feit@acsu.buffalo.EDU (Elissa Feit) (11/18/90)
Well, I hate to rekindle this old tired chestnut (how's THAT for mixed metaphor! 8-) but the sense I got from reading _Pornography_ [Dworkin, 1979] is that the proposed legislation is NOT about freedom of speech, but about someone being able to collect damages when someone else's actions (eg, their portrayal of women) hurts them. If you want to restrict your OWN speech, now, because you don't want a lawsuit, well then, that's fine (according to that argument). Actually, this would put pornography into the same arena as, say, Metzger telling skinheads to kill Jews and People of Color. In article <658778710@grad17.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.EDU (Hillel Gazit) writes: ... >Under the Minneapolis law a woman who feel degraded because of >all-men gay porno will be able to sue and collect damages. 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" [p. 69] In the gay men's porno she looks at, the men who are explicitly equated with WOMEN (Garry places Dave on his back "like a girl" [p.36]) are treated degradingly BECAUSE THAT'S HOW ONE TREATS WOMEN. Thus, according to Dworkin, all-men gay porno may in fact degrade women. MY big disgreement with Dworkin is her insistance that MALE=VICTIMIZER (akin to her earlier PENIS=AGGRESSION formula), that male pleasure is "inextricably tied" to victimizing. I don';t believe that the cycle can't be broken. I don't believe that men REALLY want to be as disassociated from women as that. I know MANY men who are trying to be free from that shit. In a lot of ways I agree with Dworkin about pornography. Please bear with me as this is some new stuff I haven't quite formulated. (You can question these premises and I'll elaborate, but for RIGHT NOW I don't want to take up that much time filling out the details.) 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. Premise 2: Experiencing a hurt second-hand may be as distressing as experiencing it first-hand. (There was some study of kids being less afraid of some bully when they had been beaten up than a second group who merely watched.) 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. MY proposal is to fill the demand for arousing material with "erotica", defined as different than pornography in that it DOES NOT degrade women. How to tell if something's degrading? It gives me a stomache ache 8-( Any comments welcome. Elissa Feit (feit@cs.buffalo.edu // {rutgers,uunet}!cs.buffalo.edu!feit) Animals are your friends -- but they won't pick you up at the airport. we're on the road and we're gunning for the buddha. we know his name and he mustn't get away -- Shriekback
gazit@cs.duke.EDU (Hillel Gazit) (11/18/90)
In article <46878@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> (Elissa Feit) writes: >Well, I hate to rekindle this old tired chestnut (how's THAT for mixed >metaphor! 8-) but the sense I got from reading _Pornography_ [Dworkin, >1979] is that the proposed legislation is NOT about freedom of speech, >but about someone being able to collect damages when someone else's >actions (eg, their portrayal of women) hurts them. OK, let's spell it out. If Jesse Helms feels degraded because a Holy symbol for him is put in urine, should he be able to sue for damages because of the emotional pain? What kind of freedom of speech will we have with laws like that? The difference between Helms and Dworkin is that he has not tried (yet...) to rewrite the laws in such a way that he will be able to sue for damages, just to cut federal funding to what he finds offensive. >THAT'S HOW ONE TREATS WOMEN. Thus, according to Dworkin, all-men gay >porno may in fact degrade women. And she wrote this concept into law, without even bothering herself to ask gay people what *they* find in all-men gay porno... >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 How many S&M people have you talked with, Elissa? How do you *know* that they like S&M because they were abused as children? >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. Assuming that you are right, how dare you criticise the way they *choose* to work on their pains? >Theorem: (?) If what turns us on is what had once distressed us, then >pornography CREATES its own market. Feminist Cow-shit. 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... >MY proposal is to fill the demand for arousing material with >"erotica", defined as different than pornography in that it DOES NOT >degrade women. How to tell if something's degrading? You can always use the usual definition: what turns you on is erotica, while what turns me on is porno. :-( >Elissa Feit (feit@cs.buffalo.edu // {rutgers,uunet}!cs.buffalo.edu!feit) Hillel gazit@cs.duke.edu "WAVMP has yet to make any public statements in support of gay rights, sex education in schools, birth control and abortion, children's right to sexual information and freedom, decriminalization of prostitution or civil rights of sexual minorities. They continue to grow larger to grow larger, more powerful and more pro-censorship and antisex in their positions. Few members of the liberal press will risk opposing or criticizing them because they travel under the protective, self-applied label `feminist'. It is obvious that no one in the conservative press will oppose them, either - unless they get too public about having a large lesbian membership." -- ("AMONG US, AGAINST US the new puritans", Pat Califia)
pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.EDU (Eric Pepke) (11/21/90)
In article <46878@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> feit@acsu.buffalo.EDU (Elissa Feit) writes: >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" [p. 69] In the gay men's porno she >looks at, the men who are explicitly equated with WOMEN (Garry places >Dave on his back "like a girl" [p.36]) are treated degradingly BECAUSE >THAT'S HOW ONE TREATS WOMEN. Thus, according to Dworkin, all-men gay >porno may in fact degrade women. Dworkin's argument is transparently circular. Her main method is to allow the preconception to color the perception. Assume for a moment the postulate that "male pleasure is inextricably tied to victimizing, hurting, exploiting." This assumption requires a suspension of sanity: any sane person who has known men knows that at least some of the pleasure that men feel is not so tied, for the purposes of the argument assume it. In colloquial terms, there are four forms of pornography (there are actually more, but they are not germaine to the current discussion). 1) Man "on" woman 2) Man "on" man 3) Woman "on" woman 4) Woman "on" man 1 can pretty easily be fit into the postulate. 2 can be fit in simply by stating that, inasmuch as men sometimes play the "receptive" role in pornography, they are "being women" or "acting as women." 3 can be fit in simply by stating that the women are "being men" or, even more easily, by paying attention exclusively to the "receptive" woman and ignoring the other. 4 can be fit in by applying a double switcheroo, but it is much easier to shift one's perception by highlighting some point of view and dismissing another to make it seem like 1. So, no matter what kinds of pornography actually exist, they can all be viewed in such a way that they satisfy the postulate. How do we know that men are like this? "Pornography reveals" it. No matter what the actual nature of pornography, every iteration strengthens the belief. It is a belief designed so that it cannot be loosened, no matter what the facts. Like the child's toy, the Chinese finger trap, the harder you pull, the more tightly you are entrapped. Why is it that lovers of circular logic never seem to get dizzy? Perhaps they are always dizzy, so there's no difference to notice. >MY big disgreement with Dworkin is her insistance that MALE=VICTIMIZER >(akin to her earlier PENIS=AGGRESSION formula), that male pleasure is >"inextricably tied" to victimizing. I don';t believe that the cycle >can't be broken. I don't believe that men REALLY want to be as >disassociated from women as that. I know MANY men who are trying to >be free from that shit. Good for you. I believe that most of the shit originated in Dworkin's tiny brain, buttressed by her painstaking sifting through pornography to find that which supported her deepest fears and nastiest fantasies, and that little of it has anything to do with men, and that which does has only to do with a tiny minority of men and a minority of women as well. However, the cycle as she defines it, under her rules, gets tighter and tighter until a believer becomes nothing more than a knot of anger. I heard Dworkin speak a couple of weeks ago at FSU. It was fascinating, though pathetically sad, to watch her work. Her main technique had three stages: hyperbole, commonality, and riducule. The hyperbole stage consisted of alarmist statements about extreme, or imagined pornography. She must have mentioned the "woman on a meat hook" three or four times, snuff films, kiddie porn, and even (SubGeniuses note) skull fucking. The commonality stage consisted of asserting something like, "This stuff is available in every supermarket, in every drugstore, from coast to coast." I am not making this up. The ridicule stage consisted of her monologue against some bastion of male authority who was supposed to be denying her true heartfelt anger. "'Oh,' they say, 'she wants it.' Well, she's up on a MEATHOOK! I don't think she LIKES IT! I think she's IN PAIN! These fancy scholars may need their PhD's and stuff, but we don't need it. We women know it in our bones!" The net result, in the minds of the gullible of the audience, was that sexually explicit pictures of women on meathooks were available in every supermarket in the country, and all the police thought that women enjoyed being on meathooks. I suppose this kind of nasty Dworkinesque fantasy appeals to a certain type of nasty-minded person. Would that they were as rare and unobtrusive as the afficionados of S&M pornography. -EMP
marla@Eng.Sun.COM (Marla Parker) (11/23/90)
