mauney@ncsu.UUCP (Jon Mauney) (01/08/85)
> Not quite. Pornography truly degrades all people, men as well as women, by > reducing us to an extremely base level. I fail to see what is degrading about sex. Most of the people on Earth engage in a screwing activity sometime during their lives, and most of them do it repeatedly. Are your parents degraded because they had sex? (I looked at my father. Him, I could believe. But with *my Mother*, he had a lot of nerve) Not just coitus between lovers, either, but oral sex, one-night stands, swingers, homosexuals, teenagers that have figured out how to do it but still don't know why. Kinky sex. (I'd call him a sadistic, animalistic necrophiliac, but that's beating a dead horse.) In all its infinite variety, sex is a lot more natural than football, or private detectives, or cowboys, or game shows. Is that why it's degrading? Because it's not sufficiently artificial? My wife likes to look at food: the jars of pickles in a supermarket, the pictures in Gourmet magazine. Does this reduce her to a base level? Why is it degrading to admit that our instinctive behavior can be enjoyable? -- Jon Mauney, mcnc!ncsu!mauney North Carolina State University Q: Is sex dirty? A: It is if it's done right. (Woody Allen)
features@ihuxf.UUCP (M.A. Zeszutko) (01/10/85)
From: mauney@ncsu.UUCP (Jon Mauney) >> Not quite. Pornography truly degrades all people, men as well as women, by >> reducing us to an extremely base level. >I fail to see what is degrading about sex. There is nothing intrinsically degrading about sex. In any expression of sexuality, the participants should be there of their own choice, and all aspects of a person should be accepted and respected, including the "animal" drives. Erotica is fine, and quite pleasurable. Pornography, even though it deals with the same subjects, approaches them quite differently. Who would find it flattering to be looked at as such a collection of body parts? When men find it necessary to subjugate women in order to be aroused, there's something wrong. That's what pornography caters to. Erotica, on the other hand, can allow for full expression of rich shadings of emotions while retaining the dignity and humor of the individual. How many times have feminists been accused of causing impotence in men! It's unfortunate that some men's egos are so fragile that they cannot deal with a strong woman, but must label her dominating/threatening/a castrating bitch/other favorite perjorative. -- aMAZon @ AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL; ihnp4!ihuxf!features "Love your self's self where it lives." -- Anne Sexton
zubbie@wlcrjs.UUCP (Jeanette Zobjeck) (01/10/85)
I believe that many of the people in this discussion have messed up one very important basic. SEX and PORNOGRAPHY are not the same thing. True there is implicit sec in pornography but all sex is not porn. Those arguements which have been presented saying that Porn doesn't degrade anyone are in general reaaly saying that sexual acts between consenting adults for their own pleasure are not degrading. Porn on the otherhand is not even really pictoral sex (can you imagine really getting hyped up with 10 to 20 people around you flahing lights and running cameras etc.). Pornography is degrading of a) the participants in the production. b) People in general since it is human sex which is being depicted so graphically, (sexual organs as well when sex is not explicitly depicted). I doubt very much that any of the people I have seen here protesting that porn does not degrade anyone would care to prove that by participating in the photo session as a subject, nor would they care to have family or those emotionally close to them as such subjects. The reason they would give to such a proposition , no matter how phrased, would effectively say *HELL NO - I don't want anyone close to me or myself degraded and exposed in that manner* and if you don't believe me than find one and try it zubbie (Jeanette Zobjeck)
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (01/11/85)
Zeszuto's posting dealt with pornography and erotica, with the former being objectionable and the latter not. Can Zeszuto or anyone provide a valid legal definition of pornography? Such a person should immediately contact the Supreme Court, which has failed at that endeavor for at leat 20 years. It ended up with something like "I know it when I see it" Sorry but what I see is not what you see and in a democracy what you see has no intrisic superiority to what I see. Marcel Simon ..!mhuxr!mfs
dls@ahuta.UUCP (d.skran) (01/11/85)
CC: ecl REFERENCES: <4699@tektronix.UUCP> <2758@ncsu.UUCP>, <462@wlcrjs.UUCP> The hangups American's have about sex are awesome. In the Netherlands it is AGAINST the law to REQUIRE swimsuits! Think about it. Being nude is not degrading. Having sex is not degrading. Doing these things on film/in public are not degrading EXCEPT in the eyes of those watching, who have been conditioned all their lives to view sex as a "dirty thing." There are cultures without these odd taboos. If you find films/books with nudity/sex degrading, this says a lot more about your attitudes than anything else. As for your test, I suspect a great many people would be willing to have their pictures taken nude IF there existed some assurance that the small minded of the world wouldn't lash out against them. In this utopian fantasy, everyone would have something better to do than claim that nude pictures of people/sex are degrading. This is not to say degradation cannot exist in porn, simply that sex/nudity per se DOES NOT CONSTITUTE DEGRADATION. Dale
srm@nsc.UUCP (Richard Mateosian) (01/11/85)
>> Pornography truly degrades all people, men as well as women, by >> reducing us to an extremely base level. > >I fail to see what is degrading about sex. I've seen several versions of this comment, and I think the problem is that many of us poor innocents on the net don't understand what's being complained about. It had to be explained to me that what I thought was pornography is called erotica by the anti-porn activists, while what they're fighting is some really disgusting stuff that I never knew existed until I saw excerpts on "60 Minutes". A particularly prominent example involves an attack upon a bathing woman by an intruder; the climax comes when he fires a nail into her head as she lies spread-eagled before him. UGH!! This garbage may be protected by the Constitution, but who says the Constitution is holy writ? After all, the "founding fathers" weren't long on feminist consciousness. In fact, they were a pretty sleazy lot, including several slaveholders and the inventor of some really grim tortures for the "mentally ill". -- Richard Mateosian {allegra,cbosgd,decwrl,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!srm nsc!srm@decwrl.ARPA
