tims@shark.UUCP (02/14/84)
> A Definition: > Pornography is that which depicts people enjoying pain and > mistreatment. Also, that which celebrates violence as a valid form > of sexuality. Of course, if you define pornography that way, then perhaps, pornography is harmful. I emphasize the "perhaps" and suggest in no way that harmful should imply illegal. This definition also implies that 99% of the pornography that I expose myself to is not really pornography, nor is most of the stuff currently available. Making a false definition of pornography is a way of covering up the inexcusable act of attempting to ban all pornography. That is not, by the way, what the above quote was doing in the previous article. The point is that some pornography is violent, and some isn't. Don't attack it all on the basis of some part, you might just as well call every women feminist a lesbian. In any case, it cannot be denied that many people find pornography personally distasteful and attack negative examples in order to validate their personal vendettas against the whole. If it is the violence you really find disturbing, then attempt to remove violence from media in general, don't attempt to remove the media. Quote from Ray Bradbury: "Pornography does not promote rape, it promotes masturbation." > Pornography, which is almost > exclusively directed towards men, depicts women purely and simply as > sex objects. One glance at the "split beaver" shots in (say) > Hustler would convince you of this. Moreover, much of pornography > depicts women as subservient and abused by men. With this in mind, > is it any wonder that many women, I'm sure even Phyllis Schlafly, > oppose pornography. Alot of women enjoy pornography. It is directed towards men since they have classically been the major consumer. Have you ever taken a look at PlayGirl magazine? I have, it's every bit explicit as most men's pornographic magazines. Moreover, the men are depicted every bit as much as sex objects. What the Hell else do you expect from a piece of pornography? Of course the women, and the men too, are going to be depicted as sex objects, that's the whole point. If you want to see intellectual types, watch Masterpiece Theatre, not Deep Throat. A whole lot of pornography depicts women in no way being abused by men, yet that part which does is used as a flakey excuse to condemn all of it. ========= Responses are requested to the following question: QUESTION: Why would a women oppose a piece of pornography that depicted a man and a women enjoying each other in some non-violent act of oral sex and/or sexual intercourse?
tims@shark.UUCP (02/14/84)
Of course pornography depicts women as sex objects. The women involved, and the men as well, are there for one purpose; to engage is sexual activities that the audience will find sexually exciting to view. Pornography presents one aspect of women, other forms of media will present other aspects. If you denounce pornography for depicting women as sex objects, then denounce the 11:00 news for depicting women as anchor-persons. Sex isn't wrong, women having sex isn't wrong, women having sex with men isn't wrong, but movie showing it IS?
ariels@orca.UUCP (02/14/84)
Tim S. quotes from my article: > A Definition: > Pornography is that which depicts people enjoying pain and > mistreatment. Also, that which celebrates violence as a valid form > of sexuality. Perhaps I should have said "A Personal Definition." Some of today's "Porn" is what I would call "Erotica." I define Erotica as sexually oriented material that shows consenting adults enjoying EACH OTHER sexually, with none of them being subject to pain or degredation. I do NOT object to Erotica. Therefore, Tim, I see nothing wrong with material that > depicted a man and a women enjoying each other in some > non-violent act of oral sex and/or sexual intercourse? However, there is A LOT of pornography out there, and not too much erotica. Might I recommend that all and sundry who are interested in Pornography and why perhaps some women object see the National Film Board Of Canada's "Not A Love Story"? It is a very gripping film that shows what's inside those "Adult Video Arcades" and Live Sex Shows. It interviews strippers, arcade owners and clerks, participants in live sex shows, feminists, and (I think) men who frequent such places. Don't see it alone. Especially if you're the least bit empathic. I hope this clears my position a bit. Ariel (I don't read Playgirl, it's sexist) Shattan ..!tektronix!orca!ariels
ellen@unisoft.UUCP (Ellen Boyle) (02/16/84)
Another eye-opening book on pornography is "Take Back the Night" which is a compilation of essays on the subject by women writers. I don't want to have relationships (professional or personal) with anyone who gets off on the humiliation and torture of another human being. You will find that most pornography has that theme. Rarely do you see people enjoying a sexual encounter with no overtones of submission or violence. I do not deny that some women may enjoy this type of sex; however, I feel that ultimately it is harmful to a person's self image. (I have only joined in net discussion a few times and this is the first time on a subject that is important and sensitive to me. I hesitate to do so because of the way I have seen other issues discussed, or should I say battled -- it's a bit intimidating. A discussion is welcome, name-calling and sarcasism will be ignored.) e. boyle
welsch@houxu.UUCP (Larry Welsch) (02/16/84)
(to the eater of first lines) Proposed definition of pornography. Pornography is that which depicts people enjoying pain and mistreatment. Also, that which celebrates violence as a valid form of sexuality. I would contend by this definition all of the James Bond novels by Ian Flemming are pornographic. Does anyone who has read the novels by Flemming care to disagree? Of course in the novels the sadism is primarily directed at men, but their ability to take and give pain is what make the men sexual. For those who haven't read Ian Flemming, but have seen the Hollywood movies, I suggest you read the books before commenting. Some of scenes depicted in the books make the Story of O seem like child's play. Larry Welsch houxu!welsch
dmmartindale@watcgl.UUCP (Dave Martindale) (02/16/84)
It would be very helpful if each person discussing "pornography" would briefly define what they think it is in their articles. Some people seem to classify anything showing people undressed as pornography, others reserve the term for material containing sexually-oriented violence. I can understand what your articles mean only if I understand what you mean by the terms that you use. "Pornography" seems to be a word by which different people mean different things, and yet somehow they assume that the rest of the world will understand what they are talking about.
hok382@houxa.UUCP (P.CARSTENSEN) (02/17/84)
I heard on the radio a couple years ago, the really interesting comment that books like Harlequin romances and gothic thrillers were a form of feminine pornography...that is, the proper analogue of Playboy or whatever. This strikes me as correct, tho I have never had much luck explaining the idea convincingly. I only read gothic romances when I am on a junk-book binge that even cheap science-fiction won't satisfy, and, to be honest, I have never read a Harlequin romance, so maybe I don't know what I'm talking about, but based on a small sample, where the meek innocent girl gets the handsome mysterious man (after he expresses his admiration for her by raping her) because she doesn't care about his numerous possessions but just wants to have his kids (there's always a rival that just wants his possessions, see) I've pretty much decided that reading such stuff encourages some attitudes in me that I've been working n years to get rid of.
saquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (02/18/84)
> The point is that some pornography is violent, and some isn't. Don't attack > it all on the basis of some part, you might just as well call every > women feminist a lesbian. I know this is nitpicking, but I want to voice my objection to the homophobic implications of this statement. Calling someone a lesbian is NOT an insult, and I resent very strongly the usage of this adjective as such. Sophie Quigley watmath!saquigley
sdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer) (02/19/84)
The discussion on pornography in net.women is very thought-provoking,
not the least because it seems to illustrate a difference between the
situations of men and women. Note here that I'm not even going to
TOUCH the issue of good/bad/better, merely discuss some of the
differences by means of an example.
Take gay male pornography. It arguably runs the same gamut of genres
as "straight" pornography--soft-core, romantic pulp to stuff which
would shock just about everyone, yet there is little cry of outrage
at any violence or depersonalization depicted within. "Rebellion"
against any of this is almost entirely on an economic level--you don't
like it, you don't buy it. Why is this?
Perhaps it's because male/female couplings, especially those involving
submission or violence, can be interpreted as acts between two disparate
classes, and carry an implicit political message. On the other hand,
it's hard to imagine any generic sexual acts between any N men which
suggest the same unambiguous interpretation. Too, in gay male pornography,
the objects and the objectifiers are one and the same, the agreements
are mutually understood. The same cannot be said about straight
pornography, and this asymmetry has engendered the whole controversy.
I believe that feminists are misunderstanding the male psyche when they
imbue pornography with greater influence and significance than it has.
The same actions are seen in both gay and straight pornography; only the
political context has changed. I would argue that the motives of
men who read pornography, gay or straight, are the same--they want to get
their rocks off. It doesn't necessarily mean anything more.
Further comments, if they are gay-related, should follow-up on net.motss,
otherwise on net.women.
--
/Steve Dyer
{decvax,linus,ima}!bbncca!sdyer
sdyer@bbncca.ARPAcharlie@cca.UUCP (Charlie Kaufman) (02/19/84)
> > There are laws which proscribe violent action, the spread of hatred, > dicrimination, etc. It is generally agreed that these laws are a good thing. > It seems to be quite reasonable to have the law also proscribe the advocacy > of these things. This is the realm of criminal law. (I see various forms > of Inhumanity as criminal acts, as well). > How do I attack thee; let me count the ways... 1) OK. The various forms of pornography are evil and there should be laws against them. It seems quite reasonable to have the law proscribe the advocacy of these things. Anyone who advocates the legalization of pornography (i.e. anyone who disagrees with you) should be prosecutable as a criminal. 2) Pornography does not advocate anything. Only people advocate things. Most producers of pornography do not advocate the results you describe - they are just trying to make a buck (Larry Flint may be an exception, but in my opinion such a presumption is giving him much more credit than he deserves). So where is the advocacy, and who interprets it? 3) If pornography is vile material appealing to ones prurient interest without redeeming social value, one could argue that there is no reason society should tolerate it. On the other hand, if it is a political expression of the view that women should be treated as sex objects, that they are good for nothing else, and that that is what they really want anyway, then the expression of such political views is expressly protected by the first amendment of the constitution. Would you suppress certain political views because you disagree with them? Are you afraid that expressing such views in an open forum is dangerous because too many people might agree with them? Well, that's what the first amendment is for; for preventing vested interests (even majorities) from suppressing opposing views by preventing their publication. 4) I think to say that "it is generally agreed that these laws (proscribing violent action, the spread of hatred, discrimination, etc.) are a good thing" is a bit of an overstatement. While violence has few adherents, the laws enacted in the name of preventing it can be highly controversial. Current anti-discrimination laws may well be opposed by the majority of the population (depending on how you word the survey question). --- I hate to go on record as being pro-smut (after all, you never know who might be reading these things), but I couldn't resist attacking a dangerous line of reasoning. --Charlie Kaufman charlie@cca ...decvax!cca!charlie
wdoherty@bbncca.ARPA (Will Doherty) (02/20/84)
What if two consenting people want to degrade each other or inflict pain (mild or severe) upon each other? What if they wish to watch or make films of such actions? I guess I don't believe that anyone should prohibit consenting people from inflicting pain or from assuming dominant/susmissive roles in sexual activities. After all, in non-sexual activities, people inflict pain and assume dominant/submissive roles all of the time, and usually that's not consensual. (Rule: If it ain't consensual, it ain't right.) I guess this fits in with my conception of the Golden Rule. As I heard it, the Golden Rule is supposed to be: "Do unto others as you would they do unto you." Well, this is OK. But all people do not want me to do the same things to them that I want them to do to me. If, for instance, I like getting pounded on the back whenever I greet someone (or getting kissed for that matter), that doesn't mean that all people I know will want to get pounded on the back (or kissed) when I greet them. So I had to modify the rule. Golden Rule II: "Do unto others as they would you do unto them." Well, that sounded good for a while. But then I realized that if people want me to shoot them (or to kiss them), I would be obligated to do so because that is what they wanted. I decided that this approach had some obvious bugs as well. The next step--I know you are all in suspense--is Golden Rule III: "Do unto others as they would you do unto them as long as it doesn't make you feel overly uncomfortable." This is the way I try to live my life. Any bugs, revisions, etc. welcomed. As far as porn, I believe that people should watch whatever they want. There just isn't good enough evidence to show a causal link between watching porn and acting violent (or "perverted"). Besides, I don't want some (read any) of the people on this board to control my porn intake. After all, some of you out there think all lesbians and gays are perverts, and random deity frobid (intentional misspelling) I should mention consensual cross-generational sensuality. Wish I could produce a fancy flame with my sign-off, 'cause I know there are flames aplenty firing up out there. Will Doherty decvax!bbncca!wdoherty
wdoherty@bbncca.ARPA (Will Doherty) (02/20/84)
Hear, hear, on not using lesbianism as an insult. Watch out or we'll drag (har) all of motss over here to flame (and some queens can ~really~ (surrounded by flames) flame. Will Doherty decvax!bbncca!wdoherty
twltims@watmath.UUCP (Tracy Tims) (02/20/84)
This is my (Tracy's) reponse to an article posted by Charlie Kaufman which criticised my original article on pornography. My responses are indented. The quote in Charlie's article is from my original article. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Charlie: > > There are laws which proscribe violent action, the spread of hatred, > dicrimination, etc. It is generally agreed that these laws are a good thing. > It seems to be quite reasonable to have the law also proscribe the advocacy > of these things. This is the realm of criminal law. (I see various forms > of Inhumanity as criminal acts, as well). > How do I attack thee; let me count the ways... 1) OK. The various forms of pornography are evil and there should be laws against them. It seems quite reasonable to have the law proscribe the advocacy of these things. Anyone who advocates the legalization of pornography (i.e. anyone who disagrees with you) should be prosecutable as a criminal. Tracy (me): I am not going to spend much time on your article. For an example of what I consider to be a clearly reasoned and valid response to my original posting see Jon Mauney's article, <2502@nscu.UUCP>. You seem to have misunderstood my article. I completely throw out consideration of ``pornography'' because I don't consider it a useful idea. I refuse to even talk about it. There are, however, real violent crimes. It is these that I address. Your paragraph above does not represent (to me) a meaningful response to my article. 2) Pornography does not advocate anything. Only people advocate things. Most producers of pornography do not advocate the results you describe - they are just trying to make a buck (Larry Flint may be an exception, but in my opinion such a presumption is giving him much more credit than he deserves). So where is the advocacy, and who interprets it? You are right. But people can be taught to find certain things acceptable. I would prefer that people are taught that murder or rape are unacceptable. If someone started teaching that murder and rape were acceptable behaviour, I would like society (read me writ large) to be able to stop the teaching. 3) If pornography is vile material appealing to ones prurient interest without redeeming social value, one could argue that there is no reason society should tolerate it. On the other hand, if it is a political expression of the view that women should be treated as sex objects, that they are good for nothing else, and that that is what they really want anyway, then the expression of such political views is expressly protected by the first amendment of the constitution. Would you suppress certain political views because you disagree with them? Are you afraid that expressing such views in an open forum is dangerous because too many people might agree with them? Well, that's what the first amendment is for; for preventing vested interests (even majorities) from suppressing opposing views by preventing their publication. There are ``political views'' that I would suppress. I could claim the acceptability of virgin sacrifice as a political or religious view. Given the goals that I have for the society I live in, I would feel justified banning the expression and propagation of those views. I live in a country that doesn't have a first amendment. Canada. 4) I think to say that "it is generally agreed that these laws (proscribing violent action, the spread of hatred, discrimination, etc.) are a good thing" is a bit of an overstatement. While violence has few adherents, the laws enacted in the name of preventing it can be highly controversial. Current anti-discrimination laws may well be opposed by the majority of the population (depending on how you word the survey question). I don't believe that the collective predjudice of any mass of people constitute wisdom. Wisdom is something aquired through hard work, and most people don't. Sometimes ideas are opposed by people who see in them some threat to their own vested interests. I pay attention to people who oppose these ideas in terms of the social goals that I think are important. That is, if we both agree that violence is bad, or discrimination is bad (even though I might personally benefit from it) then we can disagree on how to stop it. If we fail to agree on the first point, we have nothing more to talk about. Unfortunately, these things that I think are ``wrong'' are of great use to certain classes of people. (eg. discrimination). I have no qualms in disrespecting such people and their attitudes. --- I hate to go on record as being pro-smut (after all, you never know who might be reading these things), but I couldn't resist attacking a dangerous line of reasoning. --Charlie Kaufman charlie@cca ...decvax!cca!charlie I don't see how you demonstrated that I was guilty of a dangerous line of reasoning. It's interesting that all your criticism seems to be based on the very first paragraph of my article. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy (me) for a wrap up: I would like to go on record as being completely pro smut (read erotica). Since current thought on pornography would mix erotica up with the undesirable stuff, as well as missing what I think are the important issues, I offered this as an alternative. Remember: ``Criminality (and survival) are issues for society, Morality is an issue for the individual.'' Tracy Tims {linus,allegra,decvax,utcsrgv}!watmath!twltims The University of Waterloo, 519-885-1211 x2730
karn@allegra.UUCP (Phil Karn) (02/21/84)
I am reminded of an old saying that tells a lot about why people disagree over what constitutes pornography: "What turns ME on is erotic; what turns YOU on is pornographic." People's tastes in all things vary so widely (and erotica/pornography is only one small area) that I think it's best to leave things alone so long as only consenting adults are involved. Rhetorical question: Suppose I asserted that all religion should be outlawed in the US because a) it is offensive to me as an agnostic and b) several forms of it have been responsible for much savage mistreatment of humans by other humans throughout history? It seems to me that those who advocate censorship of "sexually oriented materials" use very similar arguments. If everyone who is offended by the private practices of others could have their way, there wouldn't be much of anything left legal. Phil
mazur@inmet.UUCP (02/24/84)
#N:inmet:10900050:000:1965
inmet!mazur Feb 23 18:11:00 1984
Does anybody remember a movie (I can't remember the name) that starred
George C. Scott about pornography? The plot was that Scott's teenage
daughter had run away to the big city and got involved with some porno
film makers.
The really scary part of this movie was at the very end. The producer
was making a rape/murder movie, and to make it "realistic", the female
star of the film (within the movie) was actually killed, knifed to death
I believe. Then George rescues his daughter and there's a happy ending.
Left me pretty unsettled. This was a network TV movie, by the way.
My own feelings are that, if somebody out there gets his jollies from
watching graphically violent films or reading the same type of magazines,
fine. I just hope he isn't going out with (or married to) any of my
friends. There are people out there who may be encouraged by these films
and magazines to act out these fantasies in real life. This happens
in most of the visual media. Some CBS stations are now censoring
the Warner Bros. cartoons like Bugs Bunny and the Road Runner. I read
recently about a child who hanged himself after watching a cartoon
character do the same stunt. Most of us grew up watching Bugs Bunny
without any harm. Many men (do you really want me to say, and women?)
can watch these graphically violent films without harming other members
of society. Is it better to regulate/censor pornography to help prevent
a small percentage of unstable men from acting out their fantasies? I
know people are screaming about what they are doing to Bugs Bunny.
I tried to find the similarity between this type of pornography and a
typical Harlequin/Silhouette/Judith Krantz. Yes, most of these books
contain a little soft-core porn, and they're getting a little racier.
However, I'm not too worried about Joe Schmoe picking up one of these
books, going out, pretending to be a pirate by raping and pillaging.
Beth Mazur
{ima,harpo,esquire}!inmet!mazursdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer) (02/26/84)
Ellen says,
I don't want to have relationships (professional
or personal) with anyone who gets off on the
humiliation and torture of another human being.
You will find that most pornography has that theme.
Rarely do you see people enjoying a sexual encounter
with no overtones of submission or violence.
It would help your argument about "most pornography" if you could
substantiate it. While some pornography depicts violence against women, I
would not be so free with truth as to say "most", but we probably read
different magazines. Perhaps Silhouette Romance pulp novels should be
classified along with smut, too. After all, aren't they infused with
ever-so-genteel "overtones of submission and violence?"
--
/Steve Dyer
{decvax,linus,ima}!bbncca!sdyer
sdyer@bbncca.ARPAholmes@dalcs.UUCP (Ray Holmes) (02/27/84)
[] Extract from Beth Mazur's article (starts with a G. C. Scott movie): > ... > The really scary part of this movie was at the very end. The producer > was making a rape/murder movie, and to make it "realistic", the female > star of the film (within the movie) was actually killed, knifed to death > I believe. Then George rescues his daughter and there's a happy ending. > Left me pretty unsettled. This was a network TV movie, by the way. > ... There called, I believe, "snuff films" (the ones where the 'star' is murdered on film). The 'star' (usually a runaway, or someone else without traces) gets to be a film star for the one and (obviously) only time in their life. They are exceedingly expensive, BUT NOT that hard to come by (so I am told). There was also another such reference in the film (I forget the title) about Marlyn Monroe's early film career. There are obviously lots of REALY sick people out there. This is, to my mind, far worse than "kiddie porn". Ray
preece@uicsl.UUCP (02/28/84)
#R:inmet:10900050:uicsl:16400048:000:445 uicsl!preece Feb 27 08:14:00 1984 Does anybody remember a movie (I can't remember the name) that starred George C. Scott about pornography? The plot was that Scott's teenage daughter had run away to the big city and got involved with some porno film makers. ---------- The movie was called "Hard Core." It must have been dated about 1980. It wasn't a TV movie, though, but a regular theatrical release (though I suppose it may have been on network by now, heavily edited).
mw@brunix.UUCP (Mason Woo) (02/28/84)
These snuff films, the ones where the 'star' is murdered on film, have been widely touted, but thankfully very rare. The reason why even the sleaziest of film-makers haven't resorted to this escapes me. About a decade ago, a film was released widely called "Snuff." This was during the period of gossip and controversy about the existence of the so-called snuff film. It attracted VERY large lines in New York, if I remember correctly. It was revealed afterwards that the producer of the film actually just took a standard XXX film and edited in portions where horse entrails were mutilated. The reason why it's not popular to kill people for movies (except stunt people, but that's another story entirely. Why not talk to John Landis?) is because of the nifty murder charge you are likely to face. Special effects (chopping people in half, eyes popping out, etc.) are a lot less riskier, and you get second takes. What scares me is that there seems to be a real audience for people watching people get killed and carved up. This is really SICK. I think "Snuff" is available today on video-cassette. I understand why 95% of porn directors and producers don't resort to snuff, but I can't at all figure out why an especially sleazy 5% don't. There seems to be a market out there. Mason Woo brunix!mw Brown University
cdanderson@watarts.UUCP (02/29/84)
The movie refered to in B. Mazur's article is Hardcore.
Regarding the # of women who have been raped, while I have known
few (as a % of the women I know well) women who have been raped, ~40%
of them have said that they have been involved in incestuous relationships.
For a number of reasons, these were psychologically devastating, though "not
as much as" a combination of incest and rape by the father or relative, said
the ones involved in this situation.
n.b. This is not to be taken as a defense for incest, each was traumatic.
W.R.T. NOT A LOVE STORY and the assertion that most of it dealt with
overt violence, what about the scenes with Tracey dancing as Little Red Riding
Hood, and the couple who screwed on stage. While these activities are usually
seen as non-violent, what about the violence involved in turning people into
commodities (non-thinking, non-individuals) and, in the latter case, the violence promulgated by having people who wanted to see a small, white, woman screwed
by a large, black, man having a feedback loop to encourage their fantasies!
They are shown that their violent, misogynous, racist (some overlap in these 3)
dreams can be a reality. All forms of subjugation should be seen as violent;
especially as the more subtle forms are those keeping us in our gender ghettoes.
Questions: 1) Do people see a difference between male vs. female strippers (not talking morphology here); and
2) Do you perceive a difference between nude models for artists and those who strip in the public at large, i.e. those not transfered to
canvas?
Margins, what margins......
Cameron Anderson
watmath!watarts!cdandersonrebbs@bbncca.ARPA (Robert Ebbs) (03/01/84)
Beth Mazur would like to know the name of the film starring George C. Scott that dealt with the making of porno films. That was HARD CORE, made in, I think, 1975, written and directed by Paul Schrader. An interesting aside: Schrader came from a religously restrictive home in Michigan and did not see a movie until he was eighteen years old, when he went west, ostensibly to study theology, though by his own admission he spent more time going to movies than studying. He also did AMERICAN GIGOLO and is best known for the screenplay he did for Martin Scorcese's TAXI DRIVER.
preece@uicsl.UUCP (03/02/84)
#R:inmet:10900050:uicsl:16400051:000:332 uicsl!preece Mar 1 20:47:00 1984 There was a big flap about snuff films about five years ago, culminating with the nationwide theatrical release of a movie called, I think 'Snuff.' After it all died down there was general agreement that there probably hadn't been any real snuff films in the first place. Not the sort of thing one can prove conclusively, though.
holt@convex.UUCP (04/14/84)
#R:inmet:10900050:convex:45000007:000:291
convex!holt Apr 13 16:31:00 1984
I believe that the movie being discussed is "Hardcore", starring
George C. Scott. It is indeed unsettling, especially when you consider
that "snuff" films are rumored to actually occur. How disgusting.
Dave Holt
Convex Computer Corp.
{allegra,ihnp4,uiucdcs,ctvax}!convex!holtmfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (01/15/85)
> As I said, I don't think the difficulty of the task should keep us > from doing something positive to curb porn production. What is to > keep us from coming up with a workable definition? I have the feeling > that we don't necessarily have to accept the conclusion that there > can be none. You must start by defining pornography. Your posting does no such thing. You should also be more convincing of the necessity to ban pornography once you have defined it. Again, you do no such thing. > Community standards are a vague, nebulous concept. It is much harder > to prove and define workable community standards than it is to come up > with a legal definition of what is pornography.<...> Community standards are vague because communities are vague. If you cannot get your community to agree on what is permissible and what is not, then how can you justify banning or allowing ANYTHING? > I think that concept was a cop out by the Supreme Court when the legislature > tossed them that "hot potato". Absolutely. This was a recognition by the S. C. that since they could not think of a universal legal valid definition of porn, and since they did not wish to be bombed by anti-porn advocates (:-) they would let the community decide. You are saying that you cannot decide and you blame the S. C. for not doing the job. You are evading the issue, Paul. > if your last statement is true the First amendment is meaningless. If > you mean the we must accept the good with the bad, then that is saying > that there is nothing that we can say we will not accept. In the case > of pornography this reduces, in practice, to a statement that nothing can > be banned. As I said before, I think this makes a mockery of free speech, > especially considering porn's probable effects on society. The first amendment says that you and I will not be restrained from saying or writing whatever is on our minds by the arbitrary edicts of governments, "moral" citizens, etc. You can express disagreement by arguing, e.g. this net, or by not listening to/reading the opinion. If you are offended by pornography, don't read it, don't go into the adult store, etc... This is the very essence of free speech, not a mockery of anything. > The presence of porn is associated with some ill effects in most people's > minds if they don't want it in *their* neighborhood. I don't want a trucking company to set up shop in my neighborhood either (because of noise, put down those flamethrowers) but that does not mean trucking companies are detrimental to society Marcel Simon ..!mhuxr!mfs
mauney@ncsu.UUCP (Jon Mauney) (01/15/85)
Why is Pornography bad? Let me count the ways:
1) Kiddie porn.
