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