1

Riley Elder
English 1010
10/29/2014

It has always been evident that sexual tendencies and pro-creating urges permeate deeply
throughout human history. American society, with its majority of Christians, and its selective
sexual beliefs, is no exception. Americans have had to argue the question of human sexuality
through the illegalization of prostitution, and now, the place of pornographic materials such as
videos, magazines, and websites in their society. Some, in the extreme far right have argued that
pornography is detrimental and hazardous to the nation, which is entirely disagreed upon by
members of the liberal far left who believe pornography is beneficial to society. The right, basing
its arguments on assumed reactions to the viewing of sexually explicit material, believes that
erotic material in any form is morally filthy, that active sexuality before marriage should be
openly discouraged in public schools, and that any sexually explicit material ought to be
illegalized. The far left, in response to these movements, currently conclude that pornography is
beneficial to society, and therefore believe there should be a constitutional amendment to protect
the creation and distribution of sexual material, and that watching erotic material should be
encouraged by schools.
In the last one hundred years people have been subjected to a copious supply of erotic
material of all variations and types. This broadening of the sexual realm has led to outrage in the
very religious and conservative population, due to contradictions of sexually explicit material
and their deeply held views on sexual chastity. Many arguments and complaints against the
explosive growth of the Adult Industry have been levied, mainly consisting of the beliefs that
pornography objectifies and degrades women, leads to violence and crime, and creates
unrealistic expectations of the body. While these arguments have been made consistently for
many decades, conflicting arguments held by the left have been in existence for just as long.

2
Riley Elder
English 1010
10/29/2014

The more, liberal minded, spiritual, and analytical perspectives of the left claim that the
arguments of the right are invalid, and accordingly that pornography is a neutral reactant in
society, and even, that its a strong benefit for the people within a general society. Some of the
reasonings set forth are that pornographic material creates an outlet for sexaul desires and
stresses, and therefore balances a person's stress level by creating a less sexually frustrated
existence, that pornographic material provides economic benefits to a society by creating jobs
and capital gains,and aditionally, that ponography not only lowers numbers or teenage sexual
relations, and accordingly, teen pregnancies, but it also decreases the frequency of rape and other
sexual crimes.
While the right holds some moral ground on the issue of pornography, such as the
question of youth being allowed into sexually explicit material and the age of consent, the left
holds well supported ideas as well, through the scientific studies and evidence provided that wide
spread use of pornographic material in a society is a benefit. Neither side, however, is completely
correct. A law banning pornography is no better than a law that forces it, and the moral stance
that pornography is evil is no better than the belief that it is beneficial. The law should not be
involved in an individual's personal sexuality, and equally important, a persons right to freedom
of speech and to proclaim their convictions ought never to be challenged. Therefore, the best
belief system and actions to be taken are those of moral conviction with legal discretion.
Those with opposing views on sexually explicit material have tried very hard to convince
the nation of their perspective by proclaiming the moral filthiness of such material. Those who
favor the viewing of pornography have claimed that its not filthy and in fact, strengthens a
society. But both sides of the moral issue ought to see that accesses in either direction in their

3
Riley Elder
English 1010
10/29/2014

beliefs will result in an unbalanced perspective. Therefore, it can be concluded, that it is in the
best interest of an individual to view sexual material that appeals to them, at their leisure, in
moderate amounts, this way excessive use does not lead to addiction, and underuse does not lead
to sexual frustration.
Recently, laws have come up for debate in many states with predominantly religious
populations of whether or not sexually explicit material ought to be illegalized. Those who
oppose the spread of sexual openness have advocated complete criminalisation of participation
in, or in the viewing of pornographic material. Their opposition goes to the counter extreme by
pushing for a constitutional amendment to protect the viewing and creation of pornographic
materials. Both views present a meticulous misjudgment of how society ought to deal with such
legislation. Governments make laws regarding facts and evidence to benefit their populations, no
strong evidence can be provided that illegalize sexually explicit material would benefit the
populace, indeed, evidence would show quite the opposite. But creating a constitutional
amendment protecting those who produce and view pornography is also rather vacuous. States
should have no legislation respecting sexuality in any way, it is not the states purpose to regulate
morality within society. That is the place of each individual, who must learn to respect others
different viewpoints.
Some have argued that pornography ought to be made impossible to access in schools
and should be taught against in educational institutions, while many others claim that it creates
healthy sexual maturation of youth and should be advocated in schools to lessen sexaul acts by
uneducated youth. While both have some valid reasoning, the best course of action would be to
give the responsibility of informing youth in issues of sexuality to their parents.

4
Riley Elder
English 1010
10/29/2014

Individual moral convictions are imperative to the evolution of a society. But people
must be careful not to enforce their convictions on others, its for this precise reason that laws
regarding the encouragement or discouragement of sexual acts should never be upheld. No
constitutional amendments and no binding laws ought to be made regarding sexuality. A moral
conviction, specifically, a perspective on sexual urges, is an individual prospect. Trying to force
everyone else to support one moral claim by governmental action is ludicrous . A School should
have no other purpose than to teach youth to believe what they wish, look to their parents for
guidance when in doubt, and never encourage any law that would take away anothers right to
believe what they want. Therefore, a societys decisions ought to be those of moral conviction
with legal discretion, not moral conquest.