charliep@v1.UUCP (Charlie Perkins) (02/10/85)
Important Question: Instead of everyone being AGAINST porn, why don't
we hear more about what people are FOR -- and what erotic
expression SHOULD be "allowable"?
> May question is, for those who recognise the problem and would like to
> do something about it, what are some effective ways? It seems that anyone
> who is opposed to porn can't help but be labeled a censor when they express
> their views.
While reading that posting by Paul Dubuc, I was jolted by
his assertion that he was NOT interested in censorship so
much as elimination of pornography. And I am hereby taking
an opportunity to mention several ways that porn might be
either eliminated or made completely ineffectual.
In a nutshell - eliminate the demand for porn!
I have just finished reading "Anatomy of Nakedness" by
Paul Ableman. This book is sort of a rambling discussion of nudity
as it has been viewed in various cultures. Mr. Ableman references
many other books, including some by Margaret Mead and B. Daniellson
which I have also read and can recommend to any interested reader.
I certainly recommend Paul A.'s book to anyone whose view
of nakedness (and sex) has been mostly influenced by the prevailing
American mores (that's a lot of people besides myself).
ANYway, I think there is evidence available to support the view,
(and, moreover, little if any to counter it),
that sex should be much more integrated into our daily life.
Apparently this has been the case in many different cultures
throughout history. For instance, in Tahiti sex was publicly OK
until the missionaries came. It was a fun thing and other
public rituals were oriented toward heightening sexual
experiences (e.g, erotic dancing).
Legalizing prostitution would be an important step along this route.
Much of life could be very much better if, as in some of
R. Heinlein's books, prostitution were restored to an honorable
profession. As Ableman points out, prostitution was actually a
sacred profession in many early religions. Now, that kind of worship
I think I could get into!
Public baths could become more commonplace. Sexually integrated, AND
sexually segregated baths could be available. Judging from the faces
of satisfied customers at the hot-tub places I've been to, there is
real profitability here. Of course, truly inviting advertising
might run afoul of some *CENSOR'S* rules.
Given the honorable profession of prostitution and the public
acceptance of nudity and bathing, it would only be a matter of
time until other specialty businesses began capitalizing on
our human zest and quest for sex in unusual circumstances. I really
think that the next sexual revolution (the REAL one) will completely
overshadow the Industrial revolution and the Information revolution.
This is partially due to the probability that a better cultural
view of sex would reduce the demand for the arms race, would greatly
enhance most people's self image, (etc, etc, etc, etc...)
Once sex is no longer considered a restricted (even criminal!)
activity, I think that you'll find that practically no one is
sitting around looking at pornography.
SO, the things we can do to eliminate pornography are limited only by
our imagination and the current state of the legality of sex in this
country. I'd like to get going on some of those business ideas
I listed above but so far I have been "chicken". Not to mention that
I have a hard time tearing myself away from computering (netnews even!).
If anyone is interested in a joint venture in the elimination of porn,
let me hear from you. In the meantime, the laws preventing our
society from becoming sexually healthy should be wiped off the books.
I'd sure like to hear ideas about how to accomplish that.
> Excellent article from C.E. Jackson. Though long it's well worth
> reading.
I thought it was terrible. Although M. Jackson claims not to
advocate GOVERNMENT CENSORSHIP, I can't see how else anyone might
implement the forcible removal of porn. All the talk about whether
or not porn is degrading completely misses the point. Do you think
is degrading for someone to wallow in a garbage dump? Do you think
we should make it illegal to do so? If humans choose to degrade
themselves they will find a way legal or not! The dangerous assumption
is made by many that, if they allow something to be legal, they are
condoning it. Therefore, (I guess) they have to continually march
against it so that they will not feel guilty about doing nothing.
In fact, I have concluded that anti-porn actvists are perverting
their SEXUAL ENERGIES into their warlike campaign.
I cannot understand why it is so necessary to wield the
huge weapon of censorship to combat the SMALL CHANCE of ill effects
from (e.g.) Penthouse.
--
Charlie Perkins, IBM T.J. Watson Research
philabs!v1!charliep, perk%YKTVMX.BITNET@berkeley, perk.yktvmx.ibm@csnet-relaywest@utcsri.UUCP (Thomas L. West) (02/17/85)
This sort of thing is fine if you think that pornography promotes sex alone.
