

In their first attempt to define pornography, the Supreme Court started out by trying to isolate elements of what differentiated porn from art. They failed, though, abandoned that, and went with phrasing like "prurient interest" and "communal standards" instead.

The question of what gets considered inappropriate is pretty complicated. In Muslim countries today, a flash of an ankle would be considered whorish, reprehensible, and gravely punishable. Throughout Europe, on the other hand, nudity is widely considered acceptable and is shown regularly in TV commercials. Less than 50 years ago, wearing a two-piece bathing suit in the US would have been considered risqué. Now we have Girls Gone Wild ads after 10pm. Since the standards of "decency" change over time, any law you make is guaranteed to become obsolete and fall behind the culture.

We already have stupid local sodomy laws on the books that outlaw common practices. We don't need to add more laws that are guaranteed to become outdated. Furthermore, there are questions of whether it should be government's place to decide what should be considered obscene at all. And, yet, I can't help but think that simplification of these laws would be better than leaving them open to interpretation. By failing to set any standard they also fail to set a limit on government's power to decide for us, and that is Un-American.

So, following the examples I've seen around me, I sat down to establish just how I identify porn, and how I've identified it throughout my life. Already predisposed to a certain amount of "black and white thinking," I did not have as much trouble as the Supreme Court. I boiled it down to three basic rules.

Rule #1:  Nudity + Color = "Inappropriate for children under 13."

This may seem absurd, but just ask yourself: have you ever known someone who posed nude for black and white photography or figure drawing? Have you ever looked at black and white (or other monochromatic) nudes yourself? The result, in a world full of the bright colors we are used to taking in, is a work with so high an amount of contrast that it must be art.

The logic behind it is that in removing color you remove a level of explicitness. So exception should also be made for anatomically incorrect graphic art as well. The less it looks real, the less it raises questions. Color depictions that are unclear are primarily sensual, not pornographic. National Geographic nudes, even as unappealing as sagging tribal bosoms are, still cause children to act like idiots just to steal a glimpse. In all cases, stick figures ought be considered closer to humor than porn or art.

Depictions of the below (for both black & white and color art/movies/photography) ought be off-limits to kids. 

Rule #2:  No erections, no vaginae.

The function of a flaccid penis is to pee. The function of a breast is to provide milk. Though a vagina isn't strictly sexual, the proximity of the anatomy involved makes it too difficult to distinguish.

Rule #3: No intercourse of any kind, no related fluids.

That is to say, graphic depictions of masturbatory or sexual relations of any kind--oral, anal, or vaginal, gay or straight, real or simulated, are not appropriate for children to take part in (so not appropriate for them to view in any way). The phrase "no related fluids" should include not only semen or vaginal fluids, but any display of poop or pee touching anything but the inside of a toilet or the ground outside.

This is not an attempt to classify what is degrading about pornography (prostitution + camera). It is not meant to regulate what people ought to be able to do with their bodies in the company of consenting adults (anything), or in artistic expression made for adult viewing. Rather, the above standards are meant to describe fair public standards, the primary purpose of which is to protect children. As culture changes, the law could surely be revised.

I've made a collage to demonstrate the choices as I see them. Judge for yourself.

Yes, I'm serious about this.

Just as an argument could be made that Cosmo is pornographic, an argument could be made to much more broadly define what is artistry. "Hey, did you see the way she deep throated that thing? That was a fucking masterpiece." Or "He's a fucking artist, the way he fists her." Sorry for the image, but it's the truth. I don't agree with it, but it's probably the position that Bill Hicks held. It seems far more practical just to think in terms of what kids are ready for, and at what age.

As for Britney, her "music," and that kind of clothed erotic dancing, that certainly appears to be an inappropriate example for nine-year-olds. But it does contain a level of restraint, so it probably ought to be (as it is) up to parents to identify that kind of display and set their own rules as they see fit. Regulating that would simply allot too much power to government.

As for obscenity in language, it is only in our decision-making that some words are made more or less obscene and the distinction is otherwise arbitrary. If we do not react to words as though they are offensive or holy and teach our kids accordingly, then they will grow up to regard them as no more than normal words. (Just the cache of media will be more than enough to guide future generations in important matters such as learning how to say something "sucks fucking ass.")

In the grand scheme of things, I'd like to believe in a few hundred years it won't be necessary to establish obscenity or pornography standards at all. I'd like to think people could just be considerate and sensitive to the wishes parents hold while their children are still young. But, as long as people are reading things like Cosmo, it's clear that we're nowhere near there yet.

artifart@fussypucker.com