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: <415@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 28-Jan-85 19:44:19 EST
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.415
Posted: Mon Jan 28 19:44:19 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 30-Jan-85 04:28:49 EST
References: <1520V6M@PSUVM> <5030@tekecs.UUCP>
Organization: Strongarm Collection Agency:  WE HAVE NO SLOGAN
Lines: 75
Xref: watmath net.women:4286 net.politics:7222 net.books:1323

1.  Pornography exists because a significant number of people get off on it.
    This fact allows other people to make money from other people's desire for
    pornography.  Thus it continues to exist because there is a market for it.

2.  The majority (the vast majority?) of these people are men.  Some people
    feel that their 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.
    
3.  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.  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.  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.  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.)  Note that I am not deriding groups of people
    (e.g., feminists, women) at large, or implying that "certain groups of
    people" hold this view, but I am saying that there apparently *are* those
    who fit this mold and who represent a vocal section in the anti-porn
    movement.

4.  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".

5.  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.

6.  Then, there's still another argument---pornography perpetuates the notion
    of women as sex objects.  To me, that's a "chicken-and-egg", "cart-before-
    the-horse" situation of the classic variety.  Pornography doesn't *make*
    people view women as sex objects, pornography EXISTS *because* there are
    enough people who already *do* view women that way to make it profitable.
    Even if you really could isolate degrading pornography from the rest and
    attempt to ban only that which dealt with degradation, abuse, and violence,
    you'd STILL have those people who STILL wish to see the stuff and STILL
    have the same desires.  And you'd STILL have the pornography, somehow or
    other (where there's a demand, a supplier is sure to come along).  So you
    have gained nothing.  Other than having a step closer to fascist
    repression:  where one particular type of work can be outlawed, why not
    arbitrarily outlaw some others.  Fact is, I dislike literature and other
    media that glorify violence in general EVEN MORE than I dislike that which
    glorifies degradation of segments of the population.  So let's get rid of
    all of that too.  And I hate manipulative literature, such as political or
    religious propaganda, warping people's minds, so let's ban that too.  Soon
    all we'll have is government-approved literature and media.  And even if
    in your wildest dreams you can conceive of such a government directing and
    approving only "good" things, it still amounts to that old devil fascism.
    Pure and simple.  The question is:  Is that what you really want?

7.  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.

These comments are certainly not a be all and end all on the issues, and I
am interested in further comments, private or public.
-- 
Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen.
					Rich Rosen    pyuxd!rlr