Looking back on that incident, I see more clearly how sexually confused we are as a society. Let’s look at the conflicting messages. First, there is the repression, brought to us primarily by the religious right. Their teaching denounces sex as a hidden, shameful curiosity. Although I grew up in a Christian home my parents were very supportive during puberty's turbulent years. It was the Bible and Sunday School that planted those seeds of guilt in my virgin flesh. The Bible taught me that sex was wrong unless you were married, and if it was not used for procreation, then it was a sin. Through the prejudice and ignorance of my Sunday School teachers, I learned that homosexuality was wrong, unnatural, and a sin against God. So when I began to question my own sexuality I thought for sure I was bound for hell.

On top of all of the religious education we receive, we then have the entertainment industries' exploitation of sex. Sex is everywhere, you only need to go as far as the next TV commercial or fashion magazine. We have Pamela Anderson, Barbie and the Spice Girls. Honestly, what does "Girl Power" mean to a young girl when it’s preached to her in a little, tight Gucci dress? Bottom line: sex sales. So, the message to the young boys of America is that women are basically a commodity used for sex. The girls learn that if they want to be appreciated, they need to have thin waists, big breasts, and pretty faces.

It should be no surprise then, that pornography can be potentially destructive for an already sexually confused person. When young boys are bombarded with all of these mixed messages on sex, how are they supposed to feel if they happen to stumble across an issue of Hustler or Penthouse? And what are they supposed to think when they see images of naked women promising to fulfill their wildest desires, since these women are always portrayed as objects to be used for sex? Wouldn’t they think that every woman must be this way?

Porn is a fantasy; it’s pure fiction. I just don’t think all of its fans are aware of that. It builds grotesquely unreasonable expectations of women by objectifying them. And it isn’t just about sex; it’s about concentrated, formulated sex. It’s about trying to see how much tits, ass, and pussy can fit into one issue. It’s about trying to drain all of the emotion and meaning out of sex. And when something is drained of its emotion and meaning, it’s oh so easy to forget that there is a real human being in the picture (or, for that matter, in your bed).

So how is art distinguished from pornography? Portrayals of sexuality in art tend to contradict those found in pornography. While in pornography the main theme is to arouse sexually, the theme in art is to stir one’s thoughts and emotion. For someone who has been exposed to pornography, this differentiation can be confusing.

Eduoard Manet, Le Dejeuner sur
l'Herbe (Luncheon on the Grass), 1863

For example, in an art history class I took last fall, we studied, The Luncheon on the Grass by Manet. I have always liked that painting; there is an air of mystery about it. Why are two fully-clothed men sharing a picnic with a naked woman? I like the fact that they are all obviously comfortable with each other and more interested in their conversation than sex—even though the woman is naked. I was thinking this when a boy in front of me commented, "Eeew, she looks like my mother." What did this boy expect, some Barbie-mimicking bimbo? I wanted to slap him. Yes, by today’s fucked-up standards, Manet’s nude would probably be considered fat. But she was beautiful to me; she was a real woman.