From: dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Pornography (WAS: Is the Constitution the Bible?)
Date: 18 Dec 1992 23:22:59 GMT
Organization: Columbia University, Dept. of Biological Sciences.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

In article <1gtc4mINN86l@agate.berkeley.edu> bickis@skmath3.usask.ca (M. Bickis) writes:
>
[about pornography]
>
>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?

   Is it different from eating, and fighting wars? All the examples are
things that people do. It is up to you to show that there is a 
fundemental difference between the ways society approaches sex, and, say,
war.

> 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.

   As are all the other examples. As you said, different societies have
different mores. But all societies have mores about any things, not just
sex. Food certainly. Religion. War seems almost too obvious to mention.

[...]
>Our own culture seems rather unique in the casual way that sex is
>treated. 
>
   I have to say that I almost choked on this. I don't think sex is casual
in this society. The discussion we are in right now seems to rule that out.
I wouldn't even say that people have more sex now than in the past. I wouldn't
say that people are having sex younger than in the past either. I don't
suppose there is any proof either way.

>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. 

   My reaction to this is that it is just fluffy nonsense. You may not be
interested in my opinion, and that is fine.
   Discussions abot sex often degenerate into bad sociobiology arguments.
But you mustn't divorce sex from it's biological function. I really don't
see any evidence for this 'expression' argument. Sex certainly has been
and is used without any idea of 'love'.

>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.

   The philosophical argument against this is that if something is
degrading to everyone, how can it be seen as being degrading at all? One
person can be degraded relative to another. A group may be degraded as
compared to another group. Degredation must be relative. When you talk
about degrading humanity or sexuality, I can only think of it as being
relative to an invented and fictional idealized state.

[...]

>
>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.
>
   The only thing I can say here is that Eros was a fictional character. 
I guess I should ask you to define 'love', but that is another argument.

DanZ

-- 
This article is for entertainment purposes only. Any facts, opinions,
narratives or ideas contained herein are not necessarily true, and do
not necessarily represent the views of any particular person.  



-- 
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.