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