Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1+some 2/3/84; site dual.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!sun!dual!hav From: hav@dual.UUCP (Helen Anne Vigneau) Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Re: Anti-porn ordinance Message-ID: <900@dual.UUCP> Date: Fri, 4-Jan-85 18:22:19 EST Article-I.D.: dual.900 Posted: Fri Jan 4 18:22:19 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 6-Jan-85 00:13:47 EST References: <249@ahuta.UUCP> <894@dual.UUCP> <550@ut-sally.UUCP> Organization: Dual Systems, Berkeley, CA Lines: 48 <*munch*> Since I have received several pieces of mail, as well as many follow-ups to my original comment about the anti-pornography ordinance, let me clarify the remark I made about Falwellites. In the heat of my fury at the absurdity of this ordinance, I carelessly lumped these crazies in with Jerry Fallwell. Perhaps I should have referred to them instead as Falwellian. (Is there such a word? If not, there should be.) It may well be clear to us all that they are not explicitly followers of Jerry F.; however the nature of their endeavor is also clearly the type of action that would make Jerry the Well-Fallen proud. As was pointed out in another follow-up to the original article, this bunch has in fact made a Faustian pact with Jerry the W-F, simply by their action, whether or not that was originally intended. I, for one, resent intensely their meddling in my affairs (no pun intended). What ever happened to the idea of "consenting adults" and their freedom to do what they choose behind the privacy of closed doors? Are we not in fact out of the Victorian age? Maybe they would have us all put crinolines on piano legs and refer to chicken breasts as "bosoms," as was done in the 1800s. (Of *course* we must be farther than that: Queen Victoria struck out the clause against female homosexuality in the British anti-homosexuality law (sorry, I don't know the year offhand; my reference is at home) because as she saw it, there was no need to outlaw something that was *physically impossible* any way! But we know better than *that* now, don't we.:-)) I find it truly frightening to think that perhaps America is reverting to puritanism, yet that is exactly what an ordinance such as the one that was just defeated in Minneapolis seems to suggest. While there are certainly aspects of pornography that I find disgusting and socially dangerous, I think these can be safely be limited to child pornography, use of force to cause someone to do something against his or her will, genuinely damaging physical violence and/or abuse, and things of that nature. I do not think that "garden-variety" smut (i.e., generic sex, homosexuality, group sex, light S&M, et cetera, as might be seen in Playboy, Penthouse, Behind the Green Door, or Emmanuelle) can be included in this category. Maybe the feminists of Minneapolis would like to put some bug in my bedroom to make sure that nothing but lights-off, no-talk missionary-style sex goes on in there. The biggest surprise to me of all this is that I had always thought of Minneapolis as, if not the cultural capitol of the Western World (sorry Minneapolites (?)), at least a large enough and intelligent enough city to be above this. I am pleased to see that the law was defeated, even if barely (again, no pun). Those who are offended by pornography need not be forced to endure it. Those who on occasion enjoy it should not have it kept from them by a bunch of narrow-minded prudes, hypocrites (read the text of the law again), and busybodies with nothing better to do. Helen Anne