From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Pornography imbalance, right or wrong?
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 05:16:29 GMT

In article <V9RSBGV3@cc.swarthmore.edu> auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer) writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.060324.1771@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:

{oops...}

>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.

There is no cycle here, you have only described a system with positive
feedback. And I think the feedback look is flawed anyway. The part about
"treating others like objects" is wholly unecessary. Porn seems to be
prevelant when there is a -lack- of personal contact (read that, people
to objectify). I suspect the feedback path should be more like, the more
porn is used for sexual gratification, the less personal contact, and the
more porn is needed. The objectification bullpucky is not only unecessary,
but of no special significance. You objectify anti-feminists all the time.
It is the human way of categorizing things in an attempt to extract order
from the chaos around us. Everybody does it -all- the time in all contexts.
It is not only -not- wrong, it is necessary.
 
>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.  

See above, shall I start a list of all the things you objectify? This is
basically feminist propoganda.

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

When one puts people in bins (bigot, feminist. anti-feminist, republican,
democrat, mother, father, zillions more, -all- significant) one does the
same. You have just done it, I suggest you take the appropriate action for
this, whatever that might be.
 
>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.

So this is all you offer as evidence, your feelings. 
 
>(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
>)

So now you are classifying people by gender. Now that you have objectified
than, you can treat them accordingly.
 
>>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.

Since all humans live in cultures, all will show cultural bias. And if you
expect something as clear as causality, the 'social sciences' may be the
wrong place to look. At best you might get a correlation of some sort.
 
>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.

So far I have to go along with this.
 
>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.  

The causal nature of fevers is well understood, as is what to do and why.

>                          By focusing upon symptoms one can often do good.

I am not aware of any cases where treating social symptoms has done anything
but make matters worse.

>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.

Then why are the problems of the sixties still here today. What were they good
for?
 
>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?

There is nothing cyclic about positive feedback. The system will eventually
destroy itself. 
 
>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.

It is always concievable that you will come up with a good answer. And
some of your responses have been good. Likewise, you do not have to respond
to my posts either.
 
>-dave


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism