dente@ecad-lead-site.electrical-engineering.manchester.ac.uk (Colin Dente) (05/21/91)
[Colin directed followups to soc.motss; I think it might be appropriate for
them to go here as well. - MHN]
< I've cross-posted this to soc.feminism, mainly because I'd like to
know if what I am saying here is even close to a correct
interpretation of what I've read (which isn't much). If this is in
any way inappropriate, then please accept my apologies.>
In article <1991May10.183832.20579@beaver.cs.washington.edu> wendyt@ronquil.cs.washington.edu (Wendy Thrash) writes:
[Lots 'n' lots of coherent stuff]
But it isn't *quotably* relevant to what I want to ask (who said I
have to speak English? - I *am* English therefore I am free to
redefine English, and introduce words like `quotably' as I go along
;-))
I have recently started to get interested in the feminist
anti-pornography movement, and it seems to me that what Dworkin,
MacKinnon et. al. are saying in such things as the Minneapolis
Anti-Pornography Ordinance is not that there is anything wrong with
sexually explicit material (I hesitate to say pornography, because of
the confusion of definitions that might result) per se, but what is
wrong is the adverse effect that *some* sexually explicit material
*can* have on the lives of women. The Minneapolis Anti-Pornography
Ordinance (as I read it) does not seem in any way to ban sexually
explicit material, rather it provides a means whereby a person
(primarily a woman, but it is worded such that it is inclusive of all
people) can obtain compensation for harm done to them because of
pornography, where pornography is defined as (something like) sexually
explicit material which depicts women as subordinate, as objects, or
being raped/brutalised. I.e. material which by it's content
re-inforces the supposedly acceptable norms of the male-supremacist
society in which we live. This does not apply (in my opinion) to
pictures of nudes, or of couples (or indeed, groups) having sex
*provided* that these pictures are not showing women (throughout this,
you could just as well read `men' or `children' for `women' - though
the applicability to women is more common) being raped, or tied up
(which really seems to suggest the likelihood of rape in many peoples'
minds), or in the classic `spread-labia-come-fuck-me' pose seemingly
beloved of penthouse & co. "But this is censorship" you say... Yes,
indeed, it is censorship, and yes, I object to it. In a perfect
world, it would be totally unnecessary. Men wouldn't need to
subordinate women in order to feel like men. We don't live in a
perfect world. Until we do live in a perfect world, I think that the
right of half the population to live as freely as the other half comes
way ahead of the right of some parts of that other half of the
population to be able to jack off to whatever pictures they want to.
This isn't a religious-moralistic issue - it's a humane libertarian
one, and the `libertarians' who try to defend the pornographers' right
to `free speech' whilst ignoring the fact that women are getting
raped or are missing out on careers because they don't have tits as good
as this month's centrefold are way off the mark in my view.
Anyway, Wendy was talking about leather/S&M, in case you'd forgotten
(I almost had) - so where does this tie in. I'm not really sure - but
I think that it's because it reinforces the male-supremacist system by
being supremacist/subordinate in it's nature. The question would seem
to be why *does* this turn people on? I'm not saying that it's
perverse, or anything like that (what's wrong with being perverse I
hear half the motss crowd scream ;-)), but what I am saying is that
maybe, just maybe, it is a product of our society which makes people
think that they can only feel good if they are dominating someone, or
being dominated by someone. I guess I'm going to put a lot of
peoples' backs up with this - but I really don't mean it to be as
inflamatory as it sounds - I just can't really see how to explain what
I'm thinking. Infact, I'm not really sure *what* I'm thinking. Can
anyone out in soc.feminism land explain more fully to me what the
anti-S&M movement's views really are?
