ecl@ahuta.UUCP (ecl) (12/20/84)
Followup-To: net.women
#[What follows is--I believe--the complete text of the Minneapolis ordinance
#against "pornography." (The reasons for the quotes around the word pornography
#will become clear in my comments on the ordinance.) My comments are bracketed
#and preceded by "#" for those who wish to edit them out and have just the
#ordinance on line.. I will be up front about all this and say that I'm
#against this ordinance, so don't expect an unbiased set of comments. This
#ordinance was re-printed in the December 1984 issue of FILM COMMENT as part
#of an entire section of interviews on the subject of women, pornography,
#censorship and film. I have many comments on the rest of the section which
#will be in a separate article.]
#
#[Please post all followups to net.women. I can't figure out how to get that
#to work.]
An Ordinance of the City of Minneapolis
The City Council of the City of Minneapolis do ordain as follows:
Special findings on pornography: The Council finds that pornography is central
in creating and maintaining the civil inequality of the sexes. Pornography is
a systematic practice of exploitation and subordination based on sex which
differentially harms women. The bigotry and contempt it promotes, with the
acts of aggression it fosters, harms women's opportunities for equality of
rights in employment, education, property rights, public accommodations and
public services; create public harassment and private denigration; promote
injury and degradation such as rape, battery and prostitution and inhibit just
enforcement of laws against these acts; contribute significantly to restricting
women from full exercise of citizenship and participation in public life,
including in neighborhoods; damage relations between the sexes; and undermine
women's equal exercise of rights to speech and action guaranteed to all
citizens under the constitutions and laws of the United States and the state of
Minnesota.
#
# [And just how did the Council find all this out? Are they too running
# studies? No tests, Donnerstain's included, have ever shown this--a
# fact that Donnerstein is the first to admit. My next posting will talk
# about this.]
#
# ["Women's opportunities" were harmed (or rather, non-existent) in
# medieval Europe, a period not known for its rampant pornography.]
#
# [What is so degrading about prostitution per se? It's the conditions
# brought about by its illegality that are the problem.]
#
# [I find it outrageous that this ordinance, a blatant attempt at
# censorship, should attempt to use the argument that it is promoting
# "women's equal exercise of rights to speech"--talk about hypocrisy!]
(The ordinance further delineates what falls within its definition, as
follows:)
(1) Pornography is the sexually explicit subordination of women, graphically
depicted, whether in pictures or in words, that also includes one or more of
the following:
#
# [Note: this means that there is no such thing as gay male
# pornography (but see below). Whatever they're defining here, it
# isn't pornography, at least as that word has been used up until now.
# Webster's defines pornography as "the depiction of erotic behavior
# (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement."
# And who defines "sexually explicit"?]
- women are presented dehumanized as sexual objects, things or commodities; or
#
# [So SOYLENT GREEN is pornography?]
- women are presented as sexual objects who enjoy pain or humiliation; or
- women are presented as sexual objects who experience sexual pleasure in being
raped; or
- women are presented as sexual objects tied up or cut up or mutilated or
bruised or physically hurt; or
- women are presented in postures of sexual submission; or
#
# [What the hell is a "posture of sexual submission"? Is the City of
# Minneapolis trying to legislate that women always have to be on top
# or what?]
- women's body parts--including but not limited to vaginas, breasts, and
buttocks--are exhibited, such that women are reduced to those parts; or
#
# [This may even include brassiere ads for all I can tell.]
- women are presented as whores by natures; or
#
# [Welcome to the idea of "loaded words"--"prostitutes" would not
# get people as riled up. My next article will have some comments from
# Margo St. James, founder of the prostitutes advocacy group, COYOTE.]
- women are presented as being penetrated by objects or animals; or
#
# [I won't even argue that human beings are "animals" (well, we're not
# vegetables or minerals, are we?). I will point out that a scene in
# which two lesbians are using dildos--for example--or in which a woman
# is shown masturbating with an object is also banned.]
- women are presented in scenarios of degradation, injury, abasement, torture,
shown as filthy or inferior, bleeding, bruised, or hurt in a context that makes
these conditions sexual.
#
# [Who the hell decides all these things anyway? And "women ... shown as
# inferior" is way too broad for an ordinance. It not just violence
# that's being protested, but *any* negative image.]
(2) The use of men, children, or transsexuals in the place of women is
pornography...
#
# [Terrific! They have now defined gay male pornography (in the usual
# sense of the word "pornography) as pornography as "explicitly sexual
# subordination of women." Welcome to Doublespeak! This makes no
# ****ing sense at all!]
(The ordinance defines its violation as follows:)
Discrimination by trafficking in pornography. The production, sale,
exhibition or distribution of pornography is discrimination against women by
means of trafficking in pornography:
- City, state, and federally funded public libraries or private or public
university and college libraries in which pornography is available for study,
including on open shelves, shall not be construed to be trafficking in
pornography but special display presentations of pornography in said places is
sex discrimination.
#
# [So it's okay to read if you get it in a library, but you can't buy
# it in a bookstore? What a load of crap!]
- The formation of private clubs or associations for purposes of trafficking in
pornography is illegal and will be considered a conspiracy to violate the civil
rights of women.
#
# [And this ordinance isn't a conspiracy to violate *my* civil rights of
# free speech?]
- Any woman has a cause of action hereunder as a woman acting against the
subordination of women. Any man or transsexual who alleges injury by
pornography in the way women are injured by it will also have a course of
action.
#
# [But if the claim is that women are injured by being kept "subordinate"
# to men, how can men ever claim injury "in the way women are injured"?
# They're trying to make the law seem like it doesn't discriminate on the
# basis of sex. It does.]
Coercion into pornographic performances. Any person, including transsexual,
who is coerced, intimidated, or fraudulently induced (hereafter, "coerced")
into performing for pornography shall have a cause of action against the
maker(s), seller(s), exhibitor(s) or distributor(s) of said pornography for
damages and for the elimination of the performance(s) from the public view.
(Actionable for five years after last sale or performance.)
#
# [So if Vanessa Williams wins her suit, the local 7-11 manager in
# Minneapolis can be sued for exhibiting/distributing PENTHOUSE.
# What's he supposed to do, have a hot-line to Guiccone?]
(The following conditions do not negate a finding of coercion:)
- that the person was a woman; or
- that the person is or has been a prostitute; or
- that the person has attained the age of majority; or
- that the person is connected by blood or marriage to anyone involved in or
related to the making of pornography; or
- that the person has previously had, or been thought to have had,, sexual
relations with anyone, including anyone involved in or related to the making of
the pornography; or
- that the person has previously posed for sexually explicit pictures for or
with anyone, including anyone involved in or related to the making of the
pornography at issue; or
- that anyone else, including a spouse or other relative, has given permission
on the person's behalf; or
- that the person actually consented to a use of the performance that is
changed into pornography; or
#
# ["Changed into pornography"? What does that mean? It sounds like
# someone could consent to being filmed doing whatever, then later
# decide to sue. After all the fact that they freely agreed early
# doesn't mean it wasn't coercion according to this law. Bullshit!]
- that the person knew that the purpose of the acts or events in question was
to make pornography; or
#
# [See comments above. This emphasizes the ridiculousness of the law
# even more.]
- that the person showed no resistance or appeared to cooperate actively in the
photographic sessions or in the sexual events that produced the pornography, or
#
# ["Events that produced the pornography"? So if a married couple makes
# love, and then the husband goes out and writes a pornographic novel
# inspired by this session, the wife can sue?]
- that the person signed the contract, or made statements affirming a
willingness to cooperate in the production of pornography; or
#
# [In other words, the last four sections mean that no matter what a
# woman says or signs, she can at any future point claim coercion, and
# none of her previous statements can be used as evidence against it.
# This sounds not only like the defendant is guilty until proven
# innocent, but also that s/he can't even use a legally signed contract
# to defend themselves. This is not freedom; this is a kangaroo court!]
- that no physical force, threats, or weapons were used in the making of the
pornography; or
- that the person was paid or otherwise compensated.
Forcing pornography on a person. Any woman, man, child, or transsexual who has
pornography forced on him/her in any place of employment, in education, in a
home, or in any public place has a cause of action against the perpetrator
and/or institution.
#
# [What is "forcing pornography" on someone? Does a person who goes to a
# public library and sees pornography on the shelves there--which is
# supposedly allowed--have a cause of action against the library?]
Assault or physical attack due to pornography. Any woman, man, child, or
transsexual who is assaulted, physically attacked or injured in a way that is
directly caused by specific pornography has a claim for damages against the
perpetrator, the maker(s), the distributor(s), the seller(s), and/or the
exhibitor(s), and for an injunction against the specific pornography's further
exhibition, distribution, or sale...(Not applicable to material antedating the
ordinance.)
