turpin@cs.utexas.EDU (Russell Turpin) (04/25/91)
----- I wrote: >> ... I would encourage readers in this newsgroup who automatically >> react in revulsion to violent porn and with suspicion to those who >> enjoy it to perhaps browse alt.sex.bondage for a few weeks. At >> least then, you would be more familiar with the thing you detest .... In article <1991Apr24.074446.22524@beaver.cs.washington.edu> fester@wolf.cs.washington.edu (Lea Fester) writes: > No, you wouldn't. You'd be more familiar with how the people > involved with S&M and who enjoy violent porn PERCIEVE and/or > PRESENT themselves. Presentation is not reality, and I personally > don't find self-perception to be the most accurate assessment > possible. > > If you want to be more familiar with "the thing" itself, READ and > LOOK AT violent porn and S/M literature. ... of which there is much in alt.sex.bondage. In some sense, one can never truly know another, because everything that gets beyond their skull, both their speech and their behavior, is presentation and of necessity passes through a variety of internal (and largely unconscious) filters about how the other perceives herself or himself, and how the other wants to be perceived. But are these filters not also a true part of the other? And if all expression and behavior is filtered, one should not imply that there is some special expression that is truly authentic and free from this process. I think Ms Fester applies the above observation in a perverse fashion. First, she assumes that violent porn is not also presentation, but is rather the "'the thing' itself", somehow divorced from those who produce it and enjoy it. Second, she implies that the violent porn produced by the participants of a.s.b and which can be read there is somehow less authentic than that commercially packaged and sold. Why is this? If one wants to understand those who produce and enjoy violent porn, would not their own writings made for themselves be more revealing than those which are processed and perturbed by commercial intermediaries? The commercial process adds filters, it does not magically remove them. The violent porn in a.s.b, such as the "Journal Entries", are much more authentic than what one can buy at the local adult bookstore. Third, the expressions available in a.s.b -- the personal histories, the fiction and its criticisms, the questions, the answers, and the arguments, the descriptions of techniques and prescription of manners, the posting of gatherings and later reports on these, the reviews of commercial media, the information about clubs, etc -- are legitimate expressions of those who practice S&M, and hence legitimate behavior from which those interested in S&M can learn. As I note above, these are much less filtered presentations than commercially available productions, which have passed through the filters of not only the authors, but also the filters that apply in the commercial world. If one is sufficiently interested, one can attend the occasional meetings of a.s.b participants or of the S&M groups that are mentioned there, and interact and observe personally with those who practice S&M. > ... It is more instructive to find about something from the > source than to trust someone else to describe it honestly > and/or correctly. ... When it comes to S&M, I am pointing to a much broader and richer source than what one is likely to find at the local adult bookstore. If one wants to find out about gun afficianados, one should go down to the local shooting range, not just read "Soldier of Fortune". If one wants to learn about those who watch soap operas, one probably does much better reading rec.arts.tv.soaps for a few weeks than reading any one thesis written by some academic. And if one wants to know about those who produce and enjoy violent porn, one will do much better reading a.s.b for a few weeks, which includes violent porn written by and for those who enjoy it, than going down to the local adult bookstore and picking up a few slick commercial magazines. (Indeed, the magazines that better reflect those into S&M, such as "Drummer" and "Sandmutopia Guardian", are often absent from adult bookstores. These one must either buy directly, buy at newsstands that carry many magazines, or buy at gay and lesbian shops.) Having said all this, I must confess that this past week, a.s.b has turned into a newsgroup for the discussion of (1) rape issues, (2) the effects of guns on society, and (3) literary criticism of Heinlein. S&M has been overwhelmed by these other subjects. This kind of perturbation from the intended subject occasionally infects all the unmoderated newsgroups, so I can only urge patience, and soon a.s.b will turn back to its home topic. Russell
mjm@ahimsa.intel.COM (Marjorie Panditji) (04/26/91)
Let's try to pare this down to my original point. I should not have
inserted the violence analogy when I was really talking about
depictions of violence. Point taken and agreed to. Please ignore the
violence analogy.
The part I objected to was that Russell commented that one should read
some violent porn before prejudging violent porn. My point is that a
person can know that he/she does not like depictions of violence of
any kind. It is useless to suggest that one just hasn't tried them or
one doesn't have enough knowledge of this specific type. This has
nothing to do with morals. It has to do with not liking it. I
apologize if I came across the wrong way.
In fact, it was Russell who came across (in my opinion) as being on
some moral higher ground ("Well, you are prejudging, you just haven't
read enough, so go over to a.s.b.") If all Russell had said was "Hey,
I like it, and I want to read it, leave me alone" I would have not
even responded, because I don't disagree with that point. It was his
blanket suggestion that one must read violent porn (perhaps a certain
amount of it?) before making a judgement about it (for example, my
comment that I do not like it, no matter what type it is).
To diffuse the potential flames (and past ones), here is are some
disclaimers (which I believe are not related to my point). I am not
judging people who read violent porn. I did not advocate banning
violent porn. That is not the topic of discussion. If I leave out
these statements, people assume that I am ready to take away their
violent porn, when I never stated that (and I didn't think it was
implied).
--
Marjorie Panditji
mjm@ahimsa.intel.com -or- uunet!intelhf!ahimsa!mjm