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!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!cbosgd!cbsck!cbscc!pmd From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) Newsgroups: net.books,net.women Subject: Re: Pornography doesn't degrade women ... Message-ID: <4560@cbscc.UUCP> Date: Wed, 9-Jan-85 10:28:59 EST Article-I.D.: cbscc.4560 Posted: Wed Jan 9 10:28:59 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 11-Jan-85 23:11:17 EST References: <243@looking.UUCP>, <11300010@smu.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus Lines: 93 Xref: watmath net.books:1186 net.women:4012 OK, I'll offer my opinion on the issue: Yes, I think pornography does degrade women. But why do women pose for it? Maybe because many of them are in financially degrading situations? I don't know. But I do think that women spread that degradation to other women (In the eyes of their beholders) when they pose for porn. *Who* the woman is doesn't matter, what she looks like does. Much of this stuff is what might be called "gynaecologically explicit" reducing the worth of the subject to the stimulation value of viewing her sexually stimulating body parts. 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. 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? 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. 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. 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. 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. These woman have no real identity. No emphasis is placed on *who* the woman is personally, just her looks. Also, the impression gained is that it doesn't really matter to the woman who is looking at her, receiving her "invitation". My point is that I think it is easy porn users to make degrading generalizations about about the sexual temperment of women. 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? 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. 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? 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. What should be done about porn? I'm not exactly sure. I'm not familiar with the specific ordinance being discussed so I can't say that I'm in favor of it. But I don't think porn should be protected. I do think that something should be done to significantly curb its publication. (It will never be wiped out totally). I don't think that the obvious difficulty of the legislative and executive task is a valid excuse for neglecting that task. -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd