leiby@yeti.UUCP (02/15/84)
> Mike Kelley (tty3b!mjk): > > An interesting approach to pornography is being tried in Minneapolis-St. Paul. > There, woman are suing the pornography outlets for violation of their civil > rights. Given the obvious civil liberties problems with outright banning of > pornography, I think that this form of retribution might be particularly > effective. In a profit-oriented society, to stop something, just take the > profit out of it. Explain to me how pornography is a violation of civil rights. I don't feel *my* rights are violated by, say, Playgirl magazine (in fact, I'm waiting for a call from their photo staff!). > John Hobson (ihuxq!amigo2): > > Martin Taylor wonders why women ... are against it [pornography]. > The reason is quite simple. Pornography, which is almost > exclusively directed towards men, depicts women purely and simply as > sex objects. .... Moreover, much of pornography depicts women as > subservient and abused by men. Well, John, maybe the porn *you* read depicts women as being subservient and abused. Try something more respectable, like Penthouse. And what, I'd like to know, is wrong with appreciating the sexual attractiveness of another human being (or, as they say at the Naperville Anti-Smut Leage meetings (and you thought NASL was the North American Soccer League!)), "depicting {wo,}men as sex objects"? I wish someone would look at me as a sex object once in a while. My advice to you, John, is to not feel so guilty about masturbating. > Ariel Shattan (orca!ariels): > > There was a study recently ... where a researcher showed male college > students some pornographic films, and then three days later gave > them and a control group a survey that covered additudes [sic] about > women and about violence towards women. > > The young men who saw the films were 1/3 more likely to condone > violence against women, and also, 1/3 more of them said that THEY > PERSONALLY might commit violence against women if they knew they > wouldn't be caught. I would like to see how this question was worded in the questionnaire! "Check here if you are likely to brutally rape a woman, given a 60% probability of being caught. 40%? 10%?" Perhaps the survey was given at the University of Illinois (Hi, Vijay! :-) and this accounts for the strange results. > Ariel again: > > Pornography is that which depicts people enjoying pain and > mistreatment. Also, that which celebrates violence as a valid form > of sexuality. This has a lot of merit. How about if we define pornography as above, and define "smut" to be naughty pictures. In that case, I am violently anti-pornography and rabidly pro-smut. "Who needs a hobby Like tennis, or philatilly? <--- sp? I've got a hobby Rereading 'Lady Chatterley'!" -- T. Lehrer -- Mike Leibensperger @ Masscomp, Westford MA 01886 {tektronix,harpo,decvax}!masscomp!leiby
leiby@yeti.UUCP (02/16/84)
> Mike Kelley (tty3b!mjk): > > An interesting approach to pornography is being tried in Minneapolis-St. Paul. > There, woman are suing the pornography outlets for violation of their civil > rights. Given the obvious civil liberties problems with outright banning of > pornography, I think that this form of retribution might be particularly > effective. In a profit-oriented society, to stop something, just take the > profit out of it. Explain to me how pornography is a violation of civil rights. I don't feel *my* rights are violated by, say, Playgirl magazine (in fact, I'm waiting for a call from their photo staff!). > John Hobson (ihuxq!amigo2): > > Martin Taylor wonders why women ... are against it [pornography]. > The reason is quite simple. Pornography, which is almost > exclusively directed towards men, depicts women purely and simply as > sex objects. .... Moreover, much of pornography depicts women as > subservient and abused by men. Well, John, maybe the porn *you* read depicts women as being subservient and abused. Try something more respectable. And what, I'd like to know, is wrong with appreciating the sexual attractiveness of another human being (or, as they say at the Naperville Anti-Smut Leage meetings (and you thought NASL was the North American Soccer League!)), "depicting {wo,}men as sex objects"? I wish someone would look at me as a sex object once in a while. > Ariel Shattan (orca!ariels): > > There was a study recently ... where a researcher showed male college > students some pornographic films, and then three days later gave > them and a control group a survey that covered additudes [sic] about > women and about violence towards women. > > The young men who saw the films were 1/3 more likely to condone > violence against women, and also, 1/3 more of them said that THEY > PERSONALLY might commit violence against women if they knew they > wouldn't be caught. I would like to see how this question was worded in the questionnaire! "Check here if you are likely to brutally rape a woman, given a 60% probability of being caught. 40%? 10%?" Perhaps the survey was given at the University of Illinois (Hi, Vijay! :-) and this accounts for the strange results. > Ariel again: > > Pornography is that which depicts people enjoying pain and > mistreatment. Also, that which celebrates violence as a valid form > of sexuality. This has a lot of merit. How about if we define pornography as above, and define "smut" to be naughty pictures. In that case, I am violently anti-pornography and rabidly pro-smut. "Who needs a hobby Like tennis, or philatilly? <--- sp? I've got a hobby Rereading 'Lady Chatterley'!" -- T. Lehrer -- Mike Leibensperger @ Masscomp, Westford MA 01886 {tektronix,harpo,decvax}!masscomp!leiby
