Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site wlcrjs.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!wlcrjs!zubbie From: zubbie@wlcrjs.UUCP (Jeanette Zobjeck) Newsgroups: net.books,net.legal,net.women Subject: Re: Pornography doesn't degrade anybody Message-ID: <462@wlcrjs.UUCP> Date: Thu, 10-Jan-85 14:37:12 EST Article-I.D.: wlcrjs.462 Posted: Thu Jan 10 14:37:12 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 12-Jan-85 00:52:07 EST References: <4699@tektronix.UUCP> <2758@ncsu.UUCP> Reply-To: zubbie@wlcrjs.UUCP (Jeanette Zobjeck) Organization: chi-net, Public Access UN*X, Chicago IL Lines: 25 Xref: watmath net.books:1190 net.legal:1275 net.women:4019 Summary: I believe that many of the people in this discussion have messed up one very important basic. SEX and PORNOGRAPHY are not the same thing. True there is implicit sec in pornography but all sex is not porn. Those arguements which have been presented saying that Porn doesn't degrade anyone are in general reaaly saying that sexual acts between consenting adults for their own pleasure are not degrading. Porn on the otherhand is not even really pictoral sex (can you imagine really getting hyped up with 10 to 20 people around you flahing lights and running cameras etc.). Pornography is degrading of a) the participants in the production. b) People in general since it is human sex which is being depicted so graphically, (sexual organs as well when sex is not explicitly depicted). I doubt very much that any of the people I have seen here protesting that porn does not degrade anyone would care to prove that by participating in the photo session as a subject, nor would they care to have family or those emotionally close to them as such subjects. The reason they would give to such a proposition , no matter how phrased, would effectively say *HELL NO - I don't want anyone close to me or myself degraded and exposed in that manner* and if you don't believe me than find one and try it zubbie (Jeanette Zobjeck)