#
# [And just how is the connection going to be proved? I suspect there
# are so few cases in which in could be *proved* that juries may decide
# to *assume* that it's the case. So much for "innocent until proven
# guilty."]
Defenses...It shall not be a defense that the defendant did not know or intend
that the materials were pornography or sex discrimination.
#
# [So the manager of the local B. Dalton is now expected to have read
# every book he sells, in case one of them has some "pornographic" (by
# this ordinance) scene in it somewhere. Talk about broad censorship!]
#
#[My summary: If this ordinance is actually upheld, we're in big trouble. Free
#speech, due process, presumption of innocence, and who knows what else have all
#been trampled in the activists' attempt to right what *they* think is wrong.
#I'd rather make up my own mind, thank you, than have some self-appointed Moral
#Majority tell *me* what to think. This ordinance is just the first step to a
#police state and I won't stand for it!]
#
# Evelyn C. Leeper
# ...{ihnp4, houxm, hocsj}!ahuta!ecl
#pgf@hou5g.UUCP (Paul Fox) (12/21/84)
a Has this ordinance been passed, or is it just proposed? If it's proposed, I doubt its chances of passing. If it has passed, then I doubt its chances of lasting, in the face of the money and power behind pornography. The language is, as you say, awfully strong for an ordinance, but I must say I approve of the sentiment of the content. Paul Fox, AT&T Information Systems Laboratories, Holmdel NJ. [ihnp4|vax135]!hou5g!pgf
cliff@unmvax.UUCP (12/22/84)
For people reading this in net.politics, check out <249@ahuta.UUCP> in one of
net.{books,movies,legal,women}. The subject is an ordinance that defines the
sale, distribution, display, etc. of "pornography" to be a violation of women's
civil rights.
> [My summary: If this ordinance is actually upheld, we're in big trouble. Free
> speech, due process, presumption of innocence, and who knows what else have all
> been trampled in the activists' attempt to right what *they* think is wrong.
> I'd rather make up my own mind, thank you, than have some self-appointed Moral
> Majority tell *me* what to think. This ordinance is just the first step to a
> police state and I won't stand for it!]
>
> Evelyn C. Leeper
> ...{ihnp4, houxm, hocsj}!ahuta!ecl
The ordinance is a blatant violation of the first amendment. Don't count on
the Supreme Court performing its duty. The military draft was a blatant
violation of the thirteenth amendment. Luckily the justices are apt to pay
more attention to one of the original ten than to any latter amendment.
--Cliff [Matthews]
{purdue, cmcl2, ihnp4}!lanl!unmvax!cliff
{csu-cs, pur-ee, convex, gatech, ucbvax}!unmvax!cliff
4744 Trumbull S.E. - Albuquerque NM 87108 - (505) 265-9143sdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer) (12/22/84)
Evelyn,
Bravo for bringing this topic up for wider discussion. This so-called
"anti-porn" ordinance is downright frightening in its perversion of the
heretofore well-defined interpretation of "civil rights" and its
willingness to circumscribe individual liberties in its pursuit of a
muddleheaded, right-thinking neo-Puritanism. The ludicrous image of
Phyllis Schafly, Andrea Dworkin, Jerry Falwell and Catherine MacKinnon (the
lawyer behind the Minneapolis ordinance) all in bed together still lingers.
This controversy has been prominent lately in the gay community, especially
since the establishment of several lesbian "sex publications", including
"On Our Backs" and "Bad Attitude", which have themselves been the objects
of censorship attempts by doctrinaire women's book stores.
In some sense, I can think of nothing better that to see ordinances of
this type enacted so that they can be immediately judged unconstitutional.
--
/Steve Dyer
{decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!sdyer
sdyer@bbncca.ARPAgreenber@acf4.UUCP (12/22/84)
<> Way to go, Evelyn!!!!!!! Couldn't of said it better myself (so I won't!) Ross M. Greenberg @ NYU ----> allegra!cmcl2!acf4!greenber <----
geb@cadre.UUCP (12/25/84)
I agree with Evelyn. While I do think that pornography is a sore on the flesh of society, it isn't one that can be healed by stomping it with the jackboot. The essence of a totalitarian society is one with enough draconian laws that everyone is guilty of some violation. You then stay out of jail only by the good graces of the government. Add ordinances such as these to the tax laws, drug laws, and a few more "conspiracy" laws and we're getting there. The first amendment is more important than making sure that no one is offended or exploited. Laws dealing with pornography should confine themselves to "public" displays (by which I mean really public, not behind some closed door or in some club), sales to children, and cases in which the photographed party is forced. The printed word could never qualify as actionable unless it contained names of real people, in which case the current civil law would surely suffice. When this ordinance starts talking about the social undersirabilty of pornography because of the ATTITUDES it causes in the readers, it is treading on very thin ice, and is a very dangerous law, since the next step could be politically undersirable attitudes. If someone wanted to publish a book advocating the subjugation of women, removal of their voting rights, etc., would that be illegal?
hav@dual.UUCP (Helen Anne Vigneau) (12/28/84)
<*munch*> This is the most ridiculous thing I have read in a long time!!! Where in the hell do the narrow-minded Fallwellites who wrote that law get off saying that if I want to make blue movies (or what have you) and sell them in their nasty little backwoods town, *even though I wanted to make these movies* I am being degraded by making them? Since when must a woman be protected from what she chooses to do. We're not talking about force here, but rather about free will. If I want to be a prostitute, act in X-rated movies, pose for Penthouse, or anything else that might be considered "pornographic" (the etymology of which, incidentally, is from the Latin, which means literature *specifically* about prostitutes), and if I have not been unfairly coerced into doing so, who in the name of "equality" and "justice" has the right to prevent me from pursuing my choice? This ordinance is unconstitutional and must be overturned *now*!!! Better yet, it never should have been written!!! Helen Anne Vigneau Dual Systems Corporation
riddle@ut-sally.UUCP (Prentiss Riddle) (12/29/84)
I think the ordinance is ridiculous and unconstitutional, too, but I want to respond to Helen Anne Vigneau's comments: >> This is the most ridiculous thing I have read in a long time!!! Where in >> the hell do the narrow-minded Fallwellites who wrote that law... They weren't Falwellites, they were feminists. Misguided feminists, perhaps, but certainly not Falwellites. >> ...get off >> saying that if I want to make blue movies (or what have you) and sell them >> in their nasty little backwoods town, *even though I wanted to make these >> movies* I am being degraded by making them?... Whether or not the women in the blue movies are being degraded isn't the issue here. The claim the proponents of the ordinance are making is that a l l women are degraded by pornography. To quote from the ordinance again: || Special findings on pornography: The Council finds that pornography is || central in creating and maintaining the civil inequality of the sexes. || Pornography is a systematic practice of exploitation and subordination || based on sex which differentially harms women. The bigotry and contempt it || promotes, with the acts of aggression it fosters, harms women's || opportunities for equality of rights in employment, education, property || rights, public accommodations and public services; create public harassment || and private denigration; promote injury and degradation such as rape, || battery and prostitution and inhibit just enforcement of laws against these || acts; contribute significantly to restricting women from full exercise of || citizenship and participation in public life, including in neighborhoods; || damage relations between the sexes; and undermine women's equal exercise of || rights to speech and action guaranteed to all citizens under the || constitutions and laws of the United States and the state of Minnesota. To me this seems like a considerable overstatement of an argument which nevertheless contains a grain of truth. In my opinion, there can be little doubt that pornography contributes to the oppression of women in general by fostering in the minds of many of the people who read or watch it a distorted view of women as things, not people, and by the strong undercurrents of rage and violence which are present in most pornography. There are a few problems, though, in going from this argument to the Minneapolis ordinance. First of all, pornography isn't the only offender in this regard. Any genre of pop culture you can name, from tv ads to the top 40, is overflowing with distorted and degrading views of women. You could burn every sexually explicit book, magazine and film in North America and still have only scratched the surface of the problem. Secondly, one person's pornography is another person's healthy erotica -- I am firmly convinced that women as well as men benefit from the more open sexual attitudes that have developed as we put Victorianism further behind us; any given piece of erotica can be a pleasant and harmless release for one person and stimulate another to bigotry, harassment or even rape. Third is the matter of choice: as Helen Anne Vigneau might have said, "where do we get off" protecting women from books and movies which they not only help produce but are becoming a growing part of the audience for? The most convincing reason to oppose the ordinance, though, is that it is a two-edged sword. Who is to say what is prohibited and what is not? Will control of its enforcement stay in the hands of well-meaning feminists who will use it only for the protection of society? Hell, no. The ordinance itself contains such a broad definition of pornography that it could be used to ban even the works of many feminists themselves, and it sets a precedent that could ultimately be used to ban absolutely anything. What piece of literature couldn't be interpreted to encourage someone, somewhere to think thoughts that violate someone else's civil rights? The idea behind our first amendment is a good one: although there are indeed ideas which are dangerous, none are so dangerous as the act of limiting their expression. That's why the Minneapolis ordinance must be struck down. --- Prentiss Riddle ("Aprendiz de todo, maestro de nada.") --- {ihnp4,harvard,seismo,gatech,ctvax}!ut-sally!riddle
