Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 (Tek) 9/26/83; site shark.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!hou3c!hocda!houxm!hogpc!houti!ariel!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!orca!shark!tims From: tims@shark.UUCP Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Re: Pornography Message-ID: <496@shark.UUCP> Date: Mon, 13-Feb-84 19:34:03 EST Article-I.D.: shark.496 Posted: Mon Feb 13 19:34:03 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 18-Feb-84 05:15:11 EST Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville OR Lines: 57 > A Definition: > Pornography is that which depicts people enjoying pain and > mistreatment. Also, that which celebrates violence as a valid form > of sexuality. Of course, if you define pornography that way, then perhaps, pornography is harmful. I emphasize the "perhaps" and suggest in no way that harmful should imply illegal. This definition also implies that 99% of the pornography that I expose myself to is not really pornography, nor is most of the stuff currently available. Making a false definition of pornography is a way of covering up the inexcusable act of attempting to ban all pornography. That is not, by the way, what the above quote was doing in the previous article. The point is that some pornography is violent, and some isn't. Don't attack it all on the basis of some part, you might just as well call every women feminist a lesbian. In any case, it cannot be denied that many people find pornography personally distasteful and attack negative examples in order to validate their personal vendettas against the whole. If it is the violence you really find disturbing, then attempt to remove violence from media in general, don't attempt to remove the media. Quote from Ray Bradbury: "Pornography does not promote rape, it promotes masturbation." > Pornography, which is almost > exclusively directed towards men, depicts women purely and simply as > sex objects. One glance at the "split beaver" shots in (say) > Hustler would convince you of this. Moreover, much of pornography > depicts women as subservient and abused by men. With this in mind, > is it any wonder that many women, I'm sure even Phyllis Schlafly, > oppose pornography. Alot of women enjoy pornography. It is directed towards men since they have classically been the major consumer. Have you ever taken a look at PlayGirl magazine? I have, it's every bit explicit as most men's pornographic magazines. Moreover, the men are depicted every bit as much as sex objects. What the Hell else do you expect from a piece of pornography? Of course the women, and the men too, are going to be depicted as sex objects, that's the whole point. If you want to see intellectual types, watch Masterpiece Theatre, not Deep Throat. A whole lot of pornography depicts women in no way being abused by men, yet that part which does is used as a flakey excuse to condemn all of it. ========= Responses are requested to the following question: QUESTION: Why would a women oppose a piece of pornography that depicted a man and a women enjoying each other in some non-violent act of oral sex and/or sexual intercourse?