amigo2@ihuxq.UUCP (John Hobson) (02/16/84)
Mike Leibensperger (masscomp!leiby) says: >> John Hobson (ihuxq!amigo2): >> >> Martin Taylor wonders why women ... are against it [pornography]. >> The reason is quite simple. Pornography, which is almost >> exclusively directed towards men, depicts women purely and simply as >> sex objects. .... Moreover, much of pornography depicts women as >> subservient and abused by men. > Well, John, maybe the porn *you* read depicts women as being > subservient and abused. Try something more respectable, like > Penthouse. And what, I'd like to know, is wrong with appreciating > the sexual attractiveness of another human being (or, as they say > at the Naperville Anti-Smut League meetings (and you thought NASL > was the North American Soccer League!)), "depicting {wo,}men as > sex objects"? I wish someone would look at me as a sex object > once in a while. My advice to you, John, is to not feel so guilty > about masturbating. First of all, I resent his snide comment about not feeling guilty about masturbating. I don't feel guilty about masturbating (and haven't since the age of thirteen). I certainly do appreciate the sexual attractiveness of other human beings, and I look forward to summer when halter tops, shorts, and bikini swimsuits are worn. And I do appeciate erotica (I well remember the scene in the movie "Lennie" when Valerie Perrine did the strip-tease. I found it quite arousing). I would also like to be looked on as a sex object once in a while by others than just my wife (as I weigh about 30 pounds more than I should, it's not very likely), however if I were looked upon merely as a sex object, I would deeply resent it. My point was that many women resent being considered just as sex objects, they are people, with more to offer than just sexy bodies. I tend to agree with Ariel's definition of porn: > Pornography is that which depicts people enjoying pain and > mistreatment. Also, that which celebrates violence as a valid form > of sexuality. I would extend it to to any kind of "perversity". I once saw some "kiddie porn," and was quite repelled by it. As one old British homosexual once said to me, "I abhore pederasts, since they tend to give all homosexuals a bad name." John Hobson AT&T Bell Labs Naperville, IL (312) 979-0193 ihnp4!ihuxq!amigo2 P.S. It's spelled "philately." And your quote from Tom Lehrer reminds me of the old story of when anti-pornography laws were being debated in the British House of Lords, one peer who supported the anti-porn laws asked one of his opponents "Would you like your daughter to read Lady Chatterley's Lover?" The reply was "I wouldn't mind if my daughter read it, but I'd want to keep it out of the hands of my gamekeeper."
edhall@randvax.ARPA (Ed Hall) (02/29/84)
---------------------------------- I really not trying to make an example out of Mike Leibensperger, as there are others who have argued the same point. A few years ago I would have done the same! Here is an excerpt from Mike: > Well, John, maybe the porn *you* read depicts women as being subservient > and abused. Try something more respectable, like Penthouse. And what, > I'd like to know, is wrong with appreciating the sexual attractiveness > of another human being (or, as they say at the Naperville Anti-Smut > Leage meetings (and you thought NASL was the North American Soccer > League!)), "depicting {wo,}men as sex objects"? I wish someone would > look at me as a sex object once in a while. My advice to you, John, > is to not feel so guilty about masturbating. I've looked at Penthouse; heck, I've *bought* Penthouse in the past. They have good interviews, and occasionally good articles and fiction. And lots of pictures of very nice-looking women in various uncomfortable- looking poses, with genitals or breasts exposed. And I once looked at these pictures quite a bit. Eventually they became familiar, and lost their erotic effect. And as the fog of desire lifted, I began to see the person in the pictures. (Sounds a bit corny, I know, but I think it describes pretty much how I felt.) The women's faces and postures began to look fearful or submissive. Their eyes were usually adverted, except when their posture showed exaggerated submission. Or the pictures seemed purely voyeurisic, with the woman unaware of the camera. And it began to dawn on me that the feminist accusations against men's magazines were *true*. These women were presented as objects to be used, and not as lovers/friends/people. There is a difference between sexual desire and wanting someone as an object for sexual use. (I might mention that voyeurism--watching a person in a vulnerable state without being vulnerable yourself--is a power-trip. In a way, it is *forcing* a person to submit to your desire to look, as they have no control over it. Thus, I might find *more* redeeming features in more hard-core materials than Penthouse if there were less a sense of intrusion and the portrayal