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 16:35:00 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.201420.5475@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.060324.1771@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
[just us]
[...]
>>>>>Rich, let's try and keep this short, eh?
>>>>
>>>>Why start now???
>>>
>>>Because I'm tired of responding to *your* repetitive statements.
>> 
>>This goes back and forth, back and forth, but somehow only -my- statements
>>are repetitive. I hope the rest of your arguments are better than this.
>
>The emphasis was not meant to imply that *I* was not repetitive.  You
>complained elsewhere that I had been repetitive.  I merely wanted to point out
>that we are equally guilty of this.

No, I complain that rather than offering supporting evidence, you have
repeated your claim. You can repeat it forever, the argument will not
gain validity.
 
>If you agree, please just cut all this out, as people have complained to me in
>e-mail that we are too repetitive.
 
No progress has been made. But you have changed your claim three times.
1) discrimination causes the differental purchasing of porno.
2) there is some cyclic variation (it is unclear to me who is too blame).
3) the differential purchasing of porno causes discrimination.

None of these arguments have been supported.
 
>>>>>My claims:
>>>>>
>>>>>Pornography imbalance and discrimination are possibly linked in a 
>>>>>cyclical way. Evidence: Recent changes in the cycle, caused by 
>>>>>equalitarians, have made societal views on pornography change, 
>>>>>particularly in regards to women in pornography and women's 
>>>>>enjoyment of pornography.
>>>>
>>>>Changes in and of themselves do not indicate any sort of cycle. Nor would
>>>>a link establish a causal relationship. So what is the significance?
>>>
>>>Rich, there is no way one can prove or disprove the existence of this cycle.
>> 
>>OK, so we have a hypothetical cycle. Can you outline even one cycle, or at
>>least show a changing trend to could possibly be the beginning of some
>>sort of cyclic change? If not, you seem have a hypothetical cycle with no
>>theoretical cyclic relationship or cyclic data. Somehow this falls short
>>of being compelling. 
>
>Did you somehow miss that changing trend we noted earlier?

No, only the cyclic part. An increase in women purchacing porno is not
sufficient to demonstrate a cycle, although it is necessary. Suppose that
the consumption goes up, and stays up? No cycle. 
 
>The one that linked the women's movement with the increase in female-oriented
>porn...you know, the one that was originally given by someone [rini?] about 4
>posts ago...you know, the one that is paraphrased by me as Evidence about 10
>lines above your question.
>
>Why don't you get back to me when you've *read* the post?
 
You have yet to post anything indicative of a cycle.
 
>>The biological and developmental differences are well documented and
>>the material can be found at any library or bookstore.
>>
>>Please be so good as to document that, as you seem to claim, biology is
>>-not- a factor.
>
>1.  I have *never* claimed that biology is not a factor.
>2.  Specifically what biological differences cause an imbalance in pornography?
>    Name *one* such documented claim!
 
I have, but you seem to not have read what I posted. <sigh>
 
>>The imbalance is not a cause, but an effect of a great many things. This
>>means that to change thie balance, you -must- change something else. What
>>is it that you plan to change?
>
>Well, since you insist the imbalance cannot, in turn, cause discrimination (eg
>cause people to have differing views on male and female sexuality), then of
>course we would have to change something else.

The very word 'balance' is incorrect, as there is not, and never has been
any sort of balance. Nor is there any clear reason why there should be,
other than the super-simplistic {men and women are equal, therefore they
-should- do everything equally}. 

>And, of course, since you insist that the imbalance is an effect of biology,
>then it is absolutely ludicrous to suggest any changes.

I insist that biology is a -factor-. And one which you refuse to consider.
I guess it does not meet your political criteria or somesuch.

[...] bit bucket fodder
 
>"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu

Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism