jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (09/03/85)
One suggestion would be, "end it", since this was all hashed over not so many moons ago. But seriously, I suggest this rule: Anyone who contributes an article concerning pornography must give examples or otherwise specify what they consider to be pornography and what they consider to be erotica. Or what they consider should be allowed and what should not. Otherwise, people will just argue with hordes of straw men and we will see flames that will make the PMS silliness seem like a game of hopscotch. I'm moved to post this after reading Ellen Eades's article. I was wondering how she could possibly believe as she does until I came to the last paragraph, where it became apparent that she considers pornography to be typefied by scenes with whips and burning. It all became quite reasonable (although my own opinion is closer to Todd Jones's) after that. Personally, when I think "pornography", I think of "Playboy", which I have enjoyed in the past, and which is hardly in the same league. Ellen's pornography I call "gaak!". Jeff Winslow
ellen@reed.UUCP (Ellen Eades) (09/05/85)
>...Various suggestions on ground rules for porn debates...< > I'm moved to post this after reading Ellen Eades's article. I was wondering > how she could possibly believe as she does until I came to the last > paragraph, where it became apparent that she considers pornography to > be typefied by scenes with whips and burning. > > Personally, when I think "pornography", I think of "Playboy", which > I have enjoyed in the past, and which is hardly in the same league. > Ellen's pornography I call "gaak!". > Jeff Winslow Ahem! It seems I am going to have to clarify my position on/definition of porn. (Look out netters, Ellen's going to talk like a castrating bitch again...) I find it harmful to me when "Playboy" presents a view of women which, while lacking the physical whips and chains, is severely limited in scope. I don't like the image of women in "Playboy" any more than that of women in "Screw"; the "Playboy" women, gazing wetly at the camera in soft focus, seem to me to be the reason behind men's rationalization of "You know you really want it." How can any man NOT get that impression when all the images he is exposed to have that message? "Playboy"'s misogynism, while far subtler than that of "Hustler", is nonetheless far more widespread and is accepted by most of liberal America as all right. This I find upsetting, because it presents a subtler and more insidious encouragement of violence against women: the violence of date rape or forced seduction. With "Playboy"'s message that all women want sex all the time goes the idea that it is all right to give it to her. When a woman DOES NOT want sex, a man who reads "Playboy" regularly and intensively will probably get angry and confused and accuse her of being a tease. While images like the infamous "Penthouse" spread of last Thanksgiving which featured an Asian woman trussed up like a turkey fill me with outrage and fury, the "Playboy" images make me internally nervous. I don't want to be mis-seen as a "Playboy" nymphomaniac any more than I want to be mis-seen as a willing victim of sadomasochistic violence. It seems to me that the attitude that "Violence is uncool, but 'Playboy' isn't violence and is therefore justifiable entertainment" misses a great deal of the subtlety behind this form of pornography. Last year a woman was raped at Reed, and the subsequent Reed rape discussion group included a lot of men who indicated that they felt that it was necessary to strongly encourage (read that as you will) their dates to sleep with them because they really did want to give in but needed to feel that they were being overcome by a stronger force and therefore were not "at fault." At Reed, and in most places in this day and age (I hope), that's patently ridiculous. At the risk of getting off track, I want to quote a (male) friend: "If she says 'no,' you should stop. She'll let you know if she didn't mean it before you get to the door." Pornography never presents an image of a woman saying 'no' and meaning it. Thus the idea that women never do mean 'no' is encouraged. Hope this clears up my position. -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - "Who's been repeating all that hard stuff to you?" "I read it in a book," said Alice. - - - - - - - - - - - - - tektronix!reed!ellen OR tektronix!reed!motel6!ellen
jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (09/05/85)
> >...Various suggestions on ground rules for porn debates...< > > > I'm moved to post this after reading Ellen Eades's article. I was wondering > > how she could possibly believe as she does until I came to the last > > paragraph, where it became apparent that she considers pornography to > > be typefied by scenes with whips and burning. > > > > Personally, when I think "pornography", I think of "Playboy", which > > I have enjoyed in the past, and which is hardly in the same league. > > Ellen's pornography I call "gaak!". > > Jeff Winslow > > Ahem! > It seems I am going to have to clarify my position on/definition > of porn. (Look out netters, Ellen's going to talk like a > castrating bitch again...) I don't think you talked like a "castrating bitch" at all. I do have a lot of reservations about what you did say, however, and I hope no one minds if I break up your article into little pieces to vioce them. > I find it harmful to me when "Playboy" presents a view of women > which, while lacking the physical whips and chains, is severely > limited in scope. I don't like the image of women in "Playboy" > any more than that of women in "Screw"; the "Playboy" women, gazing > wetly at the camera in soft focus, seem to me to be the reason > behind men's rationalization of "You know you really want it." I'm sure men have used this rationalization for thousands of years, while "Playboy" has only existed for 30. So I very much doubt it. > How can any man NOT get that impression when all the images he is > exposed to have that message? Well, for one, by being mature enough to realize that what the magazine presents is just fantasy. It's not so tough. If I can do it... > "Playboy"'s misogynism, while far > subtler than that of "Hustler", is nonetheless far more widespread > and is accepted by most of liberal America as all right. Maybe that's because the misogynism is in the eye of the beholder in this case. > This I find upsetting, because it presents a subtler and more > insidious encouragement of violence against women: the violence > of date rape or forced seduction. I'm sorry that it upsets you, but I think you're being upset by a bogey. For me, its encouragement of violence against women is so subtle and insidious as to be non-existent. I can't believe I'm so unusual in that respect. > With "Playboy"'s message that > all women want sex all the time goes the idea that it is all > right to give it to her. So it is, if she wants it, right? When a woman DOES NOT want sex, a man > who reads "Playboy" regularly and intensively will probably get > angry and confused and accuse her of being a tease. Oh come now. You must think men are awfully simple-minded. And anyway, we can get confused enough without reading "Playboy". > [New paragraph] > While images like the infamous "Penthouse" spread of last > Thanksgiving which featured an Asian woman trussed up like a > turkey fill me with outrage and fury, the "Playboy" images make > me internally nervous. I don't want to be mis-seen as a > "Playboy" nymphomaniac any more than I want to be mis-seen as a > willing victim of sadomasochistic violence. It seems to me that > the attitude that "Violence is uncool, but 'Playboy' isn't > violence and is therefore justifiable entertainment" misses a > great deal of the subtlety behind this form of pornography. Well, I'm glad that "Playboy" only makes you nervous and not furious. However, it seems to me that a common reaction to someone saying "I can't see such-and-such" is "well, it's just too subtle for you". Maybe so. But this argument can also hide a host of prejudices and misunderstandings. It would seem to me safer, and more effective, to concentrate on correcting the obvious before worrying about the subtle. Jeff Winslow
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (09/06/85)
The basic idea behind freedom of the press and freedom of speech (as I understand it) is to prevent the suppression of ideas. People are supposed to be able to hear all kinds of opinions, examine them critically and choose among them. And if they disagree with an idea that is being expressed, they can argue against it. If the government has the power to decide that certain ideas are not to be expressed, and to prevent them from being expressed, there is the danger that the government will choose to suppress truths that would be inconvenient to the government if widely known. After all, the people who make up the government are only people, and honesty is not the strongest of our natural instincts. Many people claim that the censorship of pornography does not involve the suppression of ideas. Yet, pretty frequently, the reasons given for censoring pornography are like these (from tektronix!reed!ellen): > ...the "Playboy" women, gazing > wetly at the camera in soft focus, seem to me to be the reason > behind men's rationalization of "You know you really want it." > How can any man NOT get that impression when all the images he is > exposed to have that message? > ...it presents a subtler and more > insidious encouragement of violence against women: the violence > of date rape or forced seduction. With "Playboy"'s message that > all women want sex all the time goes the idea that it is all > right to give it to her. > Pornography never presents an image of a woman saying 'no' and > meaning it. Thus the idea that women never do mean 'no' is > encouraged. Now, it sure looks as if it's *ideas* that she's objecting to. To be fair, I don't recall Ellen explicitly saying that she wants the government to step on Playboy magazine, but since she said these in an article about censorship, it's a strong likelihood. -- David Canzi This has been a test of the emergency broadcasting system. It was only a test. Repeat: only a test. If this had been a real emergency, you would be dead.
