munson@squirt.DEC (08/16/85)
A couple of days ago I came across a mail that said that (some, all???) feminists were opposed to erotica. I, being a feminist, would like to respond to this statement. I am not opposed to erotica, but I am opposed to pornography. To my mind, the difference is in the way that gender roles are portrayed. In erotica, both male and female are portrayed as consenting, equally involved adults. Pornograghy depicts females (and, in some cases, children) as being subject to the sexual desires of a male, whether he is in the picture or not. I think the best way to clarify the difference (as I perceive it), is to cite a few examples. The drawings in my copy of _The Joy of Sex_ show a couple in various positions; both are obviously consenting, and having fun. (For those of you who aren't sure, sex can be fun!) On the other hand, the pictures I've seen in Penthouse (which, I grant, is very small sample), invariably place the sex object (she certainly isn't portrayed as a person) in an extremely vulnerable position. (Vulnerable, according to the American Heritage Dictionary, office edition, means 1) capable of being harmed or injured, 2) susceptible to danger or attack.) Does this mean that we should abolish the 'mish posish', and/or that the only 'politically correct' position is female superior??? Nope, it means we need to look carefully (i.e. skeptically) at pictures which are aimed at arousing sexual feelings. When in doubt about whether a particular picture is erotica or pornography, the following exercise may be tried: get into (or out of) clothing until you are as covered or uncovered as the person in the picture (not the 'dominant' one, if there are two), get into the position s/he is in, and see how you feel. If you feel vulnerable (as opposed to sexy), the picture is probably pornographic. In short, I think that erotica is about sex, and pornography is about dominance, and that pornography goes a long way towards keeping people locked up in the stereotypic gender roles, roles which are as stultifying for males as they are for females. Further, I think any picture (including advertisements, but that's another mail) which demeans or dehumanizes any person should be eschewed. As always, Joanne E. Munson P.S. I know my heterosexual bias are showing. I think, however, that analogous statements can be made about homosexual erotica and pornography.
bob@pedsgd.UUCP (Robert A. Weiler) (08/18/85)
Organization : Perkin-Elmer DSG, Tinton Falls NJ Keywords: In article <3700@decwrl.UUCP> munson@squirt.DEC writes: > >A couple of days ago I came across a mail that said that (some, all???) >feminists were opposed to erotica. I, being a feminist, would like to >respond to this statement. > >I am not opposed to erotica, but I am opposed to pornography. To my mind, >the difference is in the way that gender roles are portrayed. In erotica, >both male and female are portrayed as consenting, equally involved adults. >Pornograghy depicts females (and, in some cases, children) as being subject >to the sexual desires of a male, whether he is in the picture or not. Why only females subject to desires of men and not the other way around. Granted this may be the 'normal' case, but why should we make an arbitrary distinction? { miscelleanous deleted } >sexual feelings. When in doubt about whether a particular picture is erotica >or pornography, the following exercise may be tried: get into (or out of) >clothing until you are as covered or uncovered as the person in the picture >(not the 'dominant' one, if there are two), get into the position s/he is in, >and see how you feel. If you feel vulnerable (as opposed to sexy), the picture >is probably pornographic. > A concrete definition at last!! But what happens when you only feel foolish, which I suspect would be the overwhelming majority of the time? The thought of this test being applied in the court room certainly strikes me as amusing. Wouldnt it just be easier to have the models sign affidavits (sp?) stating whether or not felt vulnerable during the shooting. Of course, they would probably all lie to protect their livelyhood, but WE know better, dont we? >In short, I think that erotica is about sex, and pornography is about dominance, >and that pornography goes a long way towards keeping people locked up in the >stereotypic gender roles, roles which are as stultifying for males as they are >for females. Further, I think any picture (including advertisements, but >that's another mail) which demeans or dehumanizes any person should be eschewed. > Well maybe so, but it seems to me that this just another tack to try to get rid of stuff that you personally dont like. Thats not good enough. You must PROVE harm before you pass laws prohibiting something. Despite strenuous efforts to try to find harm in pornography, that proof simply does not exist. Incendentally, I tend to agree with you about advertisements which I believe reinforce stereotypes far more effectively than 'pornography' could ever hope to. And how often do we see ads which suggest that if we just use this deodorent, or soap, or perfume, or clothes, or car, or fill_in_the_blank, that we will be irresistable to the opposite sex? However, until someone can prove the harm in these ads, I would be against banning them. > > As always, > Joanne E. Munson > Bob Weiler.
todd@SCIRTP.UUCP (Todd Jones) (08/21/85)
> I am not opposed to erotica, but I am opposed to pornography. To my mind, > the difference is in the way that gender roles are portrayed. In erotica, > both male and female are portrayed as consenting, equally involved adults. > Pornograghy depicts females (and, in some cases, children) as being subject > to the sexual desires of a male, whether he is in the picture or not. > > In short, I think that erotica is about sex, and pornography is about dominance, > and that pornography goes a long way towards keeping people locked up in the > stereotypic gender roles, roles which are as stultifying for males as they > are for females. Further, I think any picture (including advertisements, but > that's another mail) which demeans or dehumanizes any person should be eschewed. > > > As always, > Joanne E. Munson > If I read your posting correctly (avoid, but do not censor offensive portrayals of women), please accept my congratulations on a sensible response to the issues of pornography and censorship. A very strong case can be made for the harmful effects of sexist pornography, but this can never outweigh the importance of a free press. Believe me, this can of worms is open to too many interpretations. -todd jones
berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) (08/22/85)
> > A couple of days ago I came across a mail that said that (some, all???) > feminists were opposed to erotica. I, being a feminist, would like to > respond to this statement. > > I am not opposed to erotica, but I am opposed to pornography............. > ......................................................................... > Does this mean that we should abolish the 'mish posish', and/or that the only > 'politically correct' position is female superior??? Nope, it means we need > to look carefully (i.e. skeptically) at pictures which are aimed at arousing > sexual feelings. ............................................................ > > As always, > Joanne E. Munson > > P.S. I know my heterosexual bias are showing. I think, however, that > analogous statements can be made about homosexual erotica and pornography. Hey, men! Are you looking carefully at the pictures in Penthouse? YES!! Are you looking skeptically? WHAT?? If one pays for a magazine "aimed at arousing sexual feeling", he (she?) doesn't pay for looking skeptically at pictures. I agree that there exists erotica in better taste. One can buy reproductions of Cezanne, to mention an example. Or Rubens. SO WHAT? Outlaw pornography? What else? Dirty jokes, perhaps. More seriously, feminist should swallow the fact that most men have fairly trivial kind of sexual fantasies and complain only if they project into their behaviour. Look on the better side of the issue. Nowadays one looks for a submissive women in magazines. Before pornography, to have a submissive woman one had a wife. Personally, I know about pornography readers whose attitude to women is without any fault. P. Berman