mjm@ahimsa.intel.com (Marjorie Panditji) (04/26/91)
Russell Turpin writes: > While everyone has a right to their own tastes, it stikes me that this > prejudice against violent porn is just that: a prejudgment of it and > those who enjoy it with very little knowledge. I would like to substitute "violence" (a more general term) for "violent porn" (a specific type of violence). While everyone has a right to their own tastes, it stikes me that this prejudice against violence is just that: a prejudgment of it and those who enjoy it with very little knowledge. Yes, I agree with Russell. I have a definite predjudice against violence. > [Russell suggests reading alt.sex.bondage] > At least then, you would be > more familiar with the thing you detest and the people you mistrust. It does not strike me as a very compelling argument to say "Try it, you'll like it." I do not care to gain any more first hand knowledge of violence. Yes, I know that S&M is consensual, but it still acts out violence. The bottom line is that I don't have to look at or act out different types of violence, whether real or imaginary, to know that I personally do not enjoy sexual violence. For that matter, I dislike all types of violence (for example, violent movies). To suggest that I just haven't tried it is similar to telling a gay/lesbian that they just haven't met the right woman/man. -- Marjorie Panditji mjm@ahimsa.intel.com -or- uunet!intelhf!ahimsa!mjm
turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) (04/26/91)
In article <m0jVXZi-00004ZC@intelhf.hf.intel.com> mjm@ahimsa.intel.com (Marjorie Panditji) writes: > I would like to substitute "violence" (a more general term) for > "violent porn" (a specific type of violence). Would Ms Panditji also substitute "war" for "war games" or "rape" for "rape fantasy" or "murder" for "murder mystery" to show that those who play chess have a martial spirit, and that Nancy Friday and Charlotte MacLeod are dangerous criminals? No, Ms Panditji, as much as you might like to play this kind of semantic game, I doubt anyone else will fall for it. By the time you have made "violence" a sufficiently general term to call a book or movie a kind of violence, one can equally apply it to the violent throes of orgasm or the violence done to my statement by your disingenuous editing of it. > Yes, I agree with Russell. I have a definite predjudice > against violence. Given the way Ms Paditji has generalized this term, I think it only fair for us ask her to clarify. Is she really expressing a distaste for chess and orgasm? (In fact, the violence of these has much more to do with S&M than the violence of rape.) > ... It does not strike me as a very compelling argument to > say "Try it, you'll like it." ... I did not ask anyone to like anything. I have utterly no desire to change anyone's personal likes or dislikes. What I see, though, is not just a matter of difference in personal tastes. Many people make automatic *moral* judgments about those who enjoy S&M or violent porn, just as others automatically condemn gays and lesbians. I have seen the former in this newsgroup, indeed, it comes through quite clearly in Ms Paditji's post. When a gay man recommends to homophobic writers that they read certain pieces of gay literature, it is not to make them gay, rather, it is in the hope that their stereotypes and misconceptions might be lessened, and their understanding increased. The intent of my post was similar. I don't give a tinker's damn what Ms Paditji's sexual preferences are, nor have I the slightest desire to change them. But when she lumps rape and S&M in one bucket labeled "violence", she is doing the same thing as those who lump rape and homosexuality in one bucket labeled "perversion". It becomes more than a matter of semantic games or personal tastes. It becomes a matter of treating people unfairly because of misconceptions about them. And to that, I do have a right to object. Russell
tittle@zola.ICS.UCI.EDU (Cindy Tittle Moore) (04/26/91)
In <19488@cs.utexas.edu> turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) writes: >What I see, though, is not just a matter of difference in >personal tastes. Many people make automatic *moral* judgments >about those who enjoy S&M or violent porn, just as others >automatically condemn gays and lesbians. I have seen the former >in this newsgroup, indeed, it comes through quite clearly in Ms >Paditji's post. I have found this topic to be one of the more difficult issues that I as a feminist have had to consider. First, a little background. I am quite familiar with S&M, or "dominance and submission" as it is often called by practitioners. I am also familiar with *real* violence in sex, having experienced date rape while an undergraduate in college. [I consider rape and date rape to be two very different things and think that date rape is a giant misnomer. Rape does not involve sex except as a mechanical act used to further the rapist's objective. Date rape, on the other hand, is a mix of violence and sex. Occassionally, what *looks* like date rape is actually rape (because the rapist and victim knew each other, were on a date, etc). Date rape is when the aggressor truely and honestly thinks that the victim wants sex -- rape is when the aggressor doesn't care at all what the victim wants. This is all IMO, but it is necessary to know how I view these things in my discussion.] I understand S&M, and I also understand that very few people *do* understand it. The absolute core of S&M, any S&M, no matter how it appears to the onlooker, is that S&M IS CONSENSUAL. One of the major, and I repeat, major components about the "turn on" S&M holds for its practitioners is the feelings that a bottom experiences by turning over all of his trust to the top, trusting that the top, with total permission to do anything to the bottom, won't actually go past the real line for the bottom. And for the top, the feeling that he/she gets by meriting such trust from another person. It sounds complicated, and it is, but the foundation is still TRUST and CONSENSUALITY. A poor top is one who doesn't really understand his/her bottom's needs/wants (top=dominant partner, bottom=submissive partner). However, society at large does not understand this aspect of S&M. They see the actions without understanding the context. This is what happened to me; my date got it into his head that I would enjoy S&M and proceeded to force me. I don't blame this on S&M's existence, I blame it on prevalent misunderstanding of S&M. I am not afraid of anyone who actually practices S&M and understands what it means. I am very much afraid of