franka@hercules.UUCP (Frank Adrian) (12/31/84)
In article <894@dual.UUCP> hav@dual.UUCP (Helen Anne Vigneau) writes: ><*munch*> > >This is the most ridiculous thing I have read in a long time!!! Where in the >hell do the narrow-minded Fallwellites who wrote that law get off saying that >if I want to make blue movies (or what have you) and sell them in their nasty >little backwoods town, *even though I wanted to make these movies* I am being >degraded by making them? Well, somehow, people got the idea that the Christian right has proposed this law. Now far be it from me to defend this group, but in the spirit of accuracy and fairness, I must say that they jumped on the bandwagon after they saw that the proposal was in accordance with the result they wanted. Who did give this stupid, unconstitional proposal to the Mineapolis/St. Paul city council? A group of feminists. Yes, those who wish now to make people equal by denying rights (sorry if I sound a bit harsh, but that's the way I read the law) to others. > Since when must a woman be protected from what she >chooses to do. We're not talking about force here, but rather about free will. But didn't you know? Your life influences the public and therefore, your life must be legislated by the state. Especially when there is a slight pos- sibility of a chance causal effect that might hurt someone in the unforseeable future. >If I want to be a prostitute, act in X-rated movies, pose for Penthouse, or >anything else that might be considered "pornographic" (the etymology of which, >incidentally, is from the Latin, which means literature *specifically* about >prostitutes), and if I have not been unfairly coerced into doing so, who in the >name of "equality" and "justice" has the right to prevent me from pursuing my >choice? The state and a group of rabid men haters who are willing to push hard enough for it, that's who... > This ordinance is unconstitutional and must be overturned *now*!!! >Better yet, it never should have been written!!! > Amen. Luckily, the ordinance was proposed and voted on last January (I guess news travels slowly to most of the idiots on this net). It narrowly passed and was vetoed by the mayor. Frank Adrian
west@utcsrgv.UUCP (Thomas L. West) (12/31/84)
Helen Anne Vigneau writes: >This is the most ridiculous thing I have read in a long time!!! Where in the >hell do the narrow-minded Fallwellites who wrote that law get off saying that >if I want to make blue movies (or what have you) and sell them in their nasty >little backwoods town, *even though I wanted to make these movies* I am being >degraded by making them? Well, I would claim that men and women used in such movies and such ARE being degraded. I don't support the ordinance, but I claim that pornography, because of how it views humans in general, degrades the person who appears in it and human beings in general. And that is *irrespective* of the willingness of the participants to degrade themselves. I, for one, appreciate the fact that in Canada we are subjected to far less of this sort of stuff. I believe we are better for it, despite the fact that some people are deprived of the chance to drool over such material. The harm that this stuff causes in the way it warps the views of people on the opposite sex is far greater than the harm caused by loss of the individual's ability to buy such material. However, I do NOT support the ordinance for the fairly obvious reasons of its sexist leanings and its ability to influence far more than was ever intended. Tom West { allegra cornell decvax ihnp4 linus utzoo }!utcsrgv!west
smk@wxlvax.UUCP (Simon Kao) (12/31/84)
In case any of you were wondering, the ordinance was defeated 6-5 last week, with the county supervisor saying that he would never allow such an ordinance to pass because he felt it was unconstitutional. Proponants of such say they will try again.
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (12/31/84)
In article <utcsrgv.618> west@utcsrgv.UUCP (Thomas L. West) writes: > Well, I would claim that men and women used in [blue] movies and such ARE being >degraded. I don't support the ordinance, but I claim that pornography, because >of how it views humans in general, degrades the person who appears in it and >human beings in general. And that is *irrespective* of the willingness of the >participants to degrade themselves. > I, for one, appreciate the fact that in Canada we are subjected to far less >of this sort of stuff. I believe we are better for it, despite the fact that >some people are deprived of the chance to drool over such material. The harm >that this stuff causes in the way it warps the views of people on the opposite >sex is far greater than the harm caused by loss of the individual's ability >to buy such material. However, I do NOT support the ordinance for the >fairly obvious reasons of its sexist leanings and its ability to influence >far more than was ever intended. > > Tom West That's a load of bull (sexist comment!). Why should people depicted making love be degrading themselves when people depicted fistfighting are not? What is worse about sexual relations than knife fighting? Surely the depiction of love and eroticism is way better than the degrading sight of someone pitching a commercial for overpriced furniture? I have never understood where this notion come from, that pornography is degrading or damaging to women. It takes two to tango, doesn't it? From the comments I have read, if the woman is shown taking the initiative, she is "showing that women are easy." If the man takes the initiative, he is "showing women are there to be subjugated (or raped)." If violence and sex are becoming intertwined in *N. American* pornography, could it possibly be because of the repression (suppression?) that delivers it into the hands of the underworld? Could it be because N. American culture (as seen in popular films and highly rated TV) is becoming obscenely violent, and that violence spills over into pornography as well? Ontario is probably the most puritan jurisdiction outside the Moslem world. It isn't necessarily the best in which to be a woman. Compare the rights, both legal and socially taken-for-granted, of women in Ontario with those of Danish or Dutch women (where pornography is either legal or tolerated). I doubt you would find Ontario to show up very well. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmt
dbb@opus.UUCP (David B. Bordeau) (12/31/84)
> <*munch*> > > This is the most ridiculous thing I have read in a long time!!! Where in the > hell do the narrow-minded Fallwellites who wrote that law get off saying that > if I want to make blue movies (or what have you) and sell them in their nasty > little backwoods town, *even though I wanted to make these movies* I am being > degraded by making them? Since when must a woman be protected from what she > chooses to do. We're not talking about force here, but rather about free will. > If I want to be a prostitute, act in X-rated movies, pose for Penthouse, or > anything else that might be considered "pornographic" (the etymology of which, > incidentally, is from the Latin, which means literature *specifically* about > prostitutes), and if I have not been unfairly coerced into doing so, who in the > name of "equality" and "justice" has the right to prevent me from pursuing my > choice? This ordinance is unconstitutional and must be overturned *now*!!! > Better yet, it never should have been written!!! > > Helen Anne Vigneau > Dual Systems Corporation <crunch*n*munch> Attention Ladies,Equals,Female-Men,What Ever You Want To Be Called: This article, written by a woman, says it the best!!! Most woman in pornography chose that "profession" they weren't forced onto it! True, some woman have been forced to do things they didn't want to do but the majority wanted to do there "own thing". This of course brings to mind Linda Lovelace who says she was forced at GUNPOINT to make the movie "Deep Throat". Anyone who has seen the movie might dispute that point. (of course she lost her case in court) As a male I must say I have never seen such outragous hatred toward my gender because of a few ,"keepem' barefoot and pregnant" net users. Believe me when I say some of us do consider women equals but with the way some of you are treating us (PREHISTORIC BEASTS) I'm sure you can change our minds. Please try not to refer to SOME men as EVERY or ALL!!! Just because a man or men don't like you as a person doesn't mean they dislike ALL or EVERY woman on the face of the earth. You may just be intolerable. (for instance, the way Sunny K. refers to the opposite BEASTLY sex I wouldn't be a bit surprised if she didn't have one male friend.) Please give us, me, some of us a break. Thanks for the "people do what they want" article Helen. I appreciated it. Tired of the BEASTLY generalization, David Bordeau P.S. Sorry to single you out Sunny but you have the worst attitude toward men I have ever seen in my entire life.
dws@mit-eddie.UUCP (Don Saklad) (01/01/85)
_
Oryx Press' Defusing Censorship, The Librarian's Guide to Handling Censorsip
________________________________________________________________
Conflicts
_________
by Jones, Frances M., may be the best and most recent review
of U. S. library activity in this area. Look for it on a library shelf at
Z675.S3J727 1983 or the 025.2 Dewey decimals.dws@mit-eddie.UUCP (Don Saklad) (01/01/85)
_ SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP USER SUPPORT LIBRARY USERS GROUP INFORMATION ABOUT LIBRARY SYSTEMS AND SERVICES BOSTON LIBRARY USERS, TEL. 661-9650 SHARE HINTS AND TIPS ABOUT OUR BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY SYSTEM AND AREA LIBRARY NETWORKS
timothy@druxt.UUCP (MorrisseyTJ) (01/02/85)
I am sure that religious moralists did not sponsor this bill. However, I am not sure that it was sponsored by feminists, either. Has anyone noticed that the bill referred, often, to transsexuals? It is my understanding that groups that would be called "Falwellite" (sp?) would prefer to see transsexuals burn in hell, and from her writings, Gloria Steinham (sp? again) considers transsexuals to be people who have had their bodies "mutilated" as their "misguideed" solution to sex role oppression. I think that men and transsexuals were covered in this ordinance to: 1) be "fair" and protect the other "poor exploited souls" or maybe 2) to give this ordinance the appearance of being (add your favorite "nice" adjective here) and more palatable to the widest number of people.
