barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (01/15/85)
[] A few responses to Paul Dubuc: >Natually, I think porn with >male subjects is degrading to men. Can some of the men out there >imagine how they feel about photos that encourage others to size >them up like a piece of meat--placing value on the ability of >their bodies to stimulate? I'd love it! Unfortunately, I don't have the kind of body that makes women (or men) faint with passion :-(. Clearly, no one wants to be seen only and always as a sex object, but it's kind of nice to be seen that way sometimes. >I have read studies >cited that seem to indicate that the sexual stimulation produced >indirectly stimulates the tendancy toward violent acts. The theory >is that there is a connection between these two sections of the >brain and that somehow sexual stimulation lowers the threshold for >stimulation to violent acts. Really? And do you find that *you* have a greater tendency to violence after experiencing sexual stimulation? And have you stopped beating your wife? :-) No, wait, I get it - you meant to say that sexual stimulation from pornography is connected to violence, not sexual stimulation occurring within the sacred bonds of matrimony. Clearly, there's no connection between the two :-). >I'm sure other factors contribute, >but the seemingly high incidence of many rapists and child molesters >turning out to be "porn addicts" makes me wonder if it isn't a significant >factor. Do you have any idea how many rapists and child molesters are *known* to have drank milk as a child? Makes you stop and think, doesn't it? >You get the idea that if the woman in the picture were acually present >she would love to jump in bed with you. These woman have no >real identity. No emphasis is placed on *who* the woman is personally, >just her looks. That's as good a description of Playboy, or indeed of Cosmopolitan, as it is of hard-core porn. How much do you want to ban? Would you outlaw any use of sex in advertising? It sounds like you would. >Defenses for porn are often couched in the rhetoric of free speech >and press. But I think porn makes a mockery of these freedoms. >All too often it is my suspicion that such rhetoric is used as a >justification by men for their own use of the stuff. Are these >freedoms absolute? Not many people believe they are. Speak for yourself. I and others *do* believe the freedom is absolute. Your opinion notwithstanding, there is no evidence of any connection between pornography and violence. So where's the harm? I don't *need* a justification for enjoying erotic art, just the freedom of access to it. >One objection to anti-porn laws says that some >legitimate and valuable works will unjustly fall under the ban. Dead right. So why ban any of it? Why take the chance? >That's probably true. But it is also true for any general proscription. Right again; so why ban any written matter? You are so casual in acknowledging that "legitimate and valuable works" will be censored, and 1st Amendment rights thereby abridged. Why? What do you have against porn beside unsubstantiated opinion that it's bad for people? How do you know? Would you ban books without evidence of their harm? >What >real contribution to our basic liberties is made by porn? We have >an essentially free press without it. An "essentially free press". What a concept! How about this: we ban only *one* book. Just one. Now, that's *much* more free than banning whole categories of literary expression. What book? Oh, how about the Bible? >I have >several friends who are artists and I'm pretty sure they would agree >that a certain amount of constraint is required to spur creativity. >Where there are no constraints, anything can pass for "art". If an >artist or author truly has talent they should be able to show it >within a certain set of constraints. To wipe away all constraint >only offers false credibility to those with no talent. I say this >only to illustrate that contraints are not inherently evil, not >to say that all constraints are good. So, anti-porn ordinances will spur artistic creativity! Can you spell "sophistry"? - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- USENET: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,hao,menlo70,hplabs}!ames!barry SOURCE: ST7891
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (01/17/85)
I'm trying to discuss this issue reaonably. There seems to be some who have no respect for that and seem to believe that anyone who opposes their own views on porn is by definition unreasonable and therefore wrong. It seems to be Kenn's purpose here to ridicule rather than reason. I am thankful for the people who have been reasonable in their responses (Marcel Simon and Richard Draves, to name only two). Sour attitudes only get in the way of meaningful discussion and have only tempted mine to go sour (i.e. in the case of my respone to Evelyn Leeper. My apologies to Evelyn. The tone of my response was uncalled for and probably helped provoke Kenn's attitude here.) }>Natually, I think porn with }>male subjects is degrading to men. Can some of the men out there }>imagine how they feel about photos that encourage others to size }>them up like a piece of meat--placing value on the ability of }>their bodies to stimulate? } } I'd love it! Unfortunately, I don't have the kind of body that }makes women (or men) faint with passion :-(. Clearly, no one wants to }be seen only and always as a sex object, but it's kind of nice to be }seen that way sometimes. But of course you don't speak for everyone. I've learned my lesson about soliciting anecdotes. There are always a few vocal women who think its great that their husbands use porn and men who would love to be drooled over by