To make kiddie porn you need to use kiddies. This can be legally defined
as sexual abuse of children. Children are not legally able to consent to
anything. Kiddie porn can be and is legally restricted.
2) Violence.
a) Some people apparently define porn to mean sexual violence against
women, or some such. That is a fine definition of something, but the
word pornography is already taken. I get the impression that some
activists claim to use this definition, but then use the broader definition
to extend their arguments to include all sexually explicit material.
b) The arguments against such violence should apply regardless of whether
sex is involved. If you are worried about the effects of vicarious
violence, you should protest Charles Bronson and ignore Marilyn Chambers.
3) Morality.
According to one recent posting on the net:
"Married sexual activity is sacred and its use outside of
marriage is a profanation of a holy thing."
That's fine for you, but freedom of religion is constitutionally
protected, so arguments based on church doctrine are disallowed.
4) Privacy/degradation of participants
If someone is coerced into making an explicit movie, whether by
force or lack of other opportunity to earn money, then they may
feel degraded, I agree. But most people on this net would
probably be uncomfortable just to be seen naked by strangers.
Do the activities described in net.rec.nude degrade participants.
Are millions of naturists degraded? No, because they participate
voluntarily and are comfortable with what they are doing. It is
only degrading to do what you feel is wrong.
5) Sex Objects.
I have never understood why it is wrong to admire a single facet of
a multi-faceted human. In my job, college professor, I am admired
primarily for my giant intellect. Since I must teach, my engaging
personality is somewhat admired. My boyish good looks, athletic
prowess and artistic genius are totally ignored. Does that reduce
me to a 'brain object'? Yes. My students care only about what I
know (and what grade I'll give them). But that doesn't diminish
my humanity outside of class.
Similarly, a depiction of beautiful women enjoying sex does not
automatically reduce women to objects. In fact, I would argue that
sex movies, in which women don't have enough time between sex acts
to prove or disprove their intelligence, do less harm than TV shows,
in which many characters demonstrate themselves to be airheaded bimbos.
In fact, I find it degrading to humanity that the *sexual* nature
of famous people is routinely ignored. If we are to understand
Einstein and Eisenhower as whole persons, we must ask whether they
were sexually satisfied. (only partially facetious)
Have I overlooked any straw men?
In closing, I would like to suggest that if people are seriously concerned
that smutty movies, books, etc., offer a twisted view of sex, and serve to
subjugate women, then they should lobby for the open acceptance of graphic
sex. The problem with sex movies is that they aren't very good movies.
If you want people to think that sex is a warm, loving exchange between
equal partners, then you should get decent producers, directors, actors
and screenwriters to make explicit movies, rather than banning them.
--
Jon Mauney, mcnc!ncsu!mauney
(I should point out that, despite the example involving my job,
I am not speaking in my official capacity as a professor.)hrs@houxb.UUCP (H.SILBIGER) (01/16/85)
On free speech, First Amendment: The argument was made that there really is no right to free speech since one can be sued for damages because of libel and slander. The distinction is that these are civil, and not criminal actions. Passing laws against saying or printing certain materials makes them criminal offenses, and makes the offender liable to prosecution by the state. Herman Silbiger
chris@pyuxc.UUCP (R. Hollenbeck) (01/16/85)
Yesterday, a female friend of mine confided that love had never been what she expected, that is, what it is in the movies, i.e., holding hands in a field, embracing in the moonlight, etc. It struck me that her feelings might hold the key to the debate over pornography. Is it possible that she's not alone, that many women grow up believing that love is like it is in the movies, and that they therefore resent pornography because it contradicts the movie version of love? That it is offensive because it shows sex without showing love (particularly movie love) as a prerequisite? In support of this hypothesis, I offer the following: 1. Pornography is often attacked for portraying women as "sex objects" (presumably as opposed to being shown as people in love). 2. I read an article recently that discussed pornography for women, i.e., literature whose intent was to arouse women's prurient interest. This pornography consisted largely of scenes depicting tenderness, caring, etc., with far less explicit sex than is found in standard pornography. If you add to the above the movie/television view that after love comes a marriage and a family situation similar to those in "Father Knows Best" and "It's a Wonderful Life," the objections to pornography become clearer. Pornography does not concern itself with love, or families, or with preserving the species or the social order, but with plain old sex. Exaggerated sex at that, when you consider the oversized body parts, insatiability, endless variation and stamina, etc. of the participants. Not to say that this is bad, but it does not jibe with the movie/TV view, to say the least. Could this be basis of much of the objection to pornography? I think so. The only thing I can't figure out is, if we're all subjected to the same movie/TV images, why do men enjoy pornography? Why aren't they equally appalled by it? For the record, if it's not clear from the above, I think any depiction of sex, in movies or on TV, is fine, unless it shows rape, children, or nonconsensual violence (I don't want to discriminate against sado-masochists).
peterr@utcsrgv.UUCP (Peter Rowley) (01/18/85)
> Yesterday, a female friend of mine confided that love had > never been what she expected, that is, what it is in the movies, > i.e., holding hands in a field, embracing in the moonlight, etc. > It struck me that her feelings might hold the key to the > debate over pornography. > > Is it possible that she's not alone, that many women grow > up believing that love is like it is in the movies, and that > they therefore resent pornography > because it contradicts the movie version of love? > That it is offensive because it shows sex without > showing love (particularly movie love) as a prerequisite? > You know what this reminds me of? the old question "what do women want?". You know how one day some man decided that obviously women seemed not too happy about their lot in life, so he started talking wondering about what it is that women want. Of course you'd think that it would have been very easy to go up to a woman, and tell her "hey, you! you're a woman, what do you women want?", but NOOOOOOOOO, that's not the scientific way of looking at things!!!! one must first get a theory, then find a set of axioms to base the theory on, and a deductive system to use over those axioms, and presto!! you've got yourself a proof for your theory. Pretty silly eh? even if such renowned people as Freud thought this was the way to approach such a problem, people nowadays don't think that way anymore: if they want to know how women feel about something, they will ask them because there are some women around who speak the same language as the theoritician, right? so obviously, nobody in their right minds would ever think about inventing STUPID theories about a group of people without asking those people, right!!! ******** FLAME ON ********** OK, you jerk! and other jerks like you, I have had it up to here (my throat) with people like you who treat us women as though we are some strange tribal people whose actions you make it your duty to "interpret". Quit the antropology stuff for a while and listen to other people. We are people just like you with a brain which work at least as well as yours, and probably better than yours judging from the idiocies you are spitting out on this screen!!! So my advice to you on this matter is very simple: if you want to know how women feel about a certain subject, if you actually CARE about how