Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ncsu.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!mcnc!ncsu!mauney
From: mauney@ncsu.UUCP (Jon Mauney)
Newsgroups: net.books,net.women
Subject: Re: Pornography doesn't degrade anybody
Message-ID: <2767@ncsu.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 11-Jan-85 17:04:57 EST
Article-I.D.: ncsu.2767
Posted: Fri Jan 11 17:04:57 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 14-Jan-85 02:43:21 EST
References: <4699@tektronix.UUCP>, <2758@ncsu.UUCP>, <2529@ihuxf.UUCP>
Organization: N.C. State University, Raleigh
Lines: 42
Xref: watmath net.books:1209 net.women:4070

>  From: features@ihuxf.UUCP (M.A. Zeszutko)
>
>   Erotica is fine, and quite pleasurable.
>   Pornography, even though it deals with the same subjects, approaches
>   them quite differently.
We have an unarguable semantic quibble here.  To me pornography is 
synonomous with 'obscenity' (my dictionary agrees), 'smut', 'filth', etc.
I.e. any depiction of sex or nudity in a prurient way.  Erotica is
anything that is erotic;  i.e. porn done properly.  I get the impression that
other people define porn to be any depiction of sex that is degrading.
Such a definition ends the discussion.  Anyway, who defines erotica?
There is ample evidence that many people find close-up photography of
wholesale banging to be very erotic.

>                            Who would find it flattering to be looked at
>   as such a collection of body parts?
Innocent bystander:  "Gee, I like your hair style.  Its very becoming."
Militant feminist:  "Am I supposed to be flattered by that isolated
  observation about one part of my body?"

If I want to get to know someone, I'll read their biography.  If I want
to get hot, I'll read a dirty book.  Why would I want to read a dirty
biography?  That would be too much like cheating on my wife.
Seriously, I don't know anything about Ralph Sampson, except that he
is exceptionally graceful for a freak.  I don't know anything about
Mel Torme except his voice.  Woody Allen doesn't tell anything about
himself except his neuroses;  knowing that he plays clarinet doesn't
help me enjoy his humor.  So why should I worry that I don't recognize
anything about Marilyn Chambers but her genitals?

>  From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc)

>  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.
Whereas the opposite is actually true: women only have sex to make
babies or to make their hubbies happy.  Right.
-- 

*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH A MASSAGE ***

Jon Mauney    mcnc!ncsu!mauney    C.S. Dept, North Carolina State University