From: mlloyd@ocf.berkeley.edu (M. Lloyd)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Porn (was Re: Vikki's Problems With Kerry&Me)
Date: 17 Dec 1992 07:06:55 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: earthquake.berkeley.edu

rsr@soda.berkeley.edu (Roy S. Rapoport) writes:
>Mike, who I secretly adore, says:

*grin*  As U2 would have it, "A secret's something you tell one other
person."  Methinks, Roy, that you underestimate the size of your
audience :-)  But heck, the comment must just have been for the recent
muffins anyway.  Anyone who's been reading awhile probably had some
sense of that ... *chuckle*  I remember asking one friend to guess who
my net.connected lovers were, given only geographic hints.  Told "Well,
there's at least one in SF," the answer was an emphatic "Roy" ...

>->I was pro-Dworkin/MacKinnon.  I'd now call myself sympathetic to their
>->views, and still puzzling over the best stance.  (For anyone unsure,
>
>I see ... I'm really not trying to attack you, I'm trying to understand what
>the difference between being 'pro' Dworkin and being sympathetic to Dworkin
>is.  One of the more memorable things that I believe she's said is that all
>het intercourse is rape.  Do you believe this? Again, I'm not trying to
>debate you, as much as just try to understand your position.

Well, let me start by saying that I've never seen it substantiated that
Dworkin really said that.  I'm not teribly well read, so perhaps I just
haven't seen it, but I certainly have no basis for understanding her
conclusion, if it exists at all, without seeing her reasoning.

My agreement with Dworkin and MacKinnon is over pornography and law.
The latter person has pretty powerful credentials for speaking on the
latter topic (but given my constant irreverance I won't push that point
at all).  They have a concept of redefinition, which starts with saying
that obscenity definitions are inefficient, unworkable and incorrect.  I
agree wholeheartedly with that.  Things should not be censored because
they are "obscene".  However, they go on to define pornography as that
material which creates victims (primarily women) in a fairly direct and
demonstrable way.  If this is feasible (my faith has been shaken at this
point, but not destroyed), then the idea is to allow post-mortem
punishment of the distributors and producers of material which can be
shown, *on balance of probabilities* (a vital technicality which would
take too long to elucidate), to have incited or aggravated a particular
victimization (a rape, an assault, whatever).  The effect is then
two-fold: (1) it should be possible to remove or destroy the power of
censoring bodies (although the Canadian situation with customs appears
to have failed, for reasons I do not understand and would appreciate
theories on).  (2) the law would act as deterrent in some degree, making
purveyors responsible for the material they distribute, and for who they
distribute it to, in much the same way that a seller of alcohol is
responsible for selling dangerous cocktails or for serving the clearly
enebriated (sp?).

This is hardly trivial material, and a discussion of the generalities is
probably misplaced in soc.bi.  As queers we do have a substantial
interest in the issue, but I'm not sure if we want to have a discussion
of any specifically bi sides to this - I'm not sure what they would be.
Such decisions are, of course, at the mercy of you, gentle reader :-)

hugs
Mike



-- 
Mike Lloyd, B0/1 h- f- t w- g+ k+ s m- e? |    "Bloody nose and burning eyes
      Retro-hippy, music nut, bi and      |  Raised in laughter to the skies"
          backrubber of devotion          |                 - Bruce Cockburn
               --The end of confusion is the beginning of death--
Newsgroups: soc.bi