those who think they know what it is all about (and that people are *really* being forced) and proceed to act on it. Even more so, because they are *turned on* by this. This line of thought is abhorrent to S&M practitioners. I believe the majority of what I consider to be date rapes [sic] spring from this misconception. Here's another example of the consequences of this kind of thinking. Back when a.s.b. first appeared on the net, there was this wonderful poster named D! who detailed some of the sexual experiences she had with her boyfriend. She was the submissive, he was the dominant. She quit posting (may have actually changed her login) when some people started writing letters to her along the lines of "hey baby we know you like it, sit still and let me fuck you" and so on. What these people missed was that she had consented to her *boyfriend* as a submissive, not to every randy fellow on the net. I don't know if she's returned to posting or not, I believe that there is anonymous posting available now for the group. How to resolve this issue? It isn't easy and I don't have answers. But the varied reactions, including both Paditji's and Turpin's, are to me completely comprehensible. In my opinion, Paditji is wrong, for S&M involves consent plus violence, and Turpin is wrong, because we have everything to fear from those who do not understand the consent part of S&M. >When a gay man recommends to homophobic writers >that they read certain pieces of gay literature, it is not to >make them gay, rather, it is in the hope that their stereotypes >and misconceptions might be lessened, and their understanding >increased. The intent of my post was similar. And one that I applaud. I would only add a warning about the actions of those who don't know that S&M=consent. Ignorance is such a danger. Of course, the topic of feminists dealing with submissive roles in S&M is a whole 'nother can of worms... --Cindy
sharring@cs.tamu.EDU (Steven L Harrington) (04/26/91)
In article <m0jVXZi-00004ZC@intelhf.hf.intel.com> mjm@ahimsa.intel.com (Marjorie Panditji) writes: >Russell Turpin writes: > >> While everyone has a right to their own tastes, it stikes me that this >> prejudice against violent porn is just that: a prejudgment of it and >> those who enjoy it with very little knowledge. > [deletia] >Yes, I agree with Russell. I have a definite predjudice against violence. > >> [Russell suggests reading alt.sex.bondage] > >> At least then, you would be >> more familiar with the thing you detest and the people you mistrust. > >It does not strike me as a very compelling argument to say "Try it, >you'll like it." I do not care to gain any more first hand knowledge >of violence. Yes, I know that S&M is consensual, but it still acts >out violence. > >The bottom line is that I don't have to look at or act out different >types of violence, whether real or imaginary, to know that I >personally do not enjoy sexual violence. For that matter, I dislike >all types of violence (for example, violent movies). To suggest that >I just haven't tried it is similar to telling a gay/lesbian that they >just haven't met the right woman/man. Noone in the bondage community cares whether *you* like it or not, as long as you don't try to deny them their rights as consenting adults. I suppose that the question is really one of semantics. Does the word violence connote (to you) non-consent? If so, then you should use a different term for consensual bondage. I think that if you reread your post you will find that your argument(s) were all phrased in the first person and all expressed opinion rather than any fact. Note the operative phrases "I do not care to gain ...." "I personally do not enjoy...." "I dislike....." et. al. As a reader of a.s.b, I concurr w/ Russell. It seems that the questions regarding violent porn are more complex than you might first think. At first sight, it seems logical to condemn it; however, when one realizes that the scenes often depict consensual bondage, it is not so clear. Steve Harrington
turpin@cs.utexas.EDU (Russell Turpin) (04/29/91)
----- I thank Ms Tittle for her comments. In article <9104251548.aa18084@ics.uci.edu> tittle@zola.ICS.UCI.EDU (Cindy Tittle Moore) writes: > Back when a.s.b. first appeared on the net, there was this wonderful > poster named [omitted] who detailed some of the sexual experiences > she had with her boyfriend. She was the submissive, he was the > dominant. She quit posting (may have actually changed her login) > when some people started writing letters to her along the lines of > "hey baby we know you like it, sit still and let me fuck you" ... I think the concerned poster would easily have handled any unwanted advances over the net without withdrawing from newsgroup. I believe that the event that triggered this poster's temporary absence was something quite different: the delivery to the poster's parents of some of the poster's articles by a self-appointed (and cowardly anonymous) "moral" guardian. There are all sorts of ways to invade someone's life, and people might want to consider which is the more violent: someone writing positively about their S&M experiences, or an anonymous stranger intruding into the writer's family life in an unwanted fashion. [I had forgotten that; thanks for the correction. --CTM] A similar event has occurred since then, and these constitute, in my opinion, the most tragic consequences of the alt.sex.bondage newsgroup. These sad events result from the misguided action of those who oppose S&M. > ... we have everything to fear from those who do not understand > the consent part of S&M. This is true, but not just of S&M. There are many ideas and many practices which, themselves not wrong, can lead to tragedy because of people who twist them to wrong or misguided ends. [Absolutely. CTM] ----- I would like to add, if the moderators permit it, that some of my previous criticisms of Ms Panditji were too hasty. I read broader social purpose into what were essentially expressions of personal like, and this misunderstanding may have stemmed from my failure to make clear the limited intent of some of my own writings. In these threads on pornography, it has not been my intent to convince people of what they should like or not like. This neither I, nor anyone else, is qualified to do. Rather, I am trying to comment on how this society views pornography, and on some of the moral criticisms that have been launched against it and against those who enjoy certain forms of it. I believe that the political (which I address) can be separated from the personal (which I do not) at least to this extent. Russell