rb@cci632.UUCP (Rex Ballard) (09/27/86)
In article <1570@mtx5a.UUCP> mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) writes: >This *does* lead inevitably back to a question that the proponents of >widespread use of erotica seem never to address: does the use of this >material damage the institution we call the family? It might depend on when the reader becomes involved with porn. There are two approaches. In the first case, the theory that sexual preferences are formed at a very early age. If a man has a repressed set of preferences which he fails to express until after marriage, then upon reading porn decides that his partner should fulfill his life-long dreams, but the partner is unwilling, it could lead to marital complications. In the second theory, that new preferences could be learned from reading porn, the same type of problem arises. But in this case the rules are being changed after the marriage. If the first theory is correct, it may be preferable expose teenagers to "normal" sexual situations, rather than repressing them or possibly restricting their arousal to some, more unorthodox material. If the only material available is national geographic, the kid could end up insisting that his mate have her nose pierced. Yuchh. >in families, at least for the time being, and the family is already ill >(witness the inability of parents to teach their kids about sex; Sound like a problem due to lack of "soft porn" rather than too much. >witness >the difficulty many people have of even teaching their children about >affection ...) Affection, romance, and commitment permiate most mass media. One of the problems is that the media almost disassociates these things from sex. >> OK, then what about the psychological damage from watching >>Rambo or even The A-Team, with all of its powerful violence in which >>no-one is actually hurt! Or do you think it is OK to think that you >>can go around shooting machine guns because no-one will really get hurt? > >But at least the violence is not portrayed as a an acceptable means or >consequence of sexual arousal, which can be an awfully Good Thing and which >should *never* be used as an excuse for violence. No, however it is often portrayed as an acceptable means to romance, affection, and love. (Kill him, get her). >This also answers another objection that was raised: > >Another question: >>More seriously, why is sex special? Many people seem to feel that the first >>ammendment covers everything but sex. Why should the publication of >>explicit material be limited to that which the "average" person is not >>offended by? Why don't we do this for other forms of expression? > >Why is sex special? I never thought that that question would seriously be >asked on *this* newsgroup! ( ;^}/3 here, please) Actually, if the history books of several cultures were examined, it would be found that even in islam, there are pornographic works intended for marital use. The problem is we burned that porn, and then said it wasn't there. >Remember, that's not the whole of the limitiation. First, the ``average'' >person must find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient >interests. The dictionary at hand defines prurient as: > o Obsessively interested in matters of a sexual nature, or > o Characterized by an obsessive interest in sex, or > o Arousing or appealing to an obsessive interest in sex. Obsession is not "caused by" porn, any more than alcohol "causes" alcohol addicition. Normal instincts, in an already unbalenced personality, are blown out of perspective. >>Other wired-in human needs, such as food and warmth, are commoditized. > >Do you recall what it took to get to the point where we can be reasonably sure >that the food we get is wholesome and safe? So what you would really like are similar types of legislation for porn. Things like truth in labling, quality control, worker protection. Just as not all foods are required to contain 100% of the U.S. R.D.A. Not all porn will contain 100% wholesome material, but at least the consumer will know what he's getting prior to purchase. Sounds reasonable. >>There is a price at which I would pick crops, but I am continually >>being undersold there, too. > >Yep, but picking crops is, I would hope, not humiliating, or at least not as >deeply humiliating as having films showing you having sex, with a person you >care not the least about, circulating: a time bomb waiting to go off when one >of your colleagues sees it. What is humiliating is relative to the person. If you were a mexican immagrant, being called a wetback because you once picked crops might be as humiliating as being in a movie. If you are already known as a "rather kinky person", a movie might be something to be proud of. >If you are a woman ... once again, the simple >``informed adult decision'' model doesn't hold because our society's real >values don't match the abstractions; >If you made a film like that to keep >from getting evicted,... If the landlord was using such persuasion tactics, this would be coercion. If the decision was made simply because a porn movie paid better than McDonald's, that is an informed choice. This would be coercion. So long as there are aid programs, and other alternatives, this is less of a problem than it appears. I've known male strippers and male porn stars who are proud of their work. >Well, actually it was meant to spotlight the well-founded (and popular) >cynicisms about business morality. Do you *really* want your sexual pleasure >to be provided by that? Or would you rather have your sexuality affirmed and >exercised by intimacy with another human being, with whom intimacy of any sort >pleases you and {her/him}? Hopefully both. There is no reason one has to exclude the other. >And there is the real question of whether *some* material *encourages* people >to attatch sexual arousal to violence, and whether the people who respond to >that material seek sexual release through violence (physical or psychological). Many people who enjoy submissive sexual roles do so long before their involvement with porn. Many people who enjoy dominant roles are the same way. I believe the concern you are expressing is what if a dominant seeks to practice on someone who is not naturally submissive. Better communication is the answer here. >>- Manipulate me! - Kenn Barry > >As far as Playboy ... it seems that you are the one dredging up irrelevant >emotional issues; the Supreme Court (I posted this last time) overturned >state laws declaring Playboy obscene, and making it clear that something on >that level simply wasn't a matter for *any* constitutional obscenity law. Actually, it isn't even that clear. So long as Playboy follows it's current editorial guidelines, it is not obscene. Other magazines don't have the same protection. >Actually, I *do* think you are being manipulated by the media and by prevailing >social pressures to ignore what I think is the evidence of history ... > from Mole End Mark Terribile Let's face it, we all are. You by parents, grandparents, moralist leaders, and other "strict" people. Me, by the same types of people. My Grandfather considers dancing (of any kind) obscene. I just reacted differently. Have you actually seen the material you would like to ban? I've seen some that I would rather not purchase. Unfortunately, they were not well labled.
mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) (10/01/86)
> >This *does* lead inevitably back to a question that the proponents of > >widespread use of erotica seem never to address: does the use of this > >material damage the institution we call the family? > > It might depend on when the reader becomes involved with porn. There > are two approaches. [ please read the original here! It's good -mat ] Both addressing the direct problem: it *is* clear that some harm is taking place in this manner. What about the (as yet hypothetical) effect of focusing one's arousal largely or exclusively on *material* rather than on human beings? I find it difficult to believe that there are *no* effects; they may well be mixed, but where the focus is *obsessive*, it seems to me that much potential for normal human relationships will be lost. If serious studies show me wrong on this issue (and we're talking a range of studies here, not just one) I'll eat crow, even in a quiche, but I want to see them first. > If the first theory is correct, it may be preferable expose teenagers > to "normal" sexual situations, rather than repressing them or possibly > restricting their arousal to some, more unorthodox material. If the > only material available is national geographic, the kid could end up > insisting that his mate have her nose pierced. Yuchh. Hmm. I suspect, however, that exposing kids to material meant to inform is not the same as exposing them to material meant to arouse. I would rather that information precede arousal; I would also rather that kids learn about sexuality before they learn about sex. I'm not so sure that this is happening. National Geo ... I sort of doubt it, since that material, while informative, is not usually arousing. Actually, I'd rather have my (hypothetical) kids read that and see that standards of modesty differ, and that sexual mores and sexual stimulation are only loosely tied to standards of decency and modesty. > >in families, at least for the time being, and the family is already ill > >(witness the inability of parents to teach their kids about sex; > > Sound like a problem due to lack of "soft porn" rather than too much. > > >witness > >the difficulty many people have of even teaching their children about > >affection ...) > > Affection, romance, and commitment permiate most mass media. One of the > problems is that the media almost disassociates these things from sex. Hardly. Mass media talk to the lowest level; they talk in three minute scenes, (except for films, which sometimes *do* get down to issues) and they often *do* disassociate these things entirely from sex. I don't believe that they can or should be seen as being independent of sex; they are not, nor are they one and the same. I don't think that material has to be sexually explicit to talk about sex, and if we are trying to illustrate the range of normal, complex, multifaceted human behavior then we will be talking about explicit sex for just a couple percent of the time, and talking about people enjoying each other's company at breakfast, in the park, on the drive to work; we will be looking at relationships growing and being strained and breaking or reforming ... and if we have even 15 percent of that devoted to explicit depictions, the material *still* would not qualify as legal obscenity under *Miller*. Such material might even win critical acclaim and loosen some people up about *non-obsessive* explicit materials. And such depictions do not need to focus the camera on genitelia, do not require performers to actually have sex on camera, etc. I don't think that I'd call it porn any more than I call *I Claudius* or *The Steam Room* porn. > >> OK, then what about the psychological damage from watching > >>Rambo or even The A-Team, ... > >But at least the violence is not portrayed as a an acceptable means or > >consequence of sexual arousal, which can be an awfully Good Thing and which > >should *never* be used as an excuse for violence. > > No, however it is often portrayed as an acceptable means to romance, affection, > and love. (Kill him, get her). I hadn't thought of that. But isn't it more often a case of ``Have her. He tries to kill you. Kill him. She stays with you''? *Maybe* it does not make a difference ... I have to concede that this does depict a macho pattern, at least. I'm not sure it's direct enough to be harmful, but I'll certainly entertain a discussion on it. > >>More seriously, why is sex special? Many people seem to feel that the first > >>ammendment covers everything but sex. ... > >Why is sex special? I never thought that that question would seriously be > >asked on *this* newsgroup! ( ;^}/3 here, please) > > Actually, if the history books of several cultures were examined, it would > be found that even in islam, there are pornographic works intended for > marital use. The problem is we burned that porn, and then said it wasn't > there. But once again, those are not *photographic* depictions of live people who are engaging in sex for the consumption of others. I *hope* that those materials do/did not promote practices that either party resented ... but I see nothing wrong with *instructional* material. The question is, was this material instructional, was it for arousal, was it obsessive to the degree that some of the stuff we have is? If it redirected attention from the *parter* to the *picture* then I don't care if it's part of Islam, Yoga, or the Southern Baptist movement; I can't possibly see it doing anything but harm. (This is *not* the same as a shared experience ...) Here it really looks like we ought to avoid the word ``porn'' for its connotations. Do you agree? > >Remember, that's not the whole of the limitiation. First, the ``average'' > >person must find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient > >interests. The dictionary at hand defines prurient as: > > o Obsessively interested in matters of a sexual nature, or > > o Characterized by an obsessive interest in sex, or > > o Arousing or appealing to an obsessive interest in sex. > Obsession is not "caused by" porn, any more than alcohol "causes" alcohol > addicition. Normal instincts, in an already unbalenced personality, are > blown out of perspective. Agreed. Here we are saying that the obsession is part of what can make a work obscene, not that the viewer would necessarily become obsessed ... > >>Other wired-in human needs, such as food and warmth, are commoditized. > > > >Do you recall what it took to get to the point where we can be reasonably sure > >that the food we get is wholesome and safe? > > So what you would really like are similar types of legislation for porn. > Things like truth in labling, quality control, worker protection. Just > as not all foods are required to contain 100% of the U.S. R.D.A. Not > all porn will contain 100% wholesome material, but at least the consumer > will know what he's getting prior to purchase. Sounds reasonable. I would certainly like worker protection, if that is really feasible. See the other article ... and I would like that protection in a variety of different contexts. (Here I *will* ask you to read the Report ...) > >Yep, but picking crops is, I would hope, not humiliating, or at least not as > >deeply humiliating as having films showing you having sex, with a person you > >care not the least about, circulating: a time bomb waiting to go off when one > >of your colleagues sees it. > > What is humiliating is relative to the person. If you were a mexican > immagrant, being called a wetback because you once picked crops might > be as humiliating as being in a movie. If you are already known as > a "rather kinky person", a movie might be something to be proud of. In the case of the farm worker, if he is called a wetback because he has once picked crops, he is facing something that most of society considers bigotry. It comes from the outside. In the case of the sex film ``star'', what you say might be the case. But it might not, and the conflicts and possible sense of shame come from within as well as from without. No external bigotry need be shown. > >If you are a woman ... once again, the simple > >``informed adult decision'' model doesn't hold because our society's real > >values don't match the abstractions; > >If you made a film like that to keep from getting evicted,... > > If the landlord was using such persuasion tactics, this would be coercion. > If the decision was made simply because a porn movie paid better than > McDonald's, that is an informed choice. Can you get an apartment, or even half of an apartment, on what McDonald's pays? In some areas, perhaps. In others, no way. And if you have other demands on your time/pocketbook (student, single mother caught in a snag in the welfare system, etc), the informed choice model can easily be replaced by a desperation model. If the sex film industry operated more on the legit side, at least for the ``soft'' stuff, and if it operated more *like* the legitimate film and theater industries, there might be less chance of someone being *able* to get in under this kind of pressure. While I still would question the possible damage to society, etc, as above, I would be less concerned with harms to individuals. Moving it to the legit side *might* also keep organized crime out of it, or *might* at least lessen the abuses. I agree that the existance of a grey area where laws are badly enforced is a bad thing. I don't think that clearing it up has to mean that it *all* becomes legal, nor that it *all* becomes illegal. Also, wouldn't performer protection laws reduce the number of *actual* S&M depictions, etc.? And the firm knowledge that the depictions must be simulated *might* (and might not ... Adam, any evidence or speculation?) reduce the likelyhood that someone would fail to distinguish the fantasy from reality. > > >And there is the real question of whether *some* material *encourages* people > >to attatch sexual arousal to violence, and whether the people who respond to > >that material seek sexual release through violence (physical or psychological). > > Many people who enjoy submissive sexual roles do so long before their > involvement with porn. Many people who enjoy dominant roles are the same > way. I believe the concern you are expressing is what if a dominant seeks > to practice on someone who is not naturally submissive. Better communication > is the answer here. Aren't the problem cases the ones where the arousal somehow precludes effective communication and loving concern? Are these arguments for pre-marital counselling for all? Possibly. Are they arguments for better acceptance of professional counselling on intimate matters? Probably. But for the time being, it appears that we *do* have some cases where communication has become impossible, and it is here that we have the possibility for harm. > >>- Manipulate me! - Kenn Barry > > > >As far as Playboy ... it seems that you are the one dredging up irrelevant > >emotional issues; the Supreme Court (I posted this last time) overturned > >state laws declaring Playboy obscene, and making it clear that something on > >that level simply wasn't a matter for *any* constitutional obscenity law. > > Actually, it isn't even that clear. So long as Playboy follows it's current > editorial guidelines, it is not obscene. Other magazines don't have the > same protection. I suspect that those that do not vary far from Playboy *have* got the same protection; it is quite possible that some do not, if they have no serious {...} interest and they are obsessively concerned with sex. This goes back to the questions of public decency law, and (absolutists to the contrary) the questions are neither simple nor universally answered by one set of mores. But it *does* need to be clear to all that decency (and the mores accociated with decency) are not the same as morality, and that the standards of public decency ought not be used to enforce one person's morality or one person's notion of public conduct. -- from Mole End Mark Terribile (scrape .. dig ) mtx5b!mat (Please mail to mtx5b!mat, NOT mtx5a! mat, or to mtx5a!mtx5b!mat) (mtx5b!mole-end!mat will also reach me) ,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.