wasn't weighted down with stereotypes or dominance.) If you still aren't convinced that Penthouse puts down women, just read some of the sex fantasies in their `Forum' section. Study the vocabulary a bit. Sexual intercourse is an act of force, even of pain, in a lot of these. And some of them are a lot more blatant; I remember one in which a man tells of turning his wife into a sex-slave--the acts described (which I won't go into here) were so criminal as to be worthy of a life sentence in many states. Yet there was no note of this fact; just a glowing report of how nice this man's life has become with his new `pet'. Needless to say, I no longer buy Penthouse (or any other magazine of its ilk). Censorship? I'm a civil libertarian; besides, I consider these magazines to be a symptom, not a cause. But I obviously won't heasitate to tell people what I think these magazines really are. -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall
alle@ihuxb.UUCP (Allen England) (03/02/84)
> If you still aren't convinced that Penthouse puts down women, just read > some of the sex fantasies in their `Forum' section. Study the vocabulary > a bit. Sexual intercourse is an act of force, even of pain, in a lot of > these. And some of them are a lot more blatant; I remember one in which > a man tells of turning his wife into a sex-slave--the acts described > (which I won't go into here) were so criminal as to be worthy of a life > sentence in many states. Yet there was no note of this fact; just a > glowing report of how nice this man's life has become with his new > `pet'. I simply can't agree. I don't particularly want to defend Penthouse, since I consider it very sleazy, but I have read as many letters from women (in the Forum) describing how they turned their men into sex slaves as from men. I also don't see how you can say that the camera is spying on someone who is outside on a public beach with no clothes on (a very common pose in Penthouse). I think you may have been casting some of your own feelings onto the pictures to get the interpretations you came up with. Violently Opposed to Censorship! Allen England at AT&T Bell Laboratories, Naperville, IL ihnp4!ihuxb!alle
saquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (03/02/84)
> I have read as many letters from > women (in the Forum) describing how they turned their men into > sex slaves as from men. I am curious, do you people believe that these letters are for real? I have read some of those "forum" letters myself and they were the most ridiculous stories I could ever imagine. It sounded like they came from some overexcited adolescent minds. I could not imagine people doing those things seriously, and bragging about it on top of it!!!! leading a sheltered life in Waterloo....... Sophie Quigley watmath!saquigley
lincoln@eosp1.UUCP (Dick Lincoln) (03/06/84)
>> I have read as many letters from women (in the [Penthouse] Forum) >> describing how they turned their men into sex slaves as from men. Isn't it much more likely that these "true experience" letters are written by the magazine staff, not the readers, much like the "news" in the National Enquirer? (Of course this is the opinion of no one in particular, including anyone I ever have or ever will work for.)
edhall@randvax.ARPA (Ed Hall) (03/13/84)
---------------------- > ... I don't particularly want to defend Penthouse, > since I consider it very sleazy, but I have read as many letters from > women (in the Forum) describing how they turned their men into > sex slaves as from men. I also don't see how you can say that the > camera is spying on someone who is outside on a public beach with no > clothes on (a very common pose in Penthouse). I think you may have > been casting some of your own feelings onto the pictures to get > the interpretations you came up with. > > Allen England at AT&T Bell Laboratories, Naperville, IL I'll agree that the beach pictures were usually pretty harmless, but I don't remember many of them. And even indoor shots had exceptions, some of which were tasteful and even erotic without voyeurism or debasement. But just because something is absent on some occasions doesn't mean it isn't there at all. And, yes, I read some of my feelings into the images, but no more than in looking at, say, a LIFE magazine photo. That was the point of my original article--as soon as I began looking at the pictures for what they were (photographs of obviously posed individuals, with careful attention to staging and costume), rather than whatever they pretended to be, the *intellectual* connection was made. Try it yourself; ask yourself just what statement is being made about the individual in the photograph. Sometimes--maybe not even half the time, but certainly often--you'll see the message I described. Advocating slavery or abuse of either sex is hardly right, and doing so under the guise of sexual liberation only makes it more wrong. Of course, the fact that the `letters' are fictional doesn't detract from this--in fact, it changes their status from the presentation of reader opinion into a form of advocacy. But I'll repeat that I strongly oppose censorship, or the banning of pornography. And I'm no prude, either (references available upon request :-) ). -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall