From: auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Pornography imbalance, right or wrong?
Date: 5 Nov 92 21:01:53 GMT
Organization: Swarthmore College, PA

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:
RL>>Folks, I'm not even going to include the quoted texts anymore, as it doesn't
RL>>help.  I snagged most of them off the net today and will hold them for a long
RL>>time, case anybody needs them.  I'm gonna try to keep the future ones, also.

RL>>Rich, let's try and keep this short, eh?
RP>>Why start now???
RL>Because I'm tired of responding to *your* repetitive statements.
RL>This goes back and forth, back and forth, but somehow only -my- statements
RL>are repetitive. I hope the rest of your arguments are better than this.
RL>>My claims:
RL>>Pornography imbalance and discrimination are possibly linked in a cyclical way.
RL>>Evidence:  Recent changes in the cycle, caused by equalitarians, have made 
RL>>societal views on pornography change, particularly in regards to women in
RL>>pornography and women's enjoyment of pornography.
RP>>Changes in and of themselves do not indicate any sort of cycle. Nor would
RP>>a link establish a causal relationship. So what is the significance?
RL>Rich, there is no way one can prove or disprove the existence of this cycle.

RP>OK, so we have a hypothetical cycle. Can you outline even one cycle, or at
RP>least show a changing trend to could possibly be the beginning of some
RP>sort of cyclic change? If not, you seem have a hypothetical cycle with no
RP>theoretical cyclic relationship or cyclic data. Somehow this falls short
RP>of being compelling. 

Perhaps this cycle: The more people read pornography, the more they objectify
the pronographic object.  The more they read pornography, the more others read
pornography.  The more pornography is read, the more people are treated like
objects, dehumanizing members of the objectified group.

RL>>This, to me, brings up the question of whether or not there is *any* 
RL>>reason for the imbalance other than societal conditioning.
RP>>You seem quite certain on this issue already. 
RL>So do you.

RP>I am sure that you have demonstrated no problem of any sort. Any time you
RP>care to actually -define- the problem, rather than just calling it a
RP>problem, I am ready to read about it. We have already covered the point
RP>that different does not equate to problem, have we not?

Objectification of pornographic subjects.  When one treats people as icons
rather than as individuals, one acts towards individuals based upon their
group affiliation which smacks of bigotry.

RL>>You seem to have claimed that:
RL>>Mere biological differences are sufficient to explain the imbalance. 
RP>>You have yet to prove that it is not, nor that it is even not a factor.
RP>>BTW, "Mere biological differences"? Have you risen above your biological
RP>>heritage? 
RL>Just giving you equal treatment.

RP>The biological and developmental differences are well documented and
RP>the material can be found at any library or bookstore.

Perhaps, you are talking about hormonal and neurological differences.  Perhaps
the physiological mechanisms of arousal.  Either way, I do not feel that these
biological differences are sufficient to explain the dichotomy of pornographic
consumption across gender lines.

(For those interested:

1. gen.der \'jen-d*r\ n [ME gendre, fr. MF genre, gendre, fr. L gener-, 
   genu]s birth, race, kind, gender - more at KIN 1: SEX 2a: any of two or 
   more subclasses within a grammatical class of a language (as noun, pronoun, 
   adjective, verb) that are partly arbitrary but also partly based on 
   distinguishable characteristics such as shape, social rank, manner of 
   existence, or sex and that determine agreement with and selection of other 
   words or grammatical forms 2b: membership of a word or a grammatical form 
   in such a subclass 2c: an inflectional form showing membership in such a 
   subclass
2. gender \-d(*-)rin\ vb or gen.der.ing [ME gendren, fr. MF gendrer, fr. L 
   generare - more at GENERATE : ENGENDER
)

>Please be so good as to document that, as you seem to claim, biology is
>-not- a factor.

Would it suffice to show biology is not the principle factor.  Intuitively, I
would say not.  Then again my intuition is not always so great and is not a
great basis for scientific validification.  Presumably there could be some sort
of cross-cultural sociological survey which could shed some light upon this
issue.  All in all, this issue seems difficult to prove.  The social sciences
would be so much easier if we could set up controlled experiments using humans.

RL>>Now, if I'm right, and you're wrong, will you at least stop calling this 
RL>>a non-issue and discuss it?  Otherwise, read no further. 
RP>>You have yet to discuss it, you just keep repeating it. Since there seems
RP>>to be no evidence either way, this may be all that can be done anyway.
RL>And you just repeat your views and ignore what evidence is provided.

RP>You have provided no evidence, just arguments in need of support.

Far be it from me to give evidence for the ideas I espouse.

RL>>If I'm right, then isn't it possible that altering the pornography imbalance,
RL>>either way, will affect discrimination?  [I freely admit that there may be no
RL>>way other than censorship, which is *not* a valid solution for other reasons.]
RP>>Any change to -anything- will affect the entire system, so no matter what
RP>>you do, I expect the balance would change. And again, the problem seems
RP>>to be that women do not buy as much porno as men, -not- the other way 
RP>>way around. Therefore men are not the problem, assuming that there is
RP>>some problem to begin with. You have never demonstrated that either.
RP>>It was at least implied when you claimed discrimination as the cause. 
RP>>With this new cyclic theory, there does not even seem to be any problem 
RP>>that needs to be solved.
RL>Discrimination is the problem that needs to be solved.  Altering the porno
RL>imbalance is something that could affect the entire system in such a way as to
RL>reduce discrimination.

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

A fever is also an effect.  This does not mean that lowering a fever simply to
lower a fever is a bad thing.  By focusing upon symptoms one can often do good.
By changing awareness of the problem, one can heighten sensitivity to the
issues involved.  I know I sound like something out of the sixties, but the
sixties were good as far as I am concerned.

RL>>PS:I double-checked the texts, and you trimmed out my first cyclic statement.
RP>>Since you dropped it as well, and posted a -lot- without even noticing that
RP>>it ws gone, I have a hard time believing that it was what you were saying,
RP>>or even central to what you were saying.
RL>>This explains why you first "saw" it just recently, rather than a couple 
RL>>posts ago.  If you want it, I'll e-mail them to you, or you can just cut 
RL>>this out and call it done.
RP>>Call what done?
RL>Well, if you'll stop complaining about a "new" idea that isn't, I won't
RL>complain about your cutting it out in the first place.  Otherwise we can waste
RL>lots of bandwidth on a petty argument.  Take your pick.

RP>You have yet to define any sort of problem. If there -is- some sort of
RP>cycle, then the need for a problem is greatly reduced. Like the tides, they
RP>go in, and they go out. Do not count on high tide forever, it will
RP>eventually go out.

I believe the cycle Rick describes is a dynamic one, like the kind that causes
intermittance.  Like a cycle of violence or an ideal fusion reaction, the
pornographic cycle is an amplitive, or self-reinforcing cycle.  Constructive
interference, dig?

RL>Actually, I'm wondering if you aren't so entrenched at this point that I'm
RL>wasting my time in the first place.

RP>You have already wasted a great deal of my time, but what else is new. 

You don't have to respond.

-dave
Newsgroups: alt.feminism