THEMCHIGAN DAILY Page Five Thursday, July 29, 1971 Thursday, July 29, 1971 THE MICHIGAN DAILY Page Five Takingit seriously tional limits would dare stretch. not so much uncovered the sins REPORT OF THE COMMIS- And sure enough, they have, in- of our forebears as he has SION ON OBSCENITY AND deed, stretched. Still, when the rehashed and reassembled the PORNOGRAPHY, introduction by time finally arrives when we spicier parts of all those stodgy Clive Barnes, Bantam, $1.65. have stretched ourselves c o m- histories he is so disdainful of. THE ILLUSTRATED PRESI- pletely out, (an easily foresee- Chapters on the love affairs of. DIENTIAL REPORT OF THE able end judging by the Green- Henry Ward Beecher and the COMMISSION ON OBSCENITY leaf Classic), we shall no doubt exploits of Post Office Inspector AND PORNOGRAPHY, introduc- discover that the most curious Anthony Comstock (who could tion by Dr. Eason Monroe, Green- offshoot of the Commission's boast in 1913 that "I have de- leaf Classics, $12.50. suggestions was not that we stroyed 160 tons of obscene lit- Milton Rugoff, PRUDERY AND went so absolutely goo-gaw in erature") are interesting, but, PASSION: Sexuality in Victorian trying to recreate 'the world's for the most part, their stories America, G.P. Putnam's: $8.95. greatest sex act - but rather, have been told before. Peter Michelson, THE AES- that for the first time in our Further, Rugoff unintention THETICS OF PORNOGRAPHY, national coming of age, we be- ally seems to reveal that he is HerdJr and Herder, $7.50. gan to view pornography in a himself plagued by some of highly critical manner. No those old Puritan taboos when By ROBERT W .CONROW longer were we content to let he suggests that the great in- nooks Editor our pornography remain fixat- crease in pornography in the There was a time when por- ed under the luridly garrish late 19th Century can be direct- nography seemed the one do- lights of 42nd Street on the ly related to an increased re- main free from the paralyzing pression by the rising middle 4 grip of the literary critic. We . class. That is, to quote Rugoff: all knew that as soon as a "It (pornography) thrived be- writer got too naughty ( t a k e cause it was the easiest a n d Twain or E. E. Cummings for safest, if not the most satis- example> the questionable work factory, sexual expression f o r would be whisked off to the frustrated men." There is no Folkloric Collection at the Lib- doubt a certain amount of truth rary of Congress or to the in this, but would it not also Vatican's "Special Collection"- seem safe to assume (as Rug- safe not only from the grimy off does not) that a rise in por- hands of pubescent youth but nography could be equally well- also from any rious critical correlated with an increased evaluation. willingness on the part of writ- More recently, however, we ers generally to portray themes have seen a much-popularied which had hitherto been forbid- tr'id towards removing the den? Surely, Rugoff cannot dust from these writings for have forgotten that many of the sake of the cool analysis of our literary "realists" were orig- the professional. On the sur- inally banned (and not only in face this may seen to be all for Boston) because of their alleged the good, but the end result for "obscenities." Rugoff's impli- pornography- may prove to be cation that it is only the re- somewhat akin to the fate of pressed who can enjoy a good the striptease artist who f i n d s dirty book is a taboo that her allure unexpectedly dim- one hand, or fall prey to the should be discarded along with inished with the dropping of the puritanical assaults of t h e old gossip about developing seventh veil. Mrs. Grundys on the other. The warts or toes falling off due The year-old Federal Com- treatment of pornography could to "unnatural" acts. mission Report on Obscenity now be considered fair game A far weightier analysis of for sober-minded intellectuals, pornography is provided in For the first time we had Peter Michelson's The Aesthe- "scientific proof" that porno- tics of Pornography. In fact, "', graphy was relatively harmless. were it not that Michelson (to The report, in fact, indicated the contrary of Rugoff) is so that at one point in their zeal hopelessly academic, his book for precision the Commissioners might have been quite good. As had been responsible for at- it is, Michelson tends to fur- taching measuring devices to ther substantiate our underly- booksbooks and Pornography (now lavishly illustrated by Greenleaf Class- ics), is perhaps best to begin with since its findings stand at the heart of much of the high seriousness which besets us to- day. Ever since that red-letter day in September of 1970 when the Federal Commissioners on Ob- scenity and Pornography advis- ed against "prohibiting the sale, exhibition or distribution of sexual materials to consenting adults" Americans have held their collective breaths waiting to see just how far and in which direction their constitu- Photos ... Today's photos were selected from The Sex Book: A Mod- ern Pictorial Encyclopedia. Text by Martin Goldstein and Erwin Haeberle;- photographs by Will McBride (Herder and Herder, $9.95). Although definitely not por- nography, this frank pictorial encyclopedia--providea an indi- cation of how far we have come in developing an aesthetic beyondspornography .Citing the Obscenity Commission's call for mass sex education, the authors point out that their book is geared for adults as well as children and adoles- cents. Their treatment, though serious, is an equally strong endorsement of the joyfulness of sex. twenty-three penises while the owners were exposed day after day to erotica. The amazing test-proven results: pornogra- phy could not "be proved to cause crime, sexual deviancy or severe emotional disturbances." And, what's more, there w a s found to be snot surprisingly: a point of notable satiation from over-exposure. Still, there was something missing from the Commission Report. If pornography could not be proved to cause all those 'evil things formerly attributed to it, what, then, did it do? Surely, we said, it couldn't all be just for the fun of it. -Two authors whose books serve as fair samplings of those seeking critical answers are Milton Rugoff in his Prudery and Passion and Peter Michel- son in The Aesthetics of Por- nography. In probing beneath the glossy veneer of such porno-philosophers as the "The Playboy Advisor," Rugoff and Michelson cast new light on that murky relationship be - tween pornography and proprie- ty in American society. Rugoff, who focuses on 19th Century America, notes t h a t although we have political his- tories, intellectual histories, so- cial histories, and military his- tories, we have had (until now) no sexual histories. In Rugoff's words: The historians have been silent largely because they as much as their readers have been bound by taboos that are themselves Puritan or Victorian in origin. For al- most fifty years we have been freeing ourselves from these restraints, and it is time that we examined without shame and in some depth the sexual activities and attitudes of our forebears. Such grandiose proclamations would seem to indicate that Rugoff is offering much that is new, and perhaps, even sensa- tional. Disappointingly, this is not quite the case. Rugoff has sphere can then gain the poten- cy to confront its nakedness in other, and more "obscene" spheres - such as our seem- ingly incurable predilection for waging wars for the sake of "democracy." In Michelson's chapter entitled "How to Make the World Safe for Pornogra- phy," he asserts that "making sex rear its ugly head is dialec- tically analogous to making those other uglinesses emerge from their comfortable depths." This is, of course, not exactly a novel, nor, I think, a neces- sarily sound rationale for por- nography. But at least Michel- son has given us the most lengthy statement so far in this clouded territory. The final outcome of s u c h beleagured dialectics, however, Outdoor living seemingly boils down to a level not so much reflective of our national maturity (as Michel- son would like to think) as of our continuing inability to re- concile the distinct functions of our heads, our hearts, and our sexual organs. Michelson and others of his solemn ilk un- wittingly hark back to our last- ing insistence that pornography is alright provided it has met the test of possessing a "re- deeming social value." It is as if, in America anyway, there can be no redeeming artistic merit in being aroused merely for the sake of arousal. In - stead, we say in our liberated fashion that it is perfectly ac- ceptable to become aroused - so long as we become better cit- izens in the process. ing suspicions that pornography can, indeed, become a bore. His main contention - that it is high time we considered porno- graphy as a distinct literary genre - is well taken. As Mich- elson notes ". . obscenity, too, is human, and that so far as we deny it we deny our human- ity." To Michelson's way of think- ing, pornography's significance as a literary genre stems from its ability to correct the false consciousness of our culture. Pornography, like the orgy .. seeks to reunite man with the mythic sacredness of creative energy . . . (and) Pornography,.being the liter- ature of orgiastic sexuality is (therefore) particularly suit- ed for the confrontation with idealism, especially in its lat- ter day deterioration into sentimentalism. What we have here is a kind of cultural salvation through moral revelation, and, as such, a direct attack on the Mrs. Grundys who try to deny our animalistic natures for the sake of "Love Stories." According to Michelson, a society that c a n confront its nakedness in o n e E u e I1 Gibbons, STALKING THE GOOD LIFE, McKay, $5.95. By ROGER C. ANDERSON In a narrative and delightful fashion, Mr. Gibbons combines botany and philosophy to provide accurate information about edi- ble wild plants and an outline for regaining harmony with nature. The contagious interest and !n- thusiasm of the author for nature bubbles forth on every page, and his attitude towards natural foods and edible plants is a heal- hy one. One is left with the im- pressionmthat Mr. Gibbons could survive almost anywhere, includ- ing New York's Central Park, on what nature provides. However, he also uses commercial products in prepaing wild foods, or com- bines cultivated plants with them to compliment their flavor or quality. I have only a few observations about the approach taken in the book. Perhaps it should have been stressed that one intenrested in eating wild plants should have more than a casual appreciation of their identification and ecol- ogy. The wild plant stalker should also be warned that some areas, such as botanical gardens and arboreta, may be off-limits to plant collectors. This is true in spite of the fact that many of the edibles are weeds. Exception is also taken to Gib- son's suggestions that camping in areas other than designated campsites is advisable. Although some people are able to camp in non-designated areas w i t h o u t damage to wilderness or natural settings, the majority of campers are, in my opinion, not yet sensi- tive enough to their environment to prevent the location of their campsite bearing witness for many seasons. In spite of these reservations, I highly recommend the book. Read Stalking the Good Life to learn about edible wild plants and their preparation, but also read the book for its timely message about man's involvement in and with nature. Euell Gibbons de- serves a place next to Aldo Leo- pold, Paul Sears, and others who have told us what life is all about and have warned us how man is going 'wrong. He knows where it is with ecology and all that needs to be added is write on Euell, right on. Today's writer Roger Anderson is Assistant Professor of Botany at the Uni- versity of Wisconsin and direc- tor of its Arboretum and Wild- life Refuge.