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