Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site pyuxc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxc!chris
From: chris@pyuxc.UUCP (R. Hollenbeck)
Newsgroups: net.women,net.singles
Subject: Pornography
Message-ID: <601@pyuxc.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 16-Jan-85 10:39:43 EST
Article-I.D.: pyuxc.601
Posted: Wed Jan 16 10:39:43 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 17-Jan-85 13:03:05 EST
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Piscataway, NJ
Lines: 45
Xref: watmath net.women:4106 net.singles:5419

Yesterday, a female friend of mine confided that love had
never been what she expected, that is, what it is in the movies,
i.e., holding hands in a field, embracing in the moonlight, etc.
It struck me that her feelings might hold the key to the
debate over pornography.  

Is it possible that she's not alone, that many women grow
up believing that love is like it is in the movies, and that
they therefore resent pornography
because it contradicts the movie version of love?
That it is offensive because it shows sex without 
showing love (particularly movie love) as a prerequisite?

In support of this hypothesis, I offer the following:
	1.  Pornography is often attacked for portraying
		women as "sex objects"  (presumably as opposed to
		being shown as people in love).

	2.  I read an article recently that discussed pornography
		for women, i.e., literature whose intent was to
		arouse women's prurient interest.  This pornography
		consisted largely of scenes depicting tenderness,
		caring, etc., with far less explicit sex than is
		found in standard pornography.

If you add to the above the movie/television view that after love
comes a marriage and a family situation similar to those in
"Father Knows Best" and "It's a Wonderful Life," the objections
to pornography become clearer.  Pornography does not concern
itself with love, or families, or with preserving the species
or the social order, but with plain old sex.  Exaggerated sex
at that, when you consider the oversized body parts,
insatiability, endless variation and stamina, etc.
of the participants.  Not to say that this is bad, but it does not
jibe with the movie/TV view, to say the least.

Could this be basis of much of the objection to pornography?
I think so.  The only thing I can't figure out is, if we're
all subjected to the same movie/TV images, why do men enjoy
pornography?  Why aren't they equally appalled by it?

For the record, if it's not clear from the above, I think
any depiction of sex, in movies or on TV, is fine, unless
it shows rape, children, or nonconsensual violence (I
don't want to discriminate against sado-masochists).