Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site moncol.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!houxm!vax135!petsd!moncol!ben From: ben@moncol.UUCP (Bennett Broder) Newsgroups: net.books,net.women Subject: Re: Pornography doesn't degrade women ...(re: E. Leeper) Message-ID: <162@moncol.UUCP> Date: Fri, 18-Jan-85 11:24:03 EST Article-I.D.: moncol.162 Posted: Fri Jan 18 11:24:03 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 19-Jan-85 01:43:38 EST References: <287@harvard.ARPA> Organization: Monmouth College, West Long Branch, NJ 07764 Lines: 32 Xref: watmath net.books:1255 net.women:4143 >> Kiddie porn too? If not, why the difference? Please read my comments >> on that again. > >I think there is a very real difference between kiddie porn and >"normal" pornography. I don't think any kind of sex between >consenting adults should be banned; similarly, I don't care what >happens between a porn actress, her producer, and his customers. >The key phrase there is "consenting adults," obviously this is >lacking in the case of kiddie porn. One cannot so easily dismiss what happens between the porn actress/producer/customer. It is an unfortunate reality that ultra-profitable businesses like pornography attract a criminal element that is willing to go to ridiculous measures for profit. Kiddie porn is one result .. but there are others. There is an underground type of film called a 'snuff film'. In these movies, the producers will promise anything to the porn actress to secure her cooperation. At the end of the film, the actress is killed, both on-screen and in real life! Talk about degradation of women! I don't think any of these movies have been made in the US, but they are available in this country through the same channels that distribute kiddie porn. Hence, although I have no moral objection to standard pornography, I would tend to shy away from patronizing distributors of it until it is available through more legitimite channels. Ben Broder ..vax135!petsd!moncol!ben