However, I think that you will find that a large number of people who are in
favour of censorship dislike pornography because of its attitudes towards women,
NOT of its attitudes towards sex itself. Since women are increasingly beginning
to stand up for themselves, it is not terribly suprising that a large portion of
the men who bear women a great deal of resentment for one reason or another are
turning towards pornography. It is also not suprising that the pornography
"industry" is replying by increasing the amount of implicit and explicit
violence in their publications. Now that it is harder to victimize women,
some are turning to paper substitutes, or in some cases, towards those who
still can't fight back, children.
Since these people are looking for victims, I doubt a liberalization of the
laws concerning sex would have much effect on the consumption of pornography
of the type that concerns many of us the most: violent pornography and child
pornography.
Thus I maintain that the there is little reason to allow pornography to
sustain and encourage the set of attitudes towards women and need to victimize
others that I believe pornography promotes.
Many have worried that control of censorship could fall to the wrong people.
This is true if (1) The reasons for cutting a movie aren't explicitly laid out
ahead of time in law and (2) There is no recourse the courts in the event of
a disputed judgement. I oppose censorship without these pre-requisites (which
is why a can not support the Ontario Censor Board in its present state.)
Just a question to the anti-censorship folk. If child pornography is made
*outside* the US in some country where it was legal, then no US laws were
broken in its making. Now should the end product be banned? Remember that
it's not legitimate to ban it because making it in the US would be illegal.
Lots of stuff is imported to the US that is made under conditions that would
be illegal in the US (like safety regulations or minimum wage laws, etc.)
Now this becomes a straight censorship question. If this should be banned, then
why? If it should be banned because it is socially harmful, why shouldn't all
pornography? I've heard anti-censorship people argue this both ways, so the
results, if anyone picks up the challenge, might be interesting.
But back to the article being rebutted. While liberalizing laws concerning
what happens to two individuals in the privacy of their home is something I'm
in favour of, I don't think that the legalization of prostitution is likely to
help attitudes much at all. We *are* North Americans, and as such, we are
unlikely to view prostitution as an honourable or sacred profession. To
legalize it would just make it more widespread and likely hurt attitudes
towards women in general (remember that given our background, the vast majority
of the population looks down upon prostitution and this *isn't* going to change
with legalization).
Tom West
{ allegra cornell decvax ihnp4 linus utzoo }!utcsri!westbarry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (02/20/85)
> But back to the article being rebutted. While liberalizing laws concerning >what happens to two individuals in the privacy of their home is something I'm >in favour of, I don't think that the legalization of prostitution is likely to >help attitudes much at all. We *are* North Americans, and as such, we are >unlikely to view prostitution as an honourable or sacred profession. To >legalize it would just make it more widespread and likely hurt attitudes >towards women in general (remember that given our background, the vast majority >of the population looks down upon prostitution and this *isn't* going to change >with legalization). Seems to me this is a self-perpetuating attitude. If you keep prostitution illegal, then hookers will of course continue to have no social standing, and little legal protection against exploitation and abuse. I would agree that the main problem is that most people look down on prostitutes, but maybe it would be better if we tried to change such attitudes. Is such contempt not sexist? Are hookers not one of the groups most victimized by sexism? Is prostitution a problem, or is the problem the suppression of prostitution? - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- USENET: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,hao,menlo70,hplabs}!ames!barry
jeff@rtech.ARPA (Jeff Lichtman) (02/22/85)
> But back to the article being rebutted. While liberalizing laws concerning > what happens to two individuals in the privacy of their home is something I'm > in favour of, I don't think that the legalization of prostitution is likely to > help attitudes much at all. We *are* North Americans, and as such, we are > unlikely to view prostitution as an honourable or sacred profession. To > legalize it would just make it more widespread and likely hurt attitudes > towards women in general (remember that given our background, the vast majority > of the population looks down upon prostitution and this *isn't* going to change > with legalization). > > Tom West > { allegra cornell decvax ihnp4 linus utzoo }!utcsri!west In most of the places where prostitution is legal (e.g. in several European countries) it isn't looked on as a sacred or honorable profession. The main reason it was legalized in those places (or never made illegal) is that the people making the laws recognized that the consequences of making it illegal are worse than prostitution itself. Licensed and regulated prostitutes aren't as likely to have veneral disease, don't need pimps to bail them out of jail, aren't as likely to steal from their customers, are more likely to get protection from the police when they are threatened with violence or even beaten up, etc. My own reason for wishing the prostitution were legal in this country is that prostitutes are human beings who don't deserve to be thrown in jail or harassed for doing what some people believe is sinful. -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) aka Swazoo Koolak
dmmartindale@watcgl.UUCP (Dave Martindale) (02/23/85)
The following is a letter to the editor that appeared in a Toronto newspaper.