women feel about a certain subject, may I suggest that you follow the most obvious route, which is the simplest: ******** ASK A WOMAN ********** ******** FLAME OFF ********** Ok, now I am assuming that you are interested in what women think about all of this. Well, I can't speak for all women, but I will speak as a woman now. > In support of this hypothesis, I offer the following: > 1. Pornography is often attacked for portraying > women as "sex objects" (presumably as opposed to > being shown as people in love). > > 2. I read an article recently that discussed pornography > for women, i.e., literature whose intent was to > arouse women's prurient interest. This pornography > consisted largely of scenes depicting tenderness, > caring, etc., with far less explicit sex than is > found in standard pornography. > > If you add to the above the movie/television view that after love > comes a marriage and a family situation similar to those in > "Father Knows Best" and "It's a Wonderful Life," the objections > to pornography become clearer. Pornography does not concern > itself with love, or families, or with preserving the species > or the social order, but with plain old sex. Exaggerated sex > at that, when you consider the oversized body parts, > insatiability, endless variation and stamina, etc. > of the participants. Not to say that this is bad, but it does not > jibe with the movie/TV view, to say the least. > > Could this be basis of much of the objection to pornography? I like sex, but I don't like pornography. The objections I have against pornography are not that the people involved are not in love, but that the women pictured there are shown in degrading poses: i.e submissive poses where the implications are that women are pieces of meat just waiting to be taken by any male!!! I have the same objections against degradin male pornography by the same token. Pornography is not plain sex, pornography is degradation. There is another word for plain sex between consenting adults, it is called erotica. > I think so. The only thing I can't figure out is, if we're > all subjected to the same movie/TV images, why do men enjoy > pornography? Why aren't they equally appalled by it? Here's a clue: (I don't want to give it away, you are obviously too enamoured with puzzles, so I shouldn't spoil your fun). Look at who is being depicted, are they women or men? women, right? If that isn't enough to convince you, may I suggest that you go to an "adult" bookstore and buy yourself a copy of a pictorially descriptive magasine for "men who love other men", buy one for "men who are real men" and check out what they do to other men who are obviously not as "real". See if you still enjoy pronography..... Sophie Quigley {decvax, ihnp4, allegra}!watmath!saquigley
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (01/18/85)
The one that bus me is the attempt to make a box and say ``all women fit here'' and then another box and say ``all men fit here''. It is real tough on the people who don't fit. What do you do when you wake up in the morning and say ``look, I know a lot of women! They are silly, clinging, embittered wimps who manipulate everybody by guilt and faked emotions which nobody could ever be feeling! I'm *not* *like* *you*!!! *I* *DON'T* *EVER* *WANT* *TO *BE* *LIKE* *YOU*!!'' If you are in grade school it is real tough. If you don't want to be a woman then -- you're Gay. Hmm. Now we get to do the agonising soul searching ``but do they REALLY all go to Hell? If I'm Gay, how would I know it?'' And even ``if I'm Gay, how come I'm attracted to men and not women...'' Maybe you get this all figured out by the time you leave school. Maybe you figure this out later. Maybe you never figure this one out....but it doesn't do *anybody* any good to try to come up with rules ``all women are like X'' and ``all men are like Y'' -- and it is hell on those who *aren't*... There are people who didn't like my posting on some of the reasons why girls date jerks. (actually, it is why people date jerks...) I got several responses of ``no, nobody ever dates a jerk over a nice guy because they are angry at the world and want a focus for their anger...it is always because they have a lousy self-image and don't feel that they could deserve...'' Would you folks *stop* *it* with your ``everybody has to be like this'' box-building? I was not saying that it is never because some people have a lousy self-image. There are some people who wrote me and said ``boy, could I see myself there''. What happens if you end up going out with them and they tell you that they used to only go out with jerks. Are you going to force them to lie to you to fit your concept that this is always caused by a lousy self-image? How nice of you! furiously yours, Laura Creighton utzoo!laura
owens@gitpyr.UUCP (Gerald Owens) (01/21/85)
> According to one recent posting on the net: > "Married sexual activity is sacred and its use outside of > marriage is a profanation of a holy thing." > That's fine for you, but freedom of religion is constitutionally > protected, so arguments based on church doctrine are disallowed. > > > Jon Mauney, mcnc!ncsu!mauney > Interesting. Does this mean to say that one does not have to look at whether it was right or not, or true or not? "If it's religiously oriented, we don't have to listen to it." is just as biased as "If it's religiously oriented, we MUST listen to it.". As if driving off the left side of the road is a greater virtue than driving off the right side... -- Gerald Owens Georgia Insitute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 ...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!owens
chris@pyuxc.UUCP (R. Hollenbeck) (01/22/85)
So far I've been called a jerk and had my submission called silly, but I have yet to see a good explanation of why. Why all this bile? I simply suggested a possibility based on a few bits of information that came my way, including one from a woman (why, if one of the key bits of information comes from a woman, does Sophie tell me to ask a woman?) What I suggested may be true or false; it doesn't really matter, as long as we keep trying to get to the truth. But I don't think knee-jerk feminist reaction gets any of us anywhere in this or any other discussion. Let me offer another defense of pornography; one of the ideas that was at the basis of our society and our constitution was the free marketplace of ideas (I believe the author of the notion was John Stuart Mill, but I'm not sure, and I sure don't need millions of bits of flame heaped on me if I'm wrong). Anyway, this idea basically said that the best way to get at the truth was to give all ideas a chance to be expressed, so that the best ideas would survive. Sort of a Darwinian approach - survival of the best ideas. To the extent that pornography represents ideas, the point is not that those ideas are necessarily good, but that suppressing them would create far greater harm. Opposing ideas would have nothing to oppose and therefore might not be subjected to the testing they would otherwise receive. Furthermore, a precedent would be set for limiting thought within certain "acceptable" boundaries. Put another way, we can't require all forms of expression to conform to our (your, whosever) standards of ideological correctness. To do so would be to limit our freedom and to limit society's search for truth. Or, we can just get to the meat of it and say that it's nobody's goddamn business what other people read or see; if you don't like it, don't read it.
jlh@loral.UUCP (Your_name_here) (01/22/85)
So call roto rooter... Oops, thats not a bug commercial. > So my advice to you on this matter is very simple: if you want to know how > women feel about a certain subject, if you actually CARE about how women > feel about a certain subject, may I suggest that you follow the most obvious > route, which is the simplest: ******** ASK A WOMAN ********** I'm sure we all remember the scene in Tootsi were the foxy woman confided to Dustin Hoffman in drag that she would love to have him walk up to her and kiss her. So when Dustin sees the foxy woman when he's in the man mode he kisses her and gets slapped. Thats the kind of thing that happens when you ask a woman what she wants. Brought to you by the Society for the Infliction of Misery Upon Wombats.
