Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!nike!cit-vax!elroy!smeagol!usc-oberon!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen From: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,net.legal,net.singles Subject: Re: Re: Re: Attorney General's Commission on Pornography Message-ID: <1439@psivax.UUCP> Date: Tue, 16-Sep-86 16:27:15 EDT Article-I.D.: psivax.1439 Posted: Tue Sep 16 16:27:15 1986 Date-Received: Fri, 19-Sep-86 21:41:06 EDT References: <1487@mtx5a.UUCP> <772@mtund.UUCP> <1700@well.UUCP> <1505@mtx5a.UUCP> <1115@oliveb.UUCP> <1519@mtx5a.UUCP> Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) Distribution: net Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA Lines: 63 Xref: mnetor talk.politics.misc:162 net.legal:3590 net.singles:10373 In article <1519@mtx5a.UUCP> mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) writes: >The question you should ask is whether this incident is representative of the >sex industry, or whether it has occurred more than once. The answer to the >first is not absolutely resolved by the report, which calls for more study, >and involvement of law enforcement experts. On the basis of testimony, the >answer to the second is yes. And there is evidence, somewhat weaker, that >these are not isolated cases. And if the answer to the first question is yes you should ask one more question, that is whether such activity is due to the current illegal status of pornography or to something intrinsic in pornography itself. The optimal solution depends critically on the answer to this last question. >In particular, the sexual abuse of children by people who collect, exchange, >and sell photographs of that abuse, and who use such photographs to facilitate >the abuse of more children warrants immediate attention. Certainly, but I consider this a seperate problem from pornography, I call it child abuse. These people would be abusing children with or without photography! They are just using currently available technology to support their habit. Certainly a crack-down on pornography would not stop them, just drive them further underground. > In a less definite but >no less damaging way, it includes women who are viewed as objects for the >pleasure of men around them. This is a problem, but it has been around *far* longer than pornography has. In fact, if anything, it is *less* prevalent today than it was in the past. Check out the accepted attitudes of men towards women, say 40 years ago, or 100 years ago. I think women were even more degraded then than they are now. So, where is the harm? The problem you cite has nothing to do with pornography, it comes from old cultural values that have not yet been totally eliminated. > ``When your rape is entertainment >your worthlessness is absolute'' (Dworkin). Yes, you may disagree with Ms. >Dworkin, but *if* the presentation of rape, date rape, etc, *is* entertainment, >then the relative esteem in which we hold men and women is certainly in >question, especially when the women depicted are shown as ultimately acceeding >to the assualt and calling for more. The only questions are if such materials >are viewed as entertainment and how large the effect is. No, there is another question: Which came first, the low esteem in which the men and women are held or the viewing of such things as entertainment. It is quite possible, even likely, that it is the low esteem that has permitted the perception of violence as entertainment, rather than the other way around. If so, the problem is how to re-educate the public so that people are viewed in a higher light. Then the desire to watch degrading entertainment will go away all by itself, with no need for censorship. --- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen ARPA: ??