women. Nevertheless, Kenn qualifies his statement with "sometimes". Kenn, as an individual, doesn't mind being viewed as a sex object sometimes. This still gets me to wondering how much control he thinks he would have over how often people viewed him that way after getting the idea once and how quiclky it would get old for him. The point still remains that porn de-emphasizes the personality and personhood of it's subject. It's message therefore generalizes to all women and men. Kenn has other things that he would like people to value him for. Porn only presents one thing of value about its subject. }>I have read studies }>cited that seem to indicate that the sexual stimulation produced }>indirectly stimulates the tendancy toward violent acts. The theory }>is that there is a connection between these two sections of the }>brain and that somehow sexual stimulation lowers the threshold for }>stimulation to violent acts. } } Really? And do you find that *you* have a greater tendency to }violence after experiencing sexual stimulation? And have you stopped }beating your wife? :-) No, wait, I get it - you meant to say that sexual }stimulation from pornography is connected to violence, not sexual stimulation }occurring within the sacred bonds of matrimony. Clearly, there's no connection }between the two :-). There's one big difference (and I hope you won't deny it): I know my wife. I know a lot more about her than what she looks like. I have a relationship with her. She is my best friend. I trust in her, confide in her and seek her counsel. She is not an object for sexual stimulation or release. My wife is a *particular* person to me. Porn subjects aren't. My relationship with my wife does not speak generalizations about all women. Porn does. I'm going to make some more comments about the violence aspect of porn in my next article. Including it here would make this one much too long. }>I'm sure other factors contribute, }>but the seemingly high incidence of many rapists and child molesters }>turning out to be "porn addicts" makes me wonder if it isn't a significant }>factor. } } Do you have any idea how many rapists and child molesters }are *known* to have drank milk as a child? Makes you stop and think, }doesn't it? If you want to find a non sequitur here you'll have to do better than that. People readily admit that porn stimulates the sex drive. The connection is a little more obvious than with milk. }>You get the idea that if the woman in the picture were acually present }>she would love to jump in bed with you. These woman have no }>real identity. No emphasis is placed on *who* the woman is personally, }>just her looks. } } That's as good a description of Playboy, or indeed of Cosmopolitan, }as it is of hard-core porn. How much do you want to ban? Would you outlaw }any use of sex in advertising? It sounds like you would. Glad to see you admit that the message is there. Of course there is the matter of degree and definition that go into any grounds for banning something. I am not making the posture of the models the sole criterion for banning production of any materials. My point was that the message is there and that it is a generalized message. As such it is a falsehood, but it is only one ingredient in the objection to porn. Also, I'm not sure that we have to take the uncompromising stand that you implicate me of holding. }>Defenses for porn are often couched in the rhetoric of free speech }>and press. But I think porn makes a mockery of these freedoms. }>All too often it is my suspicion that such rhetoric is used as a }>justification by men for their own use of the stuff. Are these }>freedoms absolute? Not many people believe they are. } } Speak for yourself. I and others *do* believe the freedom is }absolute. Your opinion notwithstanding, there is no evidence of any }connection between pornography and violence. So where's the harm? I don't }*need* a justification for enjoying erotic art, just the freedom of access }to it. In quoting me Kenn has cut off my illustrative example of kiddie porn. I just posted a long article on that topic. Are you going to come out in support for 1st Amendment protection of kiddie porn? Is anyone? As for violence, I wouldn't be so sure that there is no evidence (you've read everything?) and that the evidence against the connection is compelling or conclusive. See my next article. }>One objection to anti-porn laws says that some }>legitimate and valuable works will unjustly fall under the ban. } } Dead right. So why ban any of it? Why take the chance? Because I think the consequences of doing nothing about porn outweigh the chances we take if we do. }>That's probably true. But it is also true for any general proscription. } } Right again; so why ban any written matter? You are so casual }in acknowledging that "legitimate and valuable works" will be censored, }and 1st Amendment rights thereby abridged. Why? What do you have against }porn beside unsubstantiated opinion that it's bad for people? How do }you know? Would you ban books without evidence of their harm? What I am saying is that there are hard cases for any law that make it seem unfair. This is true for laws against everything from jay- walking to manslaughter. The unavoidability of casualties does not give basis for doing away with the laws. This is getting repititious. I thought I made this clear in my first article. }>What }>real contribution to our basic liberties is made by porn? We have }>an essentially free press without it. } } An "essentially free press". What a concept! How about this: }we ban only *one* book. Just one. Now, that's *much* more free than banning }whole categories of literary expression. What book? Oh, how about the }Bible? I'm not talking about