act@pur-phy.UUCP (Alex C. Tselis) (01/28/85)
I am posting this article for C.E. Jackson A.C.Tselis --------------------------------------------------------------- Re: Feminism, Pornography & Prudery (Before I begin, I wish to make one thing clear. I am NOT advocating censorship. I am against the social acceptability of pornography, but I am NOT arguing that the government should be allowed to control what people read or don't read.) I disagree with many of the articles on the net have argued that pornography does not degrade women. Those who favor pornography seem to have four basic arguments. The first is that people who think pornography is degrading are prudes, and are against freedom of speech and/or open explorations of human sexuality. The second is that not all pornography is alike and therefore not all of it degrades women. The third argument is that it is irrelevant that some amount of pornography seems to degrade women because it's all just harmless fantasies and not what men really do. Some of the proponents of the third argument even claim that pornography actually *helps* women because it provides men with a "harmless" outlet to degrade "fantasy" women so that men don't actually *have to* degrade real women. The fourth argument is that if pornography really degraded women, some women (including women on the net) wouldn't defend it. Let us examine the second argument first. I must agree, on a literal level, at least, with the pro-pornography people here. It is undoubtedly true that not ALL pornography degrades women. It is equally true that not all Ku Klux Klan publications denigrate blacks. Some of the KKK's publications *do* attack whites--especially if those whites are Catholic, Jewish and/or liberal. But would any of pro-pornographers claim that because not *all* KKK publications denigrate blacks, blacks should not be the first people to question the veracity and social acceptability of KKK publications? Of course not *all* pornography degrades women--the definition of the word is too loose for anyone to know what the content of *all* pornography is. But once one concedes that not *all* pornography degrades women, one is left with the fact that the bulk of what most people would call pornography *does* degrade women. "Ah," crow the pro-pornographers, "if you think that, you're a prude and worse yet, you're interfering with freedom of speech." Good old "freedom of speech." Everyone's favorite expression. And it seems to mean something a little different to everyone. To me, when I am having a conversation with someone, especially with someone who *initiated* the conversation, I think an integral part of my freedom of speech is that the person actually listen to what I say and not try to argue against me by arguing against things I *haven't said.* And yet, invariably, when I argue with people about pornography, they start talking about how I want to abrogate their freedom of speech even when I have explicitly stated (as I did above) that I am AGAINST GOVERNMENT CENSORSHIP. There are definitely times when I feel that Women Against Pornography (and their pro-censorship position) are a weight around my neck. But, on the other hand, I have observed that whenever women talk against pornography, it doesn't really matter whether they advocate censorship or not. Men don't *want* to talk about pornography with women; they *want* to talk about censorship, and they don't care what they have to do to a *woman's* freedom of speech to try to keep her on *their* turf. Once (or if) one succeeds in persuading an advocate of pornography that one doesn't wish to interfere with his freedom of speech, the next "truism" that these people trot out is that one is a "prude." Now "prude" is a funny word for these people to choose. It comes from a French word meaning "virtuous woman" and its definition (according to THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY) is "a person who is excessively concerned with being or seeming to be proper, modest or righteous." Let me share with you one of the times that this word has been used against me. I suggested to someone (of whom I am nonetheless fond) that I did not like the fact that he always referred to sexual intercourse as "pounding it into [the woman]." I said that I thought the phrase was stupid and offensive, because it implied that the woman was boardlike--that she was not at all involved, that she was passive, and that he was hurting her. I suggested that even if he were fond of that particular expression, he might augment it with a few others that implied a wider range of sexual responses on *both* their parts. He said that I was a prude. Was I? In a male-oriented society is it an "*excessive concern" with *propriety* that makes women question men describing them as passive, boardlike and uninvolved in sexual intercourse? (Do "virtuous women" who are "excessively concerned with being or seeming to be proper, modest or righteous" question men *at all*?) Is not the image of women as wholly uninterested in sexual intercourse precisely what was promulgated by those quintessential prudes, the Victorians? Of course, most pornography does not show women being quite so passive. Women are more commonly shown exuding masochistic ecstasy throughout whatever degrading or violent activity the men have decided to subject them. And most pro-pornographers claim that it is because of "prudery" that