Porn is for pleasure
From Mr Geoffrey Cone Sir: Stephen Glover (Media studies, 9 December) objects to pornography because it is 'liable to damage the human spirit' and it suggests that women 'want instant, usually brutal, sex'. How does he know that if he won't read the stuff? Even if he did, how would that give him an 'insight into the mind' of Mr Desmond? Doubtless the men (and women) who read or look at Mr Desmond's publications would disagree with the first propositions, and happily ignore the next. Moreover, if Mr Desmond's readers' purpose is to use his magazines as a stimulant, they do nothing more than any other person who conjures up erotic images or things while thinking of sex, or having it, whether with someone else or on their own. Pretty harmless stuff, I
think, unless Mr Glover thinks that masturbation is best carried out without reference to the human form. And why should Mr Desmond not publish a mainstream paper? Are his magazines worse than the pictures or text of the Sun or News of the World? What are we to think of when we see a near naked Liz Hurley in the Daily Telegraph — her sanctity? Stone the crows!
Geoffrey Cone
Auckland, New Zealand
Previous page
