twiss@stolaf.UUCP (Tom Twiss) (02/28/86)
*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** Frye writes: >Its not a big deal to get rid of them [mags like Hustler]. Just >quit buying them. There's the rub. Good point. Stop buying the mags, and they go away very fast. Unfortunately, we can't just tell people and the problem magically goes away. Those who buy do so for reasons that are more complex than a simple scolding will cure (or so I believe, and many sociologists and psychologists as well). >Its people's minds >again. We don't have a gun problem, we don't have a mag- >azine problem, the only problems we have is with people. True, to a certain extent, but it's not that simple. Whether people "deal" with guns or mags "reasonably," (whatever that means), it doesn't mean that the presence of the same is now safe, and that all adverse affects are precluded. Even if the whole population minus one is sane, and guns are readily available, then someone is going to get hurt. The "problem with people" argument is basically sound, yet incomplete if not placed in a realistic environment. >If anyone is going to be degraded by photos in some rag, >it should be the ones in the photos. They are. That's the point. >I don't think its >anyone elses business but the sujects of those photos >and the guy taking the pictures. Here's a pretty sloppy piece of reasoning. The very premise of massed produced media is to MAKE it everyone's business. If we consider the size of the porn industry in the world, it is myopic to think of it as the business of only two people. >For the ones who *are* >in the pictures, its a case of mind over matter. If they >don't mind, it don't matter. This is not true. See below. >It kinda bother's me to think >that some lady who has never been in one of those rags >could feel so degraded. After all, she was at home or on >vacation or at work or something when the pix were taken. >She was nowhere near any of it. The whole point about pornography is that it is very pervasive in our culture. It is manifested in many different forms, even on billboards, TV, etc. (albeit in much "softer" images). It trains men (and even women) to think that women are objects, just bodies, and inferior, or, at least subordinate to men. I don't need to present the proof of this, just consult any study done on the topic. Also, for the men (and women) that participate in the porn market directly (buying, viewing, what not), they are getting much heavier doses of the above. Porn tends to impart values on the people that most people consider discriminatory. >And, if there was such a >rape problem linked to this topic, why don't we hear of >more of the women *in* these pictures getting raped? What does this have to do with anything? This is completely non-sequitous. The problem is that porn tends to incite some men to violent crimes that they might not otherwise commit ("I've been watching it on my VCR for years. Women love to get it. I'm gonna give it to them!"). Many of the women seen in those pictures probably DO get raped. In fact, many of them everyday (since many women are forced to participate in films and pictures against their will: any forced sexual activity is rape). But even if they were NOT getting raped, it's still beside the point, by virtue of more widespread societal problems created by porn. >People have a long way to go to prove to this ol' dad >that nudity or magazines are any valid reason to have >the problems we have. I can't even understand this sentence. No one wants a REASON for a problem. We only want to establish a cause, then deal with it. The sentence is phrased as if nudity (in porn) is to cause our problems. Although it certainly does, rather, I think, the problem IS with porn-nudity and degrading images of sexuality like those propogated in most porn. >Our problem is with people who >have no consideration for anyone else. That's very true (for the most part). >Try to rehab those >people and, failing that, get rid of them. We won't have >the problems then. >Frye again "Rehab" is an interesting word choice. It implies that there is an inherent wrong or aberration predicable to individuals who exhibit specific behavior. Thinking that we should "rehab" those with differing values, behaviors, etc. is a very scary concept. Ever read *1984*? Though I would certainly want to change those people's attitudes, I wouldn't want to "rehab" them or indoctrinate them. There is the Constitution, you know. But as for getting rid of them, can you really be serious?!? Should we "get rid" of all those people that we see as posing "problems" or exhibiting behavior contrary to our particular beliefs? I'm glad you're not president. I'd prefer to convince and change people rather than force them to become something else (or get rid of them). -- I don't even have an employer, so these views can't be theirs! Tom Twiss St. Olaf College Nothfield, MN 55057 {decvax or ihnp4}!stolaf!agnes!twiss