In article <46878@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> feit@acsu.buffalo.EDU (Elissa Feit) writes: >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 This theory seems to address the question of why degrading acts turn some people on. You don't quote any sources for your premise, so I assume it is just your own theory. I am equally unqualified to answer this question, but I have thought about it and I do have my own theory. I think that people like attention no matter what weird, twisted form that attention may take. For example, I've read about half of the Sleeping Beauty series of porn written by Anne Rice under some penname like Rabelaire [A. N. Roquelaire -- AMBAR] or something. All of the slaves in those books dread yet love the punishment/attention they receive. It is fiction, but Rice goes to great lengths to create a world in which equal beings agree to treat each other in a most unequal way just for serious fun without being considered sick. At least, that is what her message seems to be to me. >MY proposal is to fill the demand for arousing material with >"erotica", defined as different than pornography in that it DOES NOT >degrade women. After seeing the movie "Henry and June", I looked up Anais Nin at my library. I found a book of erotica by her, short stories written long ago and published decades later because she felt that she had inadvertently written porn with a woman's slant to it. The introduction to the book is absolutely hilarious. She describes the circumstances under which she wrote the short stories in the first place. They were sold to an anonymous "collector" who kept sending back the message, "less poetry, more sex." She and other starving artists would sit around in cafes inventing the most outrageous, unbelievable sexual escapades they could come up with, and she would write them up and sell them to the collector through a go-between publisher. Back to the politics of porn: I agree that more women should write porn, with no restrictions applied. Given the impossibility of defining "obscene" or even "degrading", I would oppose any legislation in this area as a threat to my civil liberties and a violation of the Constitution. marla -- Marla Parker (415) 336-2538 marla@eng.sun.com
feit@acsu.buffalo.edu (Elissa Feit) (11/23/90)
In article <658887835@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.EDU (Hillel Gazit) writes: >In article <46878@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> (Elissa Feit) writes: >>Well, I hate to rekindle this old tired chestnut (how's THAT for mixed >>metaphor! 8-) but the sense I got from reading _Pornography_ [Dworkin, >>1979] is that the proposed legislation is NOT about freedom of speech, >>but about someone being able to collect damages when someone else's >>actions (eg, their portrayal of women) hurts them. >OK, let's spell it out. >If Jesse Helms feels degraded because a Holy symbol for him is put in >urine, should he be able to sue for damages because of the emotional >pain? First off, for the sake of argument I am defending Dworkin, which was NOT necessarily the purpose of my original post. I agree with her in part and disagree in part. Dworkin's basic assumption is that pornography teaches us how women "like" to be treated: that we like to be objectified, we like to be raped, called derogatory names, and so on. Similarly we are taught that mistreating women is men's correct sexual posture. (For the record, I think this is true that SOME sexual explicit material does this.) This is what Dworkin is trying to get to in HER definition of "pornography". Suppose that this is true and a man learns these attitudes and harms a woman because of these attitudes. Then, the law would allow her to sue the pornographers for damages. A response to this may be: gee, we learn all kinds of things which can be misued. Does that mean we should be able sue indiscriminately, just because some fool misinterprets a piece of information? Dworkin's response would be: it is not that *A* fool misinterprets *A* piece of information. The case is that a whole sector of the population, MEN, are misconstruing the information and hurting not just *A* woman, but a whole class of people: WOMEN. >What kind of freedom of speech will we have with laws like that? >The difference between Helms and Dworkin is that he has not tried >(yet...) to rewrite the laws in such a way that he will be able to >sue for damages, just to cut federal funding to what he finds >offensive. This is not comparable to Sereno's "Piss Christ" in that the class of objects, RELIGIOUS ICONS in this case, are not being hurt in the same way that people are hurt. Furthermore, is Helms being discriminated against? Will he presumably not get a job because of "Piss Christ"? Will he be beat up as a Christian because of "Piss Christ"? >>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" >How many S&M people have you talked with, Elissa? >How do you *know* that they like S&M because they were abused as children? (So you're saying that S&M is "abuse"? I never equated the two. Many S&Mers would not actually come right out and say that...) I