rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Pesmard Flurrmn) (01/29/85)
1. Pornography exists because a significant number of people get off on it.
This fact allows other people to make money from other people's desire for
pornography. Thus it continues to exist because there is a market for it.
2. The majority (the vast majority?) of these people are men. Some people
feel that their desire for pornography is equivalent to the degradation
of women and their relegation to second-class personhood (objects for
sexual pleasure rather than people) on the part of those viewing
pornography. Granted, a significant portion of pornography DOES involve
rape and abuse fantasies, though I'd hesitate to call it anywhere near
a majority of what gets called pornography.
3. It would seem that those who shout "ALL/MOST pornography depicts women in
degrading situations where they are (ab)used as sexual objects" feel that
the depiction of women in any sexually provocative position falls into the
above category. Further, it would seem that those same people associate
ANY sexual context in pornography catering to male attraction to female
physical anatomy with degradation and abuse. This does lead many people
to the conclusion that those same people have something against sex per se,
since sex DOES involve physical attraction, and since they seemingly
associate male desire for sex based on physical attraction with
degradation. I would have to agree with those who find the connection
between pictures of the female body and direct degradation very tenuous.
(Especially when contending that the pictures are a cause, rather than a
symptom, of degradation.) Note that I am not deriding groups of people
(e.g., feminists, women) at large, or implying that "certain groups of
people" hold this view, but I am saying that there apparently *are* those
who fit this mold and who represent a vocal section in the anti-porn
movement.
4. We've heard other arguments for the banning of pornography. Among them are
the greed argument ("Pornography involves greedy people making money by
exploiting women and their bodies.") To which I ask "What about the greedy
toy manufacturers who sell shoddy merchandise and exploit children & their
parents?" This sort of greed is a natural outgrowth of unchecked capitalism
---where there's a market for something, someone will fill the need. In
and of itself that is not necessarily "bad".
5. Also, there's the moral argument---it's WRONG. Normally, the people
offering this sort of argument have based their reasoning on their
particular interpretation of some book or other. They don't have much
more to say than that (at least not content-wise). So let's move on.
6. Then, there's still another argument---pornography perpetuates the notion
of women as sex objects. To me, that's a "chicken-and-egg", "cart-before-
the-horse" situation of the classic variety. Pornography doesn't *make*
people view women as sex objects, pornography EXISTS *because* there are
enough people who already *do* view women that way to make it profitable.
Even if you really could isolate degrading pornography from the rest and
attempt to ban only that which dealt with degradation, abuse, and violence,
you'd STILL have those people who STILL wish to see the stuff and STILL
have the same desires. And you'd STILL have the pornography, somehow or
other (where there's a demand, a supplier is sure to come along). So you
have gained nothing. Other than having a step closer to fascist
repression: where one particular type of work can be outlawed, why not
arbitrarily outlaw some others. Fact is, I dislike literature and other
media that glorify violence in general EVEN MORE than I dislike that which
glorifies degradation of segments of the population. So let's get rid of
all of that too. And I hate manipulative literature, such as political or
religious propaganda, warping people's minds, so let's ban that too. Soon
all we'll have is government-approved literature and media. And even if
in your wildest dreams you can conceive of such a government directing and
approving only "good" things, it still amounts to that old devil fascism.
Pure and simple. The question is: Is that what you really want?
7. Getting rid of the symptom doesn't make the disease go away. Getting rid
of pornography will NOT change the attitudes toward women of those who
read/view it, if indeed all/most of them have a degradatory/abusive
attitude.
These comments are certainly not a be all and end all on the issues, and I
am interested in further comments, private or public.
--
Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen.
Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlrnap@druxo.UUCP (Parsons) (01/29/85)
> Some people > feel that [men's] desire for pornography is equivalent to the degradation > of women and their relegation to second-class personhood (objects for > sexual pleasure rather than people) on the part of those viewing > pornography. Granted, a significant portion of pornography DOES involve > rape and abuse fantasies, though I'd hesitate to call it anywhere near > a majority of what gets called pornography. This seems to imply that degradation is equivalent to rape and abuse. I disagree. Degradation implies reducing something to a level lower than it was (or should be). Pornography (even in its mildest forms) is degrading simply because it reduces sexual *people* to sexual *objects*. Human sex, as such, is not degrading--it involves whole people in whole relationships. Anything less IS degrading, and pornography is certainly something less. (So are many sexual relationships within marriage, by the way.) > It would seem that those who shout "ALL/MOST pornography depicts women in > degrading situations where they are (ab)used as sexual objects" feel that > the depiction of women in any sexually provocative position falls into the > above category. Yes, such depiction *is* pornography because it *is* degrading by the above definition. (So are depictions in advertising, sometimes with equally harmful effects.) > Further, it would seem that those same people associate > ANY sexual context in pornography catering to male attraction to female > physical anatomy with degradation and abuse. Exactly (again, given the above explanation). > This does lead many people > to the conclusion that those same people have something against sex per se, > since sex DOES involve physical attraction, and since they seemingly > associate male desire for sex based on physical attraction with > degradation. Not at all. Desire for sex based on physical attraction is natural and healthy. But if that is the only basis (or even the primary basis) for sexual desire, then it does become degrading (pornographic). > I would have to agree with those who find the connection > between pictures of the female body and direct degradation very tenuous. > (Especially when contending that the pictures are a cause, rather than a > symptom, of degradation.) We have different understandings of what constitutes degradation. As for cause vs. symptom, as with so many things affecting motivation, it's a chicken and egg type of thing. Each produces the other. > We've heard other arguments for the banning of pornography. Among them are > the greed argument ("Pornography involves greedy people making money by > exploiting women and their bodies.") To which I ask "What about the greedy > toy manufacturers who sell shoddy merchandise and exploit children & their > parents?" This sort of greed is a natural outgrowth of unchecked capitalism > ---where there's a market for something, someone will fill the need. In > and of itself that is not necessarily "bad". Most people don't seem to object too much to laws preventing harmful exploitation of consumers (e.g., physically harmful toys). > Also, there's the moral argument---it's WRONG. Normally, the people > offering this sort of argument have based their reasoning on their > particular interpretation of some book or other. They don't have much > more to say than that (at least not content-wise). So let's move on. Perhaps. For myself, I believe that degradation of people *is* wrong. You may disagree with my understanding of what is degrading, but do you disagree that degrading people is wrong? ... > Other than having a step closer to fascist > repression: where one particular type of work can be outlawed, why not > arbitrarily outlaw some others. Yes, one must be careful, but we do already outlaw particular types of work (e.g., drug dealing). There are certainly some people who object to that, but "society" has decided that it is too harmful to be permitted, so it is outlawed (which doesn't stop it, but may retard it somewhat). All of the arguments I've heard so far about why pornography should be allowed would also apply to drug dealing. One might argue that one is more harmful than the other, but where does one draw the line? ... > Getting rid of the symptom doesn't make the disease go away. Getting rid > of pornography will NOT change the attitudes toward women of those who > read/view it, if indeed all/most of them have a degradatory/abusive > attitude. I disagree. People *are* influenced by what they view (advertising, propaganda, and education evidence this) and people are more likely to be influenced one way if they are not being influenced in the opposite direction. Granted that these are knotty issues with no easy answers and *any* answer is vulnerable to attack (as well as abuse), let's keep seeking the ideal even if it does elude more often than not. Nancy Parsons AT&T ISL