Confus[ing|ed]ly yours,
Colin
--
Colin Dente | JANET: dente@uk.ac.man.ee.els
Manchester Computing Centre | ARPA: dente@els.ee.man.ac.uk
University of Manchester, UK | UUCP: ...!mcsun!ukc!manchester!dente
... I am the one you warned me of ...alansz@cogsci.Berkeley.EDU (Alan Schwartz) (05/22/91)
In article <2550@m1.cs.man.ac.uk> dente@ecad-lead-site.electrical-engineering.manchester.ac.uk (Colin Dente) writes: > > >Anyway, Wendy was talking about leather/S&M, in case you'd forgotten >(I almost had) - so where does this tie in. I'm not really sure - but >I think that it's because it reinforces the male-supremacist system by >being supremacist/subordinate in it's nature. The question would seem >to be why *does* this turn people on? I'm not saying that it's >perverse, or anything like that (what's wrong with being perverse I >hear half the motss crowd scream ;-)), but what I am saying is that >maybe, just maybe, it is a product of our society which makes people >think that they can only feel good if they are dominating someone, or >being dominated by someone. I guess I'm going to put a lot of >peoples' backs up with this - but I really don't mean it to be as >inflamatory as it sounds - I just can't really see how to explain what >I'm thinking. Infact, I'm not really sure *what* I'm thinking. Can >anyone out in soc.feminism land explain more fully to me what the >anti-S&M movement's views really are? > Well, I can explain some things on each side. Anti-S&M feminists generally object to S&M because they believe that it reifies the system of domination that is rampant in our society's sexuality. However, many lesbian SM practitioners have provide a most direct counter to this allegation, by noting that in their sexplay, the partners come to bed (rack, etc.) equal, may exchange roles (or not), and leave equal (i.e. w/o the inherent power differential between men and women.) Lisa Palac, managing editor of _On Our Backs_ (a lesbian "porn" magazine), has told me that all sex involves power, and SM boils down to communication (when it's played safely) about power. In her words, "To say it's like the patriarchy is an easy simplistic kind of reasoning" (Palac, personal communication, April 1991) I would direct you to Robin Linden Ruth et al., eds., Against Sadomasochism: A Radical Feminist Analysis (Palo Alto, Frog in the WEll: 1982) if you want to explore the Anti-SM viewpoint. ---- Alan Schwartz | Disclaimer: I represent no one alansz@cogsci.berkeley.edu | UC Berkeley | "Life is what happens to you while Cognitive Science/Women's Studies| you're busy making other plans" | - J. Lennon
dente@ecad-lead-site.electrical-engineering.manchester.ac.UK (Colin Dente) (05/31/91)
[This is crossposted to both soc.feminism and soc.motss. Soc.feminism does not usually crosspost, but this article is in response to two different threads generated in two different groups by the same initial article. Followups should go where appropriate (but not to both); I'll leave the judgement of appropriateness to the respondant. --CTM] Now a lesson in learning-in-action: the first part of this article (up to where it says ********** start of today's thoughts **********) was composed a few days ago. Since then, I have given this matter considerable thought, and have carried a printout of the replies I had received up to then around with me for virtually all of that time (those being the messages from Owen, Russell, Hillel, Paul, Clay (I'm only counting the argumentative ones - not the purely informational ones). During this time, I think my opinions have changed slightly, in a way which I shall explain later. Anyway, I'll let you read what I wrote first, then get on to explaining my altered opinions, and replying to some more stuff. ********** Start of initial responses ********** Well, I'm almost sorry I opened my mouth... still, I guess I should have expected this level of response... I'll try to respond to all the replys I've received so far, from both newsgroups. Several of the replies went only to soc.motss because, in my total ineptitude, my article originally went out with followups directed to soc.motss. My thanks to Ms. Nadel for correcting this when posting it to soc.feminism. These responses are in no particular order - I'll just reply to comments as I read them in this rather weighty printout that is sat on my desk... Oh - one point of clarification to bear in mind - throughout this article I shall try to follow this simple rule: All references to `men' or `women' will be generalisations. If I am referring to specific men or women, then I shall say so. In article <20102@cs.utexas.edu> turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) writes: >Why does this [the effect of pornography on the lives of women] have >a greater claim to compensation than the "adverse effect that *some* >[non-]sexually explicit material might have on the lives of women [or >men, or Jews, or ...]"? I would say that it doesn't have any greater claim to compensation, however, I *do* feel that there is a greater need for compensation. "men or Jews" are not often harmed to anything like the same extent as women by material which is published nowadays. Women, it would seem, have a real need for protection from these things which other groups (with the possible exception of blacks) do not. > Consider, for example, a man who reads "The >Woman's Room", which certainly depicts the subordination of women >(and if I remember correctly, has one or two sex scenes), and who >then begins to abuse his wife because he objects to the ideas in >the book. Should Marilyn French then be sued, because her book >led to this harm? (Dworkin and MacKinnon would quickly fly down >to testify that the harm was not "because of" the book, in the >sense that they meant in writing the ordinance.) The problem is ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >that the "because of" is not clearly defined and is open to great ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >political latitude in its interpretation. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I agree entirely; this is a serious problem. It is one for which I have no solution. The problem lies in the fact that to implement this legislation properly, one would have to rely on legislators passing reasonable, non-reactionary judgements on issues which are too tied up in deep-rooted social & religious conditioning for this to be possible. The alternative (not implementing this sort of legislation), however, leaves women in a disadvantaged, and endangered position - a position which, to me, is equally unacceptable. >Similarly, whether a >work "depicts women as subordinate, as objects" depends on one's >political views, and also in what light one interprets the work >in question. This subjectivity is well expressed in Mr Dente's >next sentence. > >> ... This does not apply (IN MY OPINION [emphasis added]) to >> pictures of nudes, or of couples (or indeed, groups) having sex >> *provided* that these pictures are not showing women ... being >> raped, or tied up (which really seems to suggest the likelihood >> of rape in many peoples' minds) ... Indeed, as I said above, the subjectivity of the entire issue is a problem. Does anyone have any solutions? >In some feminists' minds, the nude depiction of women for sexual >excitement *is* subordination, whether or not the subject is tied >up,[...] Perhaps some feminists fall into the un-reasonable, reactionary category that I warned against earlier on? > In some people's minds, some >pictures of bound women do NOT suggest "the likelihood of rape". Yes - this is very true - and I rather regret making the direct connection between bondage and rape. This was unfair, and largely irrelevant. >> ... Until we do live in a perfect world, I think that the >> right of half the population to live as freely as the other >> half comes way ahead of the right of some parts of that other >> half of the population to be able to jack off to whatever >> pictures they want to. ... > >Or "way ahead of of the right of some of some ... to be able to" >express unpopular views on sex or politics? This may not be a popular answer - but yes. I think that we must carefully consider the trade offs involved here. Whilst I deplore, in general, any loss of freedom, if that loss of freedom results, as I think it would in this case, in a far greater gain of freedom by people much more in need of it, then is it not justifiable? I believe that it is. >Consider that *any* >picture used by *some* people as masturbatory material is >potentially dangerous in the way Mr Dente defines, and that a very >broad range of material is used by someone in this way. I am not sure what you mean here. I used the phrase "... jack off to whatever pictures they want to" but I did not intend to imply that all material used for masturbation is dangerous. >There are no natural lines here. The issue is being used by >certain groups to draw religious, political, and moral lines >under the guise of "safety" and fighting "oppression". This is true. I find this deplorable, but any discussion of this nature will attract those who feel that there is some personal gain to be had. > >> This isn't a religious-moralistic issue - it's a humane libertarian >> one, and the `libertarians' who try to defend the pornographers' right >> to `free speech' whilst ignoring the fact that women are getting >> raped ... are way off the mark in my view. > >It *is* an issue of moralism, of what erotica is politically >correct, and also one of religion. It is a