From: dwelch@devnull.mpd.tandem.COM (Dan Welch)
Subject: Re: Is pornography uniquely attack?
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Organization: Tandem Computers (MPD) Austin, TX
Date: 21 Dec 92 23:40:56 GMT

In article <1gkv56INNed0@im4u.cs.utexas.edu> turpin@cs.utexas.EDU (Russell Turpin) writes:
>------
>
>In article <1giqsvINNso0@agate.berkeley.edu> dwelch@devnull.mpd.tandem.com (Dan Welch) writes:
>> Why should pornography have to be defended, anyway?  Why is there
>> this unspoken assumption that it *is* bad, and must be proved
>> worthwhile? ...
>
>Its alleged iniquity is neither an "assumption" nor "unspoken," but
>rather the claim of vocal arguments (though not, I think, very good
>arguments).

I think you are wrong on this (that it is a claim, not that the claims
aren't very good).  If you asked twenty Pat Averages what their
opinion of pornography was, I think you would get a pretty even
feeling that it was considered "bad", or at the very least "naughty",
which in America practically amounts to the same thing.  This is the
sense I get from people.  Ask someone who has never really thought
about the question, and see what the response is.

In the very thread that my first article was posted in, Janet C. asked
for defenses of pornography -- and, in the lack of those, was going to
go on believing it to be bad.

>> ... We don't see this with other "vices", television, alcohol,
>> etc. ...
>
>*We* may not see this, but *I* frequently see similar attacks on
>television and alcohol, and corresponding defenses of them.

By individuals only, though.  Society as a whole excepts things such
as television and alcohol as a given, in a way that pornography isn't.
That is, such things aren't really considered vices, since virtually
everybody uses them, and there is no apparent immediate harm.

Which raises an interesting question: how is pornography different?
The only immediate "harm" is sexual arousal . . . well, I guess I just
answered my own question.

>To mention but one example, there was a debate between Camille
>Paglia, defending TV, and another writer attacking it in an issue of
>either Atlantic Monthly or Harper's not too many months ago.  Perhaps
>Dan Welch does not frequent the forums where these other alleged
>vices are attacked and defended.

Well, I don't read Atlantic Monthly or Harper's, but I do see attacks
on television.  Mostly, though, these are voices crying out in a
storm.  What is a typical reaction to a diatribe against television?
"Yeah, yeah", with a dismissive wave of the hand; or at most,
agreement, "but so what?"

Pornography, though, is constantly vilified as an "evil", and a plague
on society.  Just the other week, on the evening news, the reporter
was talking about a parents' movement to "clean up the city" by
shutting down porno stores.  The story went on with, "If you would
like to help get rid of the filth in Austin, call . . ." etc.  Have
you ever heard of a parents' movement to boycott television stores?

Ask yourself this question: suppose you went over to one of your
children's teacher's house, a perfectly nice person, and saw a copy or
several of Playboy or Playgirl on the coffee table.  Would you then be
uneasy having this person teaching your children?  Most people would
say yes, even some who read the magazines themselves.  But what would
your reaction be to a big-screen television, or a well-stocked bar?
Chances are, admiration of good taste in the liquor, or enviousness of
an expensive television, not worry that this person spends his/her
time watching television or drinking.

This is what worries me: is that people who consume pornography are,
in a very real way, branded as "bad".  People think because someone
likes to read Playboy, that that's *all* he likes to do, that all of
his opinions are shaped by it, that sex is the driving force of his
life and Playboy, and Playboy alone, are how he forms his value
systems.  Because it shows beautiful, idealized women, he can't
picture women any other way.  Any and all other influences are going
to be overridden by this one.  This is utter nonsense, completely
without value, and yet I would say most people think this way.  Why is
that?

Daniel Welch

--
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
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.