think people LEARN many parts of their sexuality. I DON'T think things such as hurting people in order to be aroused is inherent. And by the way, I used abuse as a "eg" to the PREMISE that (and I quote) "People's fantasies tend to be tied to distresses they suffered". I'm not claiming that early abuse is concious is every case - far from it (and I don't know percentages). I do know several people whose fantasies ARE tied to early abuse - and they found out after years of struggling with the fantasy, not knowing where it came from. I am also reporting this from knowing some counselors who have found that by working with a client's fantasies, they (the counselor and the client) could unlock some of the early abuse stuff. (Allow me to add that the counselor does NOT make the assumption that the fantasy = the previously unremembered incident of abuse. The knowledge that X is a true incident comes from the fact of LARGE amounts of anger/grief/fear that is tied to X.) >>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. >Assuming that you are right, how dare you >criticise the way they *choose* to work on their pains? Again, Hillel, why do you assume that they ARE "working" on their pain? People ACT OUT all kinds of emotional trauma without conciously knowing that they are replaying old hurts (or are you a behavioralist?). I'm not criticizing the way people choose to live - if it happens to be the case that your INTENTION is to heal from hurts X, Y, and Z, you probably don't want to CHOOSE a life where X, Y, and Z. >>Theorem: (?) If what turns us on is what had once distressed us, then >>pornography CREATES its own market. >Feminist Cow-shit. "Bullshit" is a generic enough term. Or is your choice of the term "cow-shit" to imply that I am a "cow"? That women are livestock? (I was hoping that we'd somehow come furthur 8-( ). >>MY proposal is to fill the demand for arousing material with >>"erotica", defined as different than pornography in that it DOES NOT >>degrade women. How to tell if something's degrading? >You can always use the usual definition: >what turns you on is erotica, while what turns me on is porno. :-( Say! Now THAT'S an idea! ...ummm, you sure you don't mind, Hillel? No, all kidding aside. I do NOT agree with much of what Dworkin says. *I* think the problem is as stated above: "porn" teaches men and women how they are to be sexually, and those ways happen to degrade people. Somehow, violence has been sexualized, degradation has been sexualized, racism has been sexualized. We need to rethink our sexuality outside of oppressive ways of being. One way to do this is to stop producing material that teaches oppression. Likewise, I think that TV should be less violent. I am NOT proposing that we outlaw TV either.... Elissa Feit (feit@cs.buffalo.edu // {rutgers,uunet}!cs.buffalo.edu!feit) I know it's over, and it never really began, but in my heart it was so real - The Smiths
gazit@cs.duke.EDU (Hillel Gazit) (11/27/90)
In article <47331@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> (Elissa Feit) writes: >Dworkin's basic assumption is that pornography teaches us how women >"like" to be treated: that we like to be objectified, we like to be >raped, called derogatory names, and so on. Dworkin has not bothered herself to compare the way women are actually treated in states/counties/cities with more porno. The idea that porno "teaches" people to rape is about as founded as the idea that murder mysteries "teaches" people to kill. Censoring speech because of the influence it might have is *very* dangerous. It will let the government to shut up everyone it does not like. Besides, her laws also out-lawed all-men gay porno. Since gay men are raped more often than straight men, one could expect gay organizations to support such laws. They were *against* it. Try to fit that fact into your picture. >Suppose that this is true and a man learns these attitudes and harms a >woman because of these attitudes. Then, the law would allow her to sue >the pornographers for damages. And if a woman shot an artist because of some feminist literature she read, should he be able to sue the people who wrote/distributed/recommended this literature? Do you (feminists) really want to be treated in the way you treat us? >A response to this may be: gee, we learn all kinds of things which can >be misued. Does that mean we should be able sue indiscriminately, just >because some fool misinterprets a piece of information? Dworkin's >response would be: it is not that *A* fool misinterprets *A* piece of >information. The case is that a whole sector of the population, MEN, >are misconstruing the information and hurting not just *A* woman, but >a whole class of people: WOMEN. Gay men are not treated too nicely in this society. Dworkin's ideas about them, their sexuality, and why they enjoy porno don't help them too much. Should they be able to sue Dworkin for the junk she wrote? Seeing your ideas I start to be happy that there are so many conservatives in the Supreme Court. I'm pretty sure that they will defend