Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!spp
From: spp@ucbvax.ARPA (Stephen P Pope)
Newsgroups: net.women,net.politics
Subject: Re: A suggestion for a ground rule in any pornography debate
Message-ID: <10285@ucbvax.ARPA>
Date: Fri, 6-Sep-85 14:58:37 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.10285
Posted: Fri Sep  6 14:58:37 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 7-Sep-85 06:42:09 EDT
References: <5660@tekecs.UUCP> <1873@reed.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Lines: 59
Xref: watmath net.women:7325 net.politics:10840


     There was an extensive debate on pornography in this
newsgroup last year, and I didn't put in my $.02 worth then.
After all I'm just another male who reads net.women and 
who is opposed to censorship, believes consenting adults
can do whatever they please, and so forth.  
     After reading Ellen Eades' recent postings I'd like 
to point out something that hasn't been mentioned here.
That is, how the preoccupation with censorship that has
arisen in the women's rights movement in the last few
years has influenced the public's view of feminism.  It
has influenced my view, and fairly negatively, and here's 
why.
     I'm a liberal person, and I have always viewed 
feminism as a liberal cause, which I have always supported
except for the radical fringe.  Censorship of pornography
is pretty much a right-wing, moral-majority type
of thing.  True, there have long been feminist writers
that wrote of the evils of pornography.  But until
faily recently it seemed to be thought of more as a
symptom of society's prejudices, rather than a problem
in itself that should be attacked, and the discussion
against it was pretty much intellectual.  It's one
thing to object to pornography, quite another to
advocate banning it.
     Ellen feels offended by all forms of pornography,
including fairly mild examples such as Playboy.  This
is her right.  This attitude seems to be more prevalent
these days than in the past.  What Ellen and many others
are really objecting to is the explicit portrayal of
women as being sexually available, presumably to men.
What Ellen may not realize is that she objects to people
whose sexual preferences are different from her own.
She realizes that there are people who are sexually 
entertained by something she finds offensive and disgusting,
and this upsets her.  The mentality here is the same as
that of people who object to homosexuals, on the basis
that homosexuality is inherently disgusting.  This is
narrow mindedness, pure and simple.  
     It's probably part of human nature that any given
individual is unlikely to accept, at a personal level,
all forms of sexual expression.  But it takes a heluva
lot of nerve to claim that your preferred form of sexuality
should be protected by law, and somebody else's should be 
banned.
     I believe that this sexual intolerance is the real
motivation behind the pro-censorship movement.  The
other justifications -- linkage to criminal violence,
association with illegal activities such as child
pornography, and so on -- are pretty much rationalizations.
     So my advice, to those who are considering jumping
on the anti-pornography bandwagon, is to think twice
about what you are doing.  By attacking one of society's
basic freedoms you are helping to discredit the entire
women's rights movement.  And the movement is not doing as
well as it was a few years ago.  I am not alone in my
opinions, so I think this is something to consider.

steve pope (...ucbvax!spp)