Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!spp
From: spp@ucbvax.ARPA (Stephen P Pope)
Newsgroups: net.women,net.politics
Subject: Re: A suggestion for a ground rule in any pornography debate
Message-ID: <10423@ucbvax.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 18-Sep-85 15:34:15 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.10423
Posted: Wed Sep 18 15:34:15 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 20-Sep-85 04:20:30 EDT
References: <5660@tekecs.UUCP> <1873@reed.UUCP> <10285@ucbvax.ARPA> <2061@mnetor.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Lines: 107
Xref: watmath net.women:7458 net.politics:11063


Sophie Quigley responds to my posting.

>Anyone who really wants to learn something about a certain
>school of thought should really not rely on reader's digest
>condensations of it but should instead go directly to the sources,

I consider myself reasonably well-read and well-informed on
the subject.  And I don't think my "ignorance" led to any
misstatements in my original posting.  And in your reply you
don't point any out.  So what IS your point here?

>>except for the radical fringe.  Censorship of pornography
>>is pretty much a right-wing, moral-majority type
>>of thing.
>
>While I cannot agree with some frothing at the mouth that I have
>seen coming from some anti-pornographers (?), I think that it is
>too easy to dismiss the idea of censorship of pornography as you
>did by calling it a "right-wing, moral majority type of thing".
>A responsible society should be able to censor itself when not
>doing so endangers the life of some of its members.  Pornography
>does pause a real threat to women, and the solution to this threat
>might just include some amount of censorship.

A responsible society should be able to censor itself? 
As for pornography posing a real threat to women, I don't
buy it.  Rather, it is society's prudish, moralizing attitudes
towards sex that pose a threat to women.  
    As others on this net have pointed out, violence against
women is highest in countries (such as the Soviet Union)
with the strictest censorship.  Countries such as Sweden with
little or no censorship have the lowest rates
of violence againstr women.  If viewing pornography might
cause a marginally stable individual to go out and commit 
a sex crime (and this hasn't been demonstrated) it is probably
tracable to his moralistic upbringing and conflicts related
thereto.  But arguing these issues was not the point of 
my posting.

>>and this upsets her.  The mentality here is the same as
>>that of people who object to homosexuals, on the basis
>>that homosexuality is inherently disgusting.  This is
>>narrow mindedness, pure and simple.  
>
>And I think the above is a cheap shot.  Who are you to decide
>exactly what is in Ellen's mind?  It is one thing to object
>to things one might consider disgusting even though it poses
>no threat to oneself (such as homosexuality). It is another
>to object to things that one considers pauses a personal threat.

Clearly you don't regard reading pornography as a valid
form of entertainment, as oppposed to whatever it is 
you do for sexual pleasure.  You feel that pornography
is a personal threat.  I'm sure Jerry Falwell feels that
he is personally threatened by the mere existence of
homosexuals, and that their existence is degrading to 
all men.  I stand by my analogy, I think it is a good one
and explains a lot about the attitudes of people like you.

>>all forms of sexual expression.  But it takes a heluva
>>lot of nerve to claim that your preferred form of sexuality
>>should be protected by law, and somebody else's should be 
>>banned.
>
>Oh give us a break!  we all know that.  Nobody's objecting to
>people's sexual preferences here, they're objecting to hate
>litterature which endangers their safety.

Well, pornography isn't "hate literature".  
It's designed to entertain horny men, nothing more.

>And I believe that your article is pretty much a rationalisation
>to support the fact that you have a lifetime suscription to

Are you challenging me to throw out a guess as to what
you do to bring yourself to orgasm?  You were wrong in
my case.  Netnews custom to the contrary, I won't respond in kind.

>be balanced out against others in some cases, eh? (<- I'm from Canada)

Maybe that explains something.  Lousy as the public school
systems are in the U.S., they do pound a few basic things
into your head such as respect for freedom of the press.

>not an original one as I've pointed out above.  Ah, yes, how much
>you care about the "movement"..  reminds me of Ken Arndt and how
>much he "cares" about homosexuals.  With friends like that.....


I don't know of the reference to Ken Arndt.  
    The point of my posting, really, was to say, "Nobody's
raised the issue on the net yet that this right-wing
pro-censorship stuff is eroding feminism's liberal
base of support."  
    I believe Sophie is underscoring this point for me.
She probably wouldn't write off an otherwise loyal
feminist just because they were against censorship,
but because I'm male, and tried to dig a little deeper
into the background of the pro-censorship movement,
she writes me off instantly.  Wonderful.

steve pope

     (BTW, the "ground rule" that led to this
exchange was to discuss new topics, not to rehash the
same emotion-laden arguments.)


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com