libertarian issue, >and on this, I will issue a mild flame. Mr Dente may take >whatever side he pleases, but the word libertarian still has a >good meaning, and I would ask him to not abuse it by applying it >to its opposite. >[...] >Mr Dente may disagree with libertarians >on all or any of these freedoms. But to label the opposite >stance libertarian is simply doublespeak. I'm sorry - but I really don't follow you here. What I intended to imply by quoting the word libertarians was that I was referring to people who called themselves libertarians, but in my view, were not. As I said above, I believe that the liberation of women is far more important than the liberation of pornographers. [Keep in mind that there are differences in political labels as used in the UK and US. --CTM] In article <674857657@lear.cs.duke.edu>, gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes: >The Ordinance says things like: >#(vi) Women's body parts - including but not limited to vaginas breasts, >#and buttocks are exhibited such that women are reduced to those parts. > >A picture of women's breasts is "pornography" and therefore >should be blasted, according to this ordinance. This comes back to the issue of subjectivity. I agree that the wording of the ordinance is, in many places, rather too loose to be safely made law, however, it seems to me that the spirit of the wording would not make a picture which shows women's breasts pornography by default. >Had you bothered yourself to read the Ordinance before >you gave your opinion? Yes, I had. I fail to see the relevance of your question. >The Bible has an explicit command to kill gays (Leviticus, 20, 13). >Some people have followed this command and killed/harassed gays. > >After at least one of those who produce, sell, exhibit and distribute >the Bible will be sentenced for the damage it causes, I'll be willing >to sit down and discuss the anti-porno laws. Till then, it seems >to me that y'all use different standards to different groups. On the contrary, I believe the bible to be responsible for a great many of the ills in our society (including the oppression of women). I would be glad to see the churches (of all religions) held more responsible for the hateful philosophies which they constantly espouse. >Besides, that idea of "it's OK to blast the rights of people who >did no wrong in order to increase the security of the society >in large" is very dangerous. I agree - but does this mean that we should sit back and allow society to remain insecure for fear of doing something dangerous. This smacks of extreme timidity to me. >>This isn't a religious-moralistic issue - > >*After* you will apply you high morals against the Bible, >I'll be willing to believe you. I just did - so - do you believe me now? >>being supremacist/subordinate in it's nature. The question would seem >>to be why *does* this turn people on? > >NOYB. Please do not be so defensive. I believe that the study of human sexuality is of great importance if society is to ever accept those of us who do not fit it's norms. >When you can't explain what you are thinking then please don't post. When you do not have time for people who are attempting to clarify their own views on an issue with the help of the net, then I would venture to suggest that it is you who should refrain from posting. >The subject has little to do with soc.motss, so follow-up >is directed to alt.sex. Judging from the level of response from soc.motss posters, the subject would appear to be of interest to soc.motss. Please refrain from re-directing followups without good reason. ********** Start of today's thoughts ********** Well, as I said, my opinions have changed slightly since I wrote this - but not fundamentally; let me explain. When I wrote my original article, I had just finished reading John Stoltenberg's book "Refusing to be a Man". Much of this book is concerned with the radical feminist stance on pornography, and, I admit, Stoltenberg's views formed the basis for the majority of mine. Feminism is an important thing to me; I lived for two years with a woman who felt such rage and desperation at the oppression she suffered through being a woman that it was painful for me to watch. I could see, and feel, her pain, but I could not understand the cause of it. Now, two years on, I am beginning to get an inkling of an understanding of what she felt. I feel it myself, though for different reasons. Feminism makes me feel closer to her, and that is important to me (yeah - yeah... sob sob sob...). Perhaps this is the only reason why I'm interested in feminism; I prefer to think not. Anyway, in the light of all this sentimental bullshit, I kinda latched on to a "radical feminism, and therefore Andrea Dworkin, must be right" way of thinking, which