crs@lanl.ARPA (09/06/85)
> With "Playboy"'s message that > all women want sex all the time goes the idea that it is all > right to give it to her. When a woman DOES NOT want sex, a man > who reads "Playboy" regularly and intensively will probably get > angry and confused and accuse her of being a tease. I must admit that I don't read '"Playboy" regularly' but I've read a few over the years and I must say that I have *never* received this message. > Last year a woman was raped at Reed, and the subsequent Reed > rape discussion group included a lot of men who indicated that > they felt that it was necessary to strongly encourage (read that > as you will) their dates to sleep with them because they really > did want to give in but needed to feel that they were being > overcome by a stronger force and therefore were not "at fault." I believe that this is a view that has been around far longer than Playboy. I think that *some* men have probably subscribed to this view for many decades if not centuries. > At Reed, and in most places in this day and age (I hope), that's > patently ridiculous. It has always been patently ridiculous, except, perhaps, to those who believe it. > At the risk of getting off track, I want to quote a (male) > friend: "If she says 'no,' you should stop. She'll let you know > if she didn't mean it before you get to the door." Sounds like good advice to me. > Pornography never presents an image of a woman saying 'no' and > meaning it. Thus the idea that women never do mean 'no' is > encouraged. You are certainly entitled to this as *your* definition of pornography but, as has been said many times before, you are, in no way, entitled to insist that that definition be applied to *me* or to *anyone else*. I'm sorry that I don't recall what you suggested as a cure for the problem that you perceive but if it was censorship of any form, I say emphatically, *NO*. > Hope this clears up my position. Mine too. > tektronix!reed!ellen OR tektronix!reed!motel6!ellen Are we really going to go through the whole pornography/censorship debate again, with people saying that we must eliminate all pornography. And others saying they are against any form of censorship. And others saying they are not suggesting censorship but that all pornography must be forbidden... I take my constitutionally guaranteed rights *very* serioulsly; *all* of them. Lets quit worrying about the symptoms and see if we can cure the disease. -- All opinions are mine alone... Charlie Sorsby ...!{cmcl2,ihnp4,...}!lanl!crs crs@lanl.arpa
spp@ucbvax.ARPA (Stephen P Pope) (09/06/85)
There was an extensive debate on pornography in this
newsgroup last year, and I didn't put in my $.02 worth then.
After all I'm just another male who reads net.women and
who is opposed to censorship, believes consenting adults
can do whatever they please, and so forth.
After reading Ellen Eades' recent postings I'd like
to point out something that hasn't been mentioned here.
That is, how the preoccupation with censorship that has
arisen in the women's rights movement in the last few
years has influenced the public's view of feminism. It
has influenced my view, and fairly negatively, and here's
why.
I'm a liberal person, and I have always viewed
feminism as a liberal cause, which I have always supported
except for the radical fringe. Censorship of pornography
is pretty much a right-wing, moral-majority type
of thing. True, there have long been feminist writers
that wrote of the evils of pornography. But until
faily recently it seemed to be thought of more as a
symptom of society's prejudices, rather than a problem
in itself that should be attacked, and the discussion
against it was pretty much intellectual. It's one
thing to object to pornography, quite another to
advocate banning it.
Ellen feels offended by all forms of pornography,
including fairly mild examples such as Playboy. This
is her right. This attitude seems to be more prevalent
these days than in the past. What Ellen and many others
are really objecting to is the explicit portrayal of
women as being sexually available, presumably to men.
What Ellen may not realize is that she objects to people
whose sexual preferences are different from her own.
She realizes that there are people who are sexually
entertained by something she finds offensive and disgusting,
and this upsets her. The mentality here is the same as
that of people who object to homosexuals, on the basis
that homosexuality is inherently disgusting. This is
narrow mindedness, pure and simple.
It's probably part of human nature that any given
individual is unlikely to accept, at a personal level,
all forms of sexual expression. But it takes a heluva
lot of nerve to claim that your preferred form of sexuality
should be protected by law, and somebody else's should be
banned.
I believe that this sexual intolerance is the real
motivation behind the pro-censorship movement. The
other justifications -- linkage to criminal violence,
association with illegal activities such as child
pornography, and so on -- are pretty much rationalizations.
