Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1+some 2/3/84; site dual.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!sun!dual!hav
From: hav@dual.UUCP (Helen Anne Vigneau)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Anti-porn ordinance
Message-ID: <900@dual.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 4-Jan-85 18:22:19 EST
Article-I.D.: dual.900
Posted: Fri Jan  4 18:22:19 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 6-Jan-85 00:13:47 EST
References: <249@ahuta.UUCP> <894@dual.UUCP> <550@ut-sally.UUCP>
Organization: Dual Systems, Berkeley, CA
Lines: 48

<*munch*>

Since I have received several pieces of mail, as well as many follow-ups to
my original comment about the anti-pornography ordinance, let me clarify the
remark I made about Falwellites.

In the heat of my fury at the absurdity of this ordinance, I carelessly lumped
these crazies in with Jerry Fallwell.  Perhaps I should have referred to them
instead as Falwellian.  (Is there such a word? If not, there should be.)  It
may well be clear to us all that they are not explicitly followers of Jerry F.;
however the nature of their endeavor is also clearly the type of action that
would make Jerry the Well-Fallen proud.  As was pointed out in another follow-up
to the original article, this bunch has in fact made a Faustian pact with Jerry
the W-F, simply by their action, whether or not that was originally intended.

I, for one, resent intensely their meddling in my affairs (no pun intended).
What ever happened to the idea of "consenting adults" and their freedom to do
what they choose behind the privacy of closed doors?  Are we not in fact out of
the Victorian age?  Maybe they would have us all put crinolines on piano legs
and refer to chicken breasts as "bosoms," as was done in the 1800s.  (Of
*course* we must be farther than that:  Queen Victoria struck out the clause
against female homosexuality in the British anti-homosexuality law (sorry, I
don't know the year offhand; my reference is at home) because as she saw it,
there was no need to outlaw something that was *physically impossible* any way!
But we know better than *that* now, don't we.:-))  I find it truly frightening
to think that perhaps America is reverting to puritanism, yet that is exactly
what an ordinance such as the one that was just defeated in Minneapolis seems to
suggest.

While there are certainly aspects of pornography that I find disgusting and
socially dangerous, I think these can be safely be limited to child
pornography, use of force to cause someone to do something against his or her
will, genuinely damaging physical violence and/or abuse, and things of that
nature.  I do not think that "garden-variety" smut (i.e., generic sex,
homosexuality, group sex, light S&M, et cetera, as might be seen in Playboy,
Penthouse, Behind the Green Door, or Emmanuelle) can be included in this
category.  Maybe the feminists of Minneapolis would like to put some bug in my
bedroom to make sure that nothing but lights-off, no-talk missionary-style sex
goes on in there.  The biggest surprise to me of all this is that I had always
thought of Minneapolis as, if not the cultural capitol of the Western World
(sorry Minneapolites (?)), at least a large enough and intelligent enough city
to be above this.  I am pleased to see that the law was defeated, even if
barely (again, no pun).  Those who are offended by pornography need not be
forced to endure it.  Those who on occasion enjoy it should not have it kept
from them by a bunch of narrow-minded prudes, hypocrites (read the text of the
law again), and busybodies with nothing better to do.  

Helen Anne