Let's hear it for the prurient interest

Sometimes I do wish I had finished law school (though I think it would have killed me or sent me into the hospital, in all honesty, I just could not hack it) because then this argument might be stronger, but I'll say it anyway - the way our legal system approaches obscenity is stupid. It's circular, doesn't really define anything, calls for value judgments around sex and "normalcy," and goes against the spirit of the First Amendment and individual rights by pitting the majority against the minority in terms of our sexual desires.

I'm using this page's explanation of basic obscenity law.

For something to be "obscene" it must be shown that the average person, applying contemporary community standards and viewing the material as a whole, would find (1) that the work appeals predominantly to "prurient" interest; (2) that it depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way; and (3) that it lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

An appeal to "prurient" interest is an appeal to a morbid, degrading and unhealthy interest in sex, as distinguished from a mere candid interest in sex.

I just think we're always going to have basic disagreements over what is "morbid, degrading and unhealthy" and what is "merely candid?" We saw how Caitlin Flanagan called blowjobs degrading, and I'm sure that most other people find them totally fine. Now, that is a sex act, not a depiction, but let's go to a depiction - if there's a photo of a girl sucking a guy's cock, some are probably going to find that "morbid, degrading and unhealthy" and some showing "a mere candid interest in sex." Ah, but this second graf lies, because that is not the real test. I think that could be found to be obscene if that mythical "average person" found it "degrading," "patently offensive" and "lacking serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value." Does that lack of any kind of value on sexuality itself, for itself, on arousal as a good per se, not SCREAM OUT AT YOU from this psychotic definition? Sex, according to the Supreme Court, has to "rise above" its baser elements. "Obscene" material has to not appeal only to our nether regions, but to somewhere loftier, smarter, lest we become raving animals who are so overcome with lust we...I don't know? Kill people? That's why I'm not a lawyer and never will be - I can't even play by the basic ground rules. I think they're idiotic, fucked up, and stupid.

Not only do I have real work to do, but just use your eyes and READ this next part and I think it will become immediately apparent how arbitary, subjective and therefore illogical, confusing and useless these definitions are (because we know how those masturbating exhibitionists need to be stopped, along with the "perverted"):

The second test to be applied in determining whether given material is obscene is whether it depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct such as ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated; masturbation; excretory functions; or lewd exhibition of the genitals measured against whether the material is patently offensive by contemporary community standards; that is, whether it so exceeds the generally accepted limits of candor as to be clearly offensive.

I think they force artists, pornographers, and anyone with a dirty mind who wants to express it to squash themselves into the loopholes, to pretend "golly gee, I never thought about the fact that my art might make someone want to go out and fuck, might actually turn someone on." I was too stupid for NYU Law School, and maybe am just too stupid to get this, but WHY is prurience so bad? Where do we draw the line? Is my "merely candid" interest in sex going to bother my neighbor, and if so, who wins? I just think that if we are going to talk about obscenity, we need to be a little more honest about why people enjoy sexually arousing material. I don't think material designed to arouse is any "lesser" than that with literary, artistic, scientific or political value. All directly affect people, all compel people, and all are powerful in their own way. Yet by continuing to segregate sexual material off into some foreign corner like a biohazard, not only do we elevate it to some magical, mythical special status, we fail to understand its power and importance in real people's lives.