From: bickis@skmath3.usask.ca (M. Bickis)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Pornography (WAS: Is the Constitution the Bible?)
Date: 18 Dec 1992 20:25:58 GMT
Organization: University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

In article <1giqsvINNso0@agate.berkeley.edu> dwelch@devnull.mpd.tandem.com 
(Dan Welch) writes in reply to Janis Maria Cortese:
>>I have just heard about all the defenses for it, and I have not heard an
>>ORIGINAL one is years.  None of the ones I've heard so far make any
>>sense.

>Why should pornography have to be defended, anyway?  
                           [ ... ]
>My position is to assume that it is a good thing; let's hear some arguments
>from you about why you think it isn't.  Real ones, not just what you feel.
>I have yet to hear an anti-pornography argument that doesn't, implicitly
>or otherwise, begin with, "Well, personally, I find it offensive because..."
>Tell me why it is bad in an *objective* sense.

I have to agree with Janis on this one.  She probably has her own
retort, but let me toss in my two cents worth.  Noone seems to have
taken Russel Turpin's bait that anyone who questions that "ceteris
paribus, things that lead to sexual arousal are good", is by definition
a puritan.  Well, I'll bite. 

IF one considers sex to be just another human activity with no
*particular* significance, then I suppose the fuss over pornography (or
the "sex trade" generally) appears rather silly.  But can one honestly
take such a stand? Is fucking no different, morally speaking, from
farting, playing the piano, or reading usenet? I don't think any culture
has ever looked at it this way.  In fact, sexual activity has always
been seen as something requiring restraint and restriction.  (I know
sexual mores differ among cultures, but the point is that there *are*
mores, and they are taken seriously in the culture.  It's also true that
the taboos may be violated by some people, but these are seen as
*violations* and not just as individuals freely expressing themselves.)
Our own culture seems rather unique in the casual way that sex is
treated. 

My belief is that sex is meant as an expression of a particular kind of
love, and any other use of it is a perversion and debasement. 
Pornography constitutes such a use.  I don't hold the view that
pornography is particularly degrading to *women*, I think it is
degrading to humanity and to sexuality.  The consumers of pornography are
just as degraded as  the producers.  So I challenge Russell's assertion
that sexual arousal per se is a good thing.  Sexual arousal outside the
context of a conjugal relationship is a bad thing.  It detracts our
attention from the true subject of our erotic energy to the pursuit of
mere self-gratification with objectified images of persons.

Consumers of pornography are like people who want to stimulate their
appetite for junk food.  Indulging ones *natural* appetite for junk food
or sex is not going to improve ones physical or spiritual health. 
Why would one want to *increase* that appetite?

I am by no means a puritan.  I find nothing offensive about erotic art
as a celebration of loving sexuality.  But unlike Russell, I do
distinguish pornography from erotica.  I probably draw the line
differently than some, though, who would consider "pornography" only
that which is implicitly or explicitly violent.  I don't think that's
the point.  Pornography is by definition about sex, not about violence.
I could not consider something erotic unless it was about love.  Eros,
after all, was the god of love, not the god of fucking.  Although I
can't imagine something violent being erotic, there is a lot of
non-violent pornography out there that is definitely not erotic.

[Janis:]
>>Besides, I have male FRIENDS who read the stuff.  I simply will not get
>>in a romantic/sexual relationship with a man who does.

[Dan:]
>In my experience, the best people in the world, the ones you would want
>to be involved with, are the ones who don't tolerate the prejudging of
>others.  

But it's not prejudging we're talking about here.  Evidently the issue
             ~~~
is important enough to Janis that knowing that a man consumes
pornography is sufficient information to tell her that any hope of
intimacy is futile.  I don't think *I* could ever get serious about a
woman who consumed pornography.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>bickis@math.usask.ca<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Mik Bickis       \,,,       .*#*.  \    University of Saskatchewan
Department of        \,,,  ^\\|//^  ```\   Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
Mathematics & Statistics \   )|(        ```\   Canada      S7N 0W0
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<S|A|S|K|A|T|C|H|E|W|A|N|>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>



-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
newsgroup is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.