Obscenity, Pornography, Erotica
Much is said about pornography tending to ‘deprave and corrupt’ society, particularly the young. This has never been proved to be so. On the contrary, there is plenty of psychological evidence to prove the contrary.
I have often been charged with vulgarizing literature. I plead guilty on purely etymological grounds; vulgarization, as the word is used in French, is closer to its original Latin meaning, popularization, bringing it closer to the people. But when the charge is extended to obscenity or pornography or erotica, I enter a mild protest. My traducers do not know what these words mean and lump them together under a favourite portmanteau Indianism: ‘indecent’. Let me analyze these concepts and clear some of the cobwebs from their minds.
Pornography derives from the Greek porne meaning harlot and initially referred to the influence of harlots in the government of Rome in the 10th century A.D. Obscenity is from the Latin obscensus meaning repulsive, filthy or loathsome. Erotic from Eros, another name for Cupid, the god of Love; hence erotica includes literature, painting or sculpture on themes of love or sex. Although usage has blurred distinctions between the three, we must be clear in our minds what we are talking about and whether their use has a detrimental effect on society.
Erotica has become an artistic concept. Artists who express themselves in erotic sculpture (Khajurao, etc) or painting (e.g. tantric and Rajasthani miniatures) and have explicit portrayal of the sex act cannot and never have been accused of pornography. You can pick up any number of books on the subject without fear of the censor. It is the same with writing. If Lady Chatterley’s Lover, Lolita, etc, can be allowed in books, there is little logic in coming down on similar writing in magazines.
Pornography does not have literary or artistic pretensions. But it exists more in the mind of the beholder (‘groin of the beholder’ would be a better expression) than in itself. It is designed to exploit or titillate the senses – ‘books you read with one hand’. You don’t have far to go to find titillation if your mind is on the lookout. Present day ads for cigarettes, cosmetics and textiles are specifically sex-oriented. As Shaw said: ‘Pornography can be found in any book except the telephone book.’ And the puritan can discover impure things which nobody else can discover. However, there is pornography which is low down and pornography which is not. In the classical age of Greece, porniar were the lowest class of prostitutes (tawaaif) giving sex for money; anletriades were courtesan-entertainers. The first were looked down upon; the second respected.
In the ultimate analysis, what a person regards as porno is determined by his intention and, since his definition inevitably reflects his own interest, no definition can be satisfactory. ‘You can recognize pornography by the insult it offers, invariably, to sex and the human spirit,’ wrote the author of Lady Chatterley’s Lover.
Much is said about pornography tending to ‘deprave and corrupt’ society, particularly the young. This has never been proved to be so. On the contrary, there is plenty of psychological evidence to prove the contrary – that like prurient day-dreams it provides escape into a world of fantasy. Free and easy availability of pornographic literature instead of increasing crimes of sex is known to reduce its incidence.
Besides, I observe certain finesse in the exploitation of nudity and language. I am reminded of a bet taken by a man that he would use the unmentionable vulgarism for the rectum three times in the presence of his very sedate Victorian hostess. He apparently knew that there would he soles for breakfast. ‘Ah soles!’ he exclaimed as he saw them on the table. ‘Are soles in season? They are soles, aren’t they?’