(9) “Having established their
belief in man's God-gven right to the free
use of
his own body, the Drs. Kronhausen continue: “If,
therefore, erotic literature or art tend to lead
to sexual acts, we would consider this a phenomenon that much more
likely than not would enhance mental and human
happiness, provided that it met the conditions of not being forcefully
or fraudulently
imposed on another person.
If the pro-censorship leaguers believe that an
erotic stimulus may lead to physical violence,
this strangely paradoxical belief demands some further explanation.
It would be totally absurd, were it not for the unspoken
corollary that the
normal sexual outlets of the individual are to be blocked
and frustrated
to the extent that he (or she) will then
have to turn
to sadism, rape and murder as a substitute for
the natural sexual activities
which the reading may have stimulated.
For the welfare of society
then, no less than for individual mental health,
it is incomprehensible why one would not want to accept
the normal sex drive
rather than to try and remove all temptation toward it,
even if that were possible.”
(10) “It
has long seemed quite incredible—indeed, incomprehensible—to
us that detailed descriptions of murder, which we
consider a crime, are acceptable in our art and literature, while
detailed descriptions of sex, which is not a crime,
are prohibited. It is as though our society put hate above
love—favored death over life.”
Back—Secularism
or
Back—Women Warriors
