From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Pornography imbalance, right or wrong?
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 16:14:44 GMT

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:
>>[two more indents gone]
>>{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? Rich
>>>RL>, 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[p] 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.
>
>The reason it is a cycle is because the manifestations lie dormant for a
>period.  You have a cycle of: person reading porn; person objectifying woman;
>person getting further isolated; person reading more porn...

Once again, objectifying is as normal and healthy as breathing. Women -are-
objects, so are men. And it is a closed cycle you propose, involving only
the pornography and it's viewer. 
 
>Don't let me confuse you.  I did indeed switch tacks.
>
>>>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.
>
>This reminds me of the one where Lucy asked Charlie Brown if he would like to
>see a list of his faults.

I am not listing faults. I am pointing out that 'objectification' is not
a sexist issue, and normal. 
 
>>>                                        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.
>
>Then she hauled out the list before he could respond.

Then he evaded the issue...
 
>>>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.
>
>That's all?  That's not enough for you?  My feelings are very nifty things!
>I have a lot of natural goodness buttressing them as well!

They are indeed, but they are personal, and o value only to yourself. Hows
about describing -why- you feel this way, since you seem to have no evidence
of any sort except for feminist propaganda.
 
>>>(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.
>
>Not exactly.  I was responding to an earlier fellow, whose name I forget now,
>who told me sex = {male|female} and gender = {masculine|feminine}.  That is
>one delineation, though not necessarily the only one.  My usage was correct.

Notice the part about 'subclasses within a grammatical class'? This definition
does not say that 'gender=sex', but rather that gender is a grammatical subclass
within languages. The distinction is that -words- have gender, people are
either male or female, this is their sex. 
  
>>>>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.
>
>Agreed.  So why do you keep pestering me for evidence?

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?
 
>>>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.
>
>Something we can agree upon.  Hurrah!

[...]

>>>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 
>>>RL>a way as to 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.
>
>My point was it is not so ridiculous to treat social symptoms.  When someone
>is hemmorhaging, you cut the flow of blood before you treat the head wound.
>You also treat the head wound.  If you can ony treat the symptoms, it is
>better than doing nothing at all.  At the very least it is a place to start.

My point is that social happening are much more complex, and correspondingly
less well understood.
 
>>>                          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.
>
>Social symptom -- I used to call women girls.  I stopped calling women girls.
>It has improved my attitude and self-esteem, plus made some women feel more
>comfortable.
>
>>>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?
>
>They had heart and soul.  They cared.  Like Billy Joel said -- they didn't
>start the fire.  I am convinced that things would be even worse if not for
>the sixties spirit.  Things may be bad, but unless people tried back then, they
>would be even worse now.

Who is it then that started the fire? As for better, which social problems
from the sixties do you claim has been solved? There is a difference between
pointing out a problem and effecting a solution. There has been a lot of
finger pointing, and a lot of blaming. But not much problem solving.
 
[...]

>>>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, 
>>>RP>they 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. 
>
>Feedback looks can display cyclic behaviour, especially when damped by a
>chaotic environment.

You will not get damping with positive feedback. And while the system may go
into oscillations, this is not the same as a cyclic system.
 
>>>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.
>
>I never complained publically about your wasting my time, or anybody's wasting
>my time for that matter.  There's a difference between us, now isn't there.

You are the one who brought up the issue of wasting your time, were you not?
 
>Some of your posts have been good too.  I am not just saying that to return the
>compliment.
>
>>>-dave
>>Rich
>>payner@netcom.com
>
rich again


Newsgroups: alt.feminism