Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site dciem.UUCP Path: utzoo!dciem!mmt From: mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) Newsgroups: net.legal,net.women Subject: Re: Anti-porn ordinance Message-ID: <1317@dciem.UUCP> Date: Mon, 31-Dec-84 14:38:37 EST Article-I.D.: dciem.1317 Posted: Mon Dec 31 14:38:37 1984 Date-Received: Mon, 31-Dec-84 16:16:17 EST References: <249@ahuta.UUCP> <894@dual.UUCP>Reply-To: mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) Organization: D.C.I.E.M., Toronto, Canada Lines: 48 Summary: In article west@utcsrgv.UUCP (Thomas L. West) writes: > Well, I would claim that men and women used in [blue] movies and such ARE being >degraded. I don't support the ordinance, but I claim that pornography, because >of how it views humans in general, degrades the person who appears in it and >human beings in general. And that is *irrespective* of the willingness of the >participants to degrade themselves. > I, for one, appreciate the fact that in Canada we are subjected to far less >of this sort of stuff. I believe we are better for it, despite the fact that >some people are deprived of the chance to drool over such material. The harm >that this stuff causes in the way it warps the views of people on the opposite >sex is far greater than the harm caused by loss of the individual's ability >to buy such material. However, I do NOT support the ordinance for the >fairly obvious reasons of its sexist leanings and its ability to influence >far more than was ever intended. > > Tom West That's a load of bull (sexist comment!). Why should people depicted making love be degrading themselves when people depicted fistfighting are not? What is worse about sexual relations than knife fighting? Surely the depiction of love and eroticism is way better than the degrading sight of someone pitching a commercial for overpriced furniture? I have never understood where this notion come from, that pornography is degrading or damaging to women. It takes two to tango, doesn't it? From the comments I have read, if the woman is shown taking the initiative, she is "showing that women are easy." If the man takes the initiative, he is "showing women are there to be subjugated (or raped)." If violence and sex are becoming intertwined in *N. American* pornography, could it possibly be because of the repression (suppression?) that delivers it into the hands of the underworld? Could it be because N. American culture (as seen in popular films and highly rated TV) is becoming obscenely violent, and that violence spills over into pornography as well? Ontario is probably the most puritan jurisdiction outside the Moslem world. It isn't necessarily the best in which to be a woman. Compare the rights, both legal and socially taken-for-granted, of women in Ontario with those of Danish or Dutch women (where pornography is either legal or tolerated). I doubt you would find Ontario to show up very well. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmt