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)