pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (01/24/85)
About 3 weeks ago a debate started up on the merits of pornography in net.books and net.women. At that time there was some immediate complaint from the net.books readers that the issue didn't belong there. However, some insisted (and prevailed) that it was a censorship issue and belonged in net.books (or at least double posted to net.women). After that I became a major player in the debate. In the last two weeks or so the debate has grown in the volume of responses so as to be an annoyance to the net.books readers and they want it out. As a result, some people are responding to me in net.philosophy and net.politics. I am not going to follow the debate to those newsgroups. I have posted a lot in net.books and I am certainly not going to rehash all of that in different newsgroups. If the debate is going to be removed from its original forum, I'll have to leave it (do I hear cheering in the distance?). Certainly a rehash of the whole debate for the significant number of net.politics and net.philosophy readers who haven't been following it elsewhere whould turn out to be just as annoying to those readers as it is to those in net.books. My thanks to those who took the time to post responses and send mail, especially those who gave me some credit for reasoning ability. I think I've learned alot from it, but it is getting tiring for me. Maybe when the whole thing starts up again several months from now (as issues like this invariably do) I'll join in again. :-) Regards, -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
todd@scirtp.UUCP (Todd Jones) (09/11/85)
> While images like the infamous "Penthouse" spread of last > Thanksgiving which featured an Asian woman trussed up like a > turkey fill me with outrage and fury, the "Playboy" images make > me internally nervous. I don't want to be mis-seen as a > "Playboy" nymphomaniac any more than I want to be mis-seen as a > willing victim of sadomasochistic violence. It seems to me that > the attitude that "Violence is uncool, but 'Playboy' isn't > violence and is therefore justifiable entertainment" misses a > great deal of the subtlety behind this form of pornography. > > Pornography never presents an image of a woman saying 'no' and > meaning it. Thus the idea that women never do mean 'no' is > encouraged. > > Hope this clears up my position. Ellen- I just read this posting and I got so mad I ran over a pedestrian with my bicycle. Boy, are you in big trouble! -Love and High Fives, todd jones