is strange for me as I'd usually be the first person to chide someone for the same sort of behaviour. Ho hum. The above notwithstanding, I still stand by much of what I said, especially that regarding pornography. The S&M stuff - well as Clay Bond pointed out in article <7601@spdcc.SPDCC.COM>: >In matters of things homosexual, the heterosexuals' place is to keep >their mouths firmly shut and their ears and minds open, for that is >the only way they can ever acquire any informed opinions. In matters >of things Leathersexual, the vanillafolk are the exact equivalents of >the heterosexuals above. > >In both cases, those who insist on flapping their jaws and spewing >their blind ignorance -- bigots -- are wastes of protein. This is entirely correct, and I apologise for my comments. I know nothing about S&M, and I went merrily along ignoring the many comments made by leatherfolk in the past, and espoused somebody else's biased views on the subject. Mea culpa (and I won't do it again ;-)). I will, however, raise on point in my own defence. In my original article, I said: >[...] maybe, just maybe, it is a product of our society which makes ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >people think that they can only feel good if they are dominating >someone, or being dominated by someone. I realise now that many people have probably interpreted this as just rhetoric, but I can honestly say that it was not meant as such. I honestly felt that perhaps this was true, and perhaps it was not. I did not, and still do not, know whether it is or not. Whilst I'm still feeling repentant (may as well get all my confessing done at once ;-)), in article <1991May24.171631.21434@riacs.edu>, David Christopher Rogers writes: > >The question would seem to be why *does* [S/M] turn people on? > >*Your* question, though it's not really a question, but just an introduction >to your "answer": > > >[It] is a product of our society which makes people > >think that they can only feel good if they are dominating someone, or > >being dominated by someone. Yes and no. The whole article really only existed to put across my comments on the pornography issue, but having got this far, I felt I had to justify it being a followup to Wendy's article about leather (who says I can't be just plain crap? ;-/). To do this, I asked a question, for which I didn't have any *real* answer about S&M. I asked it badly. Sorry. 'Nuff said. David then goes on to say something which several people seem to agree with: >[...] I'll let you have the last word, with a >phrase that strike me as a prime example of your self-indicting verbal fog: > > >I guess I'm going to put a lot of peoples' backs up with this - > >but I really don't mean it to be as inflamatory as it sounds - > >I just can't really see how to explain what I'm thinking. > >Infact, I'm not really sure *what* I'm thinking. I didn't really think this was so stupid - I was merely being honest... Oh well... (btw: What does "self-indicting" mean?) Now we come to the bit where I'm not nearly so apologetic: the issue of pornography and censorship. Several people have replied very strongly stating the view that (basically) the first amendment (and it's equivalents) is the holy of holies, and that anything which threatens it is therefore wrong. Here I must disagree. As I said earlier, I think that something, noble in principle though it is, like the first amendment which, as a side effect, can end up restricting the freedom of half of the population of a country *must* be subject to review, and should, where necessary, be restricted in it's scope. I agree with those people who have said that the Minneapolis Anti Pornography Ordinance is far from an ideally worded piece of legislation. It *could* provide a back-door for a great deal of censorship outside the spirit of the wording, but I don't feel that we can afford, for want of something better, to sit back and do nothing. When it comes to the crunch, I can live without porn, and even without erotica far more easily than women can live with oppression and rape. Well, at 2 1/2 thousand words, this is far too long already - so I'll stop now. Apologies if I've missed any points that people feel are important, but I want to get this posted before everyone forgets about it all. Apologies also for bad spelling, bad grammar, and inadvertent use of "it's" in place of "its" (just a *little* dig, Clay ;-)) Oh - and Owen - yes I did read your article - but I haven't quoted you because I think I've responded to your main points in my replies to other people. Colin -- Colin Dente | JANET: dente@uk.ac.man.ee.els Manchester Computing Centre | ARPA: dente@els.ee.man.ac.uk University of Manchester, UK | UUCP: ...!mcsun!ukc!manchester!dente ... I am the one you warned me of ...