From: mlloyd@ocf.berkeley.edu (M. Lloyd)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Porn (was Re: Vikki's Problems With Kerry&Me)
Date: 18 Dec 1992 07:44:27 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: earthquake.berkeley.edu

alan@auntbea.austin.ibm.com (Alan R. Weiss) writes:  
[Alan Weiss?  Alan Weiss?  I know that name .. hasn't posted in a while
.. <rummage> oohh, shit!  You mean I *still* haven't replied to that
mail?  whoops!  Public apoligies for a private failure!]

>mlloyd@ocf.berkeley.edu (M. Lloyd) writes:
>>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.

Sheesh, Alan!  Call me a wimp, but can't we keep this a little more
level-headed?  Given the hot-button fiesta we've had around here
recently, I think a little less vitriol may be called for.

I've not read her porn, but from what you say I suspect Pat Califia
might take a different view (whether she finds the stuff gets her hot or
not).  I also don't see the Dworkin/MacKinnon law stuff (and note
that I keep dragging MacKinnon into this for a reason) as an assault on
my rights.  I treat it without having to get into Dworkin's own
pornography, or whatever.  The *whole*point* of her and MacKinnon's
approach is that the aesthetic judgement of obscenity is irrelevant and
an impediment to the goal: hacking at the supports (nb: *not* causes) of
bad gender attitudes and victimization.

>>  They have a concept of redefinition, which starts with saying
>>that obscenity definitions are inefficient, unworkable and incorrect.  
>
>Bullshit.  (Hey, pretty macho, eh? :-)

Yeah.  Fraid so.

>  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.

That's not enough of a refutation for me.  We don't *have* a good
definition of obscenity which performs the function current laws are
meant for, or that can be amended to be a bit more enlightened.  Current
standards include the chestnut of "appealing to the prurient interest."
Hell, this newsgroup does that!  You said so to me once, Alan.

>EVERY single reputable study has shown NO CORRELATION between
>porn and rape.  None.

Got a review of *all* studies to back that up?  I'm afraid I tend to
downrate statistics presented while shouting.

>The Porn Business is voluntary

*WAY* over the top as a generalization.  I'm not going to make the
"snuff" mistake (I know, I know.  No police force has ever found one).
But how about Lovelace?  Sure, perhaps even the majority of involvement
is voluntary, but hey, some pimps are decent human beings too.  It's not
a direct comparison, but some abuse occurs in the production of this
stuff.

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

Interesting.  I'm not going to include it if you'd rather not, but can
you clarify where the lines are drawn?  What's obscene (or whatever you
want to call it) about movies of sex with children?  What about animals?
Is that obscene?  Mutilation?  Hard core SM?  Soft?  What are the lines?
And if it's subjective, who gets the big bad Final Word, unless we go
for utter freedom to publish anything and damn the consequences?

I think I'll leave it there.  No reason to light too many touch papers
at once.

Mike, still not sure we should be doing this here


-- 
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--