Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 (Tek) 9/28/84 based on 9/17/84; site tekecs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!tektronix!orca!tekecs!jeffw
From: jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Anti-Porn Ordinance
Message-ID: <5028@tekecs.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 20-Jan-85 02:46:53 EST
Article-I.D.: tekecs.5028
Posted: Sun Jan 20 02:46:53 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 23-Jan-85 06:49:57 EST
References: <600@pyuxc.UUCP> <1280@hou4b.UUCP>, <529@mhuxt.UUCP> <1285@hou4b.UUCP>
Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville OR
Lines: 41

>            The problem is that the people who are causing one are often
> responsible for the other -- the people who would sell other people's sex
> on the screen often are willing to sell other people's sex on the street.

So arrest them for the other. How this can be an argument for anti-pornography
laws is beyond me. Suppose I decided that watching TV was immoral and 
degrading. I then make the observation that, often, people who watch TV
steal TV's as well. If I followed your logic, I would use that as 
justification for banning TV watching as well. I repeat, the last
sentence quoted above is poor justification for banning pornography.

> 	Turning sex into a commodity that is bought, sold, traded, and
> 	taken, whether on the street, on a bookshelf, or on a screen,
> 	presents sex as a commodity that can and should be bought, sold, ...
  
And what are the anti-porn people who said "pornography is not sex" to
rebut earlier anti-porn-law arguments going to say about that?

> 	Sexual feelings run very deep in the human psyche.  Treating something
> 	so important in such a calloused way can damage the buyer.  It can
> 	damage the person whose sex is being sold.  And if it is being taken
> 	from her (OR him) and sold by another, serious harm seems near certain.
> 
> 	Making such treatment of sex the established norm without AT LEAST
> 	providing a set of protective rituals around it (to keep it
> 	``special'') will damage the self-esteem and sense of self-worth
> 	of everyone who comes into contact with it.  ``Gee, this thing that
> 	is so very important and so deeply embedded in ME can be bought ...
> 	and people sell it.  Gee, I could sell it.  It's not worth all that
> 	much, is it?  I guess I'm not really worth all that much, either.''
> 
If that's the way you feel about it, fine. But please believe that many
people (myself included) think that is just nonsense. My sense of
self-esteem is far too resilient to be damaged by sex unprotected
by whatever rituals you might have in mind.  I can't escape a certain
feeling that only a nincompoop would actually follow the hopelessly
simplistic train of thought you outline. From what I have read of
yours, I certainly can't believe you would.

				the Mr. (Monster) Jeff Winslow
			    (thanx to a certain !zubbie for that!)