feminists cannot stand to see a woman enjoying sex. They frequently claim that pornography portrays reality (unless of course they're claiming that pornography has nothing to do with rape, in which case it's all just a harmless fantasy--see below), and that we feminists simply don't have enough experience with the range of sexual responses to acknowledge the validity of this one. "It's just not to your taste," a man told me once, "All you're really objecting to is bad art, and you don't have the right to impose your taste on everyone." Ignoring the colossal condescension of a man claiming to know what I'm objecting to better than I do, let's look at *this* argument. More than any other kind of entertainment (national TV, non-X-rated movies, sports events, etc.), American pornography is written by, produced by, directed by and created for men *only*. And there is a certain monotonous sameness to the productions of this homogeneous environment. There may be numerous variations on the actors' and actresses' positions, numbers of partners and situations, etc., but most American pornography nonetheless presents a monolithic, male-oriented view of human sexuality. How *could* pornography be to a woman's taste (except by accident) when women are so purposely excluded from the process of creating it in the first place? Just who is "imposing" whose taste on whom? Most men whom I have met have gotten some ideas about human sexuality from pornography. And many of those ideas have greater validity for those men than the ideas that come from their own sexual experiences. The man who referred to sexual intercourse as "pounding it into [the woman]" had never slept with a passive partner nor did he enjoy inflicting pain on women. He, like most American men, did read PLAYBOY and PENTHOUSE with some regularity, and it was from those supposedly harmless magazines that he developed such a false metaphor for describing his activities. Does this man (or men like him) really have sexual freedom when his ideas about sexuality are controlled not by *his* experience but by cultural misogyny? Is he really going to be free to explore *all* or many or even some avenues of sexual expression when he has been brainwashed into believing that all sexual expression is male-oriented? And is it really "prudery" or "excessive concern with seeming proper or modest" that makes women protest this propaganda for a monolithic view of human sexuality? The status quo and what is defined as the "proper" (although perhaps not "modest") and even the "righteous" view of human sexuality is the androcentric one presented by pornographers. It is *they* who are the "prudes;" not the feminists. It is *they* who wish to limit the expression of human sexuality; not the feminists. Feminists want choice. We don't want to *have* to sleep with men whose ideas about human sexuality were originally defined for them by from such shining intellectual lights as Hugh Hefner or Bob Guccione. We don't want to have to compete with a monolithic media campaign to get men to consider their *own* experiences (not to mention ours) when thinking about sexuality. It is to the "taste" of at least some of us that heterosexuality stop being defined in strictly androcentric terms. If some men are really so set on sex being male-oriented, why don't they sleep with each other and stop trying to impose this male-oriented model on everyone else? How much of the most virulent misogynist pornography is some kind of subliminated homosexuality? I know that according to male logic I must be some kind of prude to say this, but wouldn't it be healthier for those men who really hate women to just admit it? And stop pretending that raping/degrading woman is showing them affection? There are, of course, some people who feel that it is healthy for men to manifest hatred of women in pornography. They argue that it is all just a fantasy and that there is no hard evidence to show that men who watch pornography (especially violent pornography) then go out and rape or otherwise abuse women. It is true that there is no hard evidence. There is also no hard evidence to show that the Nazi films (which compared Jews to rats and which certainly were fantasies) "made" Germans ignore the slaughter of, consent to or actually kill 6 million Jews. But few people argue that those films are somehow a "healthy" way for Gentiles to manifest their hatred for Jews. In fact, many people would question just how healthy or natural or inevitable anti-Semitism is. And in many of the social circles in which purchasing and enjoying violent pornography is seen as socially acceptable, buying a Nazi film is not. If I were to buy such a film and claim that I enjoyed it, I think many of my friends, especially those who are Jewish, would write me off as a hate-filled bigot. They would have good cause to wonder how I could claim to be friends with people who were Jewish while enjoying an anti-Semitic film. Yet manifestations of misogyny are seen as perfectly acceptable. How many men are censured by women (or by other men) for watching films that glorify rape? How many men feel the *least* amount of social pressure against or internal compunction about buying or enjoying violent pornography? And what are some of the most commons epithets used against women who protest men degrading them? One is "castrating bitch." Many men immediately make a link (based on very little evidence) between women's legitimate desire to end historical male prerogatives (such as rape) that grossly impinge on women's rights, and women's alleged desire to harm men's genitals physically. Men are extremely protective of both their historical prerogatives and their genitals, and they seem to think that when the former are threatened, the latter are also in dire danger. The phrase "castrating bitch" is not a joke in our society. Neither sex sees too much humor in the phrase, especially since it is frequently used to justify the physical abuse of women. Yet the same men who literally cross their legs when "uppity" females verbally question male supremacy cannot understand why women object to pictures of themselves going through meat grinders or lashed to trees with the ropes cutting into their vaginas or being gang raped. We are somehow supposed to believe that rape and other forms of physical abuse are all just fantasies, but that castrating females are a common and very real threat to society. It's a pity that crime statistics don't bear this idea out--I *wish* that rape were only a fantasy. And contrary to Bob Guccione's nightmares, feminist covens don't fly through the night with knives bared. Women simply do not get off on hurting men nearly as much as the other way around. "Ah, but wait," the pro-pornographers smirk. "If pornography is so bad to women, why do some women enjoy it?" The flip answer to that question is that blacks have their "Uncle Toms;" women have their "Linda Lovelaces." The sad irony is that Linda Lovelace now says that she was virtually a slave when DEEP THROAT was filmed. In a male-dominated, male-controlled society, isn't it reasonable to expect that some number of women will support (or claim to support) what men want? Male approval is often the only ticket to security for many women. Does anyone think it is *easy* to speak against the accepted practices of society? Does anyone think that I (or any other women) speak against pornography at no risk? Without abuse? I don't find it pleasant to be told that I am a prude or a castrator--I can't think why anyone else would. The question is not why some members of an oppressed and vulnerable group DON'T speak out against their oppressors, but why so many members of that group DO speak out. Yet another irony behind this question, though, is what it says about the hypocrisy of the pro-pornographers. On the one hand, they claim that the female expressions of masochistic ecstasy that permeate pornography are an accurate portrayal of women's sexual response. On the other hand, to show how non-degrading pornography is, they cite the approval of *some* women as evidence that pornography really doesn't hurt *any* women. How come these pro-pornography women aren't seen as being "true to type" and enjoying something that hurts them? How come (when it suits men's interests) all women are portrayed as masochistic, and (when men's interest in how women are seen changes) some women (those who agree with men) suddenly only want what is good for women? I have been told that I minimize the variety of the human sexual response by ignoring female masochism as a legitimate response, and yet when I suggest that the same women who *like* pornography may well be masochistic, I am told not to be ridiculous; I'm just a "castrating prude!" (Is it proper, modest or righteous to castrate men? I *never* thought so, but men say the *darnedest* things.) C.E. Jackson ihnp4!lznv!cja
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (02/01/85)
Excellent article from C.E. Jackson. Though long it's well worth reading. It has ocurred to me thoughout this discussion that government regulation probably the least desirable way to deal with the problem of pornography (although it may be effective). Jackson (Ms. or Mr? I do not know.) made the point that his/her argument is not for government censorship, but many pro-porn people insist on making any opposition to porn a censorship issue. May question is, for those who recognise the problem and would like to do something about it, what are some effective ways? It seems that anyone who is opposed to porn can't help but be labeled a censor when they express their views. If people express their desire that a porn shop should leave their neighborhood by picketing they are called censors. If they try to invoke community standards the same charge is levelled. So what is a proper and effective way to oppose porn besides just talking about it? If not government censorship, what then? Do people like Jackson think the problem is going to be solved by trying to convince everyone not to buy porn? Will arguments convince the people who are most influenced by the hard core stuff? What are the alternatives? -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Fred Mertz) (02/04/85)
> May question is, for those who recognise the problem and would like to > do something about it, what are some effective ways? It seems that anyone > who is opposed to porn can't help but be labeled a censor when they express > their views. If people express their desire that a porn shop should leave > their neighborhood by picketing they are called censors. If they try to > invoke community standards the same charge is levelled. So what is a proper > and effective way to oppose porn besides just talking about it? If > not government censorship, what then? [DUBUC] The problem is not the existence of porn. The problem isn't even your thinking that the existence of porn is a problem. The problem is your thinking that because you think porn is a problem it should *somehow* be eradicated and/or eliminated. -- "Discipline is never an end in itself, only a means to an end." Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
