From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Subject: Re: Pornography imbalance, right or wrong?
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 20:14:20 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.060324.1771@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>In article <1992Nov4.205943.11988@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct31.201637.22684@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>>In article <1992Oct28.203404.14008@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>>>>Folks, I'm not even going to include the quoted texts anymore, as it doesn't
>>>>help.  I snagged most of them off the net today and will hold them for a long
>>>>time, case anybody needs them.  I'm gonna try to keep the future ones, also.
>>>>
>>>>Rich, let's try and keep this short, eh?
>>>
>>>Why start now???
>>
>>Because I'm tired of responding to *your* repetitive statements.
> 
>This goes back and forth, back and forth, but somehow only -my- statements
>are repetitive. I hope the rest of your arguments are better than this.

The emphasis was not meant to imply that *I* was not repetitive.  You
complained elsewhere that I had been repetitive.  I merely wanted to point out
that we are equally guilty of this.

If you agree, please just cut all this out, as people have complained to me in
e-mail that we are too repetitive.


>>>>My claims:
>>>>
>>>>Pornography imbalance and discrimination are possibly linked in a cyclical way.
>>>>Evidence:  Recent changes in the cycle, caused by equalitarians, have made 
>>>>societal views on pornography change, particularly in regards to women in
>>>>pornography and women's enjoyment of pornography.
>>>
>>>Changes in and of themselves do not indicate any sort of cycle. Nor would
>>>a link establish a causal relationship. So what is the significance?
>>
>>Rich, there is no way one can prove or disprove the existence of this cycle.
> 
>OK, so we have a hypothetical cycle. Can you outline even one cycle, or at
>least show a changing trend to could possibly be the beginning of some
>sort of cyclic change? If not, you seem have a hypothetical cycle with no
>theoretical cyclic relationship or cyclic data. Somehow this falls short
>of being compelling. 

Did you somehow miss that changing trend we noted earlier?

The one that linked the women's movement with the increase in female-oriented
porn...you know, the one that was originally given by someone [rini?] about 4
posts ago...you know, the one that is paraphrased by me as Evidence about 10
lines above your question.

Why don't you get back to me when you've *read* the post?


>The biological and developmental differences are well documented and
>the material can be found at any library or bookstore.
>
>Please be so good as to document that, as you seem to claim, biology is
>-not- a factor.

1.  I have *never* claimed that biology is not a factor.
2.  Specifically what biological differences cause an imbalance in pornography?
    Name *one* such documented claim!


>The imbalance is not a cause, but an effect of a great many things. This
>means that to change thie balance, you -must- change something else. What
>is it that you plan to change?

Well, since you insist the imbalance cannot, in turn, cause discrimination (eg
cause people to have differing views on male and female sexuality), then of
course we would have to change something else.
And, of course, since you insist that the imbalance is an effect of biology,
then it is absolutely ludicrous to suggest any changes.


---- Even lower interest level follows; you miss nothing to hit n now --------

>>>>PS:I double-checked the texts, and you trimmed out my first cyclic statement.
>>>
>>>Since you dropped it as well, and posted a -lot- without even noticing that
>>>it ws gone, I have a hard time believing that it was what you were saying,
>>>or even central to what you were saying. 
>>>
>>>>This explains why you first "saw" it just recently, rather than a couple 
>>>>posts ago.  If you want it, I'll e-mail them to you, or you can just cut 
>>>>this out and call it done.
>>>
>>>Call what done?
>>
>>Well, if you'll stop complaining about a "new" idea that isn't, I won't
>>complain about your cutting it out in the first place.  Otherwise we can waste
>>lots of bandwidth on a petty argument.  Take your pick.
>
>You have yet to define any sort of problem. If there -is- some sort of
>cycle, then the need for a problem is greatly reduced. Like the tides, they
>go in, and they go out. Do not count on high tide forever, it will
>eventually go out.

We were discussing your missing the text.  How does the above paragraph have
anything to do with it?  Please just cut all this out when you respond.
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:3874 soc.men:18811 soc.women:18999