Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2.fluke 9/24/84; site fluke.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxj!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!fluke!tron From: tron@fluke.UUCP (Peter Barbee) Newsgroups: net.books,net.women Subject: Re: Pornography doesn't degrade women ... Message-ID: <857@vax1.fluke.UUCP> Date: Wed, 16-Jan-85 14:05:19 EST Article-I.D.: vax1.857 Posted: Wed Jan 16 14:05:19 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 19-Jan-85 00:50:35 EST References: <243@looking.UUCP> <11300010@smu.UUCP> <4560@cbscc.UUCP> Reply-To: tron@fluke.UUCP (Peter Barbee) Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA Lines: 33 Xref: watmath net.books:1252 net.women:4141 In article <4560@cbscc.UUCP> pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) writes: >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. Paul, The phrase that bugs me here is "idea that women generally desire sex" and your implication that it is not true. In my experience women do generally desire sex, of course they want to chose their partners, so do I. I agree that violent pornography is degrading and isn't worth defending with the free speech argument. Is most pornography violent? I don't think so, but I admit it has been 10 years since I saw anything except a Playboy magazine. I don't think that Playboy degrades anyone but it could be an exception. Is pornography a cause or an effect? I think it is an effect and we should look for ways to quell the desire for it, not its availability. Respectively, Peter Barbee decvax-+-uw-beaver-+ ihnp4--+ allegra-+ ucbvax----lbl-csam-+--fluke!tron sun-+ ssc-vax-+ :