Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site mhuxr.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mfs
From: mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (Marcel F. Simon)
Newsgroups: net.women,net.politics
Subject: Re: A suggestion for a ground rule in any pornography debate
Message-ID: <442@mhuxr.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 28-Sep-85 23:31:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: mhuxr.442
Posted: Sat Sep 28 23:31:59 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 30-Sep-85 00:42:34 EDT
References: <5660@tekecs.UUCP> <1873@reed.UUCP> <10285@ucbvax.ARPA> <2061@mnetor.UUCP> <10423@ucbvax.ARPA> <2265@mnetor.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T-IS Tech. Sales Support, Morristown, NJ
Lines: 65
Xref: watmath net.women:7561 net.politics:11245

>, > >>  == Sophie Quigley
> >>                                               ....  Pornography
> >>does pause a real threat to women, and the solution to this threat
> >>might just include some amount of censorship.
> 
>                                                        ... and I do not
> find it inconceivable that in a "perfect" society, pornography would not
> exist because people would realise that its benefits are not worth the pain
> that it creates.

You have not given your own definition of pornography. What exact depictions
do you hold to be a threat: kiddie porn (already illegal as child abuse and
rape)? Sado-Masochism, imposed (in which case it becomes assault, battery,
rape...) or consensual? Homosexual, bisexual or heterosexual intercourse?
How do all these pose a threst and cause pain?

>                                       ...  The reason I posted was that I
> was incensed by the atmosphere of insensitivity that surrounds this whole
> issue.  I do not believe in censorship either, but I cannot respect people
> who will refuse to acknowledge the negative feelings that some pronography
> causes some people.  All pornography is not equal, some of it is harmless
> and even stupid, some of it is fun, but there is also some of it which is
> very depressing.  All I would like is for anti-censorship people to say:
> "yes we realise that pornography hurts, but we really don't think that
> censorship is going to solve the problem" instead of "if pornography hurts
> you, it's because you are sexually repressed and you simply want to impose
> your prudishness on other people".  All I would like is some more compassion,
> and I don't see much of it (except from Sherry, who of course was attacked
> for it).

If "some of it" is "fun" or "stupid" or "harmless," how come [all of] 
"pornography hurts?" 

The context of this discussion is the desirability of banning pornography.
I have strenuously pointed out that pornography must first be legally
defined. Then its negative effect on the social order must be demonstrated.
Only then can a discussion of the putative benefits of a ban begin. 
The above paragraph asks the net to agree that porn is bad and implies that
those who will not do so are just insensitive clods. Come on now, you
know better than that.

Someone on the net wrote to the effect that her goal concerning pornography
is to make it less "socially acceptable." That is a pefectly valid way of
expressing oneself. If you feel that pornography hurts you, take whatever
action is necessary: attend town, county or borough government meetings where
zoning laws, building permits, retailer's licenses and the like are debated
or issued. State your objections. Lobby your elected representatives. In other
words, follow the path to political change provided by a democracy. However,
if your position is not enacted, do not complain of a male conspiracy, and
do not demand compassion for a cause that has been democratically lost. If
you or organizations representing you are unwilling to do the necessary
legwork, why are you complaining?
 
> Well some people see it as "hate litterature" and that's why they want it
> banned, not because they don't agree with the form of sexual expression.

Do you think Nazi or Communist literature should be banned?

>            ...  Some pornography is obviously hateful of women.  Why
> are you refusing to admit this?  Admitting this does not entail that you have
> to be pro-censorship.

OK, some pornography is hateful of women. So what?

Marcel Simon


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com