Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: notesfiles Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!qantel!hplabs!hp-pcd!orstcs!richardt From: richardt@orstcs.UUCP (richardt) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Porn and Violence: a Social Disease Message-ID: <13700017@orstcs.UUCP> Date: Sat, 7-Sep-85 22:11:00 EDT Article-I.D.: orstcs.13700017 Posted: Sat Sep 7 22:11:00 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 15-Sep-85 10:03:16 EDT Organization: Oregon State University - Corvallis, OR Lines: 91 Nf-ID: #N:orstcs:13700017:000:5537 Nf-From: orstcs!richardt Sep 7 18:11:00 1985 I wondered how long it would take for a pornography debate to start again. Well, now that it has, here are my to scrip. First, I won't agrue with the statistics that link Porn and violence. I admit that there is a noticeable connection, which I abhor personally. Second, I won't try to differentiate between Erotica and Pornography. This differentiation has the potential to cause more trouble than it cures. In too many cases, it is also and artificial distinction, and is unreliable in any case. Does this mean that I support anti-Porn legislation? Not on your life. Beyond the simple fact that such a ban would be uneforceable, as both our own Prohibition period and England's attempts to ban both Pornography and Prostitution at various times have shown. Flesh has been, and will be, a commodity for as long as the human race exists. So how do I justify the existence of Pornography, even though it does, to an extent, cause violence, humiliation, and degradation? Because the connection between Porn and violence is a symptom, not a cause. Pornography does not, in and of itself, cause violent and anti-social behavior towards women. I know this because I can look at jay random current issue of Playboy, Hustler, Penthouse, or whatever, and have feelings ranging from "gee, she looks like she'd be fun to go to bed with" to "skin. Wow. I should call the president??? (:-)." Periodically, I'll feel like this or that person could casually disappear with no loss to society, but that is always because their appearance and attitude throughout the pictorial, article, whatever is negative and exploitive (negative connotation intended). No, Pornography does not cause violence in any sane, rational human being. I won't say anything about mature human beings because they don't exist. The problem with Pornography in our society is that there are a large number of individuals who are not rational, and who have no ingrained compunctions against violence. Most Men (and Women, for that matter) have Submission/Domination fantasies, of one variety or another. However, they have an ingrained set of restraints which prevents them from ever acting these out, or at least prevents senseless violence. These tend to fall under the Judeo-Christian-Moslem ethic that "Violence is not an appropriate means to gain self-gratification." This ethic itself relates to all forms of crime. The problem then, divides itself. We have three basic groups of people to deal with: those who have the restraints and live within them; Those who feel that they are doing something wrong but step out of bounds anyway; And those who simply have not had the basic restraints, generally known as "morals" or "ethics", ingrained in them. The first group we can ignore; They do not respond to Porn with violence, and are therefore out of the equation. The second group I would deem to be either non-rational (a curable condition -- This describes the guy who suddenly flips one day and rapes someone), or to be in actuality a member of the third group who is vaguely aware of the restraints, but not to the degree which could control his behavior. The third group is the biggest problem. These are the people who can casually rape, kill, tortue, etc. without feeling that they are doing anything wrong. They may think, or say, "I know I shouldn't have done it," but they don't *feel* it. These are people who have been wronged by society, one the one hand. On the other, they are a group of people which should be kept off the streets at all cost. They have been wronged in the sense that the programming which should have been given to them as children was not, or was given imperfectly, and as a result of this they cannot be allowed to live in society, nor are they psychologically able to function in society. They simply don't have any basis for common understanding with the rest of society. The problem is, how do we identify and deal with this group in a manner that will not abridge our (or their) civil liberties? In terms of identification, I would suggest that we need to become far more versed in the psychological arts, so that situations where "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest" is a real story, but felons opt for the insanity defense but go free in two years, do not occur. Unfortunately I don't know how to accomplish this. I do know that far to much of the world population is very sick. Much of this has to do with population pressure trying to deal with itself. However, I do know that banning Pornography, or Guns, or Alchohol, or any other nice, simple, obvious solution, will not work. We'll be removing the tumor but leaving the cancer virus that caused it in the first place. And unless we deal with it, at the very least this society is doomed. I just hope that interstellar colonization becomes viable before civilization collapses around our ears. It may be a cop out, but I'm taking the first slow boat out. (Hey all you richardt haters: here's your chance to get rid of me! :-) orstcs!richardt "The Apparition" Richard Threadgill 104 S 20th <-- SnailMail address soon to be changed Philomath Or 97370 "All of them are in tune, the ones who really love you, walk together outside the wall Some hand in hand, Some gathered together in bands; The bleeding hearts, and the artists Make their stand And when they've given you their all, Some stagger and fall After all, it's not easy, Banging your heart against some mad bugger's wall" -Pink Floyd, "The "Wall" Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com