Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbscc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!cbosgd!cbsck!cbscc!pmd From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Re: Feminism, Pornography & Prudery Message-ID: <4716@cbscc.UUCP> Date: Fri, 1-Feb-85 12:03:48 EST Article-I.D.: cbscc.4716 Posted: Fri Feb 1 12:03:48 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 2-Feb-85 14:56:06 EST References: <1612@pur-phy.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories , Columbus Lines: 26 Excellent article from C.E. Jackson. Though long it's well worth reading. It has ocurred to me thoughout this discussion that government regulation probably the least desirable way to deal with the problem of pornography (although it may be effective). Jackson (Ms. or Mr? I do not know.) made the point that his/her argument is not for government censorship, but many pro-porn people insist on making any opposition to porn a censorship issue. May question is, for those who recognise the problem and would like to do something about it, what are some effective ways? It seems that anyone who is opposed to porn can't help but be labeled a censor when they express their views. If people express their desire that a porn shop should leave their neighborhood by picketing they are called censors. If they try to invoke community standards the same charge is levelled. So what is a proper and effective way to oppose porn besides just talking about it? If not government censorship, what then? Do people like Jackson think the problem is going to be solved by trying to convince everyone not to buy porn? Will arguments convince the people who are most influenced by the hard core stuff? What are the alternatives? -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd