One man's porn is another man's...what?

During a recent trip to Vegas, I came across a really cool, fun-looking store called Bettie Page's clothing. It was filled with 50's style dresses and shoes. Gorgeous pinup pics of Bettie adorned the walls. I absolutely love that look. Glamourous, stylish, sexy without being trampy. It was a great time in fashion and the retro theme of the store was kitschy and fun.





I was vaguely aware of who Bettie Page was. I knew she was a glamourous pinup girl. I think I thought she represented a fiesty spirit, and the very beginnings of sexual freedom and expression. And I probably knew that she did some topless and perhaps nude pics. So when I saw that my on-demand cable included the movie "The Notorious Bettie Page", I thought I'd check it out.





I don't think I knew about her fame involving bondage, fetish, and domination pictorials and movies. But even those were pretty tame by today's standards.





What struck me about Bettie was her sense of innocence and naivete. While I'm not sure how accurate the movie was, she was portrayed as being very sweet and well-intentioned. Often not really understanding the meaning of the pictures she was posing for. "They're just costumes, we're just play-acting!" She says when her boyfriend questions her about her bondage pictures.





I was saddened to learn that Bettie was molested as a young girl and gang raped as a young woman. So instead of being some sexually free, devil-may-care, glamour girl, it turned out she was more like a cliche.





Part of the movie focused on congressional hearings that were attempting to determine whether or not the pictures and movies Bettie was featured in were considered "smut". The answer turned out to be "yes". At one point, an expert witness claimed that such pictures could "pervert the minds of young people" creating "sexual deviance".





When I thought about the types of pictures, movies etc. that are available today, I found it interesting that there was such an uproar over such mild material. How did the porn industry push past that? The subject matter got me thinking about recent posts from media concepts and jamy, both pointing out the apparent acceptance of pornography.





So my questions are: Is porn becoming more mainstream? And is that a good thing?





In many ways this country is sexually repressed. For starters, we're a bit uptight about nudity. As a recovering Catholic, I experienced first hand how guilt, shame, and repression are the mantra of sex education. Of course, I'm not sure the Catholic Church is the right place to learn anything about sex. But I digress.





The subject matter in porn is definitely escalating. Is there a topic that isn't explored in some sexual context? And it does make me nervous and concerned. I'm not a prude by any means, but how do you draw the line between sexual titillation for enhanced arousal or entertainment, and more unusual themes that play on feelings of violence or pedophilia? And how can you possibly censor part of it? Isn't it kind of like trying to close Pandora's box?





My concern about escalation started when I saw Bettie's bondage/domination pictures and wasn't phased by them in the least. I wasn't even sure I was looking at something "X" rated. So if someone is seeking excitement and arousal from something like porn, don't their tastes escalate? Don't they reach a point of insatiation with a certain theme and therefore move onto the next theme? Now this may be absolutely OK- harmless and fun even- for a normal, sound, healthy mind. But what about those that aren't that sound or healthy?





I think I've heard conflicting reports, studies, etc. about the influence of porn on criminal activity. I'm not sure that it's proven that pornography leads to rape, violence or pedophilia. But how can it not, really? If someone is viewing certain images over and over and over again, wouldn't that increase their desire for it, and motivate them to achieve it?





Last month, I was walking down the streets of Manhattan. There was a group of young schoolgirls walking in front of me. They were wearing private school uniforms- short, accordian pleated skirts, button up blouses, knee-hi's and flats. And I was taken aback at how they looked. They looked exactly like the "sexy schoolgirl" costumes that are so popular at Halloween, in movies, etc. They were 12, 13, maybe 14 years old...and they looked sexy. They weren't trying to. But their uniforms have been equated to something sexual. I took notice of how the men on the street responded to them. It was clear that the men thought they looked sexy as well. It made me sad.





I guess the argument could be that we can't censor freedom of speech and expression for the masses because of what a disturbed few may do. But I wonder, is that "disturbed few" growing? Is it really such a tiny minority? Does Dateline run out of predators to catch? Aren't missing young women and children becoming more common every week?





So how do we become a more sexually healthy society without exacerbating our other dangerous issues? How can we support sexual adventure and exploration, yet limit the ways we express it? Do we just keep pushing the envelope and expect each person to have responsibility for their own self control? Is it a risk we can (continue to) take?