indescriminately banning just anything. I think you know that. The point was that our newspapers don't have to publish porn to be considered free. }>I have }>several friends who are artists and I'm pretty sure they would agree }>that a certain amount of constraint is required to spur creativity. }>Where there are no constraints, anything can pass for "art". If an }>artist or author truly has talent they should be able to show it }>within a certain set of constraints. To wipe away all constraint }>only offers false credibility to those with no talent. I say this }>only to illustrate that contraints are not inherently evil, not }>to say that all constraints are good. } } So, anti-porn ordinances will spur artistic creativity! Can you }spell "sophistry"? My spelling skills are often lacking, as anyone who reads my articles knows. When any judgement is made there are constraints implied. Judgements are meaningless without them. How do we even recognise creativity otherwise? Empty rhetoric does little to expose sophistry. Since you haven't given any reasoning to back up your implication (I guess it must be obvious to everyone but me). There's nothing I can argue against. I have to leave it at that. -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
reiher@ucla-cs.UUCP (01/20/85)
I am unwilling to allow abridgement of free speech on the flimsy evidence
presented so far (which mostly amounts to attempts to prove by vigorous
assertion) that pornography is harmful. I think that kiddie porn is not a good
example, due to the fact that children are widely treated as different from
adults under the law. As far as Mr. Dubuc's assertion that art works better
under constraints, there is some truth in this, but self imposed constraints are
the ones that count. Had I the talent to be an artist of any sort, I would
refuse to obey any other kind of constraints. I suspect that this is the
generally held view among artists. Would you really like to argue that it
was the Production Code that contributed to the greatness of Hollywood in
the 30s and 40s, that being forbidden to even deal with certain subjects made
for better films? I would not like to have to defend that position in a
debate.
I think that the varying positions have been made pretty clear in this
discussion. Unless someone has something really new to add, why don't
we get back to discussing books?
--
Peter Reiher
reiher@ucla-cs.arpa
{...ihnp4,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!reiherokie@ihuxi.UUCP (B.K. Cobb) (01/23/85)
Nope, this has NOTHING to do with pornography. It's a plea, thinly disguised so that you who can't seem to figure out the right place for your long-winded discussion to be... TAKE IT OUT OF NET.BOOKS AND PUT IT SOMEWHERE ELSE!!!!! I don't mind using my 'n' key to skip articles I don't want to read, but I shouldn't have to wade through a discussion that has mutated beyond the original question and is now no longer related to what usually appears in net.books. Put it net.social... net.null... net.dull... but get it out of here, please! I wonder if anyone has ever done a study on the inertia factor of mutaated discussions on the net... "Books? What books? This is net.porn, son!" B.K.Cobb inhp4!ihuxi!okie
tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (01/24/85)
I am disapointed in the neglect here for one of the fundamental rules of electronic communication: Don't argue with a closed mind. Anyone who is willing to allow restriction of the American constitutional right of free expression is obviously not a person who is ever going to listen to a rational discussion of the subject. This has been proven in over a thousand lines of repressionist drivel, but people just won't learn.... -=- Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University Computation Center ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!" "Remember all ye that existence is pure joy; that all the sorrows are but as shadows; they pass & are done; but there is that which remains." Liber AL, II:9.
slack@wxlvax.UUCP (Tom Slack) (01/29/85)
> }>I have > }>several friends who are artists and I'm pretty sure they would agree > }>that a certain amount of constraint is required to spur creativity. > }>Where there are no constraints, anything can pass for "art". If an > }>artist or author truly has talent they should be able to show it > }>within a certain set of constraints. To wipe away all constraint > }>only offers false credibility to those with no talent. I say this > }>only to illustrate that contraints are not inherently evil, not > }>to say that all constraints are good. > } > } So, anti-porn ordinances will spur artistic creativity! Can you > }spell "sophistry"? > > My spelling skills are often lacking, as anyone who reads my articles > knows. > > When any judgement is made there are constraints implied. Judgements are > meaningless without them. How do we even recognise creativity otherwise? > Empty rhetoric does little to expose sophistry. Since you haven't given > any reasoning to back up your implication (I guess it must be obvious to > everyone but me). There's nothing I can argue against. I have to leave > it at that. > -- > > Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd Although I am yet undecided as to many of the issues discussed in Paul's article I agree that the reference to Sophistry is an extremely poor response. Particlularly considering the beliefs of the Sophists in History. Argueing (sp) that pornography is an individual freedom which hurts no one, and that there is no right or wrong value associated with it, but only opinion, is a much closer to sophistic philosophy than argueing, as Paul does, that there is a line to be drawn we must only determine where. Tom Slack