Isat down to lunch last week with a fierycampus feminist and asked her whether she was in support of Playboy magazine's "Women of the Ivy League" issue. To my surprise, she answered in the affirmative.
"Really? Do you support Playboy because they depict the beauty of the classical female form or do you support Playboy because of it's award winning articles and journalism by writers like William F. Buckley Jr.?" I asked.
"No, I simply support the right of a woman to choose to pose for Playboy," she replied.
Her reasoning seems sensible and rational, but many campus feminists wish to deny Playboy's photo shoot. To these people, Playboy is objectionable because the magazine presents women in sexually explicit photographs meant as a stimulus for men. Some feminists plan to hold a rally, and hope to educate the Dartmouth community between now and "P-day", May 8, about the harm pornography inflicts on the societal status of women.
Is Playboy pornography? Some contend that Playboy pictorials are a form of art, a testament to the beauty of the female form. And if Playboy is indeed pornography, why start the protest now? It seems to me, that for a feminist, pornograghy and the degradation of women has been going on at Dartmouth for a number of years.
One of the real thrills of my freshman year was watching the film "Emmanuel" on the big screen in Spaulding Auditorium. The Dartmouth Film Society, using College money, has been running movies that are every bit and perhaps more sexually explicit than the pages of Playboy. And if you walk up to Topside in Thayer Dining Hall, you will find a video rental library stocked with close to 20 selections of the latest made-for-video erotic thrillers.
The fact that everyone seems to accept the DFS's and Topside's film selection but not the Playboy photo shoot raises questions of determination and definition. Where does adult art end and pornography begin? And by what paradigm or system of values does one base his or her criteria for pornography?
Webster's dictionary defines pornography as "obscene literature, photographs, paintings etc., intended to cause sexual excitement." But this definition leaves in doubt the meaning of "obscene", and this ambiguity is the point of departure for disagreement between antipornography and pro-expression forces.
Reagan conservatives, led by Attorney General Edwin Meese, spear headed the antipornography crusade during the early '80s. These conservatives believed that most adult literature or "soft porn" was obscene as the word is defined by the Supreme Court. Adult entertainment was without "redeeming social value", and therefore was not protected by the First Amendment. Obscene pornography could be suppressed if the dominant sector of a community deemed it necessary to preserve the public's interest.
Feminist perspectives on pornography prove tricky for a Dartmouth feminist to navigate. The dominant opinion in feminist literature proposes that all forms of media that contain women in sexually explicit portrayals, obscene or not, should be suppressed because they degrade women and reinforce women's subordinate status. Following this reasoning, both Playboy and a supposed French art film like "Emmanuel" should be banned from Dartmouth because they are a "product of the male consciousness."
The dilemma for Dartmouth feminists is obvious. To stop Playboy but let Shannon Tweed in lingerie and breast implants stock the shelves of Topside would be inconsistent.
If feminists are going after Playboy, they had better dig in for a long battle. How far are you willing to go? Do we rip pages out of art history books? That would seem a logical continuation of the feminist idea.
