Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbscc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbsck!cbscc!pmd
From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc)
Newsgroups: net.books,net.women
Subject: Re: Pornography doesn't degrade women ...(re: E. Leeper)
Message-ID: <4585@cbscc.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 11-Jan-85 22:17:38 EST
Article-I.D.: cbscc.4585
Posted: Fri Jan 11 22:17:38 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 12-Jan-85 08:21:52 EST
References: <243@looking.UUCP>, <11300010@smu.UUCP>, <4560@cbscc.UUCP>, <354@ahuta.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories , Columbus
Lines: 136
Xref: watmath net.books:1202 net.women:4056


A response to Evelyn Leeper's response to me:

}pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) says:
}> I think the original assertion that porn does not degrade women
}> was made by a man and I haven't seen any women disagree.  I would
}> like to see a woman give an argument as to why porn isn't degrading
}> to them (preferably from a woman who has examined some of the stuff
}> at your local "adult" book store).  How many wives/girlfriends feel
}> OK about their husbands/boyfriends reading this stuff?
}
}I don't think pornography degrades women and I can give you two
}unrelated reasons (one relatively trivial, the other more serious) why not:
}
}	1) Network TV doesn't degrade the actors (of either gender)--they
}	know what people want and make money by giving it to them.  If
}	anyone is degraded, it's the viewer.

This reason seems unrelated to pornography.

}
}	2) Most pornography/erotica (and I have not yet seen any distinction
}	between the two other than "Erotica is what I like; pornography is
}	what I don't like") is degrading only to the extent that you think
}	most sex is degrading.  (See D. Skran's posting on this.)

To what extent do I think sex is degrading?  None.  I'm not talking about
sex being intrinsically degrading.  What makes it degrading is its context.
I think that when sex is reduced to a performance done for entertainment
of onlookers it becomes degraded.

}
}And I *have* examined this stuff, both books and films (videotapes, actually).
}I have no objection to any adult that I know (including my husband)
}reading/seeing this stuff (as long as I get to read/see it also).  (Only half
}:-) ).

As long as you get to see it also?  Why that requirement?

}
}Further comments:
}
}>                                      *Who* the woman is doesn't matter,
}> what she looks like does.
}
}What the woman looks like is immaterial--I find many porn actresses to be less
}than beautiful.  Considerably less.

Who's talking about beautiful, necessarily?  All that's necessary it the
fact that she's physically undressed, her pose, and what she is doing.  Porn
isn't heavy on stressing personality.  Porno actresses can often be less
beautiful than picture models because the action in movies makes up the
"stimulation value" that is lost in her physical charactistics.  The bottom
line is that the emphasis is all on the physical and the value is placed
on how well those physicall actions and looks stimulate.

}
}> It is also my opinion that porn exploits a male weakness.  A
}> capacity for sexual pleasure is certainly nothing to be ashamed
}> of, but I think porn takes advantage of the male sex drive--exacting
}> a price for the service to boot.
}
}This is a truly sexist comment; Paul speaks as though women have no sex drives
}or capacity for sexual pleasure (else it would be a "human weakness," not a
}"male weakness").

Truly not a sexist comment.  Perhaps you can explain to me why the vast
majority of pornography produced is geared toward men.  My saying that
men have a sex drive in no way implies that I think women don't.  I think
you just want to see sexism in my remarks.

}>          It certianly seems to me that the regular viewing of the
}> nude bodies of women is highly suggestive of the idea that women
}> generally desire sex.  The expression on the woman's face (if her
}> face is shown at all) is always inviting.  There isn't any  hint
}> that the woman minds men taking in her sexually sugesstive pose.
}> You get the idea that if the woman in the picture were acually present
}> she would love to jump in bed with you.
}
}Well, women *do* desire sex.  We can argue about just what is meant by
}"generally," but it certainly sounds as though Paul is unaware of the fact
}that women enjoy sex.

Think for a second about what I might mean, Evelyn, will you?  By "generally"
I mean desire it without regard to partner.  I thought it was plain enough.
You know, an example would be men who like to harass women and think the
women love it no matter how much they show their displeasure.  Where in the
world do you think they get that idea?  Wouldn't you think that the regular
viewing of many nameless, personality-less, even faceless women in such
suggestive poses would tend to reinforce the idea greatly?

}John Houseman is always ready to pontificate in his roles--that's part of the
}role.  That's why they're called "actors."  The role here calls for sex appeal.
}You can't fault the actor for playing the part called for.

An actor is not responsible for his acts?  Regardless of what they are?
Are they justified because someone else wants him to do them and pays him
for it?  Neil Postman coined a word for this: Eichmannism (Probably not
spelled right.  See the chapter by that name in "Crazy Talk, Stupid Talk").

}> Defenses for porn are often couched in the rhetoric of free speech
}> and press.  But I think porn makes a mockery of these freedoms.
}> All too often it is my suspicion that such rhetoric is used as a
}> justification by men for their own use of the stuff.
}
}Freedom of speech is freedom of speech.  I find Nazi propaganda more offensive
}(by several orders of magnitude) and demonstrably more harmful in the long run
}than pornography, but I would not ban Nazi propaganda.

I used the example of kiddie porn.  May I replace "Nazi propaganda" in your
statement with that and you would still agree?  I did recognize that freedom
for expressing political ideas is essential in my article.  But you're
obviously not reading it very carfully anyway.

}>                                                               What
}> real contribution to our basic liberties is made by porn?  We have
}> an essentially free press without it.
}
}The same could be said for Nazi propaganda.  My support of its right to be
}heard still stands.

Kiddie porn too?  If not, why the difference?  Please read my comments
on that again.

}But have you ever thought that porn might be trying to tell you that sex is
}enjoyable?  Maybe that's what so many anti-porn advocates are afraid of.

I see you've saved the most disgusting dig for last.  If this comment means
what I think it means, I think it stinks.  Really Evelyn, I've been married
five and a half years and haven't found out yet that sex is enjoyable.  I
don't need porn to figure out that sex is enjoyable.  I pity the man (or 
woman) who does.

-- 

Paul Dubuc	cbscc!pmd