page three November 4,1992
■Campus Editorial
Point
Counterpoint
Madonna's book exposed
Susan Finley
Senior
Major: English
The three and a half years I have spent studying at a women’s college
have been very valuable to me mainly because they have forced me to look
at my gender, and have helped me to find security in my identity as a strong,
independent woman of the nineties. Unfortunately, I have also learned in the
past three and a half years that the Barbie dolls I loved as a child will someday
cause in me a desperate need to be blond, buxom, nine feet tall, and to have
tacky blue eye shadow tatooed to
my eyelids.
Fearful that I would want to
be like Barbie, I distanced myself
from her as quickly as possible and
cast around for more timely and
politically correct role models.
Enter Madonna and her new book
sex. Right.
I have to admit, I felt more
than a little bit embarassed stand
ing in a crowded B-Dalton waiting to preview a book that required me to
produce my drivers license before I could peek inside. “Wow,” I thought,
“Madonna must be really gutsy to turn out something this high security.”
By the time I was at the end of the metal-covered, black and white
photoed sex-fest, I was feeling a little queasy. I suddenly realized that
Madonna’s book had set women back farther than Barbie ever dreamed.
As an English major I would be the first to picket any library that tried
to ban Huckleberry Finn. I have never been one for censorship of the arts in
any way, shape or form. But after seeing the book, I am at least able to
understand why the Japanese have said “No way Jose” to sex.
I started thinking, “Do we really care about seeing Madonna naked?”
No, of course not. After all, you can’t avoid Madonna in the buff. She’s even
recently bared all in such high-priced fashion magazines as Vogue. My
see MADONNA page seven
Order a Cornhuskin’ video!
Return this form ahd a check to the MCTV Cable Office, Rm. 71,
Campbell Library by Nov. 13.
I would like to order the following copies of Cornhuskin’ 1992! :
#1 [ ] freshman/junior version (2 hrs.) $15 each copies
#2 [ ] sophomore/senior version (2 hrs.) $15 each copies
#3 [ ] both versions for $25 (4 hrs.) copies
Name
Address.
Phone
* Make checks to Meredith ColIegeA^ideo Club.
** Please allow two weeks. You will be called when your
order has arrived and can be picked up at the MCTV
Cable Office.
Mitchell Brown
Senior
Major: Political
Studies and Women's
Studies
In the last ten years Madonna has caused a great deal of controversy
because of her less than traditional approach to music entertainment. She is
brassy, straightforward, and not afraid of anything. Her approach works, but
a great many Americans feel that she should not be allowed to produce her more
risque videos or her book Sex. What these people advocate is called censorship,
which is intolerable in a community that embraces freedom of expression.
The first amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that “Congress shall
make no law...abridging the freedom of speech.” It has been argued that this
freedom protects only political
speech, but the majority of Ameri
cans (and certainly the Supreme
Court) feel this protects all forms
of speech with the exceptions of
“fighting words” and pornogra
phy. The issue we must address,
then, is whether or not Madonna’s
Sex and her videos (“Erotica” in
particular) constitute pomograi^y.
The traditional test to iden-
fify pornography has three parts: 1) does the material “ap^al to a prurient
interest in sex;” 2) is the material “patently offensive” to “contemporary
community standards;” and 3) is the material “utterly without redeeming social
value” (Roth v U.S., 354 US 476 (1957)). Madonna’s Sex and “Erotica” may
appeal to prurient interests, but it is not “patently offensive” to contemporary
community standards. I concede that her work does not reflect the kinds of sex
the typical American has, but many Americans do practice and fantisize about
exotic sexual acts such as the ones Madonna shows us. Finally, her material is
not without redeeming social value. The quality of the photography in her book
has been debated, but many people do consider it art. I feel comfortable arguing
that if at least a few people consider the work art, they ought to be allowed access
to it.
The issue of pornography has been popular in feminist circles, and most
feminists argue that pornography is detrimental to women and must be
abolished. The feminist litmus test for determining pornography is somewhat
different than that of the Supreme Court. In “Pornography and Respect for
Women,” Ann Garry attempts to identify pornography by looking for situations
in the work that are degrading and sexist. I would like to add an additional
category to her analysis: does the work contain material in which one or more
of me participants was coerced into taking part in me producation of me work.
This includes children, animals (mere can be no consent if mere is no real
communication), and women who “consent” to taking part in me material out
of economic necessity.
Does Madonna’s work fit into this “feminist” category of pornography? I
believe it does not. The first question, is me work degrading, is the most
difficult of me three questions to answer. Madonna seems to have enjoyed
herself, and mere is nothing trully degrading about sexual pleasure so long as
me sexual act is consented to by me participants. On this basis I believe we can
assume mat mere is nothing degrading in her material. The answer to me second
question, is me work sexist, is again no. Yes, mere are times when Madonna
plays inferior/subordinate rolls, but she also plays superior roles. There is
nothing sexist about mutually agreed upon superior/inferior roles. Finally, we
need to address me issue of coercion. Obvioulsy from viewing me video mere
are no children or animals in her “fantasy.” It is more difficult wimout furmer
information to determine whemer she was somehow financially coerced into
consent, but I believe we can safely assume mat she did not create her book or
video out of economic desperation. Again, based on me three “feminist”
categories, her work does not constitute pornography.
It is wrong to suggest mat Madonna’s Sex and “Erotica” should be subject
to censorship. Though some may find me material morally reprehensible, mat
is no reason to deny me general public access to what omers consider heaimy
entertainment or art. My suggestion to mose who oppose her work and
advocate its abolition is simple. If you don’t like it, don’t buy it