So my advice, to those who are considering jumping
on the anti-pornography bandwagon, is to think twice
about what you are doing. By attacking one of society's
basic freedoms you are helping to discredit the entire
women's rights movement. And the movement is not doing as
well as it was a few years ago. I am not alone in my
opinions, so I think this is something to consider.
steve pope (...ucbvax!spp)dmmartindale@watcgl.UUCP (Dave Martindale) (09/07/85)
In article <1873@reed.UUCP> ellen@reed.UUCP (Ellen Eades) writes: > >I find it harmful to me when "Playboy" presents a view of women >which, while lacking the physical whips and chains, is severely >limited in scope. I don't like the image of women in "Playboy" >any more than that of women in "Screw"; the "Playboy" women, gazing >wetly at the camera in soft focus, seem to me to be the reason >behind men's rationalization of "You know you really want it." >How can any man NOT get that impression when all the images he is >exposed to have that message? "Playboy"'s misogynism, while far >subtler than that of "Hustler", is nonetheless far more widespread >and is accepted by most of liberal America as all right. This I >find upsetting, because it presents a subtler and more >insidious encouragement of violence against women: the violence >of date rape or forced seduction. With "Playboy"'s message that >all women want sex all the time goes the idea that it is all >right to give it to her. When a woman DOES NOT want sex, a man >who reads "Playboy" regularly and intensively will probably get >angry and confused and accuse her of being a tease. >It seems to me that >the attitude that "Violence is uncool, but 'Playboy' isn't >violence and is therefore justifiable entertainment" misses a >great deal of the subtlety behind this form of pornography. [ and several more paragraphs that reinforce the same idea ] Ellen, I agree with your comments that the image presented in Playboy is ridiculously unrealistic, and I think I can see your real concern that men will believe it. But not all men do, any more than they believe what they see on television or in films. An important question is: given that Playboy's sort of pornography is misleading, what should be done to correct the problem? Should we ban it, or should we try to educate people? And if banning it is the correct solution, should we not also immediately ban most TV commercials on the same grounds? Or maybe most TV programs too. Should I not ask that all John Wayne movies be permanently banned, on the grounds that they present an unrealistic and even dangerous image of what a man should be like? Aren't Clint Eastwood movies even better candidates for banning? I agree that there is a problem. I don't think that censorship is the answer in this case. Do you? If so, how is this case different from the other examples I mention?
sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (09/09/85)
In article <10285@ucbvax.ARPA> spp@ucbvax.ARPA (Stephen P Pope) writes: > > After reading Ellen Eades' recent postings I'd like >to point out something that hasn't been mentioned here. >That is, how the preoccupation with censorship that has >arisen in the women's rights movement in the last few >years has influenced the public's view of feminism. It >has influenced my view, and fairly negatively, and here's >why. It is a shame, but the "public" can be very easily manipulated to believe almost anything. The "media" (another strange entity) seems to have made up its mind recently to prematurely bury feminism by defamation and assertions that it has passed away. Anyone who really wants to learn something about a certain school of thought should really not rely on reader's digest condensations of it but should instead go directly to the sources, i.e in this case, feminist writings. Having read a lot of feminist material myself, I have found basically that there is not one single issue on which all feminists agree (or did I miss it?). I have seen all sorts of very good feminist analyses exploring all kinds of important issues reaching very different conclusions. This does not mean that feminism is a philosophy that cannot make up its mind, but simply that it is a philosophy that acknowledges the complexity of life. Anyway the reason for this preamble was to point out that there is not ONE feminist position on censorship of pornography. Of all the issues I have seen discussed in feminist forums, censorship is probably *the* issue where there is the most disagreement, and rightly so, because it is such a thorny one. Therefore, even though Andrea Dworkin would really like to do so, she does *not* speak for all feminists. > I'm a liberal person, and I have always viewed >feminism as a liberal cause, which I have always supported >except for the radical fringe. Censorship of pornography >is pretty much a right-wing, moral-majority type >of thing. While I cannot agree with some frothing at the mouth that I have seen coming from some anti-pornographers (?), I think that it is too easy to dismiss the idea of censorship of pornography as you did by calling it a "right-wing, moral majority type of thing". A responsible society should be able to censor itself when not doing so endangers the life of some of its members. Pornography does pause a real threat to women, and the solution to this threat might just include some amount of censorship. > Ellen feels offended by all forms of pornography, >including fairly mild examples such as Playboy. This >is her right. This attitude seems to be more prevalent >these days than in the past. What Ellen and many others >are really objecting to is the explicit portrayal of >women as being sexually available, presumably to men. >What Ellen may not realize is that she objects to people >whose sexual preferences are different from her own. >She realizes that there are people who are sexually >entertained by something she finds offensive and disgusting, >and this upsets her. The mentality here is the same as >that of people who object to homosexuals, on the basis >that homosexuality is inherently disgusting. This is >narrow mindedness, pure and simple. And I think the above is a cheap shot. Who are you to decide exactly what is in Ellen's mind? It is one thing to object to things one might consider disgusting even though it poses no threat to oneself (such as homosexuality). It is another to object to things that one considers pauses a personal threat. I object to pornography for this reason. It scares the hell out of me to know that some person might read some of that crap and decide to act out his fantasies on me against my will. That has NOTHING to do with what other people do in the privacy of their own bedroom, it has to do with MY safety. > It's probably part of human nature that any given >individual is unlikely to accept, at a personal level, >all forms of sexual expression. But it takes a heluva >lot of nerve to claim that your preferred form of sexuality >should be protected by law, and somebody else's should be >banned. Oh give us a break! we all know that. Nobody's objecting to people's sexual preferences here, they're objecting to hate litterature which endangers their safety. > I believe that this sexual intolerance is the real >motivation behind the pro-censorship movement. The >other justifications -- linkage to criminal violence, >association with illegal activities such as child >pornography, and so on -- are pretty much rationalizations. And I believe that your article is pretty much a rationalisation to support the fact that you have a lifetime suscription to Playboy, Penthouse and all sorts of other magazines showing little children and women being cut up into little pieces while enjoying it all, and YOU enjoy it all and you don't want anybody to spoil your fun. So there! See, anybody can psychoanalyse anybody else if they want to and dismiss their arguments without listening to them. You are not immune to it. So if you don't want to be subject to this kind of abuse why don't you practice what you preach and be a little more tolerant of those you dismiss as intoleranty simply because you don't want to bother listening to what they are saying. > So my advice, to those who are considering jumping >on the anti-pornography bandwagon, is to think twice >about what you are doing. By attacking one of society's >basic freedoms you are helping to discredit the entire >women's rights movement. Gee, and I thought the right to physical safety was one of our society's basic rights too. Sounds like some rights have to be balanced out against others in some cases, eh? (<- I'm from Canada) > And the movement is not doing as >well as it was a few years ago. I am not alone in my >opinions, so I think this is something to consider. Of course you are not alone in your opinion. It certainly is not an original one as I've pointed out above. Ah, yes, how much you care about the "movement".. reminds me of Ken Arndt and how much he "cares" about homosexuals. With friends like that..... -- Sophie Quigley {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie
apteryx@ucbvax.ARPA (Brian Peterson) (09/09/85)
> > With "Playboy"'s message that > > all women want sex all the time goes the idea that it is all > > right to give it to her. When a woman DOES NOT want sex, a man > > who reads "Playboy" regularly and intensively will probably get > > angry and confused and accuse her of being a tease. > > I must admit that I don't read '"Playboy" regularly' but I've read a > few over the years and I must say that I have *never* received this > message. I agree. I believe that Ellen Eades etc. are improperly concluding that porn dehumanizes and degrades women. They seem to be concluding that because a man sees some pictures of some women being sexy, the man will assume that all women all of the time will want sex with him. I think concluding that is wrong. I think that readers of pornography (normal stuff like Playboy/girl) >fantasize<, not "think" that some women some time will want sex with him. I think most people know the difference between pictures and the actual things pictured; they build a >fantasy< partner in their mind, >based< on the sexual characteristics of the person in the picture. Besides, magazines such as Playboy, in their interview questions and biographies give info (such as hobbies, favourite literature, career and school goals, favourite foods, moral and social values) which have nothing to do with sex at all, and imply that the women being pictured are real human people. (BTW, they also talk about husbands, boyfriends, children, etc. implying that the real people behind the photographs are not only real humans, but unavailable :-) (and on a tangent...) Ellen Eades etc. seem to equate "being >photographed< to satisfy others' sexual desires" with "being thought of as >existing< >only< for sexual desires". The purpose of pornography is to satisfy sexual interest. It would be nifty if it were possible to photograph "a sex" without, in the process, photographing women (or men, children, animals, or whatever). However, sex implies/requires (pictures of) women. This does not mean the inverse (women imply sex), which certain people are wrongly concluding. If someone saw a knitting magazine (for example) which pictured women knitting things, should they then conclude that all women knit, and that women only exist for knitting? (I hope not :-) But Ellen Eades seems to be claiming that readers of Playboy are stupid enough to make a similar conclusion. That is where I think Ellen Eades is wrong. > > Pornography never presents an image of a woman saying 'no' and > > meaning it. Thus the idea that women never do mean 'no' is > > encouraged. If it did present such an image, it would be defeating the purpose! The above conclusion does not follow. And anyway, if that kind of thinking were applied to other realms, we would have to ban all fiction (and any communications dealing with only one aspect of a topic) because someone reading it might make horrible overgeneralizations. Brian Peterson
scott@scirtp.UUCP (Scott Crenshaw) (09/10/85)
> But seriously, I suggest this rule: Anyone who contributes an article > concerning pornography must give examples or otherwise specify what > they consider to be pornography and what they consider to be erotica. > Good idea ! I think that sample photographs of what they consider pornography should be distributed along with it. Just so we know what they're talking about . . . -- Scott Crenshaw {akgua,decvax}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp SCI Systems , Inc. Research Triangle Park, NC The views represented may or may not be those of my employer.
fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (09/11/85)
>> But seriously, I suggest this rule: Anyone who contributes an article >> concerning pornography must give examples or otherwise specify what >> they consider to be pornography and what they consider to be erotica. This statement is redundant. Erotica is a subset of pornography. This is why I do not favor a catagorical ban on pornography. Frank Silbermann
spp@ucbvax.ARPA (Stephen P Pope) (09/18/85)
Sophie Quigley responds to my posting. >Anyone who really wants to learn something about a certain >school of thought should really not rely on reader's digest >condensations of it but should instead go directly to the sources, I consider myself reasonably well-read and well-informed on the subject. And I don't think my "ignorance" led to any misstatements in my original posting. And in your reply you don't point any out. So what IS your point here? >>except for the radical fringe. Censorship of pornography >>is pretty much a right-wing, moral-majority type >>of thing. > >While I cannot agree with some frothing at the mouth that I have >seen coming from some anti-pornographers (?), I think that it is >too easy to dismiss the idea of censorship of pornography as you >did by calling it a "right-wing, moral majority type of thing". >A responsible society should be able to censor itself when not >doing so endangers the life of some of its members. Pornography >does pause a real threat to women, and the solution to this threat >might just include some amount of censorship. A responsible society should be able to censor itself? As for pornography posing a real threat to women, I don't buy it. Rather, it is society's prudish, moralizing attitudes towards sex that pose a threat to women. As others on this net have pointed out, violence against women is highest in countries (such as the Soviet Union) with the strictest censorship. Countries such as Sweden with little or no censorship have the lowest rates of violence againstr women. If viewing pornography might cause a marginally stable individual to go out and commit a sex crime (and this hasn't been demonstrated) it is probably tracable to his moralistic upbringing and conflicts related thereto. But arguing these issues was not the point of my posting. >>and this upsets her. The mentality here is the same as >>that of people who object to homosexuals, on the basis >>that homosexuality is inherently disgusting. This is >>narrow mindedness, pure and simple. > >And I think the above is a cheap shot. Who are you to decide >exactly what is in Ellen's mind? It is one thing to object >to things one might consider disgusting even though it poses >no threat to oneself (such as homosexuality). It is another >to object to things that one considers pauses a personal threat. Clearly you don't regard reading pornography as a valid form of entertainment, as oppposed to whatever it is you do for sexual pleasure. You feel that pornography is a personal threat. I'm sure Jerry Falwell feels that he is personally threatened by the mere existence of homosexuals, and that their existence is degrading to all men. I stand by my analogy, I think it is a good one and explains a lot about the attitudes of people like you. >>all forms of sexual expression. But it takes a heluva >>lot of nerve to claim that your preferred form of sexuality >>should be protected by law, and somebody else's should be >>banned. > >Oh give us a break! we all know that. Nobody's objecting to >people's sexual preferences here, they're objecting to hate >litterature which endangers their safety. Well, pornography isn't "hate literature". It's designed to entertain horny men, nothing more. >And I believe that your article is pretty much a rationalisation >to support the fact that you have a lifetime suscription to Are you challenging me to throw out a guess as to what you do to bring yourself to orgasm? You were wrong in my case. Netnews custom to the contrary, I won't respond in kind. >be balanced out against others in some cases, eh? (<- I'm from Canada) Maybe that explains something. Lousy as the public school systems are in the U.S., they do pound a few basic things into your head such as respect for freedom of the press. >not an original one as I've pointed out above. Ah, yes, how much >you care about the "movement".. reminds me of Ken Arndt and how >much he "cares" about homosexuals. With friends like that..... I don't know of the reference to Ken Arndt. The point of my posting, really, was to say, "Nobody's raised the issue on the net yet that this right-wing pro-censorship stuff is eroding feminism's liberal base of support." I believe Sophie is underscoring this point for me. She probably wouldn't write off an otherwise loyal feminist just because they were against censorship, but because I'm male, and tried to dig a little deeper into the background of the pro-censorship movement, she writes me off instantly. Wonderful. steve pope (BTW, the "ground rule" that led to this exchange was to discuss new topics, not to rehash the same emotion-laden arguments.)
mcgeer@ucbvax.ARPA (Rick McGeer) (09/19/85)
In article <2061@mnetor.UUCP> sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) writes: >In article <10285@ucbvax.ARPA> spp@ucbvax.ARPA (Stephen P Pope) writes: >> >> After reading Ellen Eades' recent postings I'd like >>to point out something that hasn't been mentioned here. >>That is, how the preoccupation with censorship that has >>arisen in the women's rights movement in the last few >>years has influenced the public's view of feminism. It >>has influenced my view, and fairly negatively, and here's >>why. > >It is a shame, but the "public" can be very easily manipulated >to believe almost anything. Well, as a member of the public I believe that statements like this are a crock. I can't find anybody who admits to being manipulated: I *can* find people who believe that other people are being manipulated, generally because they don't like what other people believe. This is a very nasty form of elitism, which should be squelched at every opportunity; one can justify all sorts of petty tyrannies -- and grand tyrannies as well -- by arguing that "the people" never used their freedom, they were being manipulated, anyway. >The "media" (another strange entity) >seems to have made up its mind recently to prematurely bury >feminism by defamation and assertions that it has passed away. Evidence? >i.e in this case, feminist writings. Having read a lot of feminist >material myself, I have found basically that there is not one >single issue on which all feminists agree (or did I miss it?). Try the ERA? >> I'm a liberal person, and I have always viewed >>feminism as a liberal cause, which I have always supported >>except for the radical fringe. Censorship of pornography >>is pretty much a right-wing, moral-majority type >>of thing. > >While I cannot agree with some frothing at the mouth that I have >seen coming from some anti-pornographers (?), I think that it is >too easy to dismiss the idea of censorship of pornography as you >did by calling it a "right-wing, moral majority type of thing". >A responsible society should be able to censor itself when not >doing so endangers the life of some of its members. Pornography >does pause a real threat to women, and the solution to this threat >might just include some amount of censorship. Well, there may not be a standard position of feminists on the issue of pornography, but this comes pretty close. And it's still wrong. Nobody ever got hurt by a picture, a cop show, or a newspaper article. People get raped and killed by jerks and thugs, generally employing knives or guns. The jerks may claim to be inspired by movies, records (it's thought that the Night Stalker was "inspired" by an AC/DC album), but the bottom line is that they pull the trigger or wield the blade. Not the album. Not the magazine. The jerk. So the solution is to lock these guys up and toss away the key, not go after the publisher. Even if there were good evidence to support the claim that "porn is the theory and rape is the practice", censorship would still be wrong. It's a terrible precedent. What happens when we find out that lefty papers inspire terror bombings? Do we ban them, too? Either you have freedom of speech or you don't. Personally, I think we oughta keep it. Defend the First Amendment, while you still have the right to. -- Rick.
barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (09/22/85)
From Sophie Quigley (mnetor!sophie): >A responsible society should be able to censor itself when not >doing so endangers the life of some of its members. Pornography >does pause a real threat to women, and the solution to this threat >might just include some amount of censorship. Haven't you skipped the step where you show that pornography endangers the life of some women? Without concrete evidence of that, there is no link between censoring of pornography and protection by society of its members. >>What Ellen may not realize is that she objects to people >>whose sexual preferences are different from her own. >>She realizes that there are people who are sexually >>entertained by something she finds offensive and disgusting, >>and this upsets her. The mentality here is the same as >>that of people who object to homosexuals, on the basis >>that homosexuality is inherently disgusting. This is >>narrow mindedness, pure and simple. [Stephen Pope] > >And I think the above is a cheap shot. Who are you to decide >exactly what is in Ellen's mind? It is one thing to object >to things one might consider disgusting even though it poses >no threat to oneself (such as homosexuality). It is another >to object to things that one considers pauses a personal threat. >I object to pornography for this reason. It scares the hell out >of me to know that some person might read some of that crap and >decide to act out his fantasies on me against my will. That >has NOTHING to do with what other people do in the privacy of their >own bedroom, it has to do with MY safety. Sorry, but you don't get the right to outlaw something just because it scares you; you have to demonstrate the danger. The distinction you make between your fear of pornography and someone else's fear of homosexuals is no doubt clear to you, but it isn't to me. Don't you think homophobes consider gays a threat to society and their families? Many of them will say things like, "I don't care what they do to each other in their bedrooms, but don't let 'em near my kids!" There is a considerable body of mythology about the threat to children presented by gays, and homophobes are as anxious to convince us that gays are a "real threat", as you are to convince us of the threat of pornography. But, what is your evidence? >> It's probably part of human nature that any given >>individual is unlikely to accept, at a personal level, >>all forms of sexual expression. But it takes a heluva >>lot of nerve to claim that your preferred form of sexuality >>should be protected by law, and somebody else's should be >>banned. > >Oh give us a break! we all know that. Nobody's objecting to >people's sexual preferences here, they're objecting to hate >litterature which endangers their safety. Fine; I understand your reasoning. But I question your premise. Show me the danger of pornography. >> I believe that this sexual intolerance is the real >>motivation behind the pro-censorship movement. The >>other justifications -- linkage to criminal violence, >>association with illegal activities such as child >>pornography, and so on -- are pretty much rationalizations. > >And I believe that your article is pretty much a rationalisation >to support the fact that you have a lifetime suscription to >Playboy, Penthouse and all sorts of other magazines showing little >children and women being cut up into little pieces while enjoying >it all, and YOU enjoy it all and you don't want anybody to spoil >your fun. So there! >See, anybody can psychoanalyse anybody else if they want to and >dismiss their arguments without listening to them. You are not >immune to it. So if you don't want to be subject to this kind of >abuse why don't you practice what you preach and be a little >more tolerant of those you dismiss as intoleranty simply because >you don't want to bother listening to what they are saying. Proscription of things not known to be harmful is an intolerant act. Whether or not Mr. Pope is right in his conclusions about the motives of those who want to ban porn, he has reason to be suspicious. There is no more evidence of porn causing attacks on women or children than there is of homosexuality being harmful to society. If it's not the evidence that has convinced the anti-porn lobbies of the evil of porn, we have every right to suspect some hidden agenda. - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ USENET: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,hao,menlo70,hplabs}!ames!barry
jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) (09/22/85)