nap@druxo.UUCP (Parsons) (01/11/85)
>This is not to say degradation cannot exist in porn, simply >that sex/nudity per se DOES NOT CONSTITUTE DEGRADATION. >Dale Has anyone said that sex/nudity per se constitutes degradation? If they did, I missed it... Perhaps what is being said is that sex becomes porn when degradation is mixed in. Then the problem becomes: what is degrading? And again, we won't agree and hence, a legally useful definition escapes us. Nancy Parsons AT&T ISL Denver, CO druxo!nap
hutch@shark.UUCP (Stephen Hutchison) (01/11/85)
<explicit line for the bug reader> In article <2758@ncsu.UUCP> mauney@ncsu.UUCP (Jon Mauney) writes: >> Not quite. Pornography truly degrades all people, men as well as women, by >> reducing us to an extremely base level. >> paul dubuc > >I fail to see what is degrading about sex. Most of the people on Earth >engage in a screwing activity sometime during their lives, and most of >them do it repeatedly. Are your parents degraded because they had sex? Indeed, but Paul didn't say that sex was degrading. He said that pornography was degrading. The difference is pretty obvious. Read more carefully. The following is my own opinion if anyone cares: Sex is a personal act (usually) between two people, and erotica is (are?) the depiction of that act or things designed to strongly remind you of that act, and pornography can be seen as FAILED erotica, as a depiction that causes the viewer to see sex as something one does to a thing, rather than as an enjoyable mutually voluntary sharing of pleasure. Pornography (the word literally means pictures of sex) is typically done as a person, with whom we are made to identify, treating another person, with whom we really cannot identify, as an object suitable primarily for sex. But we humans are very good at generalizing, and when we see pornography, especially the kind that by skillful design places us inside a particular point of view, we tend to generalize the ideas presented. It takes a real conscious effort sometimes NOT to do this, especially if we are exposed to it a lot. Incidentally, a porno picture will disturb me, a male heterosexual, for different reasons than it will disturb a female heterosexual. (Note that the only reason I make this distinction is because I don't want to generalize to other sexual orientations, even though I think the generalization is a valid one.) I will be bothered by pictures of a woman in the standard (boring) pink crotch, come-hither shots, because it implies that I a man must perforce accept this as a definition of what I must find stimulating. Were I a woman, I would be even more bothered because I would be hard pressed NOT to identify with the woman in the picture, and she is being represented as an object for sex. Therefore I as a woman must also be so defined, whether or not I want to be. THAT is what the problem is with pornography, a matter of intent AND degree. The intent is to make a person into an object. This debases sex and it debases the person, and by association ALL people. The problem of degree is that this kind of representation is so bloody pervasive now, that it has found its way into NEARLY every message in our social environment. Oh, as a footnote. The kind of omnipresent awareness and concentration on sex is very much like the old Puritan concentration on sin. By being continually reminded that nearly everything was wrong, the Puritans were eventually unable to concentrate on doing what they thought was right. However, we know that negative reinforcement is not nearly as effective a tool for teaching as positive reinforcement, and we are constantly given POSITIVE images, pleasure-images, of sex with pornographic connotations. Therefore, sex becomes associated with something which we KNOW deep down is wrong, and yet it is constantly before us. This has gotten too long, for a brief reply. Hutch
mauney@ncsu.UUCP (Jon Mauney) (01/12/85)
> From: features@ihuxf.UUCP (M.A. Zeszutko) > > Erotica is fine, and quite pleasurable. > Pornography, even though it deals with the same subjects, approaches > them quite differently. We have an unarguable semantic quibble here. To me pornography is synonomous with 'obscenity' (my dictionary agrees), 'smut', 'filth', etc. I.e. any depiction of sex or nudity in a prurient way. Erotica is anything that is erotic; i.e. porn done properly. I get the impression that other people define porn to be any depiction of sex that is degrading. Such a definition ends the discussion. Anyway, who defines erotica? There is ample evidence that many people find close-up photography of wholesale banging to be very erotic. > Who would find it flattering to be looked at > as such a collection of body parts? Innocent bystander: "Gee, I like your hair style. Its very becoming." Militant feminist: "Am I supposed to be flattered by that isolated observation about one part of my body?" If I want to get to know someone, I'll read their biography. If I want to get hot, I'll read a dirty book. Why would I want to read a dirty biography? That would be too much like cheating on my wife. Seriously, I don't know anything about Ralph Sampson, except that he is exceptionally graceful for a freak. I don't know anything about Mel Torme except his voice. Woody Allen doesn't tell anything about himself except his neuroses; knowing that he plays clarinet doesn't help me enjoy his humor. So why should I worry that I don't recognize anything about Marilyn Chambers but her genitals? > From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) > It certianly seems to me that the regular viewing of the > nude bodies of women is highly suggestive of the idea that women > generally desire sex. Whereas the opposite is actually true: women only have sex to make babies or to make their hubbies happy. Right. -- *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH A MASSAGE *** Jon Mauney mcnc!ncsu!mauney C.S. Dept, North Carolina State University
jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (01/12/85)
O.K., Hutch, I give up. How do I (objectively) tell the difference
between pornography and erotica?
Don't shoot me, you'll hit a VAX...
One's thoughtful query is another's silly question,
Jeff Winslowcrm@duke.UUCP (Charlie Martin) (01/14/85)
It may be that the "constitution isn't holy writ" (or even wholly written) but the protection of the first amendment is one that was very early established as a basic protection in which the Founding Fathers (most of them, at least) believed very strongly. read for example some of the stuff that Thomas Jefferson had to say about the Alien and Sedition Acts. I can't recall an exact quote, but he basically said something to the effect of an unconscionable attack on the rights of a free people. As far as the remark about the Founding Fathers, them's fighting words -- put'em up! (writer does quick but poor imitation of punchdrunk fighter from old movie). If you think the FF had no "feminist sensibilities", read up on them. In fact, as far as holding slaves, there were some pretty strong attempts to eliminate that too, which were thwarted in an early play of the "if we can't keep slaves we won't play" ploy repeated 4*20+7 years later. -- Opinions stated here are my own and are unrelated. Charlie Martin (...mcnc!duke!crm)
crm@duke.UUCP (Charlie Martin) (01/15/85)
Nonsense and or bullshit! First of all, you are making my choices for me and making my decisions without asking my permission. I don't remember asking you to do any such thing. Secondly, I have no objections to participating in ``pornographic'' pictures, have written sexually-explicit text which might be considered pornographic, and don't feel that anyone in my family should be restricted from doing so, immediately blowing away your "how would you feel if" arguement. If I have jealousy problems with someone I love being involved in a sexual act on or off camera, that is my problem (and in fact points out that even I can't always live up to my standards of behavior). This whole argument hinges on the idea that you can tell me what degrades *me*, can tell *me* how I should feel, and then that you should be able to make decisions for *me* on this basis. Forget it. -- Opinions stated here are my own and are unrelated. Charlie Martin (...mcnc!duke!crm)
geb@cadre.UUCP (01/16/85)
In article <2193@nsc.UUCP> srm@nsc.UUCP (Richard Mateosian) writes: > >This garbage may be protected by the Constitution, but who says the >Constitution is holy writ? After all, the "founding fathers" weren't >long on feminist consciousness. In fact, they were a pretty sleazy lot, >including several slaveholders and the inventor of some really grim >tortures for the "mentally ill". >-- >Richard Mateosian To me, the constitution is a close to holy writ as exists on the earth. It is quite the mark of a provincial person who judges all history according to the latest fads and cliches of his own little culture. Since the Athens of Pericles there had never come together such a collection of great people as did in the late 18th century in the 13 colonies. Never since has this country had the benefit of such intellects to guide its affairs. The current crop of politicians seems to be composed of psychopaths and pussy lawyers.
srm@nsc.UUCP (Richard Mateosian) (01/17/85)
In article <5249@duke.UUCP> crm@duke.UUCP (Charlie Martin) writes: > > >If you think the founding fathers had no "feminist >sensibilities", read up on them. In fact, as far as holding slaves, >there were some pretty strong attempts to eliminate that too, which were >thwarted in an early play of the "if we can't keep slaves we won't play" >ploy repeated 4*20+7 years later. > Yes, they fought over slavery and they fought over whether to include women as equals. We all know how those fights came out. -- Richard Mateosian {allegra,cbosgd,decwrl,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!srm nsc!srm@decwrl.ARPA
crm@duke.UUCP (Charlie Martin) (01/17/85)
Yeah, and I fought for ERA at the '76 Colorado State convention, and lost. If you think my motives were not pure simply because I lost, consider Jesus, who got killed for his trouble. Does that disprove His beliefs? Argh. -- Opinions stated here are my own and are unrelated. Charlie Martin (...mcnc!duke!crm)