Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ucla-cs.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!qantel!hplabs!sdcrdcf!ucla-cs!mccolm From: mccolm@ucla-cs.UUCP Newsgroups: net.women Subject: The Pornography Debate Message-ID: <6802@ucla-cs.ARPA> Date: Sun, 8-Sep-85 21:09:57 EDT Article-I.D.: ucla-cs.6802 Posted: Sun Sep 8 21:09:57 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 15-Sep-85 11:35:29 EDT References: <353@decwrl.UUCP> <6798@ucla-cs.ARPA> Reply-To: mccolm@ucla-cs.UUCP (Eric McColm) Distribution: net Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department Lines: 61 Summary: It seems to me that a distinction is being drawn amongst all the flak in the current debates on pornography. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to see several kinds of pornography, and when someone says "pornography", people think of different things. It seems to me that these are distinguished by the amount of violence they appear to portray. 1) "Erotica", loosely defined as sometimes explicit portrayals of sex as a natural, pleasurable act, for all parties concerned. People have made much of the distinction between this and any other type of pornography, to the point of claiming there is no association between them. 2) "Display Porn", the sort found in Playboy and similar sources. The emphasis of this type is on the shape of the body, with the portrayal of sex being secondary. The pictorialization of "available woman", essentially willing and not under duress, though still submissive, appeals to the voyuerism of the audience. 3) "Soft Porn" centers on the explicit depiction of sex in an atmosphere that does not fit the definition of "Erotica", but is still not "hard". The main focus is on the mechanics of sex itself, and usually is quite shallow. There may or may not be some degree of domination expressed, but it is no worse that the "seduction" scene of "Rocky", and cruelty and sadism are not depicted. 4) "Hard Porn" centers on either the mechanics of sex or the shape of the body, but in an atmosphere of domination, threat, cruelty, violence, torture, hatred, and/or similar situations. Of course, if several of these fit, 4 overrules 1 to 3, 3 overrules 1 and 2, and 2 overrules 1. These are not intended to be definitions, and they have their share of problems as such, but the idea is to convey to the reader the separations I think I've seen. Naturally, the distinctions are about as hazy as can be. Child molestation need not be considered, as it is already illegal. But the Warren Commission (?) that studied pornography and decided it was benign, seems to have focussed only on 1-3, ignoring the (then rare) 4. But it seems the central point of 4 is violence, expressed or implied. I think that each of the above forms of pornography is popular for *different* social reasons. This seems to imply that if some pornography is repulsive to certain people, then the society is not as those people would wish it. If this is true, then there is hope that if certain social ills were eradicated, the popularity of the destructive type(s), (especially 4) would decline. I do not claim that this is the *correct* way to handle pornography, just that it sounds plausible. As to the destructiveness of types 2 and 3, and to their effects, I don't think it would be productive for me to speculate. Talk about long-term solutions! --fini-- Eric McColm UCLA (oo' - kluh) Funny Farm for the Criminally Harmless UUCP: ...!{ihnp4,trwspp,cepu,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!mccolm ARPA: mccolm@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU Quotes on the Nature of Existence: "To be, or not to be..." -Hamlet (Wm. Shakespeare) "I think, therefore I am." -R. Descartes "" -Gleep (Robt. Asprin) Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com