Sir, - The case was made last week for regulation of the pornographic material now on display in many city centre newsagents. The argument was that this material should not be on display where minors could view it or if members of the public were likely to take offence, and should not be for sale at all if the handling of such material was offensive or embarrassing to staff. These arguments contain an assumption or premise that the display or sale of pornographic material (what constitutes pornography is unclear) is somehow damaging to the moral fabric of society.
Most people just accept the argument that pornography is somehow undesirable without asking for a logical or consistent moral explanation of that position. Many people have read or seen pornographic material at some stage, though how many would agree that they themselves had been damaged by it is not clear. Very few, I suspect. And I also suspect very few would concede that society had been diminished or damaged because of their using pornography. When it comes down to it the damage is always caused by or done to other people.
Of course pornography exploits the women and men who work in that business. But is there any real difference between allowing one's body to be exploited by a publisher, and allowing one's brain power or physical strength to be exploited by a factory? In my view it's all just work of one kind or another. Work attempts to exploit us all, and people will always do jobs which others view as inferior or bad.
Trying to regulate the use of this material by minors is of course appropriate, but removing the magazines in question to "adults only" shops does not constitute appropriate regulation, in my view. Nor do the ideas advanced by Adam May (February 9th). This approach doesn't work with alcohol, and it doesn't work with drugs. It encourages underground activity, furtive behaviour, and the repression of feelings which are normal and healthy in all of us. Appropriate parental influence is necessary, in a way which recognises that, just like adults, teenagers are also sexually active and inquisitive.
Why deny that pornography can be sexually stimulating and interesting to teenagers just as it is to many adults? And is it not right that teenagers should have suitable access to such material? What constitutes "suitable access" becomes an evolving process to be worked out by parents depending on the circumstances of each case. Could sexually inept teenagers not also be exposed to pornography in a wider context, for instance in a classroom discussion on sexuality? If we had all been taught like this, display and sale of this material might not result in offence and embarrassment. After all, society is hardly damaged by the idea that sex is an inevitable recreational activity. - Yours, etc.
Michael Culhane, Ennafort Park, Dublin 5.