> > Pornography > does pause a real threat to women, and the solution to this threat > might just include some amount of censorship... > > It is one thing to object > to things one might consider disgusting even though it poses > no threat to oneself (such as homosexuality). It is another > to object to things that one considers pauses a personal threat. > I object to pornography for this reason. It scares the hell out > of me to know that some person might read some of that crap and > decide to act out his fantasies on me against my will. That > has NOTHING to do with what other people do in the privacy of their > own bedroom, it has to do with MY safety... > > Nobody's objecting to > people's sexual preferences here, they're objecting to hate > literature which endangers their safety... > > Gee, and I thought the right to physical safety was one of our > society's basic rights too. Sounds like some rights have to > be balanced out against others in some cases, eh? > > -- > Sophie Quigley A man is such a simple machine. If you put pornography in one end and turn the crank a little, rape will come out the other end. Pornography is not like yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. In the latter case, there is a direct cause and effect relationship between speech and people getting hurt, so that type of speech must be restricted. That is, it is obviously nearly impossible that this behavior would not lead to people rushing out of the theater in a panic. In the former case, all you can say is that someone *might* read some pornography and then try out some of his fantasies on you. I say that if a man rapes, he has made a concious decision to do so (barring mental illness), and that the pornography is neither necessary nor sufficient to produce the effect. which *might* lead to rape or other forms of violence. -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) "Saints should always be judged guilty until they are proved innocent..." {amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff {ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff
sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (09/26/85)
In article <10423@ucbvax.ARPA> spp@ucbvax.ARPA (Stephen P Pope) writes: > >Sophie Quigley responds to my posting. > >>Anyone who really wants to learn something about a certain >>school of thought should really not rely on reader's digest >>condensations of it but should instead go directly to the sources, > >I consider myself reasonably well-read and well-informed on >the subject. And I don't think my "ignorance" led to any >misstatements in my original posting. And in your reply you >don't point any out. So what IS your point here? The point I was making (clearly I thought) was that there is not ONE feminist position on censorship of pornography. What I've noticed from reading feminist litterature is that this issue is creating a split in the feminist community. The next point I was making is that "the media" has been ignoring the voices of anti-censorship feminists. (I did say both of these things. I don't know how much clearer I can make my point). Therefore, all I was trying to say is that you shouldn't rely on the popular media to get a deep understanding on feminist ideas, just like you shouldn't rely on the popular media to get an understanding of what hackers are. If you believe that media, all of us hackers are criminals and feminists are all pro-censorship. >>While I cannot agree with some frothing at the mouth that I have >>seen coming from some anti-pornographers (?), I think that it is >>too easy to dismiss the idea of censorship of pornography as you >>did by calling it a "right-wing, moral majority type of thing". >>A responsible society should be able to censor itself when not >>doing so endangers the life of some of its members. Pornography >>does pause a real threat to women, and the solution to this threat >>might just include some amount of censorship. > >A responsible society should be able to censor itself? Yes, and it doesn't and that is very unfortunate because we do not have a responsible society. Whether the *state* should enforce censorship is another issue. The point I was trying to make (awkwardly - my fault) is that some rights have to be weighed out against others, and I do not find it inconceivable that in a "perfect" society, pornography would not exist because people would realise that its benefits are not worth the pain that it creates. How we achieve such a society, I don't know. >As for pornography posing a real threat to women, I don't >buy it. Rather, it is society's prudish, moralizing attitudes >towards sex that pose a threat to women. It is both. > As others on this net have pointed out, violence against >women is highest in countries (such as the Soviet Union) >with the strictest censorship. Countries such as Sweden with >little or no censorship have the lowest rates >of violence againstr women. If viewing pornography might >cause a marginally stable individual to go out and commit >a sex crime (and this hasn't been demonstrated) it is probably >tracable to his moralistic upbringing and conflicts related >thereto. But arguing these issues was not the point of >my posting. > It wasn't the point of my posting either. The reason I posted was that I was incensed by the atmosphere of insensitivity that surrounds this whole issue. I do not believe in censorship either, but I cannot respect people who will refuse to acknowledge the negative feelings that some pronography causes some people. All pornography is not equal, some of it is harmless and even stupid, some of it is fun, but there is also some of it which is very depressing. All I would like is for anti-censorship people to say: "yes we realise that pornography hurts, but we really don't think that censorship is going to solve the problem" instead of "if pornography hurts you, it's because you are sexually repressed and you simply want to impose your prudishness on other people". All I would like is some more compassion, and I don't see much of it (except from Sherry, who of course was attacked for it). >>And I think the above is a cheap shot. Who are you to decide >>exactly what is in Ellen's mind? It is one thing to object >>to things one might consider disgusting even though it poses >>no threat to oneself (such as homosexuality). It is another >>to object to things that one considers pauses a personal threat. > >Clearly you don't regard reading pornography as a valid >form of entertainment, as oppposed to whatever it is >you do for sexual pleasure. You feel that pornography >is a personal threat. I'm sure Jerry Falwell feels that >he is personally threatened by the mere existence of >homosexuals, and that their existence is degrading to >all men. I stand by my analogy, I think it is a good one >and explains a lot about the attitudes of people like you. I don't care about whether pornography is a valid form of entertainment or not. (Actually, I have bought some pornography (gay) and got some good giggles out of it, so I guess it was entertaining). But yes, I do feel threatened by some pornography, and some of it makes me very depressed. I don't know about "people like me" and their attitudes, but I don't see why you had to make personnal attacks against people who had a different opinion from yours. Maybe you felt threatened by them... > >> >>Oh give us a break! we all know that. Nobody's objecting to >>people's sexual preferences here, they're objecting to hate >>litterature which endangers their safety. > >Well, pornography isn't "hate literature". >It's designed to entertain horny men, nothing more. Well some people see it as "hate litterature" and that's why they want it banned, not because they don't agree with the form of sexual expression. You see, you are doing it again: you are refusing to listen to other people's opinions on pornography. Some pornography is obviously hateful of women. Why are you refusing to admit this? Admitting this does not entail that you have to be pro-censorship. > >>be balanced out against others in some cases, eh? (<- I'm from Canada) > >Maybe that explains something. Lousy as the public school >systems are in the U.S., they do pound a few basic things >into your head such as respect for freedom of the press. Yeah, but do they explain why? Is this "respect" based on actual caring for the welfare of society and its members or is it just one of those wonderful slogans that makes one feel proud to be free to be proud to live in the greatest (and freeest and proudest) country in the world? > The point of my posting, really, was to say, "Nobody's >raised the issue on the net yet that this right-wing >pro-censorship stuff is eroding feminism's liberal >base of support." I think this is a very good point. I just wish you hadn't surrounded it with all the other garbage and personnal attacks against pro-censorship feminists. Yes, I worry about this too, but as I explained a few times I see this more as an outside misrepresentation of feminism than anything else because I really don't see feminist being united in this issue at all. One would hope that people who care about these issues would care enough to distrust the media's portrayal of (anything in general, but more particularly) the feminist community's opinion on the matter. That is probably very wishful thinking however. > I believe Sophie is underscoring this point for me. (well, actually, I think you did a pretty good job of underscoring it for yourself. <-:) >She probably wouldn't write off an otherwise loyal >feminist just because they were against censorship, I hope not, I'd have to write myself off. Until very recently, I was very annoyed by this issue and refused to have a position on it because a/ I believe that there were more important feminist topics to worry about and b/ I didn't like any of the arguments I had heard from either the feminist pro-censorship side or the liberal anti-censorship side (and of course not the right-wing- protect-our-women's-purity side either). However, I have recently been exposed to some feminist anti-censorship positions which do not attempt to excuse pornography, and do not dismiss the problem and pain as imaginary, but who simply and reasonnably adress the issue of whether censorship is an appropriate reaction to this problem (and come out concluding that it isn't). I am convinced. >but because I'm male, and tried to dig a little deeper >into the background of the pro-censorship movement, >she writes me off instantly. Wonderful. I don't think you dug deep enough. All you did was slander, and that's what I objected to. My opinion is that a pro-censorship attitude is a very understandable reaction to the feeling of threat that pornography causes, but that one must move beyond that position and realise that censorship would create more problems than it would solve, because it would almost certainly be used against the exact people it was supposedly meant to protect. Actually some men have already said this on the net. I didn't object. > >steve pope -- Sophie Quigley {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie
sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (09/26/85)
In article <10429@ucbvax.ARPA> mcgeer@ucbvax.UUCP (Rick McGeer) writes: >In article <2061@mnetor.UUCP> sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) writes: >>The "media" (another strange entity) >>seems to have made up its mind recently to prematurely bury >>feminism by defamation and assertions that it has passed away. > >Evidence? Defamation: that all feminists are pro-censorship. Assertions of death: well I don't know about you, but in the last few years I have seen enough articles in magazines about the "death" of feminism to believe that there is a trend in that kind of reporting. > >>i.e in this case, feminist writings. Having read a lot of feminist >>material myself, I have found basically that there is not one >>single issue on which all feminists agree (or did I miss it?). > >Try the ERA? Ok, good one. Equal pay for equal work is another good one. I can't think of too many more. > >>> I'm a liberal person, and I have always viewed >>>feminism as a liberal cause, which I have always supported >>>except for the radical fringe. Censorship of pornography >>>is pretty much a right-wing, moral-majority type >>>of thing. >> >>While I cannot agree with some frothing at the mouth that I have >>seen coming from some anti-pornographers (?), I think that it is >>too easy to dismiss the idea of censorship of pornography as you >>did by calling it a "right-wing, moral majority type of thing". >>A responsible society should be able to censor itself when not >>doing so endangers the life of some of its members. Pornography >>does pause a real threat to women, and the solution to this threat >>might just include some amount of censorship. > >Well, there may not be a standard position of feminists on the issue of >pornography, but this comes pretty close. And it's still wrong. Nobody Well, then you seem to *freely* believe what the media has told you. Feminists are divided on this issue: even though Andrea Dworkin and Catharine MacKinnon are pro-censorship, Robin Morgan, Erica Jong, and Carol Vance (the ones I can remember for sure) are against it. An organisation called FACT ( Feminist Anti-Censorship Task Force ) fought the Minneapolis ordinance. Many feminists (or at least those who express themselves by writing) have had the opportunity to see the effect of censorship laws on themselves and are thus very aware of the dangers of such laws. For a good collection of articles on the matter, I recommend the book "Women against Censorship" edited by Varda Burstein. You might be interested in the april 1985 issue of Ms "Is one woman's sexuality another woman's pornography" and the September 1978 issue of Ms: "How to run the pornographers out of town and preserve the first amendment" by Robin Morgan. >Either you have freedom of speech or you don't. Personally, I think we >oughta keep it. Defend the First Amendment, while you still have the right to. > > -- Rick. Well, unlike you, I heven't moved to the state yet Rick. No first amendment for us. -- Sophie Quigley {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (Marcel F. Simon) (09/29/85)
>, > >> == Sophie Quigley > >> .... Pornography > >>does pause a real threat to women, and the solution to this threat > >>might just include some amount of censorship. > > ... and I do not > find it inconceivable that in a "perfect" society, pornography would not > exist because people would realise that its benefits are not worth the pain > that it creates. You have not given your own definition of pornography. What exact depictions do you hold to be a threat: kiddie porn (already illegal as child abuse and rape)? Sado-Masochism, imposed (in which case it becomes assault, battery, rape...) or consensual? Homosexual, bisexual or heterosexual intercourse? How do all these pose a threst and cause pain? > ... The reason I posted was that I > was incensed by the atmosphere of insensitivity that surrounds this whole > issue. I do not believe in censorship either, but I cannot respect people > who will refuse to acknowledge the negative feelings that some pronography > causes some people. All pornography is not equal, some of it is harmless > and even stupid, some of it is fun, but there is also some of it which is > very depressing. All I would like is for anti-censorship people to say: > "yes we realise that pornography hurts, but we really don't think that > censorship is going to solve the problem" instead of "if pornography hurts > you, it's because you are sexually repressed and you simply want to impose > your prudishness on other people". All I would like is some more compassion, > and I don't see much of it (except from Sherry, who of course was attacked > for it). If "some of it" is "fun" or "stupid" or "harmless," how come [all of] "pornography hurts?" The context of this discussion is the desirability of banning pornography. I have strenuously pointed out that pornography must first be legally defined. Then its negative effect on the social order must be demonstrated. Only then can a discussion of the putative benefits of a ban begin. The above paragraph asks the net to agree that porn is bad and implies that those who will not do so are just insensitive clods. Come on now, you know better than that. Someone on the net wrote to the effect that her goal concerning pornography is to make it less "socially acceptable." That is a pefectly valid way of expressing oneself. If you feel that pornography hurts you, take whatever action is necessary: attend town, county or borough government meetings where zoning laws, building permits, retailer's licenses and the like are debated or issued. State your objections. Lobby your elected representatives. In other words, follow the path to political change provided by a democracy. However, if your position is not enacted, do not complain of a male conspiracy, and do not demand compassion for a cause that has been democratically lost. If you or organizations representing you are unwilling to do the necessary legwork, why are you complaining? > Well some people see it as "hate litterature" and that's why they want it > banned, not because they don't agree with the form of sexual expression. Do you think Nazi or Communist literature should be banned? > ... Some pornography is obviously hateful of women. Why > are you refusing to admit this? Admitting this does not entail that you have > to be pro-censorship. OK, some pornography is hateful of women. So what? Marcel Simon
mcgeer@ucbvax.ARPA (Rick McGeer) (09/30/85)
In article <2266@mnetor.UUCP> sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) writes: >In article <10429@ucbvax.ARPA> mcgeer@ucbvax.UUCP (Rick McGeer) writes: >>Either you have freedom of speech or you don't. Personally, I think we >>oughta keep it. Defend the First Amendment, while you still have the right to. >> >> -- Rick. > >Well, unlike you, I heven't moved to the state yet Rick. No first amendment >for us. >-- >Sophie Quigley No. You have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees you the right to free speech -- except for those restrictions found reasonable in a democratic society, I think the wording is...not to mention that clause that gives the provinces the right to declare any law exempt from the Charter. Not to mention a court system that's got a hundred years of subservience to Parliament. And not to mention a bunch of pretty powerful groups that aren't overly happy with the Charter, like the PQ government, or most provinces' Human Rights Boards... If I still lived in Canada, I'd be a little worried about all of that, and a little less enthusiastic about censorship. Aren't you? Rick.