the freedom of speech of *all* of us better than the feminists. :-( >This is not comparable to Sereno's "Piss Christ" in that the class of >objects, RELIGIOUS ICONS in this case, are not being hurt in the same >way that people are hurt. If this work will inspire some crazy people to desecrate a church, should the church be able to sue Sereno for damages? Dworkin defined, in the law, pornography as "discrimination". Have you ever question *her* claim? >>>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" >>How do you *know* that they like S&M because they were abused as >>children? >(So you're saying that S&M is "abuse"? No. I asked about their childhood, not their current lives. [Try asking: "What proof do you have that people pursue S&M as adults because of abuse during childhood? Why do you think that's the only reason people enjoy S&M?" --CLT] >I think people LEARN many parts of their sexuality. I DON'T think >things such as hurting people in order to be aroused is inherent. Forty years ago most psychologists claimed that homosexualism is not inherent. Only after the gay community stood up and *fought*, the psychologists changed their mind. [Actually, we still don't know. The psychologists took homosexuality off their list of mental disorders, but said nothing about whether it was inherent or learned. --CLT] All these facts don't prevent you from believing in what the psychologists say about S&M... >it (and I don't know percentages). I do know several people whose >fantasies ARE tied to early abuse - and they found out after years of >struggling with the fantasy, not knowing where it came from. Read sometime all the shit that psychologists wrote about homosexuals 30 years ago; *maybe* you will learn something. >>>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. >>Assuming that you are right, how dare you >>criticise the way they *choose* to work on their pains? >Again, Hillel, why do you assume that they ARE "working" on their pain? They do what they damn like with their pains, and as long as they don't ask for your help then please stay *out*. They have (like everyone else) the right to love/fuck as *they* like. >>Feminist Cow-shit. >"Bullshit" is a generic enough term. But I wanted a specific term. >>You can always use the usual definition: >>what turns you on is erotica, while what turns me on is porno. :-( >Say! Now THAT'S an idea! ...ummm, you sure you don't mind, Hillel? As long as you have no intention to pass laws that will limit the freedom of speech you can define what you like (including that 2+2=5). >No, all kidding aside. I do NOT agree with much of what Dworkin says. >*I* think the problem is as stated above: "porn" teaches men and women >how they are to be sexually, and those ways happen to degrade people. ^^^^^^ Dworkin's law said, very explicitly, *women*. [She did say she disagreed with Dworkin. --CLT] >sexuality outside of oppressive ways of being. One way to do this is >to stop producing material that teaches oppression. Likewise, I think >that TV should be less violent. I am NOT proposing that we outlaw TV >either.... Yet... Hillel gazit@cs.duke.edu
mapjilg@gdr.bath.ac.uk (J I L Gold) (11/27/90)
>No, all kidding aside. I do NOT agree with much of what Dworkin says. >*I* think the problem is as stated above: "porn" teaches men and women >how they are to be sexually, and those ways happen to degrade people. >Somehow, violence has been sexualized, degradation has been >sexualized, racism has been sexualized. We need to rethink our >sexuality outside of oppressive ways of being. One way to do this is >to stop producing material that teaches oppression. Likewise, I think >that TV should be less violent. I am NOT proposing that we outlaw TV >either.... I wouldn't quite say that pornography "teaches" men and women about their sexualities. That smacks of being educational, and I don't really think porn is consumed for enlightenment in the erudite sense! Rather, it presents a set of values and modes of behaviour that are (supposed to be) socially acceptable. Yet at the same time it is supposed to be a source of fantasy, escapism, or choose your own euphemism. In that sense there is a contradiction, namely that (a) this is the way that men and women behave, but (b) presumably if you are using this as a fantasy you are not behaving that way! (but perhaps you wish to). I think it is this contradiction, the loss of distinction between reality and fantasy that is the real source of harm in pornography. -- # J.Gold | mapjilg@uk.ac.bath.gdr # # University of Bath , UK | jilg@uk.ac.bath.maths # # The more improbable an event is, the more likely it is to happen :-) #
gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) (11/27/90)
In article <1990Nov26.154324.14633@gdr.bath.ac.uk> (J I L Gold) writes: >I think it is this contradiction, the >loss of distinction between reality and fantasy that is the real >source of harm in pornography. Do you want to out-law other literature that mixes fantasy and reality? (The junk romances that so many women read, for example.)
