From: auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer)
Subject: Re: Pornography imbalance, right or wrong?
Organization: Swarthmore College, PA
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 22:06:09 GMT

In article <1992Nov8.161444.5272@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>In article <XXSSBVBG@cc.swarthmore.edu> auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov6.051629.21275@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
[Cyclic discussion...]
DA>The reason it is a cycle is because the manifestations lie dormant for a
DA>period.  You have a cycle of: person reading porn; person objectifying woman;
DA>person getting further isolated; person reading more porn...

RP>Once again, objectifying is as normal and healthy as breathing. Women -are-
RP>objects, so are men. And it is a closed cycle you propose, involving only
RP>the pornography and it's viewer.

Let me clarify what I mean by objectification.  IMO, objectification takes
place when one ignores a human's needs and humanity, seeing them rather as
objects.  I am not denying people's material natures, but rather stating
that a preoccupation with people's physical outward appearance can be
dehumanizing and demeaning.

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.
DA>>Perhaps, you are talking about hormonal and neurological differences. Perhaps
DA>>the physiological mechanisms of arousal. Either way, I do not feel that these
DA>>biological differences are sufficient to explain the dichotomy of 
DA>>pornographic consumption across gender lines.
RP>>So this is all you offer as evidence, your feelings.
DA>That's all?  That's not enough for you?  My feelings are very nifty things!
DA>I have a lot of natural goodness buttressing them as well!

RP>They are indeed, but they are personal, and of value only to yourself. Hows
RP>about describing -why- you feel this way, since you seem to have no evidence
RP>of any sort except for feminist propaganda.

Personal observation.  When in high school I had had crushes on girls, but
never anything properly described as lustful.  Pornography held no appeal
for me.  The first time pornography held any appeal to me was after an
encounter with homophobia.  A friend of mine who was uncomfortable with his
own sexuality asked me why I never looked at girls while we walked down the
beach, so I made it a point to stare at the next woman in a bikini who passed
by.  He told me to be more discrete.

I am a healthy guy with a healthy libido, and I know my interest in pornography
and ogling beautiful women is primarily a response to a homophobic society
rather than something I was born with.  My suspician is that my experience is
not unique.

An external form is just that.  It has no relevance outside what we give it.
We give it too much signifigance which distorts the value of the people who
we misjudge based upon their physical appearance.  The value of people should
be measured by their honesty, compassion, and courage, not their beauty.
Thus when we esteem the beautiful, we distort the more important human values
out of recognition.

|[DSA webster quote]
|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
[...]
>Notice the part about 'subclasses within a grammatical class'? This definition
>does not say that 'gender=sex', but rather [...]

I beg to differ.  All further replies by me on this issue will be handled via
email.

[...]
>The fact that culture cannot be eliminated does not mean that there is 
>a lack of evidence for the biological argument, and indeed there is no lack.
>But you refuse to even consider it, why is that?

I do consider it.  It may be valid.  I prefer to believe that I have more
control over my responses than my biological programming.  Since I have had a
good deal of control in this area, I have no interest in sacrificing the
control I have over my responses in favor of some theory which denies I possess
this control.

[DSA/RP silliness and DSA cold analogy deleted for brevity]
DA>My point was it is not so ridiculous to treat social symptoms.  When someone
DA>is hemmorhaging, you cut the flow of blood before you treat the head wound.
DA>You also treat the head wound.  If you can ony treat the symptoms, it is
DA>better than doing nothing at all.  At the very least it is a place to start.
RP>My point is that social happening are much more complex, and correspondingly
RP>less well understood.

Perhaps more complex, but no better understood.  The human method for dealing
with complexities we do not understand is to either a) construct abstract
models or b) gather empirical evidence.  Some prefer the latter; I like the
former as it requires more of the sort of thought I find interesting.

