Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site dciem.UUCP
Path: utzoo!dciem!mmt
From: mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor)
Newsgroups: net.women,net.politics
Subject: Re: Child molestation and pornography
Message-ID: <719@dciem.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 18-Feb-84 15:00:02 EST
Article-I.D.: dciem.719
Posted: Sat Feb 18 15:00:02 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 18-Feb-84 18:23:06 EST
References: <580@orca.UUCP>
Organization: D.C.I.E.M., Toronto, Canada
Lines: 31

===========
A Definition:

Pornography is that which depicts people enjoying pain and
mistreatment.  Also, that which celebrates violence as a valid form
of sexuality.
Ariel Shattan
===========

Isn't this a re-definition rather than a definition?  It is certainly not
the definition of what is sold in pornography shops where porn is legal.

The whole debate about pornography has been turned around by this emphasis
on violence.  Violence has no place in pornography, any more than bathtub
gin (prohibition-induced) belongs in a wine cellar.  Why is there so much
violence in N. American pornography that people are beginning to think
that violence is a core component of it?  Isn't it probable that Prohibition
is one cause, and the US penchant for violence in most entertainment
another cause?  It is quite wrong and misleading to use the fact that
exposure to violence desensitizes the viewers as an argument against
pornography.  It should be used as an argument against the portrayal of
violence, a fight that has been going on a long time with no apparent
result.

I suspect that the sexual nature of pornography is the reason people
really want it suppressed, and they use the intrusion of violence as
an excuse to legitimate their views.
-- 

Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt