From: bickis@skmath3.usask.ca (M. Bickis)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Pornography (WAS: Is the Constitution the Bible?)
Date: 22 Dec 1992 22:51:20 GMT
Organization: University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

In article <1gtmgjINNak8@agate.berkeley.edu> dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu 
(Daniel Zabetakis) writes in reply to me:
>>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 never suggested that.  But there is a fundamental difference between things
like sex and war, and things like playing the piano or the computer.
                               [ ... ]
>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.

Yes, but the mores about all these other things are not being questioned. 
Can you imagine someone declaring on usenet: "War is a good thing!",
"Why does war have to be defended?  Shouldn't the opponents of war
explain why it is a bad thing?"

>>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.

Maybe not as casual as you would like, but it is treated far more
casually than in most other times and places.  There are some obvious
explanations for this.  Easy birth control and antibiotics have
minimized many of the physical consequences of uninhibited copulation.
Women's increased independence has freed them from having to depend on a
(hopefully loyal) husband for material support.  But now we have the 
spectre of AIDS, which seems to have put a damper on things.

>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 wasn't suggesting that.  I was talking about attitude.  In the past,
sex was taken seriously.  

>   Discussions abot sex often degenerate into bad sociobiology arguments.
>But you mustn't divorce sex from it's biological function. 

I don't think sociobiology (bad or otherwise) is relevant here.  The
usual argument would be that men should have as many partners as
possible, in order to maximize the prevalence of their genes.  That's
not what I'm talking about.  Closer to the mark might be Desond Morris'
(The Naked Ape) suggestion that the function of mutually pleasurable
coitus in humans (apparently quite unique in the animal world) is that
it encourages the formation of long-term pairings which is important for
the nurturing of the young.

>>I think [pornography] 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? 
>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.

How about "a desirable and idealized state"?

>   The only thing I can say here is that Eros was a fictional character. 

Mythical, not fictional.

>I guess I should ask you to define 'love', 

It's impossible to define, but most people recognize it when they
experience it.  If you really want to know more about it, I could send
you a reading list.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>bickis@math.usask.ca<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Mik Bickis       \,,,       .*#*.  \    University of Saskatchewan
Department of        \,,,  ^\\|//^  ```\   Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
Mathematics & Statistics \   )|(        ```\   Canada      S7N 0W0
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<S|A|S|K|A|T|C|H|E|W|A|N|>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>



-- 
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.