cuccia@ucbvax.ARPA (Nick Cuccia) (01/04/85)
> > <*munch*> > > > > This is the most ridiculous thing I have read in a long time!!! Where in the > > hell do the narrow-minded Fallwellites who wrote that law get off saying that ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > Helen Anne Vigneau _60 Minutes_ had a story on the Minneapolis anti-porn law last year. No, the law wasn't written by narrow-minded Fallwellites; it was written by radical feminists! If I recall right, the two authors were working on getting similar laws passed in Indianapolis and Madison (WI). Besides, I didn't think that Fallwellites thought that women had rights ! 8-) --Nick Cuccia --cuccia%ucbmiro@Berkeley --ucbvax!cuccia
gadfly@ihu1m.UUCP (Gadfly) (01/04/85)
-- >> _60 Minutes_ had a story on the Minneapolis anti-porn law last year. >> No, the law wasn't written by narrow-minded Fallwellites; it was >> written by radical feminists! If I recall right, the two authors >> were working on getting similar laws passed in Indianapolis and Madison >> (WI). >> Nick Cuccia The mainstream of feminism in Madison (you know, the folks who successfully engineered the recall of a judge who stated on the record that a five-year-old kid had "invited rape") has thoroughly, in fact publicly, disassociated itself from this effort. In fact, it's only being pushed by one very vocal member of the Dane County Board who has yet to put anything specific on paper. Let's not get too heavy into feminist-bashing. All the feminists I know have been very vocal in opposing these ordinances. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 03 Jan 85 [14 Nivose An CXCIII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7188 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***
ecl@ahuta.UUCP (e.leeper) (01/04/85)
REFERENCES: <257@hocsp.UUCP> The person didn't say that feminists were "rabid man haters"; s/he said that "a group of rabid man haters" were pushing for passage of the ordinance *as written*. The fact that the original ordinance (as written by the "feminists") was different doesn't change the attitude of those who wrote the "current" ordinance. And I don't believe that any such censorship ordinance would stand a First Amendment test, regardless of the number of lawyers who write it. And so, conversely, any ordinace that would stand such a test obviously has little relationship to the one that I posted here. And, by the way, virtually all references in "feminists" in this discussion have been qualified: > They weren't Falwellites, they were feminists. Misguided feminists, perhaps, > but certainly not Falwellites. > two-edged sword. Who is to say what is prohibited and what is not? Will > control of its enforcement stay in the hands of well-meaning feminists who > will use it only for the protection of society? Hell, no. The ordinance > itself contains such a broad definition of pornography that it could be used > to ban even the works of many feminists themselves, and it sets a precedent > i.e., who's behind it? To me, it reads like it was written by Fundamentalist > conservative types trying a new tack to get one by the courts, but I'm > aware there are liberal feminists who would support it, as well. I hope > They weren't only feminists. True the original ordinance was > conceived by Catharine McKinnin, a noted feminist. But the final ordinance, > the one that passed, was drawn up by the town council and a large bunch > of New Right Christian types. What Ms. McKinnin wished to achieve and > what the Falwellites wished to achieve were two very different things, > even though it looks the same on the surface. Radical feminists want to > control pornography by making it a civil rights issue. If some women can > ... > the kind of legal action that one faction of radical feminists want > to see. > Radical feminists contend that until pornography is seen for what it is, > a method to objectify and subjugate women, > Feminists are working on ridding us of the insidious form of sexism that > you speak of, believe me. They don't wish to ban it outright. Feminists > have more respect for our rights than all that. But they do exert pressure, > legally and economically, to remove this brand of sexism from our society. > If anyone is interested, I'm sure I could dig up Catharine McKinnin's > version of the story. I find it quite disconcerting when feminists > are branded as people intent on denying us our rights. Feminism isn't > some warped philosophy advocating state control of our minds and deeds. > It only asks that women have the opportunity to control their own lives, > without men continually telling them that they know what is right for them. > I am sure that religious moralists did not sponsor this bill. However, > I am not sure that it was sponsored by feminists, either. > give this stupid, unconstitional proposal to the Mineapolis/St. Paul city > council? A group of feminists. Yes, those who wish now to make people equal by > denying rights (sorry if I sound a bit harsh, but that's the way I read the > law) to others. > No, the law wasn't written by narrow-minded Fallwellites; it was > written by radical feminists! If I recall right, the two authors > were working on getting similar laws passed in Indianapolis and Madison > (WI). > The mainstream of feminism in Madison (you know, the folks who > successfully engineered the recall of a judge who stated on the > record that a five-year-old kid had "invited rape") has thoroughly, > in fact publicly, disassociated itself from this effort. In fact, > it's only being pushed by one very vocal member of the Dane County > Board who has yet to put anything specific on paper. > Let's not get too heavy into feminist-bashing. All the feminists I > know have been very vocal in opposing these ordinances. (Isn't grep wonderful?) On the whole, it looks like it isn't "feminists" who are being attacked, but "radical feminists." In fact, most of the comments about "feminists" (no qualifiers) have been positive. Evelyn C. Leeper ...{ihnp4, houxm, hocsj}!ahuta!ecl
hav@dual.UUCP (Helen Anne Vigneau) (01/05/85)
<*munch*> Since I have received several pieces of mail, as well as many follow-ups to my original comment about the anti-pornography ordinance, let me clarify the remark I made about Falwellites. In the heat of my fury at the absurdity of this ordinance, I carelessly lumped these crazies in with Jerry Fallwell. Perhaps I should have referred to them instead as Falwellian. (Is there such a word? If not, there should be.) It may well be clear to us all that they are not explicitly followers of Jerry F.; however the nature of their endeavor is also clearly the type of action that would make Jerry the Well-Fallen proud. As was pointed out in another follow-up to the original article, this bunch has in fact made a Faustian pact with Jerry the W-F, simply by their action, whether or not that was originally intended. I, for one, resent intensely their meddling in my affairs (no pun intended). What ever happened to the idea of "consenting adults" and their freedom to do what they choose behind the privacy of closed doors? Are we not in fact out of the Victorian age? Maybe they would have us all put crinolines on piano legs and refer to chicken breasts as "bosoms," as was done in the 1800s. (Of *course* we must be farther than that: Queen Victoria struck out the clause against female homosexuality in the British anti-homosexuality law (sorry, I don't know the year offhand; my reference is at home) because as she saw it, there was no need to outlaw something that was *physically impossible* any way! But we know better than *that* now, don't we.:-)) I find it truly frightening to think that perhaps America is reverting to puritanism, yet that is exactly what an ordinance such as the one that was just defeated in Minneapolis seems to suggest. While there are certainly aspects of pornography that I find disgusting and socially dangerous, I think these can be safely be limited to child pornography, use of force to cause someone to do something against his or her will, genuinely damaging physical violence and/or abuse, and things of that nature. I do not think that "garden-variety" smut (i.e., generic sex, homosexuality, group sex, light S&M, et cetera, as might be seen in Playboy, Penthouse, Behind the Green Door, or Emmanuelle) can be included in this category. Maybe the feminists of Minneapolis would like to put some bug in my bedroom to make sure that nothing but lights-off, no-talk missionary-style sex goes on in there. The biggest surprise to me of all this is that I had always thought of Minneapolis as, if not the cultural capitol of the Western World (sorry Minneapolites (?)), at least a large enough and intelligent enough city to be above this. I am pleased to see that the law was defeated, even if barely (again, no pun). Those who are offended by pornography need not be forced to endure it. Those who on occasion enjoy it should not have it kept from them by a bunch of narrow-minded prudes, hypocrites (read the text of the law again), and busybodies with nothing better to do. Helen Anne
jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (01/05/85)
> The harm >that this stuff causes in the way it warps the views of people on the opposite >sex is far greater than the harm caused by loss of the individual's ability >to buy such material. However, I do NOT support the ordinance for the >fairly obvious reasons of its sexist leanings and its ability to influence >far more than was ever intended. > Um, well maybe it warps *your* views, but why should the activities of healthy, normal people be circumscribed because of the attitudes of a few sickos like you? :-) Well, if it doesn't warp your views, what makes you think it warps anyone else's? I would claim that people seek out that which already conforms with what they believe - that pornography (what *is* it, anyway?) changes no minds. Of course, you can get out of that by making a distinction between pornography and erotica, one being degrading and the other not, but as a practical matter it's hard (for the legal system) to draw a line between the two. I heartily applaud your final sentence, however. This net is bio-degrading... Jeff Winslow
west@utcsrgv.UUCP (Thomas L. West) (01/06/85)
[] <--censored bug
While the net seems to be unanimous in its condemnation of the proposed
law, is this because of opposition of censorship of any kind, or just because
the law is sexist and rather unfair (things can become crimes retro-actively)?
