mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (01/30/85)
> > 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 disagree. As much of the discussion in net.social seems to agree, it is entirely possible to have healthy relationships with potential sexual partners without actual sexual contact. It is also possible, although arguably not as satisfying, to have sexual contact with a partner without building a relationship. Why? Sexual attraction is the manifestation of the drive to survive (by perpetuating 1/2 the genes). However, we humans have the wonderful capability for sex when procreation is not possible (i.e. during the part of her cycle when a woman is not ovulating). Since the nurture period for humans is so large (about 18 years), procreation *favors* long term relationships between parents. In the absence of procreation, it is therefore possible to separate sex from a relationship. Whether that is satisfying to the partners is a matter of psychology and sociology that is outside this argument. Degradation does *not* enter it anywhere, and is therefore not relevant. I do not mean to imply that degradation does not exist, but that it is *not*, as Parsons says, a byproduct of sexual display in pornography or elsewhere. What is degrading are the social attitudes that cling to these displays. These are not intrinsically linked to the sexual display itself. Marcel Simon