While on the one hand a conceptual framework for obscenity cases is essential, it is equally true that the Supreme Court has in the past accepted theories proposed by commentators without making significant progress in extricating itself from the quagmire. In light of this situation, the purpose of this Note is not to urge the Court to accept any new theory for dealing with obscenity, but, rather, to suggest a conceptual framework present in the results of its prior decisions and to urge its explicit acceptance by the Court. No attempt will be made to be faithful to all the language in the decisions, the thesis being, "[t]he most dependable guide to the Court's thinking is to be found in what the Court has actually done, not in what it has said.'