It is my opinion that the pornography is definitely unhealthy for society.
While the actual cases of there being a direct and sole causal relationship
between pornography and violence against women is suspect, I find it rather
hard to believe that pornography does not promote a rather degrading attitude
towards women (and men). Sure, a single viewing of Friday 13th isn't
going to turn men into raving murderers, but the set of attitudes associated
with these movies will probably begin to have an effect on people. Lifestyle
ads are also 'fantasy' but they seem to shape people rather well, albeit
directly. I doubt that several million (tens of millions?) dollars would be
spent if they didn't.
It seems likely that ANYTHING we see is likely to influence us to some
degree, especially over prolonged periods of time. The shaping of attitudes
towards women (and men) by pornography is something that seems to have no
positive side to counteract the obvious negative of re-inforcing the image
of women as sex-objects. Hence, I really can see little justification for
allowing such to continue to harm society.
Of course, I suppose that graphic sex between loving and caring couples
doesn't ensconce such attitudes, but gee, isn't it funny that this sort of
thing is next to non-existent in the 'industry'. Actually, not really. I
think we all recognize the set of attitudes that pornography promotes.
Of course, censorship is a rather tricky business, and one must be careful
to make sure that it doesn't go anywhere beyond the boundaries originally
proposed for it, but then again, the same applies to anything governmental.
As usual, I imagine it's the middle path between pure freedom (chaos) and pure
control (totalitarianism) where the desired path lies.
I'd take the Ontario Censor Board over Times Square any day. Then again,
us Canadians are that much closer to the Soviets. We're obviously being
influenced by them. :-)
Tom L. West Ontario Flame Board
{ allegra cornell decvax ihnp4 linus utzoo }!utcsrgv!westrick@uwmacc.UUCP (the absurdist) (01/06/85)
In article <318@ahuta.UUCP> ecl@ahuta.UUCP (e.leeper) writes: >And I don't believe that any such censorship ordinance would stand a First >Amendment test, regardless of the number of lawyers who write it. I sincerely hope you are right. However, before we go placing too much trust in the 1st Amendment, remember that the ultimate interpretation would be that of the Supreme Court: the organization which once decided that Dred Scott was property. -- "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less" -- Humpty Dumpty, the noted linguist Rick Keir -- MicroComputer Information Center, MACC 1210 West Dayton St/U Wisconsin Madison/Mad WI 53706 {allegra, ihnp4, seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!rick
rdz@ccice5.UUCP (Robert D. Zarcone) (01/07/85)
> I, for one, appreciate the fact that in Canada we are subjected to far less > of this sort of stuff. I believe we are better for it, despite the fact that > some people are deprived of the chance to drool over such material. The harm > that this stuff causes in the way it warps the views of people on the opposite > sex is far greater than the harm caused by loss of the individual's ability > to buy such material. However, I do NOT support the ordinance for the > fairly obvious reasons of its sexist leanings and its ability to influence > far more than was ever intended. > > Tom West > { allegra cornell decvax ihnp4 linus utzoo }!utcsrgv!west I have several Canadian friends and resent your implication that they are not intelligent enough to be exposed to pornography and still retain a non- warped view of the opposite sex. But then mabey that's because I've run XXX tapes accross the border to them. P.S. The OPP doesn't get this net, does it? (cringe) *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
carson@homxa.UUCP (P.CARSTENSEN) (01/08/85)
When I first heard about the proposed ordinance, I thought it was wonderfully imaginative, a very clever side-step to get to the unprotected side of a real problem....I didn't necessarily think it ought to be passed (I don't like cencorship, and I don't much like pornography (the dirty movie channel don't count :-))... P.
zubbie@wlcrjs.UUCP (Jeanette Zobjeck) (01/08/85)
I am far from a supporter of pornagraphy but I think that a short step back needs to be taken. 1) Any rule or law which seems to be limmiting the fredom of a person to do as they please in society today is subject to chanllenge as being either discriminatory to a small group or groups or as being unconstitutional per se. 2) Pornography is not merely the actions of consenting adults. We have laws and rules in this country at least to help each individual be an individual free to do as the will provided that excersize does not impair (sp) or impune the same freedom for another. No matter how a law designed to deal with pornography is presented there will always be some minority block (even the pornographers) who will feel that the law isunconstitutional because their rights are being infringed upon. Long live ANARCHY!!
west@utcsrgv.UUCP (Thomas L. West) (01/08/85)
In article <900@dual.UUCP> hav@dual.UUCP (Helen Anne Vigneau) writes: >... Those who are offended by pornography need not be forced to endure it... >Helen Anne However, those offended by pornography *are* forced to live in a society warped by it and the attitudes it advances. And for the most part these attitudes *aren't* pleasant or desirable ones, especially for women. When was the last time that Penthouse portrayed women as thinking human beings? Tom West { allegra cornell decvax ihnp4 linus utzoo }!utcsrgv!west
ecl@ahuta.UUCP (e.leeper) (01/08/85)
REFERENCES: <249@ahuta.UUCP> <894@dual.UUCP>, <551@ut-sally.UUCP>
In reply to various requests etc. about the ordinance's status:
VARIETY recently reported that the Minneapolis "anti-porn" ordinance was vetoed
by the mayor, the Indianapolis ordinance passed but is still being hashed out
in the courts, and the Suffolk County (NY) ordinance was defeated.
Evelyn C. Leeper
...{ihnp4, houxm, hocsj}!ahuta!eclrobison@eosp1.UUCP (Tobias D. Robison) (01/08/85)
>In article <318@ahuta.UUCP> ecl@ahuta.UUCP (e.leeper) writes: >And I don't believe that any such censorship ordinance would stand a First >Amendment test, regardless of the number of lawyers who write it. The late Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black used to interpret the first amendment literally and consistently, that Congress may make NO LAW that abridges freedom from censorship. He has been virtually alone in this position, with almost all other justices believing that there are commonsense exceptions. One must always be concerned that the next person's idea about how to censor will be accepted as a good exception. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. I personally would be receptive to censorship of materials that are truly likely to make young children become more violent people. But in general, censorship of anything, even Nazi hate literature, makes me uncomfortable. There are almost always better ways, both legal and sometimes illegal, to deal with things you disagree with, than to resort to censorship. - Toby Robison (not Robinson!) {allegra, decvax!ittvax, fisher, princeton}!eosp1!robison
guy@enmasse.UUCP (Guy K. Hillyer) (01/09/85)
In article <> west@utcsrgv.UUCP (Thomas L. West) writes: >When was the last time that Penthouse portrayed women as thinking human beings? Last month, as I recall. Penthouse ran an article about a female reporter who was a key figure in exposing the cover-up surrounding the investigation of the Pope's assasination.
abv@stat-l (David Stevens) (01/10/85)
I haven't been following this discussion closely, but from what I
have seen, I gather that many of you may not realize how far this has
gone. In Indianapolis, an ordinance patterned after the one in Minn. was
passed by the City Council, and Mayor Hudnut promptly signed it into law.
All of this took place shortly after the 60 Minutes broadcast (I believe
about 2-3 months ago), and so the discussion is no longer academic. The
last I heard, the law had not been invoked by police, but nevertheless
was being challenged in court by a Naptown bookstore owner. Does anyone
know more about the challenge, like if it has gone to court yet?
Indiana -- bastion of ignor-- uh, *conservative*, politics.
--
----------
David L Stevens
{decvax|harpo|ihnp4|inuxc|seismo|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h:abv
The opinions expressed above are my own, and not necessarily anyone else's.
