Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 beta 3/9/83; site mot.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!mnetor!mot!al
From: al@mot.UUCP (Al Filipski)
Newsgroups: net.women,net.social,net.flame
Subject: Re: Re: Possible Ban on Pornography
Message-ID: <285@mot.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 22-Sep-85 21:54:01 EDT
Article-I.D.: mot.285
Posted: Sun Sep 22 21:54:01 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 24-Sep-85 02:46:00 EDT
References: <369@scirtp.UUCP> <1625@ihuxl.UUCP> <11317@rochester.UUCP>
Organization: Motorola Microsystems, Phoenix AZ
Lines: 27
Xref: utcs net.women:7497 net.social:905 net.flame:11684

> --
> > Just to put my $.02 in, I resent the feminist attempt to change the
> > definition of the word, "pornography".  Pornography is any literature
> > or media show produced with the intention of causing sexual excitement
> > i.e. designed to appeal to the pruriant (sp?) interest.  Oppression
> > and defamation of women is a completely orthogonal issue.
> > 
> > 	Frank Silbermann
> 
> Sorry, Frank, you can't simply define away the problem.  The fact is
> that a lot of what is commonly considered "pornography" does
> "defame" women, and it contributes toward attitudes that legitimize
> their oppression.  What you call a "feminist" attempt to modify

Much (most?) "hard-core pornography" is simply pictures of people
engaged in sex acts.  It is utterly symmetrical with respect to sex
roles. Which is most demeaning to women, a "made for TV movie" that
shows a woman falling in love with her rapist, a popular drive-in
movie that shows women being cut up with chainsaws or a picture of people
engaging in what appears to be mutually enjoyable sexual activity?
The feminists who crusade against "pornography" (i.e. erotica) are
way off track.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Filipski, UNIX group, Motorola Microsystems, Tempe, AZ U.S.A
{seismo|ihnp4}!ut-sally!oakhill!mot!al  |   ucbvax!arizona!asuvax!mot!al
------------------------------------------------------------------------