Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site psivax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
From: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: net.books,net.women
Subject: Re: Pornography doesn't degrade women ...(re: E. Leeper)
Message-ID: <237@psivax.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 15-Jan-85 19:42:30 EST
Article-I.D.: psivax.237
Posted: Tue Jan 15 19:42:30 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 18-Jan-85 01:21:46 EST
References: <243@looking.UUCP> <11300010@smu.UUCP> <4560@cbscc.UUCP> <354@ahuta.UUCP> <4585@cbscc.UUCP>
Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley friesen)
Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA
Lines: 37
Xref: watmath net.books:1239 net.women:4115
Summary: 

In article <4585@cbscc.UUCP> pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) writes:
>
>A response to Evelyn Leeper's response to me:
>
>Think for a second about what I might mean, Evelyn, will you?  By "generally"
>I mean desire it without regard to partner.  I thought it was plain enough.
>You know, an example would be men who like to harass women and think the
>women love it no matter how much they show their displeasure.  Where in the
>world do you think they get that idea?  Wouldn't you think that the regular
>viewing of many nameless, personality-less, even faceless women in such
>suggestive poses would tend to reinforce the idea greatly?
>
	Actually I must disagree, this sort of behavior was around
a *long* time before any sort of pornography became prevalent.
It is a long standing "myth" or prejudice in our society, probably
dating back at least to Elizabethan England!  Its prevalence in
sexual "literature" is probably caused by the cultural attitude
rather than the reverse as you suggest.

>
>Kiddie porn too?  If not, why the difference?  Please read my comments
>on that again.
>

	But the processing of producing "kiddie-porn" violates many
laws already, e.g. child-labor laws and child-mlolestation laws.
Why do we need *censorship* to control it. Instead of making a
law out-lawing the stuff per se, pass a law making any released
film admissible evidence in court.  Then producing such a film
would be equivalent to convicting one's self of child-molestation.
Let us *not* get involved in censorship, when enforcement of laws
pertaining to a child's rights will do just as well.
-- 

				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

{trwrb|allegra|burdvax|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|sdcsvax}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen