Pornography

There is a tenet in American law that indicates that even though some people may use a product irresponsibly, the vast majority who can use that product with intelligent restraint are not to be denied it. Thus, though some people regularly have car accidents, the automobile is not to be removed from the market. Though some people are alcoholics, those who can use alcohol responsibly are not to be denied its pleasures. The vast, vast majority of Americans are not reduced to slavering idiots obsessed with sex when they read pornography.

As a panelist at the August 1998 World Conference on Pornography, I must disagree with the opinions expressed by state Sens. Ray Haynes and Richard Alarcon, who have obviously been seriously misinformed about the intent and nature of the conference ("Panel Orders Audit of CSUN Pornography Conference," July 7). The conference was a serious academic examination of an important, if controversial, phenomenon, a phenomenon that has been part of human society for thousands of years. Critics say that such a conference "advocates" pornography.

I'm disgusted to learn that Los Angeles has become the smut capital of America, and I'm pleased to see that the county Board of Supervisors has the courage to tackle the problem. I'm certainly not advocating censorship in any form or a campaign against center-folds. But it's time that the police and the prosecutors enforce the laws against child pornography and against illegal obscenity. I'm referring to those materials that promote rape, violence and sexual degradation--and clearly fall under the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling of illegal obscenity.

Re the "Stanton Anti-Porn" editorial of Feb. 5: I am in complete disagreement with the implication that pornography is more desirable than "misguided efforts to restrict it through censorship." And that the "biggest threat to the community is the city's attempt at censorship." A far greater threat to the city of Stanton, and every other city in our nation, is the threat of the crime, disease and human degradation that pornographic "sex shops" contribute to the community. Even the most casual observer in any city that is tolerant of pornography stores can see clearly evidence of the drugs, prostitution (both heterosexual and homosexual)

In reference to your editorial, there is more at stake than mere freedom of speech. There is also freedom of religion at stake. The anti-pornography laws were enacted at the request of different religious groups who wanted to jail and silence all those who do not believe in "original sin," and their doctrine that sex is evil. Since they could not directly jail the unbelievers, different religious groups got laws enacted by working through surrogates and by using a propaganda campaign that any sexual depiction was "dirty, filthy, and unfit for human consumption."

Archbishop Mahony speaks of pornography "that has material so gross it would shock anybody." He also claims "it destroys the basis of our family life." As a mother who reared two children by myself, put myself through four years of college, and was a Norman Topping graduate scholar at USC, I feel I have far more experience than Archbishop Mahony in the area of training children how to evaluate "pornography," and its role in their lives. My grandfather was an early sex educator, and chairman of the Department of Physical Education at USC for more than 40 years.

The only real solution to the problem that Father Wood speaks of is to teach and practice the unification of spiritual and sexual energy--something that is outside the orthodoxy of most religions, including Christianity. There is no solution in setting up a legal structure to enforce the censorship of pornography. If the legal approach centers on the question of the value of the alleged pornographic material, then who has the right to decide on whether value is present--or whether enough value is present?

The world's first known piece of printed pornography is expected to fetch up to $65,000 when it is auctioned next month. "Sodom," penned in the mid-1670s, has been attributed to John Wilmot, the second Earl of Rochester, and is described by auction house Sotheby's as a "closet drama rather than for the stage" with pornography "in almost every line."