Amendment not meant to supress sex activityTo the Editor:
I have mixed feelings about the pornography bill currently under debate, but my reaction to Adam Dershowitz's letter ["Porn measure violates rights," Oct. 18] is fairly unequivocal. He either hasn't thought very clearly about the intention of the bill or he has pretty warped ideas about sex.
The bill is not intended to suppress all sexual activity or the representation thereof. It seeks to eliminate the portrayal of sexual subordination or humiliation of women. These are not elements of a normal, healthy sexual relationship.
And while some men may not protest being referred to as objects or animals, I think most of them would. This seems to be Dershowitz's implication when he says that sex can be described as the penetration of a woman by objects or animals.
One of the worst aspects of pornography is its portrayal of sex as an act of brutality or mindless physical gratification. This attitude seems to have been absorbed by Dershowitz. I wonder if his female friends find his comments about certain body parts as "casual" as he does.
Lisa H. Hiley->