Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Pesmard Flurrmn) Newsgroups: net.women,net.politics,net.books Subject: Re: Beyond Marchionni and Dubuc (and Winslow) [PORNOGRAPHY] Message-ID: <434@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Wed, 30-Jan-85 15:29:39 EST Article-I.D.: pyuxd.434 Posted: Wed Jan 30 15:29:39 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 31-Jan-85 02:22:21 EST References: <415@pyuxd.UUCP> <789@druxo.UUCP> Organization: Strongarm Collection Agency: WE HAVE NO SLOGAN Lines: 129 Xref: watmath net.women:4313 net.politics:7270 net.books:1345 >> Some people >> feel that [men's] desire for pornography is equivalent to the degradation >> of women and their relegation to second-class personhood (objects for >> sexual pleasure rather than people) on the part of those viewing >> pornography. Granted, a significant portion of pornography DOES involve >> rape and abuse fantasies, though I'd hesitate to call it anywhere near >> a majority of what gets called pornography. [ROSEN] > This seems to imply that degradation is equivalent to rape and abuse. I > disagree. Degradation implies reducing something to a level lower than it > was (or should be). [NANCY PARSONS] >> This does lead many people >> to the conclusion that those same people have something against sex per se, >> since sex DOES involve physical attraction, and since they seemingly >> associate male desire for sex based on physical attraction with >> degradation. [ROSEN] > Not at all. Desire for sex based on physical attraction is natural and > healthy. But if that is the only basis (or even the primary basis) for > sexual desire, then it does become degrading (pornographic). [PARSONS] All we've said is that we have different definitions of degradation. (Which you pointed out yourself later.) The fact remains, just because some utterance or action is deemed to be degrading does NOT necessarily mean that it MUST be eradicated through censorship or whatever. If we do that in ALL cases of speech or writing or publication that is deemed by someone to be degrading, then no one will be allowed to say/write/publish anything. Except under government control? > Pornography (even in its mildest forms) is degrading simply because it > reduces sexual *people* to sexual *objects*. Human sex, as such, is not > degrading--it involves whole people in whole relationships. Anything less > IS degrading, and pornography is certainly something less. (So are many > sexual relationships within marriage, by the way.) *I* don't feel degraded by seeing or knowing that other people are engaging in "less-than-human" sex. Not personally so. The human race may less for having some of its members doing this, but we cannot and should not hope to control the actions and beliefs of all members of the human race, except for such actions that are deemed harmful to individuals or groups of individuals. >> It would seem that those who shout "ALL/MOST pornography depicts women in >> degrading situations where they are (ab)used as sexual objects" feel that >> the depiction of women in any sexually provocative position falls into the >> above category. > Yes, such depiction *is* pornography because it *is* degrading by the above > definition. (So are depictions in advertising, sometimes with equally > harmful effects.) The ordinance, and other general opposition to pornography, does not even begin to address advertising and other mass media representations of ALL types of people that are indeed degrading. To eliminate one in the name of "justice" or "equality" of whatever is to make it a special case. It is but one of many. And I don't advocate censorship to get rid of one or all of them. >> We've heard other arguments for the banning of pornography. Among them are >> the greed argument ("Pornography involves greedy people making money by >> exploiting women and their bodies.") To which I ask "What about the greedy >> toy manufacturers who sell shoddy merchandise and exploit children & their >> parents?" This sort of greed is a natural outgrowth of unchecked capitalism >> ---where there's a market for something, someone will fill the need. In >> and of itself that is not necessarily "bad". > Most people don't seem to object too much to laws preventing harmful > exploitation of consumers (e.g., physically harmful toys). I gave a bad example. What about those greedy people who broadcast shoddy below par cartoons, or sell junk food? Greed alone is not a vice that is to be eliminated, especially not in a capitalist economy. >> Also, there's the moral argument---it's WRONG. Normally, the people >> offering this sort of argument have based their reasoning on their >> particular interpretation of some book or other. They don't have much >> more to say than that (at least not content-wise). So let's move on. > Perhaps. For myself, I believe that degradation of people *is* wrong. You > may disagree with my understanding of what is degrading, but do you > disagree that degrading people is wrong? I disagree that any one person or group of people should be able to define what is "degrading" to ALL, and to back that belief up by eliminating such "degradation" through censorship. It is because some anti-pornography activists DO believe this that they are associated with Falwellism. I think a lot of things in the world are "wrong", but I concede the fact that many things I dislike are beyond my ability (or anyone's ability) to control, and I feel that the restrictive method of censorship will fail to do the desired job (of changing the attitudes of those people who DO read/view pornography) AND it will result in additional problems in the future regarding freedoms. >> Other than having a step closer to fascist >> repression: where one particular type of work can be outlawed, why not >> arbitrarily outlaw some others. > Yes, one must be careful, but we do already outlaw particular types of work > (e.g., drug dealing). There are certainly some people who object to that, > but "society" has decided that it is too harmful to be permitted, so it is > outlawed (which doesn't stop it, but may retard it somewhat). All of the > arguments I've heard so far about why pornography should be allowed would > also apply to drug dealing. One might argue that one is more harmful than > the other, but where does one draw the line? One might notice that THAT doesn't help in that case either. One "draws the line" at acts that involve direct harm, like murder or theft or assault. To try to draw it anywhere "further back" is going to lead to problems, without solving the problems you started out with. >> Getting rid of the symptom doesn't make the disease go away. Getting rid >> of pornography will NOT change the attitudes toward women of those who >> read/view it, if indeed all/most of them have a degradatory/abusive >> attitude. > I disagree. People *are* influenced by what they view (advertising, > propaganda, and education evidence this) and people are more likely to be > influenced one way if they are not being influenced in the opposite > direction. And, in any case, I cannot condone the notion of restricting particular artistic (or non-artistic: who's going to define THAT dichotomy?) output because of the "bad" influence it MIGHT have on some people. To think that that is within our power as human beings is ridiculous. It cannot be done except in an atmosphere that restricts ALL personal freedoms. [P.S. Given the fact that many have expressed NONinterest in this discussion, where is it actually proper to continue it? I "got in late", but so far this has proved to be a more interesting and less abrasive discussion than most.] -- "Does the body rule the mind or does the mind rule the body? I dunno." Rich Rosen {ihnp4 | harpo}!pyuxd!rlr