andrews@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jamie Andrews) (11/05/85)
Thanks to the Sojourner article poster. The article points up the
approach the Dworkinists take to talking about porn.
Let's start with my definitions. (non-legalese, hopefully non-slippery)
Harmful sex: sexual acts in which one or more participants are unwilling,
or under the age of consent, or in which one or more participants are
physically injured.
Pornography: material in the communications media that depicts or describes
harmful sex acts, regardless of whether it was made by such acts; or
material made by acts of harmful sex, whether or not it depicts or
describes such acts.
What to do with pornography: make it a criminal act to produce or distribute
it.
I ban things in this definition because I don't believe in absolute
freedom of speech (flames on that subject will be ignored), and this kind of
material has been shown (by Donnerstein and others) to be sufficiently
inducive to rape and aggression toward women.
I don't ban some Dworkin-definition pornography in this definition
because I believe that some sexual material is erotica, and this kind of
material has been shown (by Donnerstein and others) to be not at all inducive
to rape and aggression toward women.
Dworkin and Mackinnon (sp?), on the other hand, come from the political
viewpoint that all current sexual media material aimed at men is dangerous
enough to be outlawed -- whether or not this has been shown. Hence, when they
talk about porn, they usually begin by describing material whose production or
content is highly objectionable to most; and then they slide into their
political connection between that extreme porn and the other forms of what
*they* call porn. (I've heard both talk about it, in person.)
Their definition is equally slippery, as some of the clauses discuss
extreme porn, and others (such as the one about "servility or display") are
very vague, refer to our ingrained Judeo-Christian attitudes about sex, and are
designed to take in the majority of the sexual material available today.
I object to a lot of the available erotica on the grounds that it is
sexist. I think it would be great if a good, non-sexist erotica magazine were
available. (Has anyone seen _Yellow Silk_, the magazine advertised in _Ms._
magazine all the time?) But "because it is sexist" is no more grounds for
taking action against this material than it is for taking action against, say,
_The Saturday Evening Post_ or _Women's Day_. "Because it induces rape", is.
--Jamie. (spokesman(jamie, X) <-> eq(X, jamie))
...!ihnp4!alberta!ubc-vision!ubc-cs!andrews
"I believe in Santa Claus, and the DoD believes in Ada" -- D.Parnasjeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (11/05/85)
> Let's start with my definitions. (non-legalese, hopefully non-slippery) > > Harmful sex: sexual acts in which one or more participants are unwilling, > or under the age of consent, or in which one or more participants are > physically injured. > Pornography: material in the communications media that depicts or describes > harmful sex acts, regardless of whether it was made by such acts; or > material made by acts of harmful sex, whether or not it depicts or > describes such acts. > What to do with pornography: make it a criminal act to produce or distribute > it. A problem - under your definition, it is illegal for a movie to depict a rape *in any fashion* for *any reason whatsoever* (even to demonstrate the evils of rape). On the other hand, movies may include any number of murders. Doesn't this seem a little silly? The only way out of this dilemma that I see is to fall back on intent, and that opens up another whole can of slippery definitions. But I congratulate you on a good effort. just another series of "silly remarks" from Jeff Winslow
jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) (11/08/85)
> > Let's start with my definitions. (non-legalese, hopefully non-slippery) > > Harmful sex: sexual acts in which one or more participants are unwilling, > or under the age of consent, or in which one or more participants are > physically injured. > Pornography: material in the communications media that depicts or describes > harmful sex acts, regardless of whether it was made by such acts; or > material made by acts of harmful sex, whether or not it depicts or > describes such acts. > What to do with pornography: make it a criminal act to produce or distribute > it. > > --Jamie. (spokesman(jamie, X) <-> eq(X, jamie)) Lots of legitimate literature depicts or describes harmful sex acts as you have defined them (e.g. Roots, the Bible). You need to tighten up your definitions. -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) "Saints should always be judged guilty until they are proved innocent..." {amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff {ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff
andrews@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jamie Andrews) (11/15/85)
Holy cow! I go away from net.women for a few days and I return to
find that everyone is clamouring for *my* definition of porn.
I thought people would be tired of definitions by now.
The most common point seems to be that even material which is
arguing *against* "harmful sex" practises would be banned. I agree
that there should be some clause about the "intent" of the maker or
distributor. I have no problems with this because I understand intent
is an important concept in many laws (e.g. assault, rape, hate
literature, etc.). Others may disagree on the usual libertarian
grounds, but I feel that if a jury is deciding the degree of intent
involved, it's OK to use that term.
(Phew! More legalistic than I wanted to get in net.women.)
So here's a revised definition list.
Harmful sex: sexual acts in which one or more participants
(a) are unwilling, or
(b) are under the age of consent, or
(c) become physically injured.
Pornography: sexually explicit material in the communications media that
(a) depicts or describes harmful sex acts, with the intent of
abetting or encouraging such acts, regardless of whether it was
made by such acts; or
(b) was made by acts of harmful sex, whether or not it depicts or
describes such acts.
What to do with pornography: make it a criminal offense to produce or
distribute it.
If you have comments in the spirit of improving an imperfect
definition (rather than throwing out an imperfect definition), I'd like
to hear them.
Before flaming on this, please refer to my original "Slippery
Definitions" article. (The title referred to the Dworkin law, not
mine! :-) That contains additional comments.
As in the original article, I am fully aware that this is limiting
absolute freedom of speech, which I don't believe in. I am also aware
that S&M is covered by this law; I don't think we should encourage S&M
any more than we should encourage hard drug use. And as I said above,
I am aware that the term "intent" is subject to jury interpretation.
Flames on these points will be ignored.
--Jamie. (spokesman(jamie, X) <-> eq(X, jamie))
...!ihnp4!alberta!ubc-vision!ubc-cs!andrews
"I believe in Santa Claus, and the DoD believes in Ada" -- D.Parnas