Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbatt!ihnp4!qantel!lll-lcc!lll-crg!seismo!ll-xn!nike!aurora!ames!barry From: barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) Newsgroups: soc.singles Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Attorney General's Commission on Pornography Message-ID: <1677@ames.UUCP> Date: Fri, 26-Sep-86 01:40:16 EDT Article-I.D.: ames.1677 Posted: Fri Sep 26 01:40:16 1986 Date-Received: Tue, 30-Sep-86 04:05:14 EDT References: <1487@mtx5a.UUCP> <772@mtund.UUCP> <1700@well.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: NASA-Ames Research Center, Mtn. View, CA Lines: 134 From: mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) [mercilessly edited]: >Adam, one more question: I'm truly sorry to have to ask this, but our newsfiles >do get purged periodicaly. Did you say that Donnerstein felt that his work >on was misinterpreted by the Commission? No, that was me. >It seems clear that for some individuals, the attatchment of their >arousal to the ``fantasy material'' led them to ignore their partners as >human beings and to treat them as inferior or subhuman, or as adjuncts to the >material for the purpose of arousal. Chicken or egg, Mark? All that seems clear to me is that some folks don't know which end is up when it comes to sex. To suggest that porn made them that way is, at best, unsupported. Indeed, as so many of us keep pointing out over and over again, there is *no* correlation between the societies that are most sexist, or have the most sexual criminality, and societies that don't restrict porn. Well, maybe a negative correlation :-). >The reason that violence takes on a special meaning in the sexual context >is the possibility, indeed in some cases the probability, that the violence >becomes part of the means of arousal. Chickens and eggs again. Some people are inclined to violent sexual expression; some porn pictures violent sexual expression. Did the porn make the people that way? History suggests otherwise. Some centuries ago, when they didn't even have X-rated movies, rape was considered standard operating procedure for many armies when they took a town; public torture and execution were practiced for the amusement of the populace; yet the cultures I'm thinking of (Western European) had very restrictive sexual codes by today's standards. >Only the fact that throughout all of the human history of which we are aware, >and in every culture which we have had the opportunity to study, there exist >norms of sexual conduct and sexual privacy. But not always the same norms. Hey, even *I* have morals :-). They're just different from yours. > We are proposing to tear down >virtually all such norms in the absence of any non-speculative evidence of >what the impact will be. Pure rhetorical bullshit. The most that's being proposed is to leave porn alone, and treat it like any other form of expression covered by the 1st Amendment. Pretty radical, huh? I'd even settle for the present status quo. I'm more worried about a possible new wave of sexual repression than today's restrictions. And we *have* non-speculative evidence! Many modern Western nations, countries similar to our own, have more liberal porn laws. No one has detected any ill effects. There's even sketchy evidence of benefit. >> OK, then what about the psychological damage from watching >>Rambo or even The A-Team, with all of its powerful violence in which >>no-one is actually hurt! Or do you think it is OK to think that you >>can go around shooting machine guns because no-one will really get hurt? > >But at least the violence is not portrayed as a an acceptable means or >consequence of sexual arousal, which can be an awfully Good Thing and which >should *never* be used as an excuse for violence. No, instead it's shown as an acceptable means of doing good, helping your friends, and getting your way - and sometimes as harmless! Nobody gets seriously hurt. And you think lack of condoms in X-rated movies is misleading! There was a study done recently (dunno who did it; you know, Adam?) which found that the violence done by the good guys, for good motives, had a greater tendency to increase aggression in the audience than any other kind of violence portrayed. Why? One can only speculate, but consider: it's the good guys we normally identify with in a film and (especially for children) the good guys we look to as role models. >Another view on this one: [Mark gets around to me] >>>Or, rather, the question of whether turning sexual arousal into a commodity >>>to be traded at the price the market will bear, and provided with all the >>>moral integrity of Big Business, is causing harm, doing good, or being >>>indifferent. >> >> Ever notice how people like to argue generalities when there's few >>facts at hand? From a discussion of porn we've moved up the ladder of >>abstraction to the "merchandising of sexual arousal". Gosh, Mark, I guess >>that'll bring in everyone who's against prostitution on your side, and might >>bag a few haters of business and advertising, too :-). > >Well, actually it was meant to spotlight the well-founded (and popular) >cynicisms about business morality. Do you *really* want your sexual pleasure >to be provided by that? Or would you rather have your sexuality affirmed and >exercised by intimacy with another human being, with whom intimacy of any sort >pleases you and {her/him}? Get down off that ladder, Mark! :-) You're climbing away from the porn issue again. I ain't in love with Porny, we're just friends, honest :-). Look, porn is for cheap thrills; if you really don't have room in your life for real women *and* porn, I can certainly understand why you'd avoid porn! But this either/or pseudo-issue is just nonsense. Anyone who feels that way is free to avoid the stuff, but don't dictate to the rest of us. >Values again, values, all is values. I'm really trying to argue that you >value something which you think that you don't. And what, pray tell, might that be? Our ancient and honorable blue laws? Our hoary tradition of losing all intelligence and maturity whenever the subject of sex comes up? >As far as Playboy ... it seems that you are the one dredging up irrelevant >emotional issues; the Supreme Court (I posted this last time) overturned >state laws declaring Playboy obscene, and making it clear that something on >that level simply wasn't a matter for *any* constitutional obscenity law. And the Meese Commission sent out the infamous letter that caused the 7-11 chain and others to pull Playboy and Penthouse from their shelves. Mark, I don't think you've said where you draw the line. Some of your remarks seem to support the Commission's suggestion that Playboy-type photography is degrading to women, and therefore "harmful". >Actually, I *do* think you are being manipulated by the media and by prevailing >social pressures to ignore what I think is the evidence of history ... Now, there's a grand phrase! "The Evidence Of History". Sorry, Mark, I must have missed the article where you used history to support your arguments. I'd be curious to see it. As for my being manipulated by the media, I'll have you know that I watch nothing but the 700 Club, so I get the straight scoop ;-). - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ELECTRIC AVENUE: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,hao,hplabs}!ames!barry