cr2r+@andrew.cmu.edu (Christian M. Restifo) (11/30/90)
In article <659646477@lear.cs.duke.edu> (Hillel Gazit) writes: >In article <1990Nov26.154324.14633@gdr.bath.ac.uk> (J I L Gold) writes: >>I think it is this contradiction, the >>loss of distinction between reality and fantasy that is the real >>source of harm in pornography. >Do you want to out-law other literature that mixes fantasy and reality? >(The junk romances that so many women read, for example.) Better yet, let's just out-law everything that has do with imagination, creativity, originality, and other things not directly associated with "reality." -Chris Restifo cr2r@andrew.cmu.edu Any thoughts expressed here are mine. If you think the same types of thoughts, you obviously stole them from me. Be prepared to be sued..........
feit@acsu.buffalo.edu (Elissa Feit) (11/30/90)
Hillel says: ... >Besides, her laws also out-lawed all-men gay porno. >Since gay men are raped more often than straight men, >one could expect gay organizations to support such laws. >They were *against* it. Gay men are raised the same as straight men. Some gay men, John Stoltenburg for (a very vocal) example, are Dworkin supporters. Actually, Stoltenburg is more of a supporter than I am. So from now on, I will no longer speak for Dworkin since (as I have said in BOTH of my earlier articles) I do not agree with her on some basic issues (her tactics, for one). And just to set the record straight, where I DO agree, is that porn teaches men and women how they are to be, sexually, in a way that oppresses men and women. ^^^^^^^ (In fact, Hillel pointed out that Dworkin sez "women". Ok, but *I* don't say "women".) >Gay men are not treated too nicely in this society. >Dworkin's ideas about them, their sexuality, and why they enjoy >porno don't help them too much. Can you be more specific? I think that MEN in this society are raised to not feel, to not love, and to hurt others. It sucks. It hurts. And as soon as a boy/man rebels he is ostracized, and is a "sissy" or a "girl"... In other words, no longer a boy/man. Gay men are hurt by this in the same way that straight men are. I, for one, appreciate the gay men's movement for challenging these attitudes and reclaiming feeling/love/affection as something that IS perfectly male. >Seeing your ideas I start to be happy that there are so many >conservatives in the Supreme Court. I'm pretty sure that they will >defend the freedom of speech of *all* of us better than the feminists. >:-( You have me confused with someone else. I never claimed to support the laws - simply the motivation behind them. >>>>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" >>>How do you *know* that they like S&M because they were abused as >>>children? >>(So you're saying that S&M is "abuse"? >No. >I asked about their childhood, not their current lives. >[Try asking: "What proof do you have that people pursue S&M as adults >because of abuse during childhood? Why do you think that's the only >reason people enjoy S&M?" --CLT] You both misundrstood the logical implication. I said: If someone is abused as a child (P), that abuse finds its way etc.. (Q). If P then Q. Well, now we have a class of Q. Does this imply for every x, x in Q, that x in P? No. (Furthermore, I said "TEND", so it's not even that case that for every x, x in ~Q -> x in ~P. But that's a different argument.) (Also, "finds its way into what turns them on" is not very specific. This could mean that in one case, if a kid was abused in a bathtub, perhaps he/she won;t get off without wter being present...) But again, I;ve away from my original intent. What I mean to say is : (what I said originally:) >>I think people LEARN many parts of their sexuality. I DON'T think >>things such as hurting people in order to be aroused is inherent. >Forty years ago most psychologists claimed that homosexualism is >not inherent. Only after the gay community stood up and *fought*, >the psychologists changed their mind. >[Actually, we still don't know. The psychologists took homosexuality >off their list of mental disorders, but said nothing about whether it >was inherent or learned. --CLT] >All these facts don't prevent you from believing in what the >psychologists say about S&M... You're commiting the "genetic fallacy" (that's TWO logic errors in ONE post! gee whiz! ;-) : (paraphrase:) `the Psychiatric Community says X, but they also