spp@ucbvax.ARPA (Stephen P Pope) (10/01/85)
> Sophie Quigley > The point I was making (clearly I thought) was that there is not ONE > feminist position on censorship of pornography. What I've noticed > from reading feminist litterature is that this issue is creating a > split in the feminist community. The next point I was making is that > "the media" has been ignoring the voices of anti-censorship feminists. > (I did say both of these things. I don't know how much clearer I can > make my point). Therefore, all I was trying to say is that you shouldn't > rely on the popular media to get a deep understanding on feminist ideas, > just like you shouldn't rely on the popular media to get an understanding Yes you stated these points clearly. My own (limited by your standards) exposure to feminist writing on pornography hasn't given me the impression that there is much PUBLISHED by feminists who take the position that censorship is a far worse evil than pornography. Perhaps such views are expressed in private forums. If so it's time to give them more press. > All I would like is for anti-censorship people to say: > "yes we realise that pornography hurts, but we really don't think that > censorship is going to solve the problem" instead of "if pornography hurts > you, it's because you are sexually repressed and you simply want to impose > your prudishness on other people". All I would like is some more compassion, I happen to not believe that pornography hurts. I allow that there is a small fraction of society who feels harmed by it. My compassion extends to most such people, but I find some of the pro-censorship attitudes repulsive, whatever their cause. > >>And I think the above is a cheap shot. Who are you to decide > I don't know about "people like me" and their attitudes, but I don't see > why you had to make personnal attacks against people who had a different > opinion from yours. > Maybe you felt threatened by them... I'll retract the statement in question since it does come off as a personal attack. I maintain however that my analogy between homophobes and pro-censors does APPEAR to explain certain pro-censor attitudes. And damn right I feel threatened. I see the pendulum swinging further and further to the right. I don't like it, and, and after a brief and polite interval of initial patience, I'm not likely to have much compassion for anyone defending the actions of the extreme right-wing. > You see, you are doing it again: you are refusing to listen to other people's > opinions on pornography. Some pornography is obviously hateful of women. Why > are you refusing to admit this? Admitting this does not entail that you have > to be pro-censorship. I suggest that if you delinieated what you find "obviously hateful" about some pornography, I would find that 99 percent of what you describe results from your personal objection to depiction of certain sexual practices. This assumes your objections are along the lines of those of Gloria Steinham, Susan Griffin and others. > One would hope that people who care about these issues would care enough > to distrust the media's portrayal of (anything in general, but more > particularly) the feminist community's opinion on the matter. That is > probably very wishful thinking however. I tend to think that I am entitled to my opinions even if I have no knowledge of whether the opposition is a vocal one percent of self-described feminists or the entire population of the country. Seriously, perhaps I am not totally familiar with the various feminist positions on pornography. Perhaps you, Sophie, are not totally familiar with the history and practice of censorship in the U.S. Feminist writings you no doubt would never advocate censoring would indeed be censored if the situation reverted to that of the early twentieth century. Why help turn back the clock? ANY form of censorship requires empowering someone to decide what should be banned. Nobody should be given that power. steve pope
guest@ccivax.UUCP (What's in a name ?) (10/24/85)
> In article <10429@ucbvax.ARPA> mcgeer@ucbvax.UUCP (Rick McGeer) writes: > >In article <2061@mnetor.UUCP> sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) writes: > > Ok, good one. Equal pay for equal work is another good one. I can't > think of too many more. > > > >>Pornography > >>does pause a real threat to women, and the solution to this threat > >>might just include some amount of censorship. > > I'm not sure how normal people reading pornography poses a threat to women. Rapists tend to be abnormal and with or without pornography, they will vent sexual frustrations in abnormal ways. The only threat I see at the moment is the male who attempts to coerce his partner into fulfilling pornographic fantasies. Normally, this would be a problem for married or cohabitating couples. Perhaps the real issue, rather than the availibilty and content of pornography, is the rights of a woman. In Colorado the successful conviction of a husband for raping his wife was big news. Should a husband be able to force his wife to fulfill fantisies picked up from pornography? Should a wife have the right to fulfilment of her fantisies? Shouldn't both be aware of each others preferrences BEFORE they get married? Sexual preferrences (for men, I don't know about women) seem to be formed at a very early age, usually around 2 or 3 when the child is out of diapers and can stimulate themselves. At that point, anything may be considered pornography. By age 5, the sexual preferrences are fairly well refined. Even a sears catalog (ladies or mens wear) can be erotica to a person deprived of all other sources. Fetishists, transvestites, and dominants/submissives frequently start this way. They are also less likely to discuss their preferrences because of the repression which caused these peculiar tastes in the first place. > > Feminists are divided on this issue: even though Andrea Dworkin and > Catharine MacKinnon are pro-censorship, Robin Morgan, Erica Jong, and > Carol Vance (the ones I can remember for sure) are against it. There are feminists who actually maintain the superiority of women and promote female domination of men in porn publications run by women. In fact, the arguments of such authors is quite convincing. Of course, the objective of most feminists is equal opportunity isn't it? Can you outlaw female submissives without outlawing female dominants? opinions are not those of CCI and are subject to change. rb@ccitv2