---------------------
| |
| save the while! |
| |
---------------------edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall) (01/10/85)
> In article <900@dual.UUCP> hav@dual.UUCP (Helen Anne Vigneau) writes: > >... Those who are offended by pornography need not be forced to endure it... > > However, those offended by pornography *are* forced to live in a society > warped by it and the attitudes it advances. And for the most part these > attitudes *aren't* pleasant or desirable ones, especially for women. > When was the last time that Penthouse portrayed women as thinking human beings? > Tom West I agree, though I think pornography is more a symptom of the problem than a cause. Pornography pretty much mirrors prevailing sexual attitudes; as such, it probably slows the process of changing those attitudes, but it doesn't have much more to do with creating sexist attitudes than, say, advertising or TV drama. If you're into banning things as a way of improving society, try banning alcohol. This would differentially help women, too, as alcohol is involved in a great deal (probably a majority) of wife-abuse cases. And drunk driving is a *proven* killer of all sexes, ages, and races. You don't think prohibition of alcohol is reasonable? How is prohibition of pornography any different? The only difference I see is the banning of *ideas* in the latter case. Except you can't really outlaw ideas. If you wish to change them, you have to supplant them with other ideas. This is the challenge: what realistic *alternative* is there to pornography? Look for causes--don't just sweep their effects under the rug. Reducing the *demand* for pornography is the objective, not reducing the supply. -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall
chris@pyuxc.UUCP (R. Hollenbeck) (01/11/85)
Some thoughts on pornography and the anti-porn ordinance. I think it's clear to most people the that the anti-pornography ordinance is unconstitutional. I'm glad of that. I find it hard to agree with most everyone's automatic assumption that pornography is degrading to women, men, or both. How so? Obviously, scenes of rape and violence are degrading, but they do not constitute the bulk of pornography. (To answer the comment I can hear you all making, no I don't watch pornography often, or even occasionally, but I've seen enough to know that there's far more porn that deals with plain old garden variety heterosexual coupling than there are rape films.) As I understand it, the language of the proposed ordinance would proscribe scenes that present women in "submissive" postures. To some people, that would include simple fellatio (or cunnilingus). How are women (or men) degraded by such images? Why do so many assume that scenes depicting acts of love (or lust, what difference does it make) are automatically degrading? You don't have to watch pornography if you don't want to. you're not "subjected" to it; in fact, you have to seek it out and pay to see it. In short, pornography is a type of entertainment indulged in and made by a relative minority who basically don't inflict themselves on anyone. (This of course does not include the makers of snuff films or child pornography, who are, I agree, reprehensible.) Where is the real harm in this stuff? An old hippie who still feels people got to be free.
west@utcsrgv.UUCP (Thomas L. West) (01/17/85)
In article <2240@randvax.UUCP> edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall) writes: >... though I think pornography is more a symptom of the problem than >a cause. Pornography pretty much mirrors prevailing sexual attitudes; as >such, it probably slows the process of changing those attitudes, but it >doesn't have much more to do with creating sexist attitudes than, say, >advertising or TV drama. You are quite correct that pornography mirrors *somebody's* prevailing sexual attitudes, but whose? I don't know of too many people who would admit that their attitudes towards sex where from Penthouse. More to the point, it mirrors attitudes of the minority of the population that influence everybody else. In other words, it pushes the mean *away* from desirable attitudes (treating people as thinking beings) towards the attitudes that a small number of people hold (women and men as sex objects). >If you're into banning things as a way of improving society, try banning >alcohol. This would differentially help women, too, as alcohol is involved >in a great deal (probably a majority) of wife-abuse cases. And drunk >driving is a *proven* killer of all sexes, ages, and races. You don't >think prohibition of alcohol is reasonable? How is prohibition of >pornography any different? The only difference I see is the banning >of *ideas* in the latter case. Except you can't really outlaw ideas. >If you wish to change them, you have to supplant them with other ideas. >This is the challenge: what realistic *alternative* is there to >pornography? Look for causes--don't just sweep their effects under >the rug. Reducing the *demand* for pornography is the objective, >not reducing the supply. Banning alcohol is impractical due to its wide spread use and acceptance. Banning pornography is beginning to undergo the same sort of thing. In some ways, it's a now or never thing. Think of the growth of the pictorial use of women in an explicit fashion as pure sex objects has grown in the last 50 years. Now imagine 50 years down the road. (And this while women's rights were advancing!) I'd prefer to fight the fight now while alternatives are available. True, banning symptoms is no way to cure the problem, but it sure helps stop the patient from dying in the interim. Why must we accept no *intermediate* steps? I'd *love* to see no demand for these products, but let us remember that their simple existence also fosters a demand. (as evidence see Pet Rocks and other neat gadgetry that is in no way useful, but is still saleable). What we accept (demand) is changed by what the supply is. Tom West { allegra cornell decvax ihnp4 linus utzoo }!utcsrgv!west
mat@hou4b.UUCP (Mark Terribile) (01/17/85)
>I find it hard to agree with most everyone's automatic assumption that >pornography is degrading to women, men, or both. How so? Obviously, >scenes of rape and violence are degrading, but they do not constitute the >bulk of pornography. . . . >In short, pornography is a type of entertainment indulged in and made by a >relative minority who basically don't inflict themselves on anyone. (This of >course does not include the makers of snuff films or child pornography, who >are, I agree, reprehensible.) > . . . >Where is the real harm in this stuff? Where is the real harm? Well, the point is already stated that most of this stuff panders to a desire to treat other human beings as objects for your own gratification. Now I understand that this is a pleasant thing to do, BUT try this: pick up a copy of one of the raunchier magazines, find a nice photo, and substitute, in you mind, a close friend, for one of the models. Do you find that it somehow casts that person in an uncomfortable light? Thinking of people in this way is not really nice. But the worst part of it is that much of the underground ``soft porn'' industry, whose audience may or may not overlap the national girlie magazines, shares some of the same coffers as the low-grade sex industry. If you really want to hear about the damages, send a letter to Covenant House. The address can be obtained from NY directory assistance. This is a shelter for young victims of the sex industry ... and there are plenty. It is run by a Franciscan named Bruce Ritter. I've requested permission to quote some of his reports here, but their attorney felt it was inadvisable, so you'll have to write yourself ... if you really want to know what's going on in the world. (They got a write-up in Reader's Digest (ugh!) a few years ago.) You think that slavery has been abolished? You think that people are WILLING to sell their bodies on streetcorners? Many of these women have been taken in by pimps and then raped, beaten, and ``broken'' ... not much unlike a horse in a ``stable''. What about the runaways who come to the big city (and not just NY) and discover the only thing they can market is their bodies? There are buyers. And New York, with its collection of ``latchkey'' kids, has now got kiddie whores (male and female) who commute to Manhattan for the day and return before momma gets home. And get mixed up in the deadly world of pimps and hard, superaddictive drugs. There's nothing new there -- pimps and madames have used drugs for generations to hold their ``staffs'' hostage. Do you really think that these people are not being damaged? Unfortunately, in our society right here and now, neither law enforcement nor sociologists seem to be able to seperate out the couple that wants to have a little fun with some videotapes from the people who are sick and who allow that sickness to damage kids. And adolescents. And other adults. Even genuinely artistic, mild erotica can mess up someone who's not quite secure on a given day. We're talking about the most powerful and pervasive feelings that a human being can experience, bought, sold, traded, and used as bait for suckers. A goddam commodity whose value becomes the price set by the marketplace. How's that for damage? Look, I'm not suggesting that we should ban ``Lady Chatterly's Lover''. (It's more an artisticly ugly book than an erotic one anyway.) But I am suggesting that there are some things, like dynamite and firearms, that should be handled with care and not sold on the open streetcorner. Sex can be a very great thing because it is so powerful, but it has a very great potential for harm as well. -- from Mole End Mark Terribile (scrape .. dig ) hou4b!mat ,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (01/17/85)
Mark Terrible started by talking about pornography, but now he switches to talking about forced prostitution: > You think that slavery has been abolished? You think that people are WILLING > to sell their bodies on streetcorners? Many of these women have been taken in > by pimps and then raped, beaten, and ``broken'' ... not much unlike a horse > in a ``stable''. What about the runaways who come to the big city (and not > just NY) and discover the only thing they can market is their bodies? There > are buyers. And New York, with its collection of ``latchkey'' kids, has now > got kiddie whores (male and female) who commute to Manhattan for the day and > return before momma gets home. And get mixed up in the deadly world of pimps > and hard,superaddictive drugs. There's nothing new there - pimps and madames > have used drugs for generations to hold their ``staffs'' hostage. > > Do you really think that these people are not being damaged? Of course those people have been damaged. But how you end up blaming this on pornography is totally unclear. Why is prostitution called the 'oldest profession' if it's been caused by pornography? > Unfortunately, > in our society right here and now, neither law enforcement nor sociologists > seem to be able to seperate out the couple that wants to have a little fun > with some videotapes from the people who are sick and who allow that sickness > to damage kids. And adolescents. And other adults. And they can't seperate those who like to have a little fun with a frisbee from the sickos without catching them in the act either. Maybe we should ban frisbees? What I'm saying is that you have neither established nor even attempted to establish a connection between pornography and the type of violent, anti-social behavior you seem to be blaming on it. > Even genuinely artistic, mild erotica can mess up someone who's not quite > secure on a given day. We're talking about the most powerful and pervasive > feelings that a human being can experience, bought, sold, traded, and used as > bait for suckers. A goddam commodity whose value becomes the price set by the > marketplace. How's that for damage? I thought we were talking about pornography. Just what ARE you talking about, Mark? > Look, I'm not suggesting that we should ban ``Lady Chatterly's Lover''. > (It's more an artisticly ugly book than an erotic one anyway.) But I am > suggesting that there are some things, like dynamite and firearms, that > should be handled with care and not sold on the open streetcorner. Sex > can be a very great thing because it is so powerful, but it has a very > great potential for harm as well. Why do I get the feeling that you're not talking from experience here, Mark? Sex has a great potential for harm? I've been wounded by love, but never by sex. If you have, then maybe you aren't doing it right. B-) -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "Know thou, O rash and foolish mortal, that this is none other than the infamous subterranean abode of Zazamanc the Archmage. Abandon hope, all ye who linger here."
