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?