nemo@rochester.UUCP (Wolfe) (01/22/85)
> ... you should get decent producers, directors, actors > and screenwriters to make explicit movies, rather than banning them. > -- > > Jon Mauney, mcnc!ncsu!mauney > Here, here! My dear mither once showed me a series of sexually explicit films that ranged the gamut from holding hands to inter- racial, drug-accompanied, and homosexual sex. She also showed a regular porno film, which stood out from the rest like a sore thumb. The rest were made by some California church, using consenting members and their chosen partners. One thing came through all of them and that was the relationship the people had with each other (or themselves or the group, etc). Although explicit, and though some depicted acts which I did not find stimulating, I would not call them porn. (By the way, these were for gauging the observer's stance on various sexual situations). While I find most "porn" simply boring, there is violence which I find much more objectionable. (take Dune, please) I would much rather more nudity and sex in film/TV than have the violence and general idiocy which is commonplace. Especially when I and my wife have kids. As far as studies about exposure to violence and pornography go, there are several psychological and legal ones which I will post when I dig them up (anyone hear of Zamorra, eg?). Nemo
jdh@hou5g.UUCP (Julia Harper) (01/24/85)
I am a feminist, and strongly disapprove of pornography for the usual feminist reasons. I don't, however, think pornography should be made illegal. As has often been pointed out, who knows when something I approve of will come under censure next? It is usually the oppressed groups that suffer most from censure. (In the early part of this century, birth control information was censured...) I find it quite offensive that people (I forget whose article I just read) say things like "knee jerk feminist reaction" in such a knee jerk fashion. In the recent pornography postings I have noticed many non-feminists condemning pornography, as well as feminists defending freedom of speech. So when you speak of bile, look at your own postings first. -- Julia Harper [ihnp4,ariel]!hou5g!jdh
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Pesmard Flurrmn) (01/24/85)
>> According to one recent posting on the net: >> "Married sexual activity is sacred and its use outside of >> marriage is a profanation of a holy thing." >> That's fine for you, but freedom of religion is constitutionally >> protected, so arguments based on church doctrine are disallowed. >> >>Jon Mauney, mcnc!ncsu!mauney > Interesting. Does this mean to say that one does not have to > look at whether it was right or not, or true or not? "If it's religiously > oriented, we don't have to listen to it." is just as biased as "If it's > religiously oriented, we MUST listen to it.". As if driving off the > left side of the road is a greater virtue than driving off the right > side... [GERALD OWENS] The point was that just because something is decreed to be wrong by a certain religion is NO reason for it to be considered as public policy. Something a good many people need to learn. -- When you're omniscient, everything's a tautology. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
sean@ukma.UUCP (Sean Casey) (01/28/85)
I'd like to read about BOOKS here, thank you. Sean Casey
mauney@ncsu.UUCP (Jon Mauney) (01/28/85)
> > According to one recent posting on the net: > > "Married sexual activity is sacred and its use outside of > > marriage is a profanation of a holy thing." > > That's fine for you, but freedom of religion is constitutionally > > protected, so arguments based on church doctrine are disallowed. > > Interesting. Does this mean to say that one does not have to > look at whether it was right or not, or true or not? "If it's religiously > oriented, we don't have to listen to it." is just as biased as "If it's > religiously oriented, we MUST listen to it.". As if driving off the > left side of the road is a greater virtue than driving off the right > side... What this means to say is that the fact that a religious authority says X is not sufficient to prove X is true. Religious pronouncements cannot be classed 'true' or 'false', only 'I believe' or 'I don''t believe.' Religious statements may contain ideas that people of different religions find useful. Then again, they may not. When someone quotes Catechism to argue that porn is wrong, I consider it and form my own opinion. When the statement occurs in the context of other people arguing that porn should be banned, I point out that religious views should not be the (sole) basis of secular law. The Church's view of sex may be a good reason for people not to buy or look at pornography. It is not a good reason to forbid other people to do so. -- *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH A HOOK AND SINKER *** Jon Mauney mcnc!ncsu!mauney C.S. Dept, North Carolina State University
jlg@lanl.ARPA (01/31/85)
I agree, move it somewhere else. net.legal seems the most appropriate place. This discussion never belonged in net.women (unless you want to argue that only women are effected by or interested in the issue). It doesn't really belong in net.books either since most porno. isn't in book form (at least I've not seen any, movies are often advertised and magazines are hard to miss in a large city, but books don't seem to be published by the porno people (not enough pictures I guess)).
zubbie@wlcrjs.UUCP (Jeanette Zobjeck) (02/05/85)
With regard to what should or should not be censured I would like to ask if anyone on the net remembers the fiasco about nuclear fision and producing the atomic bomb.?>?>?> If anyone has an encyclopedia which was published prior to 1946 and you care to dig it out and look up the atomic bomb and related topics you will find an almost unbelievable amount of how to type material. Next look in a modern encyclopedia for the same information. I think you will be surprised . This is censorship carried to an extreme and based soley on some official version of "we cant print this for your own safety." Jeanette Zobjeck ihnp4!wlcrjs!zubbie =============================================================================== From the mostly vacant environment of Jeanette L. Zobjeck (ihnp4!wlcrjs!zubbie) All opinions expressed may not even be my own. ===============================================================================
jcp@osiris.UUCP (Jody Patilla) (09/04/85)
Even though I agree that some types of pornography are degrading to women (and some degrading to men), I do *not* favor a ban on pornography. First of all, who is to decide what is pornography and what isn't ? Andrea Dworkin, Phyllis Schlafly, Hugh Hefner, Judge Wapner ? James Joyce's "Ulysses" has already been banned once this century. What about gay men's publications ? Or lesbian porn and S&M mags (women tying up other women, "On Our Backs", "Tits&Clits")? The diaries of Anais Nin ? Why, we could re-bowdlerize Shakespeare, and put jockey shorts on the "David". Is "Our Bodies, Ourselves" porn ? What happens to "The Joy of Sex" and all those tantric love manuals ? And there's always the Bible - talk about sex, violence and the subjugation of women ! Publicly banning pornography does *not* make it go away and it does not prevent rape or abuse of women. The Victorians were hysterical about public porn yet they had an extensive underground of privately-published pornographic materials. (I have a catalogue from an auction of erotica at Sotheby Park Barnet and it's, well, very interesting) For an excellent analysis (and quotes from "The Pearl" and "My Secret Life") of the dicotomy between words and actions re Victorian sexuality, see Ronald Pearsall's "The Worm in the Bud". Pornograpny of any sort is completely banned in most Arabic countries, where women are treated horribly, but it is freely available in Scandanavian countries, where women enjoy more rights than they do here. Pornography that degrades any individual is not the cause of violence or abuse, it's a symptom of the attitude which causes people to behave that way toward others. Banning the symptom will not cure the illness and it will set a dangerous legal precedent. Nor is all pornography bad or violent - perhaps 15% of all porn depicts acts of violence. Alot of couples use "naughty" videotapes to get it on, so that even the stereotype of the lone man using porn to jerk off isn't really that common. And as they say, erotica is what you like, and pornography is what the other guy likes. *Please note that I am NOT here addressing the problem of CHILD pornography, in which children are exploited without their informed consent, and taken advantage of by sick adults. The adults who pose for porn mags and films are old enough to know what they are doing; if they are dumb enough to want to do it, what can you say ? But children are a different problem altogether - don't confuse the two. (I think the perveyors of child porn probably ought to be boiled in oil) -- jcpatilla "The bland leadeth the bland and they both shall fall into the kitsch."
