Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site druxo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!drutx!druxo!nap From: nap@druxo.UUCP (Parsons) Newsgroups: net.women,net.politics,net.books Subject: Re: Beyond Marchionni and Dubuc (and Winslow) [PORNOGRAPHY] Message-ID: <789@druxo.UUCP> Date: Tue, 29-Jan-85 11:42:07 EST Article-I.D.: druxo.789 Posted: Tue Jan 29 11:42:07 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 30-Jan-85 07:31:37 EST References: <415@pyuxd.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Information Systems Laboratories, Denver Lines: 104 Xref: watmath net.women:4297 net.politics:7252 net.books:1336 > 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. 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). 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.) > 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.) > Further, it would seem that those same people associate > ANY sexual context in pornography catering to male attraction to female > physical anatomy with degradation and abuse. Exactly (again, given the above explanation). > 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. 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). > I would have to agree with those who find the connection > between pictures of the female body and direct degradation very tenuous. > (Especially when contending that the pictures are a cause, rather than a > symptom, of degradation.) We have different understandings of what constitutes degradation. As for cause vs. symptom, as with so many things affecting motivation, it's a chicken and egg type of thing. Each produces the other. > 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). > 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? ... > 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? ... > 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. Granted that these are knotty issues with no easy answers and *any* answer is vulnerable to attack (as well as abuse), let's keep seeking the ideal even if it does elude more often than not. Nancy Parsons AT&T ISL