Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbatt!ihnp4!qantel!lll-lcc!lll-crg!seismo!rochester!ritcv!cci632!rb
From: rb@cci632.UUCP (Rex Ballard)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Food, Sex, and Taste
Message-ID: <420@cci632.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 26-Sep-86 22:34:07 EDT
Article-I.D.: cci632.420
Posted: Fri Sep 26 22:34:07 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 30-Sep-86 04:55:53 EDT
Reply-To: rb@ccird1.UUCP (Rex Ballard)
Distribution: net
Organization: CCI, Rochester Development, Rochester, NY
Lines: 58
Summary: A new perspective on an old topic.

I like liver, my wife hates it.  Does this mean I shouldn't eat
liver in a restaurant?  Should I force her to eat it?

Once, when I was trying to quit smoking, I was put on the
7th day adventist diet.  No fat, no cholestoral, low sodium,
low sugar, low calorie, no spices, in summary BORING!

If the evidence required for banning or restricting food were
the same as for pornography, we would all be on a diet of
peas, carrots, and potatos.  No spices, gravy, coffee, or anything
but water to boil it down.

If you like bondage or rubber, or whatever, and I don't, does this
mean you should never read about it, see it, or hear about it in
films.

Different people have different tastes, values, and preferences, in
what the eat, what they read, and in sex.  If a presidential commission
decided that only White Anglo-Saxon Protestent values should be shown
on television, or that only Irish cooking could be served by federally
funded programs, we'd revolt.

If I could serve dog food in such a way that you would eat it without
knowing what it was, would that mean that I could open a restaurant
to serve it?

If I insisted that you eat such a dish without knowing it's contents,
you would be offended, right?

What we have here in this porn/Meese issue is one group who feels the
other is willing to outlaw any form of nudity/sex/violence combination
and another group that feels that the other is out to put whips, chains,
and doggy's in the grammer school library.

There are problems with the current laws.  Under the current system,
the analagy of the "dog food burritos" is probably the closest to
the accurate representation of the facts.

I would even tolarate "kiddie porn" (using adults posing as youth)
if it were clearly labled as such in such a way that it could not
be purchased, buy middlemen or end customers without this information,
porn might even clean itself up.

No one should be tricked, pressured, or intimidated into purchasing
"press materials", pornographic or otherwise, which they find offensive,
even the "watchtower" (Jehova's Witnesses), or Ensign (Mormon).

At the same time, the STATE should not take any action which will
prevent a publisher from reaching the market of people who desire
to purchase or read his works.

Private INDUSTRY, will usually make it's own choices.  A retailer
cannot be forced to purchase materials, or boycott materials he
believes will be sold.  Once in a while, private citizens use
boycott pressure, refusing to buy any products because offensive
products are sold.  This is certainly acceptable, but statements
by customers to that effect is (in the social sense not the legal)
STATE censorship.