gcf%mydog@hombre.masa.com (10/23/90)
kaveh@ms.uky.edu (Kaveh Baharestan): | ... Porn is basically | anti-feminist and promotes the objectification, humiliation, control, | and hate of women. There is no pornagrafy that does not promote one | or more of these ideas in its viewer-readers. So the fight agianst | Porn is the fight for equality. ... The writer is not clear on what, exactly, is meant by "porno- graphy." Are the qualities of promoting "objectification, humiliation, control, and hate of women" attributive or definitive? That is, do they define pornography, or does pornography have another definition, not mentioned here? If the latter, what is it? Secondly, how does the author know that "there is no pornography that does not promote one or more of these ideas in its viewer- readers"? This is an extremely broad statement implying very extensive research with thousands of subjects and a great variety of material. I am unaware of any such study, and I think the statement should be supported with references. Finally, it's not clear what is meant by "the fight against porn." Some of the fight against porn, as the author later notes, is manifestly carried out as part of a program to subject Americans to the beliefs of a particular religious group. This is not equality. So we need to know whether the writer believes in the suppression of pornography by force, or only public criticism of it, and if the former, who will determine what is to be called "pornography." The church groups are clear on this: they themselves will determine what pornography is, and will use state or private violence to suppress it. The position of anti- pornography feminists on this is not as well-defined. As the moderator implies, the author should also handle the fact that some undoubted feminists enjoy what others describe as pornography. Are they bad feminists? How does the author know? -- Gordon Fitch | uunet!hombre!mydog!gcf
flaps@dgp.toronto.edu (Alan J Rosenthal) (10/24/90)
In article <89327@aerospace.AERO.ORG>, gcf%mydog@hombre.masa.com (Gordon Fitch)
didn't actually write, but might as well have written (or so some such as
myself might claim):
It's not clear what is meant by "the fight against murder". Some of the fight
against murder, as the quoted poster later notes, is manifestly carried out as
part of a program to subject the society in general to the beliefs of a
particular religious group. This is not equality. So we need to know whether
the writer believes in the suppression of murder by force, or only public
criticism of it, and if the former, who will determine what is to be called
"murder". The church groups are clear on this: they themselves will determine
what murder is, and will use state or private violence to suppress it.
[Do the anti-pornography activists think that pornography is that clearcut
an evil? Can they imagine cultural contexts in which that wouldn't be true?
Does pornography have as direct an effect on its victims as murder? - MHN]gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) (10/26/90)
>[Do the anti-pornography activists think that pornography is that clearcut >an evil? Can they imagine cultural contexts in which that wouldn't be true? "The case against pornography and the case against toleration of prostitution are central to fight against rape," -- ("Against Our Will", Susan Brownmiller) I bet that Brownmiller is not going to tolerate porno, regardless of the cultural context.
gcf@hombre.masa.com (10/28/90)
flaps@dgp.toronto.edu (Alan J Rosenthal) writes: | gcf%mydog@hombre.masa.com (Gordon Fitch) | didn't actually write, but might as well have written (or so some such as | myself might claim): | It's not clear what is meant by "the fight against murder". ... Alan J. Rosenthal substituted the word "murder" for "pornography." He says one might just as well have written one as the other. That is, he says pornography and murder are equivalent. I eagerly await his justification of this assertion. -- Gordon Fitch | uunet!hombre!mydog!gcf
llama@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis) (10/28/90)
In article <90Oct23.224605edt.1165@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> MHN interjects: >[Do the anti-pornography activists think that pornography is that clearcut >an evil? Can they imagine cultural contexts in which that wouldn't be true? >Does pornography have as direct an effect on its victims as murder? - MHN] Who are the "victims" of pornography? How are they (whoever they are) victims? "Victims of pornagraphy" sounds to me like "victims of mathematics". [The anti-pornography activists are better qualified to answer that than I am - I was echoing the article comparing pornography to murder and trying to get them to clarify their position. - MHN] ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Read My Lips: No Nude Texans!" - George Bush clearing up a misunderstanding
baranski@meridn.enet.dec.com (12/06/90)
From: gazit@cs.duke.EDU (Hillel Gazit) Date: 18 Nov 90 06:45:04 GMT "People who grew in porno-free societies (or in societies that were porno free like the small towns in the U.S. 30 years ago) still consume porno, with great hunger..." That's because, although they have been free of "pornography", they have not been free of an dominant/submissive attitude toward women, assuming that the pornography which they hunger for is dominant/submissive. I believe that anyone in their right mind would prefer a depiction of love over a depiction of dominance and submission. Jim Baranski
baranski@meridn.enet.dec.com (12/07/90)
