Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rochester!ritcv!cci632!rb From: rb@cci632.UUCP (Rex Ballard) Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,net.legal,soc.singles Subject: Porn and Family Message-ID: <417@cci632.UUCP> Date: Fri, 26-Sep-86 17:33:09 EDT Article-I.D.: cci632.417 Posted: Fri Sep 26 17:33:09 1986 Date-Received: Mon, 29-Sep-86 01:19:31 EDT References: <1487@mtx5a.UUCP> <772@mtund.UUCP> <1700@well.UUCP> Reply-To: rb@ccird1.UUCP (Rex Ballard) Distribution: net Organization: CCI, Rochester Development, Rochester, NY Lines: 152 Xref: linus talk.politics.misc:391 net.legal:4851 soc.singles:225 In article <1570@mtx5a.UUCP> mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) writes: >This *does* lead inevitably back to a question that the proponents of >widespread use of erotica seem never to address: does the use of this >material damage the institution we call the family? It might depend on when the reader becomes involved with porn. There are two approaches. In the first case, the theory that sexual preferences are formed at a very early age. If a man has a repressed set of preferences which he fails to express until after marriage, then upon reading porn decides that his partner should fulfill his life-long dreams, but the partner is unwilling, it could lead to marital complications. In the second theory, that new preferences could be learned from reading porn, the same type of problem arises. But in this case the rules are being changed after the marriage. If the first theory is correct, it may be preferable expose teenagers to "normal" sexual situations, rather than repressing them or possibly restricting their arousal to some, more unorthodox material. If the only material available is national geographic, the kid could end up insisting that his mate have her nose pierced. Yuchh. >in families, at least for the time being, and the family is already ill >(witness the inability of parents to teach their kids about sex; Sound like a problem due to lack of "soft porn" rather than too much. >witness >the difficulty many people have of even teaching their children about >affection ...) Affection, romance, and commitment permiate most mass media. One of the problems is that the media almost disassociates these things from sex. >> 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, however it is often portrayed as an acceptable means to romance, affection, and love. (Kill him, get her). >This also answers another objection that was raised: > >Another question: >>More seriously, why is sex special? Many people seem to feel that the first >>ammendment covers everything but sex. Why should the publication of >>explicit material be limited to that which the "average" person is not >>offended by? Why don't we do this for other forms of expression? > >Why is sex special? I never thought that that question would seriously be >asked on *this* newsgroup! ( ;^}/3 here, please) 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. >Remember, that's not the whole of the limitiation. First, the ``average'' >person must find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient >interests. The dictionary at hand defines prurient as: > o Obsessively interested in matters of a sexual nature, or > o Characterized by an obsessive interest in sex, or > o Arousing or appealing to an obsessive interest in sex. Obsession is not "caused by" porn, any more than alcohol "causes" alcohol addicition. Normal instincts, in an already unbalenced personality, are blown out of perspective. >>Other wired-in human needs, such as food and warmth, are commoditized. > >Do you recall what it took to get to the point where we can be reasonably sure >that the food we get is wholesome and safe? So what you would really like are similar types of legislation for porn. Things like truth in labling, quality control, worker protection. Just as not all foods are required to contain 100% of the U.S. R.D.A. Not all porn will contain 100% wholesome material, but at least the consumer will know what he's getting prior to purchase. Sounds reasonable. >>There is a price at which I would pick crops, but I am continually >>being undersold there, too. > >Yep, but picking crops is, I would hope, not humiliating, or at least not as >deeply humiliating as having films showing you having sex, with a person you >care not the least about, circulating: a time bomb waiting to go off when one >of your colleagues sees it. 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. >If you are a woman ... once again, the simple >``informed adult decision'' model doesn't hold because our society's real >values don't match the abstractions; >If you made a film like that to keep >from getting evicted,... If the landlord was using such persuasion tactics, this would be coercion. If the decision was made simply because a porn movie paid better than McDonald's, that is an informed choice. This would be coercion. So long as there are aid programs, and other alternatives, this is less of a problem than it appears. I've known male strippers and male porn stars who are proud of their work. >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}? Hopefully both. There is no reason one has to exclude the other. >And there is the real question of whether *some* material *encourages* people >to attatch sexual arousal to violence, and whether the people who respond to >that material seek sexual release through violence (physical or psychological). Many people who enjoy submissive sexual roles do so long before their involvement with porn. Many people who enjoy dominant roles are the same way. I believe the concern you are expressing is what if a dominant seeks to practice on someone who is not naturally submissive. Better communication is the answer here. >>- Manipulate me! - Kenn Barry > >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. Actually, it isn't even that clear. So long as Playboy follows it's current editorial guidelines, it is not obscene. Other magazines don't have the same protection. >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 ... > from Mole End Mark Terribile Let's face it, we all are. You by parents, grandparents, moralist leaders, and other "strict" people. Me, by the same types of people. My Grandfather considers dancing (of any kind) obscene. I just reacted differently. Have you actually seen the material you would like to ban? I've seen some that I would rather not purchase. Unfortunately, they were not well labled.