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Pesmard Flurrmn) (01/30/85)
>> Some people >> feel that [men's] desire for pornography is equivalent to the degradation >> of women and their relegation to second-class personhood (objects for >> sexual pleasure rather than people) on the part of those viewing >> pornography. Granted, a significant portion of pornography DOES involve >> rape and abuse fantasies, though I'd hesitate to call it anywhere near >> a majority of what gets called pornography. [ROSEN] > This seems to imply that degradation is equivalent to rape and abuse. I > disagree. Degradation implies reducing something to a level lower than it > was (or should be). [NANCY PARSONS] >> This does lead many people >> to the conclusion that those same people have something against sex per se, >> since sex DOES involve physical attraction, and since they seemingly >> associate male desire for sex based on physical attraction with >> degradation. [ROSEN] > Not at all. Desire for sex based on physical attraction is natural and > healthy. But if that is the only basis (or even the primary basis) for > sexual desire, then it does become degrading (pornographic). [PARSONS] All we've said is that we have different definitions of degradation. (Which you pointed out yourself later.) The fact remains, just because some utterance or action is deemed to be degrading does NOT necessarily mean that it MUST be eradicated through censorship or whatever. If we do that in ALL cases of speech or writing or publication that is deemed by someone to be degrading, then no one will be allowed to say/write/publish anything. Except under government control? > Pornography (even in its mildest forms) is degrading simply because it > reduces sexual *people* to sexual *objects*. Human sex, as such, is not > degrading--it involves whole people in whole relationships. Anything less > IS degrading, and pornography is certainly something less. (So are many > sexual relationships within marriage, by the way.) *I* don't feel degraded by seeing or knowing that other people are engaging in "less-than-human" sex. Not personally so. The human race may less for having some of its members doing this, but we cannot and should not hope to control the actions and beliefs of all members of the human race, except for such actions that are deemed harmful to individuals or groups of individuals. >> It would seem that those who shout "ALL/MOST pornography depicts women in >> degrading situations where they are (ab)used as sexual objects" feel that >> the depiction of women in any sexually provocative position falls into the >> above category. > Yes, such depiction *is* pornography because it *is* degrading by the above > definition. (So are depictions in advertising, sometimes with equally > harmful effects.) The ordinance, and other general opposition to pornography, does not even begin to address advertising and other mass media representations of ALL types of people that are indeed degrading. To eliminate one in the name of "justice" or "equality" of whatever is to make it a special case. It is but one of many. And I don't advocate censorship to get rid of one or all of them. >> We've heard other arguments for the banning of pornography. Among them are >> the greed argument ("Pornography involves greedy people making money by >> exploiting women and their bodies.") To which I ask "What about the greedy >> toy manufacturers who sell shoddy merchandise and exploit children & their >> parents?" This sort of greed is a natural outgrowth of unchecked capitalism >> ---where there's a market for something, someone will fill the need. In >> and of itself that is not necessarily "bad". > Most people don't seem to object too much to laws preventing harmful > exploitation of consumers (e.g., physically harmful toys). I gave a bad example. What about those greedy people who broadcast shoddy below par cartoons, or sell junk food? Greed alone is not a vice that is to be eliminated, especially not in a capitalist economy. >> Also, there's the moral argument---it's WRONG. Normally, the people >> offering this sort of argument have based their reasoning on their >> particular interpretation of some book or other. They don't have much >> more to say than that (at least not content-wise). So let's move on. > Perhaps. For myself, I believe that degradation of people *is* wrong. You > may disagree with my understanding of what is degrading, but do you > disagree that degrading people is wrong? I disagree that any one person or group of people should be able to define what is "degrading" to ALL, and to back that belief up by eliminating such "degradation" through censorship. It is because some anti-pornography activists DO believe this that they are associated with Falwellism. I think a lot of things in the world are "wrong", but I concede the fact that many things I dislike are beyond my ability (or anyone's ability) to control, and I feel that the restrictive method of censorship will fail to do the desired job (of changing the attitudes of those people who DO read/view pornography) AND it will result in additional problems in the future regarding freedoms. >> Other than having a step closer to fascist >> repression: where one particular type of work can be outlawed, why not >> arbitrarily outlaw some others. > Yes, one must be careful, but we do already outlaw particular types of work > (e.g., drug dealing). There are certainly some people who object to that, > but "society" has decided that it is too harmful to be permitted, so it is > outlawed (which doesn't stop it, but may retard it somewhat). All of the > arguments I've heard so far about why pornography should be allowed would > also apply to drug dealing. One might argue that one is more harmful than > the other, but where does one draw the line? One might notice that THAT doesn't help in that case either. One "draws the line" at acts that involve direct harm, like murder or theft or assault. To try to draw it anywhere "further back" is going to lead to problems, without solving the problems you started out with. >> Getting rid of the symptom doesn't make the disease go away. Getting rid >> of pornography will NOT change the attitudes toward women of those who >> read/view it, if indeed all/most of them have a degradatory/abusive >> attitude. > I disagree. People *are* influenced by what they view (advertising, > propaganda, and education evidence this) and people are more likely to be > influenced one way if they are not being influenced in the opposite > direction. And, in any case, I cannot condone the notion of restricting particular artistic (or non-artistic: who's going to define THAT dichotomy?) output because of the "bad" influence it MIGHT have on some people. To think that that is within our power as human beings is ridiculous. It cannot be done except in an atmosphere that restricts ALL personal freedoms. [P.S. Given the fact that many have expressed NONinterest in this discussion, where is it actually proper to continue it? I "got in late", but so far this has proved to be a more interesting and less abrasive discussion than most.] -- "Does the body rule the mind or does the mind rule the body? I dunno." Rich Rosen {ihnp4 | harpo}!pyuxd!rlr
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (01/31/85)
Ahem. Believe it or not, there are people out there who both believe in sex outside of the context of a relationship (unless you define relationship very broadly) and do not view the people they have sex with as objects. Are you going to outlaw their behaviour as well? Laura Creighton utzoo!laura
nap@druxo.UUCP (Parsons) (01/31/85)
Rosen: > ...The fact remains, just because some > utterance or action is deemed to be degrading does NOT necessarily mean that > it MUST be eradicated through censorship or whatever. Parsons: Some of my comments are certainly vulnerable to being interpreted as supporting censorship. Sorry. I'm not arguing for censorship, but for an understanding of why I find pornography (as I define it :-)) degrading. ... Rosen: > Greed alone is not a vice that is >to be eliminated, especially not in a capitalist economy. Parsons: I've often pondered that. Greed is an ugly character trait, but most economies (not just capitalist) depend on it and great harm would come to many millions without it. Parsons: >> ...we do already outlaw particular types of work >> (e.g., drug dealing)... >> ...All of the >> arguments I've heard so far about why pornography should be allowed would >> also apply to drug dealing. One might argue that one is more harmful than >> the other, but where does one draw the line? Rosen: > ...One "draws the >line" at acts that involve direct harm, like murder or theft or assault. To >try to draw it anywhere "further back" is going to lead to problems, without >solving the problems you started out with. Parsons: Are you saying that selling drugs to an adult is an act that involves direct harm? Rosen: >[P.S. Given the fact that many have expressed NONinterest in this discussion, > where is it actually proper to continue it? Parsons: Me, too. Nancy Parsons AT&T ISL
faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (02/01/85)