jpexg@mit-hermes.ARPA (John Purbrick) (09/07/85)
> For an excellent analysis > (and quotes from "The Pearl" and "My Secret Life") of the dicotomy between > words and actions re Victorian sexuality, see Ronald Pearsall's "The Worm > in the Bud". Second the above--it's an excellent and thought-provoking book.
chris@pyuxc.UUCP (R. Hollenbeck) (09/13/85)
> I think Ellen Eades' reply to an article full of emotion-laden terms >like "enraged" or "self-righteous" feminist showed commendable tact and >restraint. I'll try to be equally civil in disagreeing with her. > >>> There is no solution to the "problem" of pornography >>> that will leave freedom of the press intact. Don't >>> give me mumbo jumbo about applying "community standards," >>> this is as vague as anything else. >>> >>> Face it, pornography is a pretty small price to pay >>> for something as important as freedom of the press. >> >>I disagree strongly with this position, popular as it is among >>the white liberal males of my acquaintance, and some of the >>women. First of all, Todd reveals that he has already formed >>certain opinions about the "religious zealots" and "enraged >>feminists" which make him believe they are unfit to judge >>pornography, or to ban certain allegedly pornographic materials. > > I'm willing to concede that those who would ban certain types of >literature have nothing but good intentions. But whether you think of censors >as narrow-minded bigots or crusaders for a better world, they are arrogating >to themselves a decision that I feel is rightfully mine: what I may read, see >or hear. I judge *no one* to be better qualified than I in judging what I >shall read and see. > >>Secondly, the "Who will decide?" argument refuses categorically >>to accept that certain materials can be easily defined as >>obscene by at least 99.95% of the population; Todd seems to feel >>that child porn is obscene, and I know no one who would argue >>with that; I feel that snuff films are obscene, and know no one >>who would argue with me. The point I wish to make is that *some* >>material is *so* outrageously offensive that there can be hardly >>any argument that it damages our humanity and is appealing only >>to sick people. > > I still question the idea of anyone saying it should be >censored. If you're talking about films showing real, not play-acted, >criminal behavior, I would assume that purveyors of such films might be >chargeable with conspiracy in commission of the crimes depicted. Such a >tactic is not censorship, and I don't disapprove of it, though it can >be misapplied. I heard, recently, about charges of pandering being >brought against the producers of hard-core (but not necessarily kinky) >films, the logic being that buying or selling sex is illegal, the >actors and actresses are paid, therefore the producer is a pimp. >Actually, the logic seems sound; my problem with this reasoning is that >I don't think buying or selling sex should be illegal. But I digress. > >>Thirdly, the argument that "Nothing is worth losing freedom of >>the press" does not seem valid to me. To me, the fact that the >>institution of pornography maims the lives of women and children >>daily, promotes violent thoughts and violent actions against >>weaker persons, and flaunts degradation to satisfy prurient >>interests, far outweighs the ideal of freedom of the press, >>which is in any case often ignored in cases of less controversy >>(any number of examples of violation of freedom of the press can >>be found in the last thirty years) than pornography. > > You start out saying "the fact that", but present a series of value >judgments, not facts. No one has ever established any causal link between the >reading/seeing of pornography and the commission of anti-social acts. As for >pointing out that freedom of the press gets violated in cases unrelated to >pornography, how does this argue for censorship? Freedom doesn't just >crumble everywhere because it's been violated a few times, but that does not >make the violations any less odious. > >>And finally, a personal response, which should not be discounted >>for its subjectivity. Were I to find that an otherwise kind, >>intelligent, sensitive male of my acquaintance read pornography >>or watched pornographic films, my immediate response, as a woman >>and a person of color, is to wonder whether he sees my face on >>those trussed-up, whipscarred, burned, mutilated, impaled, >>spermsmeared bodies; whether he would like to see me tied up and >>whipped and burned; and most of all, whether he believes, in his >>deepest convictions, that I would enjoy it when he beats me to >>death. And I would be terribly, terribly angry, and afraid, and >>ashamed, for him. > > ...and a personal response in return. I take censorship personally. >If I hear of a book being banned, I take it as someone telling *me*, >*personally*, what I may and may not read. It doesn't have to even be >something I'd want to read, I just don't think anyone has the right to forbid >such things to me. It is my personal *opinion* that a strong predilection for >the kind of extremely sadistic material you describe is probably symptomatic >of something wrong. But since that is in no way the same thing as saying >exposure to such stuff *causes* violent behavior, and is, moreover, only >a personal opinion unsupported by hard evidence, I would not feel justified >in giving my opinion the force of law. I grant, though, that if I were a >woman, and knew a man such as you describe, I would feel very uneasy. But, how >broad do you intend your attack to be? Judging by your article, your >definition of "pornography" is quite narrow, and only covers extreme sadism >and sexual exploitation of children. If so, we're not too far apart. 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. > But, if you're also against all portrayal of sex that has the >"suggestion" of dominance or submissiveness, or the "implication" of >exploitation in a sexual situation, then I'm afraid that you're one of >those very well-intentioned people who want to limit my choices in reading >material for my own good. Thanks but no thanks. > >- From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry Kenn You made some excellent points in this posting. I've been wondering when someone would get around to saying these things. I'd just like to add one or two things to what you've said. Freedom isn't easy. It means that lots of people are free to do things that others find disgusting, immoral, degrading, etc. But, if this is truly a free society, THEY HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO DO THOSE THINGS. True, some actions can and should be prohibited for the public safety, e.g., murder, theft, rape, etc. But the list of things that are truly dangerous enough to outlaw is quite short. And it cannot and should not be amended simply to accommodate popular opinion, or unpopular but vocal opinion. And it does not and should not include thoughts and fantasies. Those are the sacred province of the individuals having them, and, in the case of pornography, sharing them. Unfortunately, many (perhaps most people) seem to favor limiting other people's freedom at one time or another. The religious right wants to limit people's freedom to bring up their children outside of organized religion by forcing them to pray in school (is everyone ready for some side controversy?). Parents' groups want to label rock & roll records for obscenity. Back in the 60s, lots of people wanted to jail people who protested against war and racism. And the list goes on. Sooner or later, it becomes apparent that many of us do not want to live in a free society, but in a society in which people are "free" to conform to "our" point of view, and in which "we" are free to force them to do so. Well, that ain't the way freedom works. And I would prefer to live in a truly free society. Thanks again for a thoughtful posting, Kenn. Chris Hollenbeck