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
mccolm@ucla-cs.UUCP (09/09/85)
It seems to me that a distinction is being drawn amongst all the flak in
the current debates on pornography. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem
to see several kinds of pornography, and when someone says "pornography",
people think of different things. It seems to me that these are distinguished
by the amount of violence they appear to portray.
1) "Erotica", loosely defined as sometimes explicit portrayals of sex as
a natural, pleasurable act, for all parties concerned. People have
made much of the distinction between this and any other type of
pornography, to the point of claiming there is no association between
them.
2) "Display Porn", the sort found in Playboy and similar sources.
The emphasis of this type is on the shape of the body, with the portrayal
of sex being secondary. The pictorialization of "available woman",
essentially willing and not under duress, though still submissive, appeals
to the voyuerism of the audience.
3) "Soft Porn" centers on the explicit depiction of sex in an atmosphere
that does not fit the definition of "Erotica", but is still not "hard".
The main focus is on the mechanics of sex itself, and usually is quite
shallow. There may or may not be some degree of domination expressed,
but it is no worse that the "seduction" scene of "Rocky", and cruelty
and sadism are not depicted.
4) "Hard Porn" centers on either the mechanics of sex or the shape of the
body, but in an atmosphere of domination, threat, cruelty, violence,
torture, hatred, and/or similar situations.
Of course, if several of these fit, 4 overrules 1 to 3, 3 overrules 1 and 2,
and 2 overrules 1. These are not intended to be definitions, and they have
their share of problems as such, but the idea is to convey to the reader the
separations I think I've seen. Naturally, the distinctions are about as hazy
as can be.
Child molestation need not be considered, as it is already illegal. But the
Warren Commission (?) that studied pornography and decided it was benign,
seems to have focussed only on 1-3, ignoring the (then rare) 4. But it
seems the central point of 4 is violence, expressed or implied.
I think that each of the above forms of pornography is popular for *different*
social reasons. This seems to imply that if some pornography is repulsive to
certain people, then the society is not as those people would wish it.
If this is true, then there is hope that if certain social ills were
eradicated, the popularity of the destructive type(s), (especially 4) would
decline. I do not claim that this is the *correct* way to handle
pornography, just that it sounds plausible. As to the destructiveness of
types 2 and 3, and to their effects, I don't think it would be productive
for me to speculate.
Talk about long-term solutions!
--fini--
Eric McColm
UCLA (oo' - kluh) Funny Farm for the Criminally Harmless
UUCP: ...!{ihnp4,trwspp,cepu,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!mccolm
ARPA: mccolm@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU
Quotes on the Nature of Existence:
"To be, or not to be..." -Hamlet (Wm. Shakespeare)
"I think, therefore I am." -R. Descartes
"<Gleep!>" -Gleep (Robt. Asprin)mccolm@ucla-cs.UUCP (09/09/85)
It has been brought to my attention that "Soft Porn" and "Hard Porn" already
have accepted definitions that do not match those I gave in my previous
posting. I seem to run into this rather often these days.
So, to avoid confusion, I've come up with different names that do a better
job of preserving the meanings in question (and also reflect my biases).
Type 3, involving the mechanics of sex, could be called "Sex Act Porn",
while type 4, the loathesome variety, could be called "Sadism Porn."
I'm gratified that this was pointed out to me, because it shows someone
is reading it.
--fini--
Eric McColm
UCLA (oo' - kluh) Funny Farm for the Criminally Harmless
UUCP: ...!{ihnp4,trwspp,cepu,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!mccolm
ARPA: mccolm@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU
Quotes on the Nature of Existence:
"To be, or not to be..." -Hamlet (Wm. Shakespeare)
"I think, therefore I am." -R. Descartes
"<Gleep!>" -Gleep (Robt. Asprin)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