Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utcsrgv.UUCP Path: utzoo!utcsrgv!west From: west@utcsrgv.UUCP (Thomas L. West) Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Re: Anti-porn ordinance Message-ID: <673@utcsrgv.UUCP> Date: Wed, 16-Jan-85 19:40:36 EST Article-I.D.: utcsrgv.673 Posted: Wed Jan 16 19:40:36 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 16-Jan-85 19:43:58 EST References: <249@ahuta.UUCP> <894@dual.UUCP> <550@ut-sally.UUCP> <900@dual.UUCP> <637@utcsrgv.UUCP> <2240@randvax.UUCP> Reply-To: west@utcsrgv.UUCP (Thomas L. West) Organization: CSRI, University of Toronto Lines: 46 Summary: In article <2240@randvax.UUCP> edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall) writes: >... though I think pornography is more a symptom of the problem than >a cause. Pornography pretty much mirrors prevailing sexual attitudes; as >such, it probably slows the process of changing those attitudes, but it >doesn't have much more to do with creating sexist attitudes than, say, >advertising or TV drama. You are quite correct that pornography mirrors *somebody's* prevailing sexual attitudes, but whose? I don't know of too many people who would admit that their attitudes towards sex where from Penthouse. More to the point, it mirrors attitudes of the minority of the population that influence everybody else. In other words, it pushes the mean *away* from desirable attitudes (treating people as thinking beings) towards the attitudes that a small number of people hold (women and men as sex objects). >If you're into banning things as a way of improving society, try banning >alcohol. This would differentially help women, too, as alcohol is involved >in a great deal (probably a majority) of wife-abuse cases. And drunk >driving is a *proven* killer of all sexes, ages, and races. You don't >think prohibition of alcohol is reasonable? How is prohibition of >pornography any different? The only difference I see is the banning >of *ideas* in the latter case. Except you can't really outlaw ideas. >If you wish to change them, you have to supplant them with other ideas. >This is the challenge: what realistic *alternative* is there to >pornography? Look for causes--don't just sweep their effects under >the rug. Reducing the *demand* for pornography is the objective, >not reducing the supply. Banning alcohol is impractical due to its wide spread use and acceptance. Banning pornography is beginning to undergo the same sort of thing. In some ways, it's a now or never thing. Think of the growth of the pictorial use of women in an explicit fashion as pure sex objects has grown in the last 50 years. Now imagine 50 years down the road. (And this while women's rights were advancing!) I'd prefer to fight the fight now while alternatives are available. True, banning symptoms is no way to cure the problem, but it sure helps stop the patient from dying in the interim. Why must we accept no *intermediate* steps? I'd *love* to see no demand for these products, but let us remember that their simple existence also fosters a demand. (as evidence see Pet Rocks and other neat gadgetry that is in no way useful, but is still saleable). What we accept (demand) is changed by what the supply is. Tom West { allegra cornell decvax ihnp4 linus utzoo }!utcsrgv!west