nrh@inmet.UUCP (09/20/86)
As the pseudo-reasonable arguments for censorship are blown away on the grounds of irrelevance, silliness, and incorrectness, we begin to see the emotional ones: >/* Written 12:06 am Sep 20, 1986 by mat@mtx5a.UUCP in inmet:talk.pol.misc */ >/* ---------- "Re: Re: Re: Commission on Pornograp" ---------- */ >> >> AH! Now we have gotten to the *crux* of the matter: >> sexual arousal >> >> ... >> Let's ban *anything* which may lead people to that awful, disgusting >> *sinful* pleasure of *SEXUAL AROUSAL*!! >>... >> Amidst all the noise about rape, violence, etc, you have finally stated >> the true desire of the Meese Commission and the right-wing fascists >> trying to take away our rights to private pleasures. Their desire > >Or, rather, the question of whether turning sexual arousal into a commodity >to be traded at the price the market will bear, and provided with all the >moral integrity of Big Business, is causing harm, doing good, or being >indifferent. And here we have it folks: Mark doesn't feel the rest of us will make appropriate use of erotica, so he proposes to ban it. Heaven forfend that people be allowed to trade this sacred stuff! Surely fire from heaven will fall upon those who permit porn to be BOUGHT AND SOLD as if it were just ANY OLD depiction of human experience. Of course, Mark is blurring the line between erotic materials that can be bought and sold in the marketplace, and erotic FEELINGS, which CANNOT be bought and sold. He's also begging the question of whether the materiels should be banned. If permitted, the marketplace is probably the least offensive place to provide them (unless Mark is suggesting that the GOVERNMENT provide them?) Mark is also begging the question: IF pornography is somehow too much to handle, THEN its commercial exploitation is an amplification of that evil. BUT I suspect (and Mark will correct me) that pornography privately made and distributed on a non-profit basis would STILL be illegal if Mark had his way. (And if not, Mark, why not?) On the other hand, as the Frenchman said when he was accused of making more Frenchmen: "But what is wrong with that?". Establish pornography as evil, and you make a case for banning it. But if you FAIL to establish this case, you don't have grounds for arguing that trading it is THEREBY evil. Of course, if you're simply trying to instill the notion that the commercialization of sexual materials is somehow evil, then you need stronger arguments than the silly one that it's unsavory: lots of things are unsavory, but they violate nobody's rights and are therefore outside the proper range of a ban. >How much is it worth to you to have a camera in your bedroom so we can film >what you do and publish it? Ten thousand, hundred thousand? How about a >million? > >Oops, you're about to be undersold by a couple of starving kids in the ghetto >who'll do it for a hundred-and-fifty. And here we have the "if pornography is legal -- then children will do it!" distortion. A couple of starving kids in the ghetto are NOT going to go into the porn business -- the PRODUCER of such a film would certainly be liable to penalties (under current law) for doing this, so making pornography illegal won't help -- his actions are already illegal. Suppose, though, you meant "grown-up kids": in that case I see nothing evil in permitting them to make a living in the easiest way they can find. I may find it unsavory, but then I'd find sewer-cleaning unsavory also. >Sexual arousal is a means by which people may be manipulated. A woman >known as CYNTHIA got intelligence information that turned WWII out of >very loyal officers of Vichy France: > > I discovered how easy it was to make highly trained, > professionally close-mouted patriots give away secrets > in bed, and I swore to close my ears to everything of > value on our side. The greatest joy is a man and woman > together. Making love allows a discharge of all those > private innermost thoughts that have accumulated. In this > sudden flood, everything is released. Everything. I just > never dared to learn our own secrets ... > > CYNTHIA, later Elizabeth Amy > Thorpe (real name still secret) > quoted in > ``A Man Called INTREPID''. > >Hardly the stuff we want traded on the Mercantile Exchange ... Anecdotal and unscientific evidence (again!). It'd be interesting to see what you'd do with REAL evidence. By the way, I suspect that most porn is used by solitary men. Are they expected to pour out their innermost secrets to "love dolls"? And if they do, where's the harm?
janw@inmet.UUCP (09/20/86)
[mat@mtx5a.UUCP ] [Tim Sevener] >> AH! Now we have gotten to the *crux* of the matter: >> sexual arousal >> >> Nothing here about rape, nothing here about violence, nothing here >> about unwanted pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases, nope >> just plain sexual arousal. >> ... >> Let's ban *anything* which may lead people to that awful, disgusting >> *sinful* pleasure of *SEXUAL AROUSAL*!! >>... >> Amidst all the noise about rape, violence, etc, you have finally stated >> the true desire of the Meese Commission and the right-wing fascists >> trying to take away our rights to private pleasures. Their desire A good point, though it's weakened by strong language. Puritanism isn't fascism, even though Tim (and I) may object to both. >Or, rather, the question of whether turning sexual arousal into a >commodity to be traded at the price the market will bear, and >provided with all the moral integrity of Big Business, is causing >harm, doing good, or being indifferent. And what, pray, is the moral integrity of Big Business? And what about selling Coca-Cola (turning caffeine-induced euphoria into a commodity etc.). Is it "causing harm, doing good or being indif- ferent"? Why not leave that determination to buyers and sellers ? Beware, Mark, lest some day some commission determines that "opi- um for the masses" is doing more harm than good. You may find the cult of Priapus abominable and harmful - but Oleg Kiselev tends to think the same of the worship of the Crucified. Tolerate to be tolerated. >How much is it worth to you to have a camera in your bedroom so we can film >what you do and publish it? Ten thousand, hundred thousand? How about a >million? >Oops, you're about to be undersold by a couple of starving kids in the ghetto >who'll do it for a hundred-and-fifty. Assuming you mean young adults - are you knocking the merchandise or the price? >Sexual arousal is a means by which people may be manipulated. >A woman known as CYNTHIA got intelligence information [in bed]. [...] That may argue against sexual arousal as such but not against its commercialisation. Spies get secrets from their lovers more easily than from sexual customers. And pornography is in direct competition with people like Cynthia. Even more important is extracting secrets through blackmail; the more puritanism, the more chance of that. If a nude photo can ruin a career, then it's a powerful weapon in hostile hands. Jan Wasilewsky
nrh@inmet.UUCP (09/24/86)
"Rectified at some point in the process" -- that is, with enough lawyers and enough money, you get to keep your rights. Also, the notion that since there have been no prosecutions, the fears of booksellers are imaginary and unfounded is just plain silly! Shall we make computer programming illegal, not enforce it for a while, and *THEN* claim that such a law is OK because fears stemming from it are illusory?
tdh@frog.UUCP (T. Dave Hudson) (10/06/86)
> Also, the notion that since there have been no prosecutions, the fears > of booksellers are imaginary and unfounded is just plain silly! Of course their fears are unfounded. As long as they pay their graft on time, they have nothing to fear. What responsible businessman would have avoided paying his fair share of support for the White administration (recent Boston history) anyway? :-) David Hudson