Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site sdcsla.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcsla!west
From: west@sdcsla.UUCP (Larry West)
Newsgroups: net.books,net.women
Subject: Re: Pornography doesn't degrade women ...
Message-ID: <760@sdcsla.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 14-Jan-85 12:52:53 EST
Article-I.D.: sdcsla.760
Posted: Mon Jan 14 12:52:53 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 18-Jan-85 00:47:17 EST
References: <243@looking.UUCP> <11300010@smu.UUCP> <4560@cbscc.UUCP>
Reply-To: west@sdcsla.UUCP (Larry West)
Organization: UC San Diego: Institute for Cognitive Science
Lines: 177
Keywords: freedom censorship ban pornography
Xref: watmath net.books:1236 net.women:4114
Summary: long tirade on freedom and censorship

[[ This is very long and still not a complete argument.   My apologies ]]
[[ on both counts, and I hope the compromise is not too poorly made.   ]]

In article <4560@cbscc.UUCP> pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) writes:
  > 
  > Yes, I think pornography does degrade women.

Okay, that's fine.   We all have our opinions.   Mine is that
television degrades humans, in more subtle and far-reaching ways.
I'm not about to suggest censoring it, though.

  > ... I do think that women
  > spread that degradation to other women (In the eyes of their
  > beholders) when they pose for porn.

The key here, of course, is that you are the beholder who
thinks that other women are degraded.   You are entitled to
your opinion, of course.

  > ... Natually, I think porn with
  > male subjects is degrading to men.  Can some of the men out there
  > imagine how they feel about photos that encourage others to size
  > them up like a piece of meat--placing value on the ability of
  > their bodies to stimulate?

I avoid imagining how I feel -- gets confusing.   My feeling is
that people who fall for that are not people I'd have any interest
in, anyway.   What they do for jollies is their own business.

  > Generally speaking, I can't help but believe that porn ("hard core"
  > porn, especially) has a real connection with the incidence of rape,
  > incest, and child molestation in our society.

And what is that connection?   Causal?   Perhaps indicative?

  > ... I have read studies
  > cited that seem to indicate that the sexual stimulation produced
  > indirectly stimulates the tendancy toward violent acts.  The theory
  > is that there is a connection between these two sections of the
  > brain and that somehow sexual stimulation lowers the threshold for
  > stimulation to violent acts.

The part about "two sections of the brain" is obviously garbage.
I'd be amused to see a reference on this type of thing.   Everyone
nowadays knows that it's the closeness of the eyes that matters,
combined with negative ions (or is it positive?) in the air (-:).

  > ... I'm sure other factors contribute,
  > but the seemingly high incidence of many rapists and child molesters
  > turning out to be "porn addicts" makes me wonder if it isn't a significant
  > factor.

Ignoring the likelihood of this being "folk data", I'd like to agree
that playing with statistics can be fun.   Consider how many murderers
now were raised on television.   Easily 90%.   Of course, when the
question is phrased the other way, it becomes much more difficult
to assess:
	How many people who (read porn)|(watch TV)
	become child molesters, rapists, murderers?

  >  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.

Well, yes.   Being animals, women do "generally desire sex".   Or
maybe it just seems that way in California?

  >  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.

Okay, I have to grant you this: pornography is very very poor
at emphasizing the virtues of modesty and humility.

  > You get the idea that if the woman in the picture were acually present
  > she would love to jump in bed with you.

Actually, I've never gotten that idea.

  > ... My point is that I think it is easy [for] porn users to make
  > degrading generalizations about about the sexual temperment of women.

Considering how many degrading generalizations about women there
are in this world/culture, I don't think you can lay the blame
entirely on pornography.   Even if you include the Bible as
"pornography".

  > 
  > Defenses for porn are often couched in the rhetoric of free speech
  > and press.  But I think porn makes a mockery of these freedoms.

How so?   Freedom is (in one simple view) part of the implicit
cultural contracts made between an individual (or group) and
society as a whole.   In this context, I'm unclear as to what
you consider a mockery.

  > All too often it is my suspicion that such rhetoric is used as a
  > justification by men for their own use of the stuff.

Say what?   This sounds like a perfectly reasonable argument to me.
To wit: "I want to use this material for my own purposes" seems
fair (provided no significant harm to others).   What kinds of reasons
do you use to justify reading anything you read?   (Oh, perhaps you
were just complaining that you feel suspicious too often??;-)

  > Are these
  > freedoms absolute?  Not many people believe they are.  Witness
  > the outrage agianst "kiddie porn".  Yet why is there such a demand
  > for that stuff?  Sure using kids as subjects often requires other
  > kinds of abuse done to them.  But those abuses are "necessary" 
  > (e.g. kidnapping) in large part because the activity is illegal.
  > If it were legal you would probably get some families making porn
  > with their own kids (adopted?) to make money.  The children would
  > probably suffer much less physical abuse generally (in the hands of
  > people they know rather than strangers), but would that make kiddie
  > porn more acceptable?

Hmmmm?   I don't think this is relevant to this discussion.

  > Freedom of speech and the press is essential to our civil liberties,
  > especially where the freedom to express political, philosophical,
  > and religious thought are concerned.  A slippery slope argument
  > is often given that if porn it banned this other, more essential,
  > type of expression will eventually be stultified also.  I don't see
  > the direct causual link, though I do agree that there is a danger
  > in going too far.  One objection to anti-porn laws says that some
  > legitimate and valuable works will unjustly fall under the ban.
  > That's probably true.  But it is also true for any general proscription.
  > There are always tough cases that make the law seem unfair.  Human
  > systems of justice always have their casualties, but this is not
  > a good argument against the law.  The best we can do is to work out
  > a system that minimises the casualities as much as possible.  What
  > real contribution to our basic liberties is made by porn?  We have
  > an essentially free press without it.

The "real contribution" is that people have the freedom to buy
and sell and view and read what they want, not what you want.

Freedoms are, as you suggest, not absolute.   But the freedom
of speech, for example, serves (speaking metaphorically) as a
guarantee to the members of society that no group will control 
the ideas which can be disseminated.   This freedom should be
yielded VERY VERY carefully, for it is unlikely to be regained
once lost.   Would you like to volunteer to surrender your
right of habeas corpus?

So what is the benefit that banning pornography offers society?
Proponents seem to imply that a reduction of the incidence of
rape, molestation, et cetera, will obtain when such a ban is
in place.   Do you really believe this?   If so, I suggest you
try to find evidence (I mean scientific evidence, not news media
reports and editorials) to support this view.   If you don't
believe this benefit will result, why on earth do you support
the ban?

What it comes down to is that there is a vocal minority of people
who want to control what the (silent?) majority is allowed to read.
The classic paradox (I read it first in Mike Royko's column years
ago) for people of that persuasion is this:   Why do you believe that
pornography incites such vile acts?   If it doesn't affect you that
way, what makes you believe it affects others?   If it does make
you feel like perpetrating such actions, don't you think you should
seek professional help rather than interfering in the lives of
others?

DISCLAIMER:
	I find "hard porn" a very sad commentary on our society, and
agree there exists such material with no "socially redeeming value".
I certainly would not encourage anyone to buy/read/make it.   This
is much the same way I feel about television and news-magazines.


-- 

--|  Larry West, UC San Diego, Institute for Cognitive Science
--|  UUCP:	{decvax!ucbvax,ihnp4}!sdcsvax!sdcsla!west
--|  ARPA:	west@NPRDC	{ NOT:  }