act@pur-phy.UUCP (Tselis) (02/07/85)
This is posted for C.E. Jackson by A.C. Tselis: > [Paul Dubuc] >Excellent article from C.E. Jackson. Though long it's well worth >reading. >It has occurred to me throughout this discussion that government regulation >probably the least desirable way to deal with the problem of pornography >(although it may be effective). Jackson (Ms. or Mr? I do not know.) made >the point that his/her argument is not for government censorship, but >many pro-porn people insist on making any opposition to porn a censorship >issue. >My question is, for those who recognize the problem and would like to >do something about it, what are some effective ways? It seems that anyone >who is opposed to porn can't help but be labeled a censor when they express >their views. If people express their desire that a porn shop should leave >their neighborhood by picketing they are called censors. If they try to >invoke community standards the same charge is levelled. So what is a proper >and effective way to oppose porn besides just talking about it? If >not government censorship, what then? Paul, old buddy, don't you remember me? It's C. Elizabeth Jackson, a terrifying advocate of women's rights from over there in net.abortionland! You remember me--I'm the one your articulate & loving anti-abortion pals wanted to sterilize! Given our past disagreements, I want to make very clear what I dislike about pornography because I suspect that we don't have same objections to it & therefore don't have the same goals in mind. (I'm not saying that I don't appreciate your support; I just want all of us to be clear about what you are seeming to support. If, after reading this, you wish to withdraw your support, I understand.) I am not objecting to pornography because it offends traditional Christian views of proper sexual behavior. And I have no wish to *eliminate* pornography; I wish to render it impotent. (Okay, pun intended.) I personally think the idea of pornography is stupid--men tend to use it as a substitute either for real women or for talking to their lovers about their mutual fantasies, but I don't see the point to glorifying misogynic pornography by repressing it (elimination is impossible). After all (as someone pointed out earlier), the last time there were really strict anti-porn laws, some number of "Christian" groups used those laws to outlaw the publication of birth control information. I don't wish to see that happen again. Also, freedom of speech laws are designed to protect the *expression* of ideas & since what I object to most about pornography are *the ideas expressed in it*, I have no wish to work against the sense of the Bill of Rights. I think that, once clearly examined, the ideas contained in pornography will be shown to be as false, as cruel & as hate-filled as those that supported American slavery. Virtually no Americans now condone the idea of slavery; with time, effort & perseverance perhaps as few Americans will buy the ideas currently expressed in pornography. The ideas that I do not like in pornography are those ideas that lie to men about women. I do not like the idea that men are told that women like to be raped. I do not like the idea that men are told that women like to be bound & gagged. I especially do not like the idea that men are told that to entertain ideas such as these is somehow an acceptable way for men to show affection for women. If men want to acknowledge that sexuality is a very complex thing & that sometimes you can really be angry at your female lover & want to do things to her that may hurt her, that is one thing. That is honest; that is real. If people were honest about their feelings, they might not need to act them out or disguise them in cruel fantasies. But that's *not* the way pornography presents it. In pornography, the way to express love is often to behave cruelly. >Do people like Jackson think the problem is going to be solved by >trying to convince everyone not to buy porn? Will arguments convince >the people who are most influenced by the hard core stuff? What are the >alternatives? I don't want to "convince" men, especially, that pornography is wrong because I don't think that's possible as a first step. Men, as a group, have historically not listened to women as a group when women "just" asked for something. The sheer reasonableness of an idea has never, in the history of this country at least, sufficed to convince men that it was "right". Look how long it took for women to be allowed to own their own property, to get the vote, to be allowed to divorce their husbands, or to get the right to birth control! And we *still* don't have anything like equal rights. What I want to do is show *women* (many of whom don't think of or don't *like* to think of the content of pornography) how pornography hurts them. When a *woman* understands that pictures of a woman going through a meatgrinder turns her lover on, she may not want him as her lover. Or she may want to ask him what he has against women to be so aroused at