Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site hcrvx1.UUCP Path: utzoo!hcrvax!hcrvx1!tracy From: tracy@hcrvx1.UUCP (Tracy Tims) Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Degradation and Sex Message-ID: <1078@hcrvx1.UUCP> Date: Sun, 13-Jan-85 15:20:44 EST Article-I.D.: hcrvx1.1078 Posted: Sun Jan 13 15:20:44 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 14-Jan-85 06:48:47 EST Organization: Human Computing Resources, Toronto Lines: 81 I have for some time wondered what "degrading" meant. I think there are at least two things being talked about, one of which I find more important than the other. The first is the resentment that people feel when a spiritual act is reduced to entertainment or curiosity, and the second is the real propagandic influence of images on people's behaviour. In the first case, a group of people can be highly insulted when another group rips off one of their rituals and "trivializes" it by focussing on the least essential and least spiritual aspects. It tends to remove the legitimacy of the original spiritual act and can be construed as a "cultural attack." The first group of people will talk about the "degradation" of the ritual. In the second case, a ritual (or image) actively works to change the way people think and act. This is the function of propaganda. Propaganda tries to deny the ability of a person to make up their own mind based on more or less rational criteria. Propaganda tries to short circuit rational and moral thought in order to *compel* attitudes and behaviours. In cases where an image of a ritual acts to change the attitudes towards the ritual to less socially desirable ones one can say that this is a degradation of the ritual. Both of these features are present in the discussion of pornography. There are types of "pornography" which are claimed to be degrading mainly because they see the ritual of sex as less spiritual than some people would like it to be. There are types of pornography which exhibit a propagandic effect regarding some truly socially undesirable behaviours. (Or, if the effect is not propagandic, it is at least condoning.) I take much more seriously criticisms of the second sort. In the second sort, we are dealing with the condoning and advocacy of behaviours that we generally agree are socially wrong (child sex, rape, brutal treatment of people, violence). In the first sort we are dealing with a matter of taste and judgement. Generally it is possible for people of sensitivity to avoid insulting groups by trivializing their rituals. In many cases (like the adaptation of native Indian dances to crass entertainment) there is no good reason for adapting a ritual as entertainment. But in the case of sex, *no particular culture invented the idea*. The idea of sex wasn't stolen from anyone and trivialized. What we have are differing, legitimate views of what it should be. If live sex on stage insults you because it degrades sex, realize what it is that is happening. Your views of sex are being questioned and perhaps insulted. You do not have any justification to claim that your views are correct. Be secure and allow other people to treat sex as something different from your own ideas. It is possible to claim that your particular views of sex are socially desirable and thus you place this particular "degradation" of sex into the second class. You are going to need good, well reasoned arguments for this one. Playing with cultural relativity is hard ball. In general I find that people who assume that their own cultural attitudes are the most desirable are pretty close minded and intolerant. I think that this particular attitude stems from fear and insecurity: a less than mature response to the criticism impled by non-agreement. I believe that two people can look at the same picture, and one can find the effect entertaining, and the other can find the effect propagandic. In other words, erotic and pornographic. The effect (obviously we are talking about the middle ground and not highly propagandic or highly neutral works) depends on the mental health and awareness of the person looking at the picture. It is quite possible for a healthy individual to make a distinction between images designed to sexually excite him/her, and real people; just as it is possible for a healthy individual to make distinctions between heroes and heroines in adventure stories that are designed to excite them, and the people they meet in real life. J.P. Sartre said "There are no omens." What he was saying was that even if there were omens (clues about the future) we would interpret them any bloody way we chose, so they would be useless as omens in any case. This is true in general. A sick individual is capable of "degrading" almost anything. If we spend our time confusing these two issues in pornography we will seriously dilute our attention to the more important, second type of phenomenon. That would be a tragedy. Tracy Tims {linus,allegra,decvax}!watmath!... Human Computing Resources Corporation {ihnp4,utzoo}!... Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 416 922-1937 ...hcr!hcrvx1!tracy