From: alan@auntbea.austin.ibm.com (Alan R. Weiss)
Subject: Re: Porn (was Re: Vikki's Problems With Kerry&Me)
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 01:06:53 GMT
Organization: (marginally)

In article <1gp8ufINN8rb@agate.berkeley.edu> mlloyd@ocf.berkeley.edu (M. Lloyd) writes:

>>->I was pro-Dworkin/MacKinnon.  I'd now call myself sympathetic to their
>>->views, and still puzzling over the best stance.  (For anyone unsure,
>>
>>I see ... I'm really not trying to attack you, I'm trying to understand what
>>the difference between being 'pro' Dworkin and being sympathetic to Dworkin
>>is.  One of the more memorable things that I believe she's said is that all
>>het intercourse is rape.  Do you believe this? Again, I'm not trying to
>>debate you, as much as just try to understand your position.
>
>Well, let me start by saying that I've never seen it substantiated that
>Dworkin really said that.  I'm not teribly well read, so perhaps I just
>haven't seen it, but I certainly have no basis for understanding her
>conclusion, if it exists at all, without seeing her reasoning.
>
>My agreement with Dworkin and MacKinnon is over pornography and law.
>The latter person has pretty powerful credentials for speaking on the
>latter topic (but given my constant irreverance I won't push that point
>at all).


Oh, fer crissake, Mike!  Andrea Dworkin is a complete and utter
idiot, who would take away your rights in a New York minute given
half the chance.  Besides, HER pornography (read her books!)
is filled with aggression, anger, and just plain violence.
She's just pissed that it doesn't sell as well as Bob Guccione's!
Have you ever *READ* her crap?  Unbelievable.


>  They have a concept of redefinition, which starts with saying
>that obscenity definitions are inefficient, unworkable and incorrect.  I
>agree wholeheartedly with that.  Things should not be censored because
>they are "obscene".  However, they go on to define pornography as that
>material which creates victims (primarily women) in a fairly direct and
>demonstrable way.  If this is feasible (my faith has been shaken at this
>point, but not destroyed), then the idea is to allow post-mortem
>punishment of the distributors and producers of material which can be
>shown, *on balance of probabilities* (a vital technicality which would
>take too long to elucidate), to have incited or aggravated a particular
>victimization (a rape, an assault, whatever).


Bullshit.  (Hey, pretty macho, eh? :-)  Look:  I can redefine
ANY word as something else.  From that technique, I can go on
to prove ANYTHING I wish to.  This is called the "slippery slope"
logical fallacy, and its the oldest trick in the book.

EVERY single reputable study has shown NO CORRELATION between
porn and rape.  None.  The Ted Bundy Interview crud was discounted,
because Ted was trying to get out of frying, on account of him
murdering lots of people (so says the prison shrink and others).

The Porn Business is voluntary - its made up of men and woman,
gay/straight/bi/whatever, all selling services for a fee.  Anyone
who has seen the vivacious and VERY bisexual Barbara Dare perform
would have NO doubts that this is a lady having a LOT of fun,
doing what she wants to, and getting paid handsomely for it.
Recommended:  "Barbara Dare's Prime Cuts" (Essex Video).

One could JUST as easily argue that my employer exploits me,
because I'm forced to sit in front of a tube all day long
performing a service to get paid.  Funny, I don't *look* like a victim ....


This does NOT include child porn.  Please.  Its not even on the
same planet as this discussion.



>  The effect is then
>two-fold: (1) it should be possible to remove or destroy the power of
>censoring bodies (although the Canadian situation with customs appears
>to have failed, for reasons I do not understand and would appreciate
>theories on).  (2) the law would act as deterrent in some degree, making
>purveyors responsible for the material they distribute, and for who they
>distribute it to, in much the same way that a seller of alcohol is
>responsible for selling dangerous cocktails or for serving the clearly
>enebriated (sp?).


Product liability laws are already TOO restrictive.  This is the MAJOR
reason why ethical pharmaceutical companies can't bring to market
AIDS drugs fast enough - FDA regulation, to be sure, but ALSO
the threat of legal liability.  If you follow Dworkin and MacKinnon's
logic, then Proctor & Gamble is liable for babies asses if their
mother's or father's don't change their diapers often enough!
Gun manufacturers suddenly become responsible for how their products
are used.  Alcohol producers are responsible for drunk drivers.
And ON and ON and ON ....

Whatever happened (no, not to Fay Wray!) to PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY????


>This is hardly trivial material, and a discussion of the generalities is
>probably misplaced in soc.bi.


No, its a GREAT place:  product liability laws are killing homosexual
AIDS victims.  GLB people are accutely aware of liberation, and
freedom from constraints, and making choices in their lives.  This
is VERY relevent. 

I consider extremely violent/gross movies obscene and pornographic,
in the most fundamental sense.  I'd much rather my kids see
two (or more) people fucking and sucking and creating pleasure,
than see Arnold and Mel and Steven and V.I. Warshawsky blow away
some (unsigned long integer) number of people, guts and all.
We censor both, to some degree, because we are responsible parents.


>  As queers we do have a substantial
>interest in the issue, but I'm not sure if we want to have a discussion
>of any specifically bi sides to this - I'm not sure what they would be.
>Such decisions are, of course, at the mercy of you, gentle reader :-)
>
>hugs
>Mike

Ah, hell, I'm not so gentle about this issue, Mike.  Sorry.
It just pisses me off.  There are MANY feminist writers that are
OPPOSED to Dworkin and MacKinnon - one of the best writers in
America, Emily Prager (Penthouse) for one.  Camille Paglia for
another.  And I am, too.


>
>-- 
>Mike Lloyd, B0/1 h- f- t w- g+ k+ s m- e? |    "Bloody nose and burning eyes
>      Retro-hippy, music nut, bi and      |  Raised in laughter to the skies"
>          backrubber of devotion          |                 - Bruce Cockburn
>               --The end of confusion is the beginning of death--


-- 
   _  Alan R. Weiss   IBM AWS Austin-AIX Kernel   11501 Burnet Rd, Bld 905
 _| ~-. alan%auntbea.austin.ibm.com@ibmpa.awdpa.ibm.com | Austin, TX 78758
 \, *_} auntbea.austin.ibm.com!alan@ibmpa.awdpa.ibm.com | 512-838-8281
   \(   DISCLAIMER:  Working at, not speaking for, IBM  | alan@auntbea
Newsgroups: soc.bi