fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (11/06/85)
>> I'm not sure how normal people reading pornography poses a threat to >> women. Rapists tend to be abnormal and with or without pornography, >> they will vent sexual frustrations in abnormal ways. Scott Weikart: >It's no quite this simple. Rapists are far too normal statistically. >In general, rapists have the same psychological profile as the >statistically average man, with the exception of a statistically-slight >tendency towards more agressive behavior. Also, far too many men are >coercive in their sexual dealings with women. Rapists are not men "out >there"; rapist tendencies exist in a lot of men, and pornography >reinforces these tendencies. According to the dictionary definition, ANY erotically stimulating literature can be classified as pornography. To say that pornography reinforces rapist tendencies is an over-generalization. I would agree with respect to that subset of "dirty books" that caters to rapist fantasies, but most pornography promotes consensual sex. At worst, this may promote fornication and masturbation. I know that many feminists are trying to restrict pornography's definition to a feminist-disapproved subset of erotic literature. This is a bad idea, however, since most people already associate the word "pornography" with it's dictionary definition (and can you blame them for that?). People have always disagreed on whether any particular work was designed to cause horniness, but most people do agree that such eroticism is pornography's defining attribute. Here in North Carolina, the conservatives always wanted to restrict pornography, but lacked the necessary consensus. Lately, feminists have led the liberals to attack "pornography" as well, thus giving conservatives the consensus they needed to begin issuing anti-pornography laws. No matter that the feminists are thinking of something else when they use the term. The new law has forced video tape shops to stop selling or renting any tapes showing explicit sex (including sex-education tapes). The law is so vague that it is not at all clear what ISN'T covered under its ban. Some of the local courts are likely to use the most puritanical interpretation possible. All this is happening because the feminists chose to REDEFINE an old word, instead of creating a new word more appropriate to their goals. As one conservative put it, "If they want to help us reinforce traditional values, we're glad for the help. But if they mean something different than we do by the word 'pornography', well that's their tough luck. No one ever gave them permission to rewrite the dictionary." Frank Silbermann