Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ncsu.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!mcnc!ncsu!mauney From: mauney@ncsu.UUCP (Jon Mauney) Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Pornography Message-ID: <2770@ncsu.UUCP> Date: Tue, 15-Jan-85 15:50:37 EST Article-I.D.: ncsu.2770 Posted: Tue Jan 15 15:50:37 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 19-Jan-85 00:26:29 EST Organization: N.C. State University, Raleigh Lines: 71 Why is Pornography bad? Let me count the ways: 1) Kiddie porn. To make kiddie porn you need to use kiddies. This can be legally defined as sexual abuse of children. Children are not legally able to consent to anything. Kiddie porn can be and is legally restricted. 2) Violence. a) Some people apparently define porn to mean sexual violence against women, or some such. That is a fine definition of something, but the word pornography is already taken. I get the impression that some activists claim to use this definition, but then use the broader definition to extend their arguments to include all sexually explicit material. b) The arguments against such violence should apply regardless of whether sex is involved. If you are worried about the effects of vicarious violence, you should protest Charles Bronson and ignore Marilyn Chambers. 3) Morality. According to one recent posting on the net: "Married sexual activity is sacred and its use outside of marriage is a profanation of a holy thing." That's fine for you, but freedom of religion is constitutionally protected, so arguments based on church doctrine are disallowed. 4) Privacy/degradation of participants If someone is coerced into making an explicit movie, whether by force or lack of other opportunity to earn money, then they may feel degraded, I agree. But most people on this net would probably be uncomfortable just to be seen naked by strangers. Do the activities described in net.rec.nude degrade participants. Are millions of naturists degraded? No, because they participate voluntarily and are comfortable with what they are doing. It is only degrading to do what you feel is wrong. 5) Sex Objects. I have never understood why it is wrong to admire a single facet of a multi-faceted human. In my job, college professor, I am admired primarily for my giant intellect. Since I must teach, my engaging personality is somewhat admired. My boyish good looks, athletic prowess and artistic genius are totally ignored. Does that reduce me to a 'brain object'? Yes. My students care only about what I know (and what grade I'll give them). But that doesn't diminish my humanity outside of class. Similarly, a depiction of beautiful women enjoying sex does not automatically reduce women to objects. In fact, I would argue that sex movies, in which women don't have enough time between sex acts to prove or disprove their intelligence, do less harm than TV shows, in which many characters demonstrate themselves to be airheaded bimbos. In fact, I find it degrading to humanity that the *sexual* nature of famous people is routinely ignored. If we are to understand Einstein and Eisenhower as whole persons, we must ask whether they were sexually satisfied. (only partially facetious) Have I overlooked any straw men? In closing, I would like to suggest that if people are seriously concerned that smutty movies, books, etc., offer a twisted view of sex, and serve to subjugate women, then they should lobby for the open acceptance of graphic sex. The problem with sex movies is that they aren't very good movies. If you want people to think that sex is a warm, loving exchange between equal partners, then you should get decent producers, directors, actors and screenwriters to make explicit movies, rather than banning them. -- Jon Mauney, mcnc!ncsu!mauney (I should point out that, despite the example involving my job, I am not speaking in my official capacity as a professor.)