Brownmiller’s argument for keeping pornography under wraps (Lederer 54) is based on the premise that it is not a political statement that deserves Constitutional protection. Hence, one of her conclusions is that women who patronize a newsstand should not have to confront a whole range of women en dishabille on the covers of men’s magazines. One recognizes the truth whereof she speaks because this is true at virtually any newsstand in city sidewalks. There is certainly no lack of magazines catering to the visual fantasies of men, some women (yes, Playgirl is still around), homosexual males and lesbians. What Justice Douglas really meant, however, was that no one is compelled to buy and immerse one’s self in nudity, fantasy-heavy prose and depictions of the sex act.
The reason “…if and only if…” is needed could be because the three-part test is elastic and also because all three conditions must be simultaneously satisfied. First of all, it permits displays of nudity because a billboard of a nude (female) model violates the prurient interest test but not the two others. But even in an already-tolerant America, social norms would prohibit outdoor displays of male nudes, even if women presumably find them interesting, or men kissing and embracing because that would be offensive to the majority of motorists and pedestrians. Secondly, the three-part test has been overtaken by the times. Nudity and depictions of the sex act are available in video stores but the shoppers who come in the door plainly cater to their own fantasies and are unlikely to offend anyone else. Explicit material is also available on a few cable channels and on the Internet but the prudent parent takes steps to bar access to children and unwary grandparents. Such an obscenity standard is therefore missing an “inappropriate audience/reader” component.
Restrictions on alarm and scandal such as the examples Lederer cited are justified on the basis of putting others at risk of physical harm. Libel laws restrict freedom of speech because of the harm to the reputation of the target. Note that the displays Brownmiller objects to “merely” risk being offensive. On that basis, we would have to prevent homosexual couples from public displays of affection or neo-Nazis from strutting around in SS uniforms.
Following her newsstand analogy, Brownmiller might reply that publishing profits are unlikely to fall even if restricted to adult stores. After all, those who desire pornography will go to any lengths to find it.
Minority interest hardly applies here because it is the (heterosexual) male half of the population that sooner or later passes through that stage of intense curiosity and fantasy. But no matter how liberal community standards become, as in the case of teen pregnancy and abortion, upright men and women stand united against public displays of child sex, homosexual sex, bestiality and sadistic acts.
On one level, the author means that the public and the courts can no longer tell art from pornography because production standards for the latter have risen so high. By that standard of artistic rendering, the quality gap has closed. In reality, the dichotomy between art and obscenity has also been blurred from the other direction by the work of artists who depict ugliness and try to dazzle the public with “deconstructions” of scrap metal.
Brownmiller really sees red, it seems, where sadistic sex acts are concerned. And community standards would certainly align with her that these do not bear public display. As it happens, the right to privacy happens to protect Americans when they choose to buy and consume such depictions. It is a good thing that such fantasy-minded men are a marginalized segment of the population, as are extreme feminists who publish that the “sisterhood” should refuse to conceive children. Both will be suitably penalized (legally or emotionally) by society for daring to actualize their fantasies. For it is the already sick male who looks for depictions of sadism to compensate for his inadequacies.
Works Cited
Lederer, Laura. “Let’s Put Pornography Back in the Closet.” Current Issues and Enduring Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking and Argument, with Readings (8th ed). Ed. Sylvan Barnet and Hugo Bedau. New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s. 52-55.