From: turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Pornography (WAS: Is the Constitution the Bible?)
Date: 19 Dec 1992 18:05:45 GMT
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Summary: Yay!  A challenge.
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

-*----
In article <1gtc4mINN86l@agate.berkeley.edu> bickis@skmath3.usask.ca (M. Bickis) writes:
> ...  Noone seems to have taken Russel Turpin's bait that anyone
> who questions that "ceteris paribus, things that lead to sexual
> arousal are good", is by definition a puritan.  Well, I'll bite. 
>
> 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? ...

Can one honestly take the stand that playing the piano the piano,
or reading usenet are human activities "with no *particular*
significance"?  These activities are morally *different* from
sex, but they are not morally insignificant nor lacking in
cultural mores.  Indeed, if one were to rank activities according
to the frequency with which they are a focus of cultural mores
and ethical prescriptions, I suspect that talking, listening, and
writing (of which Usenet participation is one example) would rank
right up there with sex.  Yet I am willing to assert that, 
ceteris paribus, communication is to be preferred over its lack!

> ... In fact, sexual activity has always been seen as something
> requiring restraint and restriction. ...

Pornography resides where sex intersects with verbal and
pictorial communication.  One might as well point out that with
very few exceptions, communication is something that most
cultures have "seen as something requiring restraint and
restriction." 

> My belief is that sex is meant as an expression of a particular
> kind of love, and any other use of it is a perversion and 
> debasement. ...

Here, I think, is the nub of your argument.  And the questions
abound.  "Sex is meant" by whom to be this?  The gods?  What do
you mean by "perversion and debasement"?  Is masturbation a
"perversion and debasement" because it is not an expression of a
"particular kind of love"?  And if masturbation is not a
"perversion and debasement," then why are masturbatory materials
a "perversion and debasement"?  (I might add that if you *are*
condemning masturbation, then yes, I would consider you a
puritan.)

> ... So I challenge Russell's assertion that sexual arousal per
> se is a good thing. ...

So far, I don't feel very challenged.

> ... Sexual arousal outside the context of a conjugal relationship
> is a bad thing. ...

So you *do* condemn masturbation!  "But can one honestly
take such a stand?"  Even the Catholic church has backed off
away from this.

> ... It detracts our attention from the true subject of our
> erotic energy ...

This is a theory of relationships for which I find little
evidence.  Why do you believe this?

Russell



-- 
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.