Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ucla-cs.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!qantel!hplabs!sdcrdcf!ucla-cs!mccolm
From: mccolm@ucla-cs.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: The Pornography Debate
Message-ID: <6802@ucla-cs.ARPA>
Date: Sun, 8-Sep-85 21:09:57 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucla-cs.6802
Posted: Sun Sep  8 21:09:57 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 15-Sep-85 11:35:29 EDT
References: <353@decwrl.UUCP> <6798@ucla-cs.ARPA>
Reply-To: mccolm@ucla-cs.UUCP (Eric McColm)
Distribution: net
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department
Lines: 61
Summary: 

It seems to me that a distinction is being drawn amongst all the flak in
the current debates on pornography.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem
to see several kinds of pornography, and when someone says "pornography",
people think of different things.  It seems to me that these are distinguished
by the amount of violence they appear to portray.

1)  "Erotica", loosely defined as sometimes explicit portrayals of sex as
    a natural, pleasurable act, for all parties concerned.  People have
    made much of the distinction between this and any other type of
    pornography, to the point of claiming there is no association between
    them.

2)  "Display Porn", the sort found in Playboy and similar sources.
    The emphasis of this type is on the shape of the body, with the portrayal
    of sex being secondary.  The pictorialization of "available woman",
    essentially willing and not under duress, though still submissive, appeals
    to the voyuerism of the audience.

3)  "Soft Porn" centers on the explicit depiction of sex in an atmosphere
    that does not fit the definition of "Erotica", but is still not "hard".
    The main focus is on the mechanics of sex itself, and usually is quite
    shallow.  There may or may not be some degree of domination expressed,
    but it is no worse that the "seduction" scene of "Rocky", and cruelty
    and sadism are not depicted.

4)  "Hard Porn" centers on either the mechanics of sex or the shape of the
    body, but in an atmosphere of domination, threat, cruelty, violence,
    torture, hatred, and/or similar situations.

Of course, if several of these fit, 4 overrules 1 to 3, 3 overrules 1 and 2,
and 2 overrules 1.  These are not intended to be definitions, and they have
their share of problems as such, but the idea is to convey to the reader the
separations I think I've seen.  Naturally, the distinctions are about as hazy
as can be.

Child molestation need not be considered, as it is already illegal.  But the
Warren Commission (?) that studied pornography and decided it was benign,
seems to have focussed only on 1-3, ignoring the (then rare) 4.  But it
seems the central point of 4 is violence, expressed or implied.

I think that each of the above forms of pornography is popular for *different*
social reasons.  This seems to imply that if some pornography is repulsive to
certain people, then the society is not as those people would wish it.
If this is true, then there is hope that if certain social ills were
eradicated, the popularity of the destructive type(s), (especially 4) would
decline.  I do not claim that this is the *correct* way to handle
pornography, just that it sounds plausible.  As to the destructiveness of
types 2 and 3, and to their effects, I don't think it would be productive
for me to speculate.

Talk about long-term solutions!
--fini--

Eric McColm
UCLA (oo' - kluh) Funny Farm for the Criminally Harmless
UUCP:  ...!{ihnp4,trwspp,cepu,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!mccolm
ARPA:  mccolm@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU
Quotes on the Nature of Existence:
   "To be, or not to be..."    -Hamlet  (Wm. Shakespeare)
   "I think, therefore I am."  -R. Descartes
   ""                  -Gleep   (Robt. Asprin)