censorship: THE unraised question

[Harpo's Fan]

Finally! Someone focuses on the center of the problem.
Thanks Peter.  

I remember reading postings in other places 
showing that other cultures which are less focussed 
on sex and nudity think U.S. society 
is putting on a big comedy show with the furor 
over this problem.  In Denmark, condoms are often 
sold in the open, to anyone, in large economy-sized 
bags with little cartoon characters printed on them 
individually.  I don't know for a fact that 
their pornography is less violent or exploitive, 
(ie more *normal*) but I'd be willing to bet that it is.  
Sex is just no big deal in a lot of places 
in the world.  

Someone in a past posting also said that teenagers 
will pursue information on sex until they find 
what they want and I have to agree.  It seems 
to me that people who want to keep teenagers 
out of pornography on the Web have the mistaken 
idea that there is no internal reason for these 
kids to be looking for it in the first place.  

Why can't we as a society just accept sex as a natural part 
of life?  Even if it's not a *practical* question 
that will lead to an easy solution to the problem 
we've been discussing, it's an important question 
to ask as human beings living in this society.  I 
think we do warp our kids with this obsession.  

--Barb Dunn
(The usual disclaimer about my opinions sprouting 
from my own bean and no one else's.)


On Tue, 25 Mar 1997, PETER BROMBERG wrote:

> Note: this began as a response to Christopher Jackson's excellent
> posting.
> 
> Christopher,
> 
> I just wanted to thank you for taking the time to respond to Mr.
> Burt in the manner that you did.  You said everything that needed
> to be said, and said it so well.  I have been following this thread
> closely and it's almost propelled me out of my lurker mode.  I get
> frustrated too when I see librarians advocating restrictions to
> information access rather than promoting access and explaining
> why this is A GOOD THING.
> 
> One point that I've haven't seen raised anywhere yet (not the
> papers, the net--not anywhere as far as I can tell) is that no one is
> actually questioning that "pornography" (whatever that is) is 
> inhertly harmful or damaging to our children.  I know I'm on the far
> end of the continuum here, but I don't think seeing pictures
> people naked or engaged in sexual acts is an inherently harmful
> thing.  I think that children are going to be naturally curious about
> it (as they are about EVERYTHING), and that that natural
> curiousity is increased tenfold towards anything that is put out of
> their reach and labeled as taboo.   
> 
> When I was seven or eight years old I found a bunch of "dirty"
> magazines in the local woods.  The sight of naked people doing
> things to each other was  interesting to me but not all that
> charged.  It *was* taboo enough that I hid them when I got home
> (the idea that nudity is bad is an unquestioned societal value that
> you just *can't* avoid internalizing  Mom found them, asked why
> I was interested, asked if I had any questions--hey, I had NO idea
> what these people were doing.  I was a little embarrassed about
> being caught with the pictures and that was that.  I haven't grown
> up to be a sexual predator,  I am appropriately ashamed of my
> nakedness, and I usually say please and thank you, so seeing that
> porn must not have warped me too badly.  I can say this though: 
> If the parental reaction had been one of anger or punishment or
> disgust, THEN I would have built up a big charge around the
> event.  THEN I probably would have wanted to see more and
> more.  THEN I would have developed an unhealthy, "sex is dirty"
> attitude.  
> 
> Ultimately, I believe that our attitude toward sex and nudity is
> what is harmful and damaging, not the sex and nudity itself.   I'm
> reminded of Lenny Bruce's point that he could take his child to a
> movie and watch people get shot, stabbed, burned, etc. but
> couldn't take his child to a movie in which two people took off
> their clothes and made love (or sex, choose your euphamism...).  It
> might also have been LB that pointed out that a naked body could
> not appear on Television (at the time) unless it was on the news
> and it had been MUTILATED.   (I apologize if your reading this
> post over coffee and toast)
> 
> So let's not let this idea that seeing dirty pictures leads to BAD
> THINGS go by without question.  I for one do NOT accept it as a
> given.  
> 
> OK, sorry I went on so long.  Just wanted to toss my coins into
> the fountain.  
> 
> 
> Peter Bromberg, Librarian
> Garcia Consulting, Inc.
> EPA Region 2 Library
> 290 Broadway, 16th FloorNew York, NY 00007
> 212-637-3505
> 212-637-3086 (fax)
> bromberg.peter at epamail.epa.gov
> http://www.epa.gov/Region2/library
> 
> Opinions expressed are my own and do 
> not reflect those of my employer, my friends or relatives,
> the guy I sat next to on the train this morning or
> anybody else (as far as I know).
> 
>