Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!rutgers!nike!aurora!ames!barry From: barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) Newsgroups: soc.singles Subject: Re: Re: Commission on Pornography -- *sigh* Message-ID: <1692@ames.UUCP> Date: Thu, 9-Oct-86 14:20:46 EDT Article-I.D.: ames.1692 Posted: Thu Oct 9 14:20:46 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 11-Oct-86 05:09:16 EDT References: <1487@mtx5a.UUCP> <15487@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> Distribution: net Organization: NASA-Ames Research Center, Mtn. View, CA Lines: 75 From: mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile): >> ... Consider that some of the most >> sexually explicit paintings and writings of other cultures come from a >> religious base.... > >But *not* photographs of people actually doing it, nor video depictions. >Perhaps there is no difference; somehow I don't buy it. By presenting these >depictions, are we not in some way violating the very notions of sexual >privacy that are so often argued on this group? Perhaps not. As a matter >of personal opinion (to keep this from growing any longer) I think we are. I've seen you indirectly raise this point before, Mark, and I'm afraid I don't understand it. In what way is film or video more a menace than painting? Or writing, for that matter? There are Hindu temples whose walls are covered with carvings of people "doing it", and doing it in some very creative ways :-). How is photography so different? And how is privacy being violated? Both the models/actors and the consumers of this material are voluntary participants. Are they violating their own privacy? Or is their lack of concern about open and public sexuality somehow a "violation" of the privacy of those who don't watch their films? I can't find a reasonable interpretation of your assertion. >If serious studies show me wrong on this issue >(and we're talking a range of studies here, not just one) I'll eat crow, even >in a quiche, but I want to see them first. Mark, please! Us crows are very touchy about that metaphor; please avoid its use in the future :-). >> Actually, if the history books of several cultures were examined, it would >> be found that even in islam, there are pornographic works intended for >> marital use. The problem is we burned that porn, and then said it wasn't >> there. > >But once again, those are not *photographic* depictions of live people who >are engaging in sex for the consumption of others. I *hope* that those >materials do/did not promote practices that either party resented ... but >I see nothing wrong with *instructional* material. The question is, was >this material instructional, was it for arousal, was it obsessive to the >degree that some of the stuff we have is? You need to read up on porn, Mark; I guess the Commission didn't discuss anything farther back than a decade ago. There is a great deal of centuries-old erotica and, in general, the purpose of the stuff was to both instruct *and* arouse. Why do you want to separate the two so strongly? Japanese and Chinese "pillow books" (which have been around for centuries) clearly serve both purposes. The good ones are beautifully and lovingly illustrated. >> What is humiliating is relative to the person. If you were a mexican >> immagrant, being called a wetback because you once picked crops might >> be as humiliating as being in a movie. If you are already known as >> a "rather kinky person", a movie might be something to be proud of. > >In the case of the farm worker, if he is called a wetback because he has >once picked crops, he is facing something that most of society considers >bigotry. It comes from the outside. In the case of the sex film ``star'', >what you say might be the case. But it might not, and the conflicts and >possible sense of shame come from within as well as from without. No external >bigotry need be shown. Nonsense. You're projecting your own attitudes on a group unlikely to share them. The bigotry is identical. In one case the person is being put down for their race and social position; in the other, for their sexual attitudes and social position. In *both* cases, it is possible that the person in question could end up partially brainwashed, and feel some self-contempt because of prevailing attitudes. If you don't believe this you should read some of the literature on what effect racism has had on the self-image of members of oppressed groups. - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ELECTRIC AVENUE: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,hao,hplabs}!ames!barry