Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ncsu.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxj!houxm!whuxlm!akgua!mcnc!ncsu!mauney From: mauney@ncsu.UUCP (Jon Mauney) Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Re: Anti-Porn Ordinance Message-ID: <2779@ncsu.UUCP> Date: Wed, 23-Jan-85 10:09:59 EST Article-I.D.: ncsu.2779 Posted: Wed Jan 23 10:09:59 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 25-Jan-85 09:25:03 EST References: <600@pyuxc.UUCP> <1280@hou4b.UUCP>, <529@mhuxt.UUCP>, <1285@hou4b.UUCP> Organization: N.C. State University, Raleigh Lines: 66 The debate on pornography is taking several directions. As I see it, the issues are: 1) Is porn immoral? 2) Is porn 'degrading'? 3) Is porn dangerous to society? 4) Can porn be legally defined? 5) Can we afford to restrict freedom to publish porn? 1 and 4 are not currently big issues on the net. 3 and 5 are hot topics. But the question that interests me the most is 2. Some on the net argue that sex is more intrinsic to our natures than other activities, that it is a delicate thing that will lose its magic properties if brought into the light, that commercial exploitation of sex is worse than commercial exploitation of other human activities. I argue that this is not true. For example: > From: mat@hou4b.UUCP (Mark Terribile) > > 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, ... > > ``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.'' > First, I don't accept that line of reasoning. But stipulating that for the moment, let us ask why sex is affected this way, and nothing else is. What is more important than sex? Well, how about love, tenderness, romance. The infamous Ann Landers poll indicates that hugging is more important than humping. But while porno novels are sold at the back of the newstand, or in sleazy bookstores, trashy romance novels are sold in the checkout lane at the supermarket. Love and romance are bought, sold, traded as commodities. These books also give the impression that women's emotions about men are out of control, that women generally desire romance, and that whomever one hates in chapter one will be one's true love by the end of the book. Truly degrading! Ban gothic romances! How about religion? Is religion more important, more central to your being than sex? I just saw a poster proclaiming that Josh McDowell will be here again, to tell us how sex is improved by including God, which suggests that God is more important. Does it degrade your religion to have Jimmy Swaggart, the PTL Club, and all the rest *selling* religion on TV? I get the impression that to achieve salvation, one must commit a lot of money to the TV missionaries. I guess religion isn't worth very much. Or maybe it is really worth a lot, if so many people are willing to put so much time and money into it. And once Bakker gets on the air with his message of God for Gold, the damage is done; the only thing that counters TV evangelism is its absence. I expect most of you to reject that line of reasoning about religion, or at least to find it is not sufficient to justify restricting freedom. I submit that the same is true of sex. Sex is not the only important aspect of our lives, and it is not the only one being warped by commercial exploitation. But it is the only one surrounded by such a mass of taboo. That taboo tends to cloud our vision and keep us from seeing sex in proper perspective. -- *** REPLACE THIS MESSAGE WITH ONE YOU LIKE BETTER *** Jon Mauney mcnc!ncsu!mauney C.S. Dept, North Carolina State University