seeing them mutilated. When women learn how many of the phrases that men use to describe sexuality come from so-called harmless magazines such as PENTHOUSE & PLAYBOY (& manifest all the reality & imaginative variation of laundry detergent commercials) they may want to select men who aren't Guccione parrots over those who are. When women look at the rape rate & then look at men who claim films glorifying rape are just "harmless fantasies," I want women to tell men what they think of that idea. Rape isn't an expression of affection; it's a violent crime & pretending otherwise is a vicious lie. Misogyny exists throughout our culture--I am not at all trying to pretend that pornography is the only manifestation of misogyny in our culture. I AM saying that it is an obvious & extreme one. And I want to make the people who "enjoy" it social pariahs. If they are not enjoying misogynist pornography, fine. They can explain to me (or any other woman whose opinions matter to them) why it's *not*. (And if they're explaining it to ME, they'd better have a pretty cogent explanation as to why it's not misogynic.) I want to put men who like pornography on the defensive. I want to know how they reconcile their supposed belief in sexual "freedom" with orgasms over victimized, bound, gagged and/or mutilated women. For centuries, women who have questioned male prerogatives have been labeled "man haters" & have been mocked as women who "couldn't get" men & resorted to feminism as a kind of revenge. Fine. If men want to say that people like me are vengeful, I'll show them vengeance. I say that it's time to turn this around. "Woman hater" should become a term of abuse--not an unused term because that state is the social norm. And men who like pornography should be laughed at for their "obvious" inability to convince (non-violently) any woman that they're worth having. As the campaign to get the vote (& other non-violent, non-cooperation movements) showed, men as a group have historically tolerated any injustice so long as they weren't laughed at. Make them look like hypocritical fools, imply that their behavior is evidence of weakness and stupidity, & they'll do whatever is necessary to regain their "masculine" self-respect. A second way to combat misogynic pornography is to offer men an alternative. Messrs. Guccione, Hefner & Flynt have been the major voices deciding what "free" sexuality is. The monolithic misogyny of their supposedly varied messages has permeated the sexual psychology of American men for far too long. Let's just think about one member of this unholy trinity for a moment--Bob Guccione. How many women would REALLY want to go out with *him*--a man who wears enough gold chains to get a Volkswagen out of the snow [this line was stolen from PEOPLE], a man who finds his own chest hair endlessly fascinating, a man whose aggressive insistence on his own virility smacks of a confession of impotence, a man whose idea of a serious historical documentary is CALIGULA, a man whose idea of warm-heartedness is to ruin Vanessa Williams' career & then offer her a job, a man who has suggested that raping feminists would "straighten" them out, etc. etc. Why on earth should *HE* (& the people he employs) be perceived as the *final* arbitrator of sexuality? What does *HE* know about what women like or think? (I'm not sure he even acknowledges that women *do* think.) Women can come up with far better ideas about heterosexual sexuality than *he* can & I thinks it's time we did, & offered them to men as an alternative.
zubbie@wlcrjs.UUCP (Jeanette Zobjeck) (02/19/85)
Recently an *adult book and gift shop* opened on the outskirts of Beloit,Wisconsin. The converted an old gas station, painted it pink and even posted a large bill board along the inter- state ( they are located at an on/off ramp. ) The hurrah raised by this caused quite a commotion in the city and town council meetings for a while and then died off. The store opened and conducts a medium amount of business, books, magazines, video tapes and assorted odds and ends. Presently there is a group lobbying all over the state for enactment of statewide porn laws which , they feel, would close down this business. I am not supporting or condeming the business or its owners merely noting that they exist. The prime rationale used for lobbying against this business establishment and others like it is primarily the degradation caused to women and the removal of ritual from sex. Pretty much the same arguements we have been seeing here. By the way the prime mover in this effort is the Organization of Catholic Women and the reasoning they are using is almost 100% based on the dogma and rulings of the Catholic Church. IF they have their way, they are trying hard, Wisconsin at least will have a set of laws defining porn according to the Catholic Churches ideas of sex and sexual relations. Wisconsin is also one of those states which still has co-habitation laws on the books. Scary thought I think. I am not against the Catholic Church but I sure dont want that or any one organization defining what is good, bad,right or wrong for me. =============================================================================== From the mostly vacant environment of Jeanette L. Zobjeck (ihnp4!wlcrjs!zubbie) All opinions expressed may not even be my own. ===============================================================================