Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site lanl.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!cmcl2!lanl!crs
From: crs@lanl.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.women,net.politics
Subject: Re: A suggestion for a ground rule in any pornography debate
Message-ID: <30636@lanl.ARPA>
Date: Fri, 6-Sep-85 09:57:57 EDT
Article-I.D.: lanl.30636
Posted: Fri Sep  6 09:57:57 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 9-Sep-85 04:40:48 EDT
References: <5660@tekecs.UUCP> <1873@reed.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Lines: 69
Xref: watmath net.women:7354 net.politics:10865

> With "Playboy"'s message that
> all women want sex all the time goes the idea that it is all
> right to give it to her.  When a woman DOES NOT want sex, a man
> who reads "Playboy" regularly and intensively will probably get
> angry and confused and accuse her of being a tease.

I must admit that I don't read '"Playboy" regularly' but I've read a
few over the years and I must say that I have *never* received this
message.

> Last year a woman was raped at Reed, and the subsequent Reed
> rape discussion group included a lot of men who indicated that
> they felt that it was necessary to strongly encourage (read that
> as you will) their dates to sleep with them because they really
> did want to give in but needed to feel that they were being
> overcome by a stronger force and therefore were not "at fault."

I believe that this is a view that has been around far longer than
Playboy.  I think that *some* men have probably subscribed to this
view for many decades if not centuries.

> At Reed, and in most places in this day and age (I hope), that's
> patently ridiculous.  

It has always been patently ridiculous, except, perhaps, to those who
believe it.

> At the risk of getting off track, I want to quote a (male)
> friend: "If she says 'no,' you should stop.  She'll let you know
> if she didn't mean it before you get to the door."

Sounds like good advice to me.

> Pornography never presents an image of a woman saying 'no' and
> meaning it.  Thus the idea that women never do mean 'no' is
> encouraged.

You are certainly entitled to this as *your* definition of pornography
but, as has been said many times before, you are, in no way, entitled
to insist that that definition be applied to *me* or to *anyone else*.

I'm sorry that I don't recall what you suggested as a cure for the
problem that you perceive but if it was censorship of any form, I say
emphatically,
				*NO*.

> Hope this clears up my position.

Mine too.

> 	tektronix!reed!ellen OR tektronix!reed!motel6!ellen

Are we really going to go through the whole pornography/censorship
debate again, with people saying that we must eliminate all
pornography.  And others saying they are against any form of
censorship.  And others saying they are not suggesting censorship but
that all pornography must be forbidden...

I take my constitutionally guaranteed rights *very* serioulsly; *all*
of them.

Lets quit worrying about the symptoms and see if we can cure the disease.

-- 
All opinions are mine alone...

Charlie Sorsby
...!{cmcl2,ihnp4,...}!lanl!crs
crs@lanl.arpa