dls@mtgzz.UUCP (d.l.skran) (10/05/85)
>> From: jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) >> Newsgroups: net.women >> Subject: Re: Possible Ban on Pornography >> Message-ID: <2504@watcgl.UUCP> >> Date: Thu, 12-Sep-85 12:47:19 EST >> >> >> > ---------- >> > > It seems to me that both non-simulated violence and use of children for >> > > sex break laws unrelated to censorship, and can be outlawed without >> > > censorship, which would leave us only in disagreement about the status >> > > of simulated violence and sadism. >> > ---------- >> > Note that it should be illegal to MAKE such things but it should >> > not be illegal to sell or possess them. >> To use the same analogy again: would you try and control angel dust >> by saying it was illegal to make it but perfectly legal to sell and >> possess it? >> -- >> >> John Chapman >> ...!watmath!watcgl!jchapman This is a false analogy. Making angel dust does not harm anyone directly. Making snuff movies or child porn does. There exists a world of difference. This is an interesting analogy, however. Angel Dust(which I assume is slang for the animal tranquilizer that sometimes produces berserk fury) should be illegal to manufacture, sell, or possess because it cannot be used safely. It has a high probability of producing a mental state that has a significant, reproducible, verifiable bad effect on persons near the berserk individual. The same argument could be applied to porn, if the facts supported the case. As has been pointed out before, there exists non-violent porn of many types, constituting something like 80%+ of what is seen in so-called adult bookstores, and probably 95%+ if we throw in video tapes that are much more widely available). No significant evidence has been put forward that this sort of material produces violence in a way remotely similar to angel dust. Hence, this argument does not apply. Evidence does exist that violent acts shown in films change the attitudes of persons viewing them in subtle but significant ways. This work is however, tentative and incomplete. The clear implication of the work of such persons as Donnerstein(sp?)is not that non-violent porn porn causes violence, or even that S/M material has some special insidious effect(although it may) but that R-rated slasher films promote violence. In fact, he uses such films in his research. This suggests that the focus on S/M porn of limited circulation compared to the massive distribution of Friday the 13th style films is misplaced. It further suggests that the overall atmosphere of violence in society, including pro football and wrestling, not to mention genocide in Cambodia and other facts of our existence, may be far more significant than violent porn of limited circulation. This is an interesting topic for psychological research, but so far removed from the status of definite, reproducible fact as to make censorship at best premature, and at worse, a cure far worse than the disease. We must also take into account the ability of deranged individuals to be inspired to violent acts by normal events. An earlier poster mentioned a person who was inspired to castrate themselves by reading the Bible. In Pornography and Sexual Deviance by M. Goldstein and H.Kant, page 107, a rapist describes being inspired by articles in Ladies Home Journel on rape! This interesting volume collects evidence that rapists frequently avoid(!) violent S/M type porn, apparently because they are attempting to convince themselves that they are "normal." I think certain(note this restriction!) feminists are far more opposed to porn because of the ideas it advocates than because they really believe that is causes verifiable direct harm. They squiggle and squirm on this, saying that porn creates an atmosphere that encourages violence against women, but they really mean that it advocates attitudes and values and a world view they don't like(actually many such views). Simply saying that the existence of material of a particular sort makes us "uncomfortable," "nervous," or that we feel threatened by it does not and cannot ever constitute justification of censorship. Note that it is not illegal to produce NAZI hate literature or books claiming that the Holocaust did not take place. Yet this material definitely makes Jews nervous. The ACLU(God Bless Um) defended the right of a NAZI group to march through Skokie. The equivalent action for women might be defending the right of a group of who favor the death penalty for lesbians to march in front of a lesbian commune. All this makes the targets nervous as hell, but until a group takes action, ... actually starts beating up Jews or sending letter bombs to women or whatever ... it is not a crime to advocate extreme, unpleasant, odious views. Fortunately, many feminists are calling censorship what it is: suppression of IDEAS a certain group finds disagreeable. Two books have recently been published on this topic: Women Against Censorship Edited by Varda Burstyn Salem House, Paper, $8.95 Magic Mommas, Trembling Sisters, Puritans, & Perverts Feminist Essays By Joanna Russ The Crossing Press, Paper $6.95, Cloth$16.95. Both books are reviewed in the Sept 29th NYT Book Review by Barbara Ehrenreich. Many of you may find these books interesting. In case anyone is interested, my main source of feminist anti-porn writings is: Take Back the Night/Women On Pornography Edited by L.Lederer and A.Rich Paper, $4.50 Bantam Dale Skran All ideas are my responsibility and not those of AT&T Don't say I never list any references!