phil@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (05/18/89)
Computer graphic porn could also raise some new and complicated questions in our society. Given that much of computer imaging is totally generated without (live) subjects, it could add a new twist to certain issues. Consider that the arguments against conventional (not computer generated) pornography as being abusive of their subjects (women, children). It is my understanding that child pornography is outlawed (even possesion) because of the certainty that its creation is a serious form of child abuse. With computer generated imaging of pornography, these issues have to be dealt with all over again. This time, greater importance might have to be put on whether the person who views such pornography is likely to pursue the abuses the images portray. --phil howard--
sfisher@abingdon.SGI.COM (Scott Fisher) (05/19/89)
In article <5300007@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, phil@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu writes: > > Computer graphic porn could also raise some new and complicated questions in > our society. Given that much of computer imaging is totally generated > without (live) subjects, it could add a new twist to certain issues. Not really a new twist. Most written fiction is generated without live subjects--that's the definition of fiction. > Consider that the arguments against conventional (not computer generated) > pornography as being abusive of their subjects (women, children). It is my > understanding that child pornography is outlawed (even possesion) because of > the certainty that its creation is a serious form of child abuse. With Although your understanding is probably not wrong, it is somewhat limited. Consider the case of printed pornography, where nothing exists but some inked letters on pieces of paper. Certainly no fictional account can be accused of abusing specific individuals. (Libel suits notwithstanding, of course.) The issue is not whether the _models_ are being abused, but--and this is only one issue in the moral argument against pornography--whether the pornogrpahy does in fact tend to make its readers more likely to view the subjects of the pornographic material as something less than fully human, as objects for the satisfaction of prurient interests. > computer generated imaging of pornography, these issues have to be dealt > with all over again. This time, greater importance might have to be put > on whether the person who views such pornography is likely to pursue the > abuses the images portray. Or whether the abuses affect, in concrete ways, other members of the class of person being portrayed in the pornography. I assure you that the feminist objection to pornography (as I have been given to understand it) goes much farther than protection of the rights of the models used in porn shoots. (The fact that your observations aren't unique does nothing, by the way, to take away from their insightfulness.)