> For myself, I believe that degradation of people *is* wrong. You > may disagree with my understanding of what is degrading, but do you > disagree that degrading people is wrong? Granting that degrading people is wrong, and even that depicting people as sexual objects is degrading (which I don't agree with), who are you to tell people that they can't degrade themselves? If somebody published a magazine that consisted only of letters from people that said, "I'm a worthless scumbag", would you object? If people want to make themselves into sexual objects, why not let them? > > Other than having a step closer to fascist > > repression: where one particular type of work can be outlawed, why not > > arbitrarily outlaw some others. > > Yes, one must be careful, but we do already outlaw particular types of work > (e.g., drug dealing). There are certainly some people who object to that, > but "society" has decided that it is too harmful to be permitted, so it is > outlawed (which doesn't stop it, but may retard it somewhat). All of the > arguments I've heard so far about why pornography should be allowed would > also apply to drug dealing. One might argue that one is more harmful than > the other, but where does one draw the line? Regulating pornography and drugs are equally worthless. If they don't hurt you, why should you have the right to prevent people from doing bad things to themselves. > I disagree. People *are* influenced by what they view (advertising, > propaganda, and education evidence this) and people are more likely to be > influenced one way if they are not being influenced in the opposite > direction. And you decide which way they should be influenced? Great... As for the issue of pornography being degrading because it makes people seem one-dimensional (sex objects), this is garbage. I will agree that the people involved are portraying themselves as merely sexual, but WHY is this degrading in the awful sense you claim? It happens all the time in movies, etc -- certainly you wouldn't object to such one-dimensional characters such as Superman or the Three Stooges? The fact is that YOU PERSONALLY don't want to be thought of as one dimensional, and regard the fact that other people don't mind it as a threat. I think this is more your own problem than anything wrong with society. Wayne
larry@cci-bdc.UUCP (Larry DeLuca) (02/01/85)
> > 6. Then, there's still another argument---pornography perpetuates the notion > of women as sex objects. i just recently got cable TV and because we got free installation if we bought EVERYTHING, we got the playboy channel as well... the playboy channel is the ultimate in female exploitation, but you know what i've found watching it -- it takes a lot of women to exploit women... larry... -- uucp: ..mit-eddie!cybvax0!cci-bdc!larry arpa: henrik@mit-mc.ARPA This mind intentionally left blank.
edtking@uw-june (Ewan Tempero) (02/02/85)
I'm getting tired of this ( correction I got tired of it a long time ago ) Please get this discussion out of net.books. Thankyou. Ewan Tempero "Oh no, not again" UUCP: ...!uw-beaver!uw-june!edtking ARPA: edtking@washington.ARPA
cjk@ccice2.UUCP (Chris Kreilick) (02/06/85)
> Ahem. Believe it or not, there are people out there who both believe > in sex outside of the context of a relationship (unless you define > relationship very broadly) and do not view the people they have sex > with as objects. Are you going to outlaw their behaviour as well? > > Laura Creighton > utzoo!laura Laura. Seriously now, did Dubuc escape from one of your labs? If so, just let me know and my trusty Bronto and I will bring him back alive. South of the Lake -- Bronto rider
jfh@browngr.UUCP (John "Spike" Hughes) (02/07/85)
Rich Rosen's last point "Gettting rid of the symptoms doesn't get rid of the disease", (the symptoms being pornography, the disease being attitudes towards women) isn't so clear to me. It's true that the pornographers will still have bad attitudes towards women, but what we (presumably) seek is not the elimination of the disease but the prevention of its spreading. Just as stopping people from sneezing makes them less likely to transfer their colds to others, getting rid of this symptom might help prevent the spread of perverse attitudes. Was I uninfluenced in my attitudes towards women by the magazines I saw when I was young? I really don't know... Well, I don't know how to get rid of the symptoms, (or even if we ought to--I have this belief in free speech), but I think the old disease/sysmptoms adage may not really be correct in this case. -jfh
tron@fluke.UUCP (Peter Barbee) (02/20/85)
Spike, You say, >getting rid of this symptom might >help prevent the spread of perverse attitudes. in reference to the pornagraphy debate. When you label someone else's attitude as perverse and are willing to legislate against it you are making morality a legal issue. That is fine as long as you are aware that your attitudes may seem perverse to whomever holds the power next. Sincerely, Peter B decvax-+-uw-beaver-+ ihnp4--+ allegra-+ ucbvax----lbl-csam-+--fluke!tron sun-+ ssc-vax-+ :