The construction of abstract models is typically accompanied by aiding
analogies such as the application of successful medical strategies in
dealing with complex/anomalous behaviours to complex/anomalous social
behaviours.  Why do doctors reduce fevers?  Because it works.  Could they
figure out how to route a cold in the first place so they don't have to
worry about the symptoms?  Some day they will, but for now, they have
to use ice compresses.

Bringing this back to the original point, we should fight the social symptoms
even as we search for a more radical cure to society's ills.  The British
have a nifty expression called "muddling along".  What we must do I believe is
muddle along.  We try this and that because it works and if it does not we find
something that works better.  Campaigning against social irritants like
pornography is part of a purification process.

I like pornography, but I do not think that just because I like something it
is good.  I try not to objectify women, and thus, I am certain the effects of
pornography upon me are not as bad as they are upon others, nonetheless porn
is dangerous and perhaps this phase of my life should be drawn to a close
especially since it does less and less for me, now that the novelty is
beginning  to wear off, and I really do not like its political implications.

[The Sixties have been erased]
DA>They had heart and soul.  They cared.  Like Billy Joel said -- they didn't
DA>start the fire.  I am convinced that things would be even worse if not for
DA>the sixties spirit.  Things may be bad, but unless people tried back then, they
DA>would be even worse now.

RP>Who is it then that started the fire?

"It was always burnin' since the world been turnin'." -BJ

RP>As for better, which social problems
RP>from the sixties do you claim has been solved?

You always want proofs and solutions.  Life isn't like that.  I will answer
anyway, the activism of the sixties helped alleviate for a while the misery
and suffering of many.  They certainly were a psychically healthier times
than today.  There was a sense of optimism; a sense that government could be
good.

Maybe new thinking is in order.  Perhaps they were overly optimistic in the
sixties.  I think a lot of sixties idealism is just as pertinant today as it
was back then.  I continue to assert that only when we give up our idealism
and striving for equality of justice do we start to grow cynical.  The lesson
of the sixties was that idealism cannot do everything everyone had hoped for,
not that idealism should be discarded.

RP>There is a difference between
RP>pointing out a problem and affecting a solution. There has been a lot of
RP>finger pointing, and a lot of blaming. But not much problem solving.

I do not claim to be an activist.  Personally, I feel somewhat lacking.  Swat
is a tough school with loads of work.  I know it is an excuse and I could make
time.  (Obviously I spend enough time on the net.)  Theoretically however I
laud activism, and in my earlier days of Amnesty I actually saw some results,
though now I suffer ennui from looking at a depressed jobs market and a
semester overloaded with work.  I sound like such the typical swattie.

[More cycles]
DA>Feedback looks can display cyclic behaviour, especially when damped by a
DA>chaotic environment.
RP>You will not get damping with positive feedback. And while the system may go
RP>into oscillations, this is not the same as a cyclic system.

Oscillations look cyclic to me.  Everyone sees cycles everywhere.  There is
supposedly a stock market cycle.  If a periodic function can be fitted to a
displayed pattern people call it a cycle.  I guess I was following a
fashionable vogue.  I am uncomfortable with this explanation, though, as I
believe there is something cyclic to pornography.  Maybe I am looking at the
wrong part of the system in isolation?

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. 
DA>>You don't have to respond.
RP>>It is always concievable that you will come up with a good answer. And
RP>>some of your responses have been good. Likewise, you do not have to respond
RP>>to my posts either.
DA>I never complained publically about your wasting my time, or anybody's wasting
DA>my time for that matter.  There's a difference between us, now isn't there.
RP>You are the one who brought up the issue of wasting your time, were you not?

The above chain of attribution seems to implicate Rick as the first to note the
occurrence time wasting.  His observation of the phenomena seemed to be with
exasperation over your intransigance.  Your ire seemed, although I could be
mistaken, to a more general sense of loss.  My mention was a response to your
expression mirrored inwardly by my own dismay over time's passage.

DA>Some of your posts have been good too.  I am not just saying that to return
DA>the compliment.
[Signatures deleted to protect the guilty]
-dave
Newsgroups: alt.feminism