Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site x.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!qantel!dual!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!seismo!harvard!think!mit-eddie!cybvax0!frog!x!wjr
From: wjr@x.UUCP (Bill Richard)
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: Possible Ban on Pornography
Message-ID: <565@x.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 15-Sep-85 17:03:30 EDT
Article-I.D.: x.565
Posted: Sun Sep 15 17:03:30 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 19-Sep-85 06:28:02 EDT
References: <369@scirtp.UUCP> <-1988585@sysvis>
Reply-To: wjr@x.UUCP (STella Calvert)
Organization: Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA
Lines: 57
Summary: What is Porn?

<people who try to think for other people>  Come on, line eater!

Note:  This is STella Calvert, a guest on this account.  The only thing 
wjr or frog have done that might be flame-worthy is to believe in free speech.
Flame them if you dare!

In article <-1988585@sysvis> george@sysvis writes:
>
>If you can't think for yourself and yourself alone, you deserve to be in
>a less-than-free society, which is where you will wind up with your attitude.

That would be OK, but I have never heard of someone trying to pass a law so
they won't be able to do something they think THEY should stop.  If Jerry
Falwell doesn't want to read about sexual acts with juvenile gerbils, I'm
not forcing him!  So why does he need a law to protect him from this?  His
gerbil doesn't have to read it either.

>Another thing.  What is this "we" bullshit? (as in, "WE" must ban porno-
>graphy).  Is this what you mean by not having "GLOBAL" thinking processes?

WE must stop THEE from doing things _I_ don't like.

>Leave pornography, and all the other trash out there.  If you don't like
>it, don't read it!  (I noticed that you are familiar with its content) 

So?  If the person you responded to gets more mileage out of his reading by
regarding it as sin, that's HIS business.  (Seems a little kinky to me,
though.)

What is pornography, anyway?  And why label it all trash?  If you 
believe in a biblical god, he made our c___ <generic term for parts 
covered by bikini bottoms> as well as our other parts.  The reading material
I consider unreadable (and unexciting) trash deals with coercion
of one person by another.  But I enjoy reading material about non-coercive 
sex as much (and in much the same way) as about cooking or horse-back riding.
I have a body, which has various parts, which are capable of creating 
pleasure in many ways.  If you don't enjoy reading cookbooks, don't read 
them.  If you think the Leather Cookbook is coercive, don't read it.  

BTW, did you know that if you get material you consider obscene (immoral 
minority, etc.) the post office will advise the sender to remove your 
name from their mailing list.  My mom once tried to fill my mailbox with 
xian propaganda.  One call to the post office, one easy form to fill out, 
and shazam, no more garbage-mail!  The same technique can be used by those who
think god should have gone from armpits to knees without the "mistake" in the
middle to protect them and their household from exposure to ideas they don't
want to confront.

				STella Calvert
				(guest on ...!decvax!frog!wjr)

		Every man and every woman is a star.

General Disclaimer:  I am a guest on this account.  If the organization or
individual who make it possible for me to speak freely need an opinion, I
probably have one they can use.  However, I would rather they made up their 
own than borrow mine.


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com