feit@acsu.buffalo.EDU (Elissa Feit) says: >This is Dworkin's argument: MEN are the victimizers, WOMEN, the >victims. "Pornography reveals that male pleasure is inextricably tied >to victimizing, hurting, exploiting; that sexual fun and sexual >passion in the privacy of the male imagination are inseparable from >the brutality of male history"" How sad that her experience was such that it caused her to equate it to the whole... It can't be denied that some sexual situations have dominant and submissive sides, but this does not mean that men want it to be this way any more then women want it to be this way. If one side is submissive, the other will have to be dominant; untill women stop being submissive, men will continue being dominant. Both sides need to examine their roles, and find better ones. The fields of therapy on co-dependant people bears this out. >Premise 1: People's fantasies tend to be tied to distresses they suffered. If >someone is abused as a child, that abuse (even if not conciously retrievable) >finds its way into "what turns them on" - it's just a way of acting out the >hurt so that it can be healed, though it's as ineffective as marrying a drunk >because your dad was a drunk." People tend to stick with what they know, even if it hurts, because they fear that the unknown will hurt even worse. They have been taught by the school of literal hard knocks that exploration is discouraged. >Theorem: (?) If what turns us on is what had once distressed us, then >pornography CREATES its own market. If as we feel degraded we also feel >aroused, degradation in itself becomes arousing." Just as abusive Pronography prepetrates victims, it perpetrates victimizers in the same way. Men see men abusing women, and think that that is what they are supposed to be like, that that's what women want, and in pornography, the women certainly do want it. >MY proposal is to fill the demand for arousing material with "erotica", >defined as different than pornography in that it DOES NOT degrade women." While I agree with you in principle, in the effects of abusive pornography, there is also 'pornography' which is not abusive. I don't think changing the label, and calling it 'erotica' will be helpfull. There are too many people who cannot distinguish between the two, and will throw sex out with the bathwater. Instead, let's concentrate on the "abuse", which is what the problem is, and deal with the abuse accordingly. Let's err on the side of caution, and go after what is 'clearly' abusive, so that things don't get sucked into a rathole. Gradually things will improve. There are a lot of people out there who are hooked on abusive pornography, both men and women, both victim and victimizer. What do you do about a woman who writes writes stories where the woman (her in some fashion) is abused??? It's very sad... Jim Baranski
gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) (12/08/90)
In article <93637@aerospace.AERO.ORG> baranski@meridn.enet.dec.com writes: >There are a lot of people out there who are hooked on abusive pornography, >both men and women, both victim and victimizer. What do you do about >a woman who writes writes stories where the woman (her in some fashion) >is abused??? You can ask the psychiatrists to kill her and/or her talent in the same way that they had used to kill Turing... >It's very sad... I'm sorry to disappoint you but S&M is a standard equipment on some models. Period.
feit@acsu.buffalo.EDU (Elissa Feit) (12/11/90)
In article <93782@aerospace.AERO.ORG> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes: >I'm sorry to disappoint you but >S&M is a standard equipment on some models. Period. By "standard" do you mean inherent, inborn, etc. ? (From your past writings I assume this is what you mean. My next questions assume this premise, my apologies if I am working under the wrong assumption). I find it interesting that Hillel always asks for proof for everything anyone has said claiming this is false, but has never offered any for his claim. So let me turn the tables: Hillel, how do you KNOW that S&M is "standard"? And please offer something substantial so we don't get into the argument where you say "person X is into S&M but was never exposed to ANY hurts/ abuses as a child" and *I* respond "Yes, but how do you KNOW that person X hasn't forgotten, since many people forget deep traumas?" etc... And lastly, why are you so committed to your position ? What do you mean "period"? That you won't even consider the possibility that humans learn their sexuality? Since you might ask ME the same question, I suppose *I* think that there are no human universals as far as being frozen into rigid behavior patterns. I DO think there are universals such as people eat and poop, people ARE sexual...just not that HOW we do it is decided upon conception, in our genes somewhere... Elissa Feit (feit@cs.buffalo.edu // {rutgers,uunet}!cs.buffalo.edu!feit) Absence makes the heart grow fonder so I never want to see you again - X
sethg@athena.mit.edu (Seth A. Gordon) (06/03/91)
In article <2584@m1.cs.man.ac.uk> dente@ecad-lead-site.electrical-engineering.manchester.ac.UK (Colin Dente) writes: > >In article <674857657@lear.cs.duke.edu>, gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu >(Hillel Gazit) writes: >> >>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. Why do you want the *churches* to be held responsible? Why not hold publishers and distributors of the Bible responsible, the same way porn publishers and distributors would be held responsible under the Dworkin- MacKinnon ordinance? >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.... I suggest that you read a broader selection of feminist literature. The anthology _Powers of Desire_ would be a good place to start; several of the essays there directly attack the feminist anti-porn movement from a feminist perspective. After that, try anything by Gayle Rubin, Joan Nestle, Barbara Ehrenreich, or Pat Califia. >...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 [sic] scope. You assume here that freedom of speech (more precisely, pornography that is allowed to be published due to freedom of speech) restricts the freedom of women (i.e., encourages rape, wife-beating, child molesting, etc.) Pornography may have a slight influence on rape, just as Tom Clancy novels may have a slight influence on the Republican Party's popularity. But porn is *not* the little wheel that turns the big wheel of sexism. There are countries with far more pornography than the US and far less rape (e.g., Denmark); there are countries with stringent restrictions on pornography and far worse conditions for women (e.g., Saudi Arabia). It is, therefore, quite possible to improve the conditions for women without infringing on anyone's right to free speech. -- -- "Marx made a man out of me!" --George Bernard Shaw : bloom-beacon!athena.mit.edu!sethg / standard disclaimer : Seth Gordon / MIT Brnch., PO Box 53, Cambridge, MA 02139