crm@duke.UUCP (Charlie Martin) (01/11/85)
This is a reply to a number of articles, or an article suggested by a number of articles, or something like that. In any case, the topic is (possible) degradation of women by erotica or pornography. First of all, there was a response that suggested that erotica was OK but pornography is not. The problem is that both words seem to refer to the same thing, or at least there is no testable way to differentiate them. In essense, this distinction seems to be "if I think it's OK, then it must be erotica." I would hate to have my reading material affected by someone applying this rule. What about a strongly gay examiner in San Francisco (yes I know they are not all out in SF, but they have more political power there) who feels any depiction of heterosexual activity is disgusting? The second point that seems to be important to the debate is the question of whether or not pornography incites violence -- and so far as I can see, the evidence is not AT ALL conclusive, and seems to be pretty well evenly divided. First of all, the US studies that have been made have been methodologically suspect; small sample groups, selected from already selected groups (mostly college students) and have not measured actual increases in the potential for violence but have measured only small increases in the willingness of these subjects to say that they might be more likely to commit a violent act. (I admit that I don't know how to measure the "potential for violence", but I suspect that the anti-porno people don't either. It's their argument, not mine.) However, studies in the countries in which pornography is acceptable (for example in Denmark) have suggested the opposite effect -- that there existed a co-incidence between availablity of pornography and a DECREASE in the sexual-crime rate. These were "epidemological" (I apologize in advance for the spelling -- where's my Webster's?) studies which measured actual increases or decreases in context. These studies use a larger universe and one which more closely approximates the actual universe in question (even if Danes don't react as Americans would, they are more likely to react like Americans in general than college sophmores are) and are for that reason more trustworthy. In any case, if the violence against or degradation of a person or group is to be the measure, then very little is safe. GOR books would go first, along with "pornography" -- and I agree with another opinion expressed here: how DARE these people claim that they know what is "degrading" better than the people participating? -- but Tom Sawyer has already been found "racist," even though the book makes it clear that Jim was a better person them most others. It would be supressed soon. The conclusion that I fell is compelled by the evidence, and by long consideration, is this: no man (in the inclusive original sense, no human being) has the wisdom to be able to describe a set of rules which can be applied consistantly to a work of liturature that can conclude whether or not it is "pornographic" or "degrading". "vox populi" is NOT "vox dei" -- only the voice of a few people who mostly echo things they were told by someone else. If the First Amendment has any meaning at all, it means that the United States were formed in order to PROTECT the few from the many, by insisting that even unpopular forms of self-expression must be allowed their place in the market. This right must be protected, and the only way to protect it is to reject any attempt to modify it "for the good of the many" or "because the Bible says so, and the Bible is the Word of God." -- Opinions stated here are my own and are unrelated. Charlie Martin (...mcnc!duke!crm)