A bit of background: censorship of films in Ontario has been a fact of life
for many years, and the Ontario Censor Board has been noted for its literal
interpretation of its guidelines with little concern for the actual meaning
of the scenes it cuts or the artistic worth of the film as a whole.
(Which may, after all, be the only "fair" way for a government agency to
operate.) The censor board is now being given the responsibility for
screening, classifying, and censoring video materials that are sold or
rented for home use, or shown to the public in places other than
commercial theatres (clubs, art galleries, etc.). At the same time, its
name is being changed to the Ontario Film Review Board. Public opinion
polls apparently show that a majority of people in Ontario approve of
censorship.
"In enacting standards for the Ontario Film Review Board, the
Government of Ontario amply demonstrates that it neither understands
nor respects the free speech principle.
The lack of understanding is perhaps curable. Unfortunately, the
Government's lack of respect is probably pathological.
As a first-order complaint, the use of public opinion polls to support
censorship criteria is patently offensive to the theory of
constitutional protection. The so-called fundamental freedoms
generally, and the freedom of speech specifically, must be anti-
majoritarian to be meaningful. The very basis of the protection of
speech is to permit the minority to present their ideas, to argue and
cajole without interference from those who wield power in society. The
employment of opinion polls to establish stadards for expression
clearly demonstrates the Government's disrespect for the underlying
rationale of freedom of speech.
[ paragraph on licencing deleted - dmm]
Finally, the actual standards enacted are worthy only of derision.
They are so overbroad as to be meaningless: graphic or prolonged
depictions of violence, torture or human degradation are unacceptable,
as are explicit indignities to the human body. Superfically, these
standards may appear justifiable. However, a film dealing with the
horrors of the Holocaust would in all likelihood fall within the
prohibition. If this example seems absurd, consider the board's
treatment of Not a Love Story, which was substantially censored despite
its patently anti-pornograhpy theme. [Not a Love Story was banned from
being shown to the "public", and could only be presented at "private"
screenings. - dmm]
Consider two other standards that appear easily justifiable: the
prohibitions against representing persons under 16 in a suggestive
sexual context, and the depiction of any explicit sexual activity.
No sane person defends kiddie porn, but that is not what the former
standard prohibits. It is much broader than that: any representation
of such activity is banned. By this standard a realistic presentation
of Romeo and Juliet is now prohibited in Ontario, since Juliet was
merely 13 and did sleep with Romeo.
With respect to other depictions of explicit sexual activity, the
problem lies with defining sexual activity. A passionate kiss on the
lips is as much a sexual activity as intercourse. The question is
where the line is to be drawn. No one can answer that question except
for himself or herself. It is clear, however, that it is extremely
dangerous to permit the government to draw the line for you.
The Ontario Government's position is indefensible and dangerous. I am
optimistic that the courts will again declare the legislation
unconstitutional. While this will solve the immediate problem of
censorship, it unfortunately will do little to promote respect for
fundamental freedoms in government circles or among the pro-censorship
majority.
John D. Wilson
Assistant Professor
Faculty of Law
University of Windsor
Windsor Ontario."
A few comments of my own: Note that the prohibition of explicit sexual
activity, which is not qualified with respect to the circumstances in
which the activity takes place, will certainly cause erotica to be
censored as effectively as pornograhpy. Perhaps this is the intent of
the law - it seems that many of the people who support censorship seldom
go to see films themselves, but want to regulate what others see.
If you are pro-censorship, is this the sort of censorship you want?
If not, how do you propose to ensure that you get the sort of censorship
you want and not something like this? How much faith do you have in
a government agency to apply censorship standards with intelligence?
How much faith do you have that people who would prefer to censor anything
sexual will not have the standards reflect their views, instead of yours,
if censorship becomes established?
Dave Martindale