Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbatt!ihnp4!houxm!mtuxo!mtune!mtunf!mtx5c!mtx5d!mtx5a!mat
From: mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Attorney General's Commission on Pornography
Message-ID: <1601@mtx5a.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 10-Oct-86 06:27:13 EDT
Article-I.D.: mtx5a.1601
Posted: Fri Oct 10 06:27:13 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 14-Oct-86 06:02:59 EDT
References: <1487@mtx5a.UUCP> <772@mtund.UUCP> <1700@well.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: AT&T Information Systems, Middletown, NJ 07748-4801.
Lines: 69

> >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.

	The claim is not that sexually explicit material ``made them that
way'' but that such materials provide them with a means to legitimize a
faulty attitude.

	Chicken or egg, is right!  But it's more reasonable to suggest that
that we can reduce the amount of material that legitimizes a bad attitude
than to suggest that we can cure the attitude first!

> . . .
> >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.

No, some of the norms *do* seem to be basic, as Commissioner Ritter points
out (shall I post an excerpt?)

>  . . . . 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.

That was true a few years ago.  Some of that data is now coming into question.

> 	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".

I *really* think that I'm going to buy an issue at the local 7-11 to make
sure that it's available ... they've got it behind the counter, but will
they *sell* it?

I'm not a Playboy reader; I have seen a couple of issues, and I didn't see
anything that I would have felt fell into this category.  Maybe I missed a
``good'' issue?

The question of harm is a messy one, but one that can't really be avoided.
At what point does a harm or a presumed harm or a probable harm become severe
enough to warrant restriction of liberties?  What if the restriction affects
only delieberate perpetrators?  If it affects everybody?

Before we can claim to have the answers, we have to *ask* the questions.
The fact that someone disagrees with you is not sufficient to write him off
as being unworthy of more than contempt and ridicule.  I felt that that was
happening on this group before.  It's being replaced by some real hard
thinking.  While I don't always agree either, I'm glad to see it.  Yes, Kenn,
even your positions.
-- 

	from Mole End			Mark Terribile
		(scrape .. dig )	mtx5b!mat
					(Please mail to mtx5b!mat, NOT mtx5a!
						mat, or to mtx5a!mtx5b!mat)
					(mtx5b!mole-end!mat will also reach me)
    ,..      .,,       ,,,   ..,***_*.