NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/soc/feminism/3023

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-23 | 5.8 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!agate!remarque.berkeley.edu!muffy
From: [e-mail] (Benjamin Renaud)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Pornography (WAS: Is the Constitution the Bible?)
Date: 23 Dec 1992 19:51:28 GMT
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
Lines: 96
Sender: [e-mail] (Muffy Barkocy)
Approved: [e-mail]
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (M. Bickis) writes:

]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? I don't think any culture
]has ever looked at it this way.

It very much depends on what the cultural stigma associated with sex
is in a given culture. Some culture certainly have- Examples abund.  I
think it's useful to point out first that any of the activity you just
mentionned has social aspects related to it: you are not supposed to
fart in public, usenet has some form of etiquette, you play the piano
only in certain circumstances. Likewise, sex in early lutherian europe
was looked upon as very casual. Many black african tribes (as well as
early tribes from madagascar) considered sex in a very casual manner.
Certainly certain rules existed, but it was like any other activity.


In fact, sexual activity has always
]been seen as something requiring restraint and restriction.  (I know
]sexual mores differ among cultures, but the point is that there *are*
]mores, and they are taken seriously in the culture.  It's also true that
]the taboos may be violated by some people, but these are seen as
]*violations* and not just as individuals freely expressing themselves.)
]Our own culture seems rather unique in the casual way that sex is
]treated.

I disagree with both these assertions. Not all societies have "taboos"
about sex, by taboo, i mean particular forbidden aspect uniquely
associated with sex (again the examples quoted above apply.)
Secondly, our society, i believe is one of the most marked and
uncasual (i don't know what a good word would be, formal? stiff?)
about sex as there ever was. By our society i mean the US of A and
Canada.

]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.

Is "meant"? is this a religious belief? Sex, to me at least, is meant
(which i see as has been developed by human beings in an evolutionary
process) to reproduce and perpetuate the race. I will readily agree
with you that it is perfectly well adapted, in our society, for the
expression of a particular kind of love. But, to keep in mind the
other cultures, so was cannibalism (and still is actually) for certain
african tribes.

I disagree that any other use of sex is debasing and perverted.  Sex
can provide a great deal of physical pleasure, which i think is quite
worthwhile, as well as make babies, which i also think is quite
worthwhile, even if any of the three uses mentionned (love, pleasure
and babies) are performed separatly or together.

]Pornography constitutes such a use.  I don't hold the view that
]pornography is particularly degrading to *women*, I think it is
]degrading to humanity and to sexuality.  The consumers of pornography are
]just as degraded as  the producers.  So I challenge Russell's assertion
]that sexual arousal per se is a good thing.  Sexual arousal outside the
]context of a conjugal relationship is a bad thing.  It detracts our
]attention from the true subject of our erotic energy to the pursuit of
]mere self-gratification with objectified images of persons.

The true subject of our erotic energy can vary from people to people.
I love to direct my erotic energy towards the goal of experincing ever
greater pleasure, and i also like (better) to use it towards the goal
you describe. I also think that other people are perfectly respectable
human beings if they have other goals in mind (as long as these goals
do not include the intention of harming someone for the sake of it)


]I am by no means a puritan.  I find nothing offensive about erotic art
]as a celebration of loving sexuality.  But unlike Russell, I do
]distinguish pornography from erotica.  I probably draw the line
]differently than some, though, who would consider "pornography" only
]that which is implicitly or explicitly violent.  I don't think that's
]the point.  Pornography is by definition about sex, not about violence.
]I could not consider something erotic unless it was about love.  Eros,
]after all, was the god of love, not the god of fucking.  Although I
]can't imagine something violent being erotic, there is a lot of
]non-violent pornography out there that is definitely not erotic.

Certainly is- the point i think is what role you see for sexuality. My
feeling is that you see only one. I could be wrong. My approach to
this problem is to let people determine the role they like for
sexuality and respect them and their decision and taste. I won't call
people who enjoy pornography perverts or degraded.

Benjamin


--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to [e-mail].
Questions and comments should be sent to [e-mail].  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.