Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ames.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!zehntel!dual!ames!barry From: barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) Newsgroups: net.books Subject: Mr. Dubuc on pornography Message-ID: <764@ames.UUCP> Date: Tue, 15-Jan-85 02:28:44 EST Article-I.D.: ames.764 Posted: Tue Jan 15 02:28:44 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 16-Jan-85 21:19:40 EST Distribution: net Organization: NASA-Ames Research Center, Mtn. View, CA Lines: 99 [] A few responses to Paul Dubuc: >Natually, I think porn with >male subjects is degrading to men. Can some of the men out there >imagine how they feel about photos that encourage others to size >them up like a piece of meat--placing value on the ability of >their bodies to stimulate? I'd love it! Unfortunately, I don't have the kind of body that makes women (or men) faint with passion :-(. Clearly, no one wants to be seen only and always as a sex object, but it's kind of nice to be seen that way sometimes. >I have read studies >cited that seem to indicate that the sexual stimulation produced >indirectly stimulates the tendancy toward violent acts. The theory >is that there is a connection between these two sections of the >brain and that somehow sexual stimulation lowers the threshold for >stimulation to violent acts. Really? And do you find that *you* have a greater tendency to violence after experiencing sexual stimulation? And have you stopped beating your wife? :-) No, wait, I get it - you meant to say that sexual stimulation from pornography is connected to violence, not sexual stimulation occurring within the sacred bonds of matrimony. Clearly, there's no connection between the two :-). >I'm sure other factors contribute, >but the seemingly high incidence of many rapists and child molesters >turning out to be "porn addicts" makes me wonder if it isn't a significant >factor. Do you have any idea how many rapists and child molesters are *known* to have drank milk as a child? Makes you stop and think, doesn't it? >You get the idea that if the woman in the picture were acually present >she would love to jump in bed with you. These woman have no >real identity. No emphasis is placed on *who* the woman is personally, >just her looks. That's as good a description of Playboy, or indeed of Cosmopolitan, as it is of hard-core porn. How much do you want to ban? Would you outlaw any use of sex in advertising? It sounds like you would. >Defenses for porn are often couched in the rhetoric of free speech >and press. But I think porn makes a mockery of these freedoms. >All too often it is my suspicion that such rhetoric is used as a >justification by men for their own use of the stuff. Are these >freedoms absolute? Not many people believe they are. Speak for yourself. I and others *do* believe the freedom is absolute. Your opinion notwithstanding, there is no evidence of any connection between pornography and violence. So where's the harm? I don't *need* a justification for enjoying erotic art, just the freedom of access to it. >One objection to anti-porn laws says that some >legitimate and valuable works will unjustly fall under the ban. Dead right. So why ban any of it? Why take the chance? >That's probably true. But it is also true for any general proscription. Right again; so why ban any written matter? You are so casual in acknowledging that "legitimate and valuable works" will be censored, and 1st Amendment rights thereby abridged. Why? What do you have against porn beside unsubstantiated opinion that it's bad for people? How do you know? Would you ban books without evidence of their harm? >What >real contribution to our basic liberties is made by porn? We have >an essentially free press without it. An "essentially free press". What a concept! How about this: we ban only *one* book. Just one. Now, that's *much* more free than banning whole categories of literary expression. What book? Oh, how about the Bible? >I have >several friends who are artists and I'm pretty sure they would agree >that a certain amount of constraint is required to spur creativity. >Where there are no constraints, anything can pass for "art". If an >artist or author truly has talent they should be able to show it >within a certain set of constraints. To wipe away all constraint >only offers false credibility to those with no talent. I say this >only to illustrate that contraints are not inherently evil, not >to say that all constraints are good. So, anti-porn ordinances will spur artistic creativity! Can you spell "sophistry"? - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- USENET: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,hao,menlo70,hplabs}!ames!barry SOURCE: ST7891