I like porn. I’m just a fan and definitely not an expert, but I know it when I see it. For example, there are a plethora of videos on the Internet that perfectly fit my ideology of pornography, but everyone has a different definition of what they think is pornographic.
On Feb. 15, Judy Cox of Orem, Utah was shopping at University Mall with her teenaged son when she saw some PacSun T-shirts on display. Several of them depicted scantily-clad women, which offended Cox. Unable to bear having the “pornographic” shirts on display, Cox bought all of the shirts she deemed inappropriate, including those in the front window.
She bought 19 shirts for a total of $567 but plans to return them at the end of PacSun’s 60-day return policy, according to Heraldextra.com.
After I heard about the story, I went to PacSun’s website to see what kind of “pornographic” shirts it had for sale. Heraldextra.com reported the shirts were from the store’s “Visual” line. Most of the shirts in that line contain photos of women in underwear.
According to ABC News, mall manager Rob Kallas said, “This is a store that caters to junior high and high school age kids. Some of the poses were provocative and were inappropriate for a store catering to young people.” However, PacSun has every right to sell those shirts, and with these sexy shirts, it’s pretty clear they aren’t catering to children.
One of the issues here is the definition of pornography. Cox seems to think that a woman wearing underwear and posing in a certain way suggests pornography. While some people may find these images sexually stimulating, it did not meet my personal definition of pornography.
When I think of pornography, I imagine one or more sets of genitalia on display being stimulated in a fashion designed to induce orgasm. Nothing like that was present on any of the shirts. This is why it is so difficult to decide if the shirts are inappropriate: one person’s pornography is another person’s average visual.
There is also the issue of context. Most of the pictures had as much nudity as you would find at a swimming pool or beach. Cox’s definition of inappropriateness seems to include a certain amount of nudity and how someone is posed.
According to Yahoo News, Cox said, “The bottom of one woman is completely uncovered and it’s a very provocative pose that she’s in.” There were a couple of shirts that fit her description, though the poses were not very explicit. 
Some of the poses were not even provocative, one depicting a model playfully holding up a camera and another depicting a model standing against a wall, playing with her hair absentmindedly. Again, it comes down to personal opinion on what may not be appropriate to be displayed in public.
According to Yahoo News, Cox did not take offense to the depictions of scantily clad women in Victoria’s Secret at the mall and said, “It’s a lingerie store (sic) you’re not going in and purchasing a shirt with a pornographic image on the shirt. People are buying lingerie.”
While that may be true, I could not help but think Cox came off a bit hypocritical. While Victoria’s Secret isn’t selling shirts with half-naked women on them, the ads for the store still display the same types of images Cox is against.
I assume her argument is more about young kids coming into possession of such “pornography.” Her efforts are most likely in vain, as our media is centered around provocative images.
Cox then contacted Women for Decency and One Million Moms, organizations which aim to stop the spreading of material they deem inappropriate, according to Heraldextra.com.
Instead of doing that, I wish she and other anti-pornography parents could simply sit down with their children and talk with them about how to deal with such “inappropriate material” instead of trying to shield them from anything that they deem indecent.
Keeping children completely in the dark from any pornography would do more harm than good to the cause of these parents, because eventually, children will become curious and may start to look for themselves.
The bottom line is that no one has the same definition of pornography. Maybe PacSun can sell the shirts in the back of the store, near the counter or even online if it has to, but it has every right to sell these shirts.
Jake Koniszewski can be reached at john.koniszewski@spartans.ut.edu
My name is Morgan and I disagree with this woman because I do not see how the selling of shirts with women on it in provocative positions should be deemed as pornography. While yes, the woman has a point that the articles of clothing for in to the category of porns definition (pictures or videos leading to the emphasis of sensuality), I do not see how one would look at this and think, oh wow, look porn! We live in a culture that has let sexuality run wild and I believe that this women is taking a stand more on that issue, which I see as more of the threat here, not just the selling of t shirts with a sensual women on them. I can see the basis for this argument I still reside in PAC suns favor due to their clothing line being mean for a demographic that is exposed to far more that is worse them this in their daily lives. I am in this demographic and when I look that this example of this shirt I do not see porn. As stating this, I am also acknowledging how crazy this might seem, but it due to our society that has made it appear to be okay to be exposed to these sorts of images daily even when some might be too young. Who knows who is coming into these stores. PAC suns audience members have younger sibling that might come in with them and we have to consider that. So I see my side might sound twisted but I am on the side of PAC sun due to the fact that even though those audience members might have younger siblings.. It was those targeted audience members that chose to bring them in the first place, correct?
Peter North, Porn Legend who resides in California has recently made an offer to Judy Cox of Orem, Utah, the girl who bought all the porn t-shirts at pac-sun because she deemed it inappropriate to star in his latest collection of films “young cummers” with a unprecedented pay check of $50,000 for the vol. 1 and an additional $75,000 for each volume after that. In the porn industry this kind of paycheck has not been acquired since the breakout role of Jenna Jameson. Rumors also have it, if Judy does take the offer, Jenna Jameson will co-star in “young cummers vol. 2” college edition which will start a US tour visiting a University in each state. “This is something I am proud too be a part of and looking forward to working with such new talent.” Judy Cox has rumored to take the deal.