mat@hou4b.UUCP (Mark Terribile) (01/19/85)
>> ... ... ... . But I am >> suggesting that there are some things, like dynamite and firearms, that >> should be handled with care and not sold on the open streetcorner. Sex >> can be a very great thing because it is so powerful, but it has a very >> great potential for harm as well. > > Why do I get the feeling that you're not talking from experience here, >Mark? Sex has a great potential for harm? I've been wounded by love, but >never by sex. If you have, then maybe you aren't doing it right. B-) Either you are being flippant or you are not aware of the damage that is can be done to people when their sexual feelings become ways for them to be injured. The obvious example is sexual abuse of children by family or friends. Like dynamite and firearms, sex should be handled under safe conditions. It shouldn't be a commodity that one buys off the street, or in some magazine rack. It shouldn't be something that you have to go to a porno show to get. If you do, you have already been damaged . . . but is continuing to do so any better? And is providing sexual gratification for sale in this way a good thing to do? And what about possible damamge to the people involved in producing it? Which brings me to the next point. The people who make much of the really sleazy stuff are into pandering to sickness for profit, and they do so without any regard for the well-being of the folk that they employ. I use the word employ here as in ``They employed a thermal lance to open the safe.'' The people that are used in the films are OBJECTS ... draft animals. They are not treated as people, and the people who use them this way often are not above hurting someone very badly. Well, damage to one's sense of well-being, especially sexually, is something that you ought to be sensitive to, Jeff, since your sense of well-being seems to be at least big enough. >Mark Terrible started by talking about pornography, but now he switches to >talking about forced prostitution: >> You think that slavery has been abolished? You think that people are WILLING >> to sell their bodies on streetcorners? Many of these women have been taken in >> have used drugs for generations to hold their ``staffs'' hostage. >> Do you really think that these people are not being damaged? > Of course those people have been damaged. But how you end up blaming this >on pornography is totally unclear. Why is prostitution called the 'oldest >profession' if it's been caused by pornography? It's NOT. The problem is that the people who are causing one are often responsible for the other -- the people who would sell other people's sex on the screen often are willing to sell other people's sex on the street. >> ... > And they can't seperate those who like to have a little fun with a frisbee >from the sickos without catching them in the act either. Maybe we should >ban frisbees? What I'm saying is that you have neither established nor even >attempted to establish a connection between pornography and the type of >violent, anti-social behavior you seem to be blaming on it. Put the wiseacre rhetoric back in the drawer, Jeff. Let's try to state again what I presented before: Turning sex into a commodity that is bought, sold, traded, and taken, whether on the street, on a bookshelf, or on a screen, presents sex as a commodity that can and should be bought, sold, ... Sexual feelings run very deep in the human psyche. Treating something so important in such a calloused way can damage the buyer. It can damage the person whose sex is being sold. And if it is being taken from her (OR him) and sold by another, serious harm seems near certain. Making such treatment of sex the established norm without AT LEAST providing a set of protective rituals around it (to keep it ``special'') will damage the self-esteem and sense of self-worth of everyone who comes into contact with it. ``Gee, this thing that is so very important and so deeply embedded in ME can be bought ... and people sell it. Gee, I could sell it. It's not worth all that much, is it? I guess I'm not really worth all that much, either.'' > I thought we were talking about pornography. Just what ARE you talking >about, Mark? The attitude that sex is a commodity and that it is/should be either cheap or a cheap thrill. What, after all, is pornography? By the way, I would appreciate it if you would have the common courtesy to spell my name right. Or are you too cheap to do that? -- from Mole End Mark Terribile (scrape .. dig ) hou4b!mat ,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.
daver@hp-pcd.UUCP (daver) (01/19/85)
> However, those offended by pornography *are* forced to live in a society >warped by it and the attitudes it advances. And for the most part these >attitudes *aren't* pleasant or desirable ones, especially for women. We are also forced to live in a society warped by the Dukes of Hazard, Dallas and the Miss America Pageant, to mention only a few TV programs, and the attitudes they advance. Shouldn't we pass a law against that too? Dave Rabinowitz hplabs!hp-pcd!daver
jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (01/20/85)
> Even genuinely artistic, mild erotica can mess up someone who's not quite > secure on a given day. Beethoven's 5th Symphony can mess up someone who's not quite secure on a given day. So do you want to ban that, too? The question is not "where's the harm" but "where's the harm that is greater than the harm of every other thing we allow that can screw someone up?" I am quite certain that alcohol, for example, has far more pervasive and deleterious effects (because they are so widespread) than the seamy side of the porn industry which you described (which, by the way, is opposed by existing laws concerning slavery and drug abuse, and would probably not be any more effectively curtailed by anti-pornography laws), but do you or I recommend the banning of the consumption of alcohol? It was tried, once, and we all know the result. As a sidelight I should point out that my conviction in this regard is of no more general importance or (especially) precision than Paul Dubuc's convictions regarding pornography, which make me want an expression superlative to "jaundiced eye". Jeff Winslow
jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (01/20/85)
> The problem is that the people who are causing one are often > responsible for the other -- the people who would sell other people's sex > on the screen often are willing to sell other people's sex on the street. So arrest them for the other. How this can be an argument for anti-pornography laws is beyond me. Suppose I decided that watching TV was immoral and degrading. I then make the observation that, often, people who watch TV steal TV's as well. If I followed your logic, I would use that as justification for banning TV watching as well. I repeat, the last sentence quoted above is poor justification for banning pornography. > Turning sex into a commodity that is bought, sold, traded, and > taken, whether on the street, on a bookshelf, or on a screen, > presents sex as a commodity that can and should be bought, sold, ... And what are the anti-porn people who said "pornography is not sex" to rebut earlier anti-porn-law arguments going to say about that? > Sexual feelings run very deep in the human psyche. Treating something > so important in such a calloused way can damage the buyer. It can > damage the person whose sex is being sold. And if it is being taken > from her (OR him) and sold by another, serious harm seems near certain. > > Making such treatment of sex the established norm without AT LEAST > providing a set of protective rituals around it (to keep it > ``special'') will damage the self-esteem and sense of self-worth > of everyone who comes into contact with it. ``Gee, this thing that > is so very important and so deeply embedded in ME can be bought ... > and people sell it. Gee, I could sell it. It's not worth all that > much, is it? I guess I'm not really worth all that much, either.'' > If that's the way you feel about it, fine. But please believe that many people (myself included) think that is just nonsense. My sense of self-esteem is far too resilient to be damaged by sex unprotected by whatever rituals you might have in mind. I can't escape a certain feeling that only a nincompoop would actually follow the hopelessly simplistic train of thought you outline. From what I have read of yours, I certainly can't believe you would. the Mr. (Monster) Jeff Winslow (thanx to a certain !zubbie for that!)
zubbie@wlcrjs.UUCP (Jeanette Zobjeck) (01/22/85)
For those of you that are old enough---- REMEMBER "LITTLE BLACK SAMBO" For those of you who are too young to remember----- Do some research. The same logic applies to Peter Paul and Mary's song Puff the Magic Dragon After careful consideration on the above -- Who would you have making judgements as to what is and is not permissible. =============================================================================== From the mostly vacant environment of Jeanette L. Zobjeck (ihnp4!wlcrjs!zubbie) All opinions expressed may not even be my own. ===============================================================================
mauney@ncsu.UUCP (Jon Mauney) (01/23/85)
The debate on pornography is taking several directions. As I see it,
the issues are:
1) Is porn immoral?
2) Is porn 'degrading'?
3) Is porn dangerous to society?
4) Can porn be legally defined?
5) Can we afford to restrict freedom to publish porn?
1 and 4 are not currently big issues on the net. 3 and 5 are hot topics.
But the question that interests me the most is 2. Some on the net argue
that sex is more intrinsic to our natures than other activities, that it
is a delicate thing that will lose its magic properties if brought into
the light, that commercial exploitation of sex is worse than commercial
exploitation of other human activities. I argue that this is not true.
For example:
> From: mat@hou4b.UUCP (Mark Terribile)
>
> Turning sex into a commodity that is bought, sold, traded, and
> taken, whether on the street, on a bookshelf, or on a screen,
> presents sex as a commodity that can and should be bought, sold, ...
>
> ``Gee, this thing that
> is so very important and so deeply embedded in ME can be bought ...
> and people sell it. Gee, I could sell it. It's not worth all that
> much, is it? I guess I'm not really worth all that much, either.''
>
First, I don't accept that line of reasoning. But stipulating that for the
moment, let us ask why sex is affected this way, and nothing else is.
What is more important than sex? Well, how about love, tenderness, romance.
The infamous Ann Landers poll indicates that hugging is more important than
humping. But while porno novels are sold at the back of the newstand, or
in sleazy bookstores, trashy romance novels are sold in the checkout lane
at the supermarket. Love and romance are bought, sold, traded as commodities.
These books also give the impression that women's emotions about men are
out of control, that women generally desire romance, and that whomever one
hates in chapter one will be one's true love by the end of the book.
Truly degrading! Ban gothic romances!
How about religion? Is religion more important, more central to your
being than sex? I just saw a poster proclaiming that Josh McDowell
will be here again, to tell us how sex is improved by including God,
which suggests that God is more important. Does it degrade your
religion to have Jimmy Swaggart, the PTL Club, and all the rest
*selling* religion on TV? I get the impression that to achieve
salvation, one must commit a lot of money to the TV missionaries. I
guess religion isn't worth very much. Or maybe it is really worth a
lot, if so many people are willing to put so much time and money into
it. And once Bakker gets on the air with his message of God for Gold,
the damage is done; the only thing that counters TV evangelism is its
absence.
I expect most of you to reject that line of reasoning about religion,
or at least to find it is not sufficient to justify restricting freedom.
I submit that the same is true of sex.
Sex is not the only important aspect of our lives, and it is not the only
one being warped by commercial exploitation. But it is the only one surrounded
by such a mass of taboo. That taboo tends to cloud our vision and keep
us from seeing sex in proper perspective.
--
*** REPLACE THIS MESSAGE WITH ONE YOU LIKE BETTER ***
Jon Mauney mcnc!ncsu!mauney C.S. Dept, North Carolina State Universityzubbie@wlcrjs.UUCP (Jeanette Zobjeck) (01/23/85)
>While there are some valid points to both Jeff's and Mark's statements >I refuse to accept either as being too much more than the ramblings of >a couple of small children, with a smattering of knowledge acquired >in I can't say what bookshop, holding up their hands and yelling >teacher teacher. > >Both of you seem to feel that yours are the "RIGHT" viewpoints and >both of you take great glee in jumping right down on anyone who >might dare to voice an idea which isn't in accordance with your views. >In case you had not noticed some of the other people in this world >have some pretty good ideas also. > > >Jeanette L. Zobjeck >ihnp4!wlcrjs!zubbie > I seem to have bitten off a large chunk of my own foot and haven't quite gotten done chewing it. To Jeff and others here on this net I would like to apologize for lumping Jeff in with MARK . The context in which I placed Jeff made it apear as if he were an adversary which is not the case. The paragraphs in question should have been more clear in that light to wit-- >While there are some valid points to both Jeff's and Mark's statements >I refuse to accept either as being too much more than the ramblings of >a couple of small children, with a smattering of knowledge acquired >in I can't say what bookshop, holding up their hands and yelling >teacher teacher. > In this I was refering to MARK's statements Jeff just happened to be the person in the middle. (I think the effort trying to use non gender specific pronouns is going to bust my head wide open) >Both of you seem to feel that yours are the "RIGHT" viewpoints and We all feel ours is the best or right view. >both of you take great glee in jumping right down on anyone who >might dare to voice an idea which isn't in accordance with your views. Big error here old girl !! Jeff hasn't (that I can remember) gleefully jumped on anyone but MARK T. for being at opinionated odds with him ( me too!) >In case you had not noticed some of the other people in this world >have some pretty good ideas also. Sorry Jeff you've been on my side MARK -- GET OFF IT!! Jeanette Zobjeck ihnp4!wlcrjs!zubbie
west@utcsrgv.UUCP (Thomas L. West) (01/26/85)
<> Jon Mauney states: > 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 loving > partners, then you should get decent producers, directors actors and screen- > writers to make explicit movies rather than banning them. Nice idea, but I don't think we'll see that sort of thing. Why? Probably because warm, loving exchanges between loving partners don't require explicit movies. The only people who make pornographic movies are the ones whose attitudes towards women aren't particluarily great. If they were, they wouldn't be making the movies! ----------------------------------- As a second point, people have pointed out that life was no great shake for women *before* pornography was a big industry, so obviously pornography isn't a factor. This sort of reasoning is a little suspect. How about pornography isn't the *only* factor in determining attitudes towards women. However, it is *a* factor, and a very unfavourable one, in my opinion. ------------------------------------- Somebody claimed that censorship aided the Nazi's. This is true, but they required a free press in order to gain power way before they were able to control the press for their own ends. In Canada, for example, the Neo-Nazi's are in big trouble for spreading hate literature which *is* an offence. Given this sort of thing, it would be hard for the Nazi party to be reborn. However, it is true that censorship can be misused. Censorship boards should definitely have (1) to give reasons for censoring anything and (2) have a court appeal procedure. Tom West
mat@hou4b.UUCP (01/27/85)
>From: mauney@ncsu.UUCP (Jon Mauney) >. .. that commercial exploitation of sex is worse than commercial exploitation > of other human activities. I argue that this is not true. > > Turning sex into a commodity that is bought, sold, traded, and taken, > > ... presents sex as a commodity that can ... be bought, sold, ... > ... But stipulating that for the moment, let us ask why sex is affected > this way, and nothing else is ... What is more important than sex? ... > > How about religion? Is religion more important ... than sex? ... I expect most > of you to reject that line of reasoning ... at least to find it is not > sufficient to justify restricting freedom. ... the same is true of sex. Psychology, concerned with how we are strung together, has spent much effort on sexual issues. An awful lot of our truly instinctive capabilities -- like the ability to learn to speak -- are used in the early part of our lives and then lost. Sex works in just the opposite way. It becomes important somewhere between the ages of two and ten (depending upon whom you ask) and remains important throughout our lives. Phrases like ``psycho-sexual development'' highlight centers of attention. > (1)Sex is not the only important aspect of our lives, and it is not the only >one being warped by commercial exploitation. (2)But it is the only one >surrounded by such a mass of taboo. That taboo tends to cloud our vision and >keep us from seeing sex in proper perspective. Agreed on the point one. Point two is reminiscent of the 1900's high-brow amateur anthropolgist bemoaning ``primitive'' cultures and their ``taboos''. The word taboo is a *dangerous* one. Even used in proper context, it distorts the meaning of what it is applied to. Taboos surrounding sex exist in most all human cultures. Their exact forms DO differ. That strongly suggests that cultural institutions about sex exist for some *basic human need*, or for some basic need that a culture composed of humans will have. It may be that the proper view of sex depends on some part of that ``mass of taboos''. It just might be a context rather than a fog. It wouldn't be the first time that Humane Reformers threw the baby out with the bath water. -- from Mole End Mark Terribile (scrape .. dig ) hou4b!mat ,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.
zubbie@wlcrjs.UUCP (Jeanette Zobjeck) (01/31/85)
>it is applied to. Taboos surrounding sex exist in most all human cultures. >Their exact forms DO differ. That strongly suggests that cultural institutions >about sex exist for some *basic human need*, or for some basic need that a >culture composed of humans will have. > > It may be that the proper view of sex depends on some part of that >``mass of taboos''. It just might be a context rather than a fog. It wouldn't >be the first time that Humane Reformers threw the baby out with the bath water. >-- > > from Mole End Mark Terribile > (scrape .. dig ) hou4b!mat [REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR FAVORITE NET PERSONALITY] The bulk of sexual taboos in existance were formulated or can have their origins traced back to 1) religious teaching 2) highly restictive cultures where personal freedoms (including sex) were regulated for the betterment of the leaders of the culture. In less sophisticated cultures the taboos on or around sex are either vestigial or non-existant and in no case that i am aware of do these cultures place a sinful onus or restriction on sex between consenting individuals. By consenting I define : Two people who wish to have a mutaul sexual realtionship whether spoke or implied, freely entered into by each for whatever personal reasons. =============================================================================== From the mostly vacant environment of Jeanette L. Zobjeck (ihnp4!wlcrjs!zubbie) All opinions expressed may not even be my own. ===============================================================================