said Y, and Y is wrong. Therefore X is wrong.' Besides, I am not getting this from the psych. lit. IT is intuitive (IT = that arousal from hurting people is LEARNT, not inherent) on my part, AND some friends who HAPPEN to be involved with Psych. happen to agree with me. >>>>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. >>>Assuming that you are right, how dare you >>>criticise the way they *choose* to work on their pains? >>Again, Hillel, why do you assume that they ARE "working" on their pain? >They do what they damn like with their pains, and as long as they >don't ask for your help then please stay *out*. >They have (like everyone else) the right to love/fuck as *they* like. I am NOT interfering with anyone's life. I happen to be involved in a discussion. period. Furthermore, why do you omit parts of my argument in your reply? In order to make it look weaker? Elissa Feit (feit@cs.buffalo.edu // {rutgers,uunet}!cs.buffalo.edu!feit) We're on the road and we're gunning for the Buddha. We know his name and he mustn't get away -- Shriekback
rberlin@birdland.Eng.Sun.COM (Rich Berlin) (11/30/90)
In article <3121@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> marla@Eng.Sun.COM (Marla Parker) writes: > In article <46878@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> feit@acsu.buffalo.EDU (Elissa Feit) writes: >> 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 > This theory seems to address the question of why degrading acts turn > some people on. You don't quote any sources for your premise, so I > assume it is just your own theory. Looks to me like it bears some kinship to Freud, who called it "the compulsion to repeat". Unresolved trauma finds its way into fantasies as well as physically observable behavior. This is commonly offered as an explanation of why abuse victims perpetuate the cycle of their own victimization, or become perpetrators of similar violence upon others. Aside: I never cared much for Freud until I read some of Alice Miller's work. For those of you who might be interested, I think the appropriate book is "Thou Shalt Not Be Aware;" it includes a very interesting discussion of how the prevailing social climate in the late 19th century forced Freud to IGNORE HIS OWN FINDINGS, with the result that his later theories are misdirected, and when translated into psychoanalytic practice are frequently counterproductive. I highly recommend this book to anyone who thinks s/he may have been abused as a child. (And especially if your response to that statement is a highly intense negative reaction.) I also recommend it to anyone interested in feminist goals of social change because of Miller's cogent argument that many ills of our society are rooted in our attitudes toward and treatment of our children. (Finding examples is left as an exercise for the reader :-) > I am equally unqualified to answer > this question, but I have thought about it and I do have my own theory. > I think that people like attention no matter what weird, twisted form > that attention may take. This one seems more in line with the behaviorists. Not that I'm fond of their conclusions (bleah!) but there's a body of research that I think supports your assertion: if you crave attention, even the most negative kind of attention is a powerful form of reinforcement. This explains why punishing undesirable behavior often leads to an increase rather than a decrease of that behavior. (Don't you wish more parents and schoolteachers acted as though they understood that?) -- Rich
gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) (01/02/91)
In article <47818@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> (Elissa Feit) writes: >>Besides, her laws also out-lawed all-men gay porno. >>Since gay men are raped more often than straight men, >>one could expect gay organizations to support such laws. >>They were *against* it. >Gay men are raised the same as straight men. Some gay men, John >Stoltenburg for (a very vocal) example, are Dworkin supporters. And the first black who was accepted to the University of Mississippi (with the help of 10,000 army troops...) *supports* Jesse Helms... Try to look for the positions of the significant gay organizations,a and not just some specific example... >And just to set the record straight, where I DO agree, is that porn >teaches men and women how they are to be, sexually, in a way that >oppresses men and women. > ^^^^^^^ I don't remember that I've ever asked you to help me. >>Gay men are not treated too nicely in this society. >>Dworkin's ideas about them, their sexuality, and why they enjoy >>porno don't help them too much. >Can you be more specific? Gay men claim that they enjoy gay porno because they like *men's* bodies, and women just don't turn them on. Dworkin claims that the men in gay porno are used "in place of the women". I see a contraction between the two claims. >I think that MEN in this society are raised >to not feel, to not love, and to hurt others. It sucks. I really appreciate your willingness to help me, but I don't remember that I've asked for your help. >this in the same way that straight men are. I, for one, appreciate >the gay men's movement for challenging these attitudes and reclaiming >feeling/love/affection as something that IS perfectly male. OK, we agree. >You have me confused with someone else. I never claimed to support the >laws - simply the motivation behind them. And the pro-life movement has never claimed to support the bombings of the abortion clinics - simply the motivation behind them... >>>>>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" >You both misundrstood the logical implication. I said: >If someone is abused as a child (P), that abuse finds its way etc.. (Q). > If P then Q. You said that, but you did not explain why you are so sure that it is so. >Well, now we have a class of Q. Does this imply for every x, x in Q, that >x in P? No. >But again, I;ve away from my original intent. What I mean to say is : >(what I said originally:) What you said perfectly clear is that those who were abused will be more likely to like S&M. You did not present any argument to support it, and you shifted the debate to logic instead. >>Forty years ago most psychologists claimed that homosexualism is >>not inherent. Only after the gay community stood up and *fought*, >>the psychologists changed their mind. >>[Actually, we still don't know. The psychologists took homosexuality >>off their list of mental disorders, but said nothing about whether it >>was inherent or learned. --CLT] >>All these facts don't prevent you from believing in what the >>psychologists say about S&M... >You're commiting the "genetic fallacy" (that's TWO logic errors in ONE >post! gee whiz! ;-) : (paraphrase:) `the Psychiatric Community says X, >but they also said Y, and Y is wrong. Therefore X is wrong.' Therefore I don't believe them. It is not just that they were *wrong* about homosexuals, but that they changed their opinion *only* after the gays thought a lesson or two that the police will not forget. It is not a big deal to change the opinion of the psychologists' community, all you have to do is to use a four by two... 1/2 :-) >Besides, I am not getting this from the psych. lit. IT is intuitive >(IT = that arousal from hurting people is LEARNT, not inherent) on my >part, And your intuition has nothing to do with the misconceptions of the culture around you. *I* call it that "everybody knows" proof... >AND some friends who HAPPEN to be involved with Psych. happen to >agree with me. ^^^^^^ That is obvious. >>>>>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. >>They do what they damn like with their pains, and as long as they >>don't ask for your help then please stay *out*. >>They have (like everyone else) the right to love/fuck as *they* like. >I am NOT interfering with anyone's life. You just present their decision to practice S&M as similar (in its destructiveness) to marrying a drunk. *I* don't agree. >I happen to be involved in a >discussion. period. Furthermore, why do you omit parts of my argument >in your reply? In order to make it look weaker? I leave the parts that seem important to me; feel free to bring back what's important to you. Hillel gazit@cs.duke.edu "There are worse things to be than a bigot. I'd rather keep company with a bigot who lets me go my own way than a well-intentioned man who presumes to know what is good for me." -- Wendy Thrash
mapjilg@gdr.bath.ac.uk (J I L Gold) (01/02/91)
In article <659646477@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes: >In article <1990Nov26.154324.14633@gdr.bath.ac.uk> (J I L Gold) writes: >>I think it is this contradiction, the >>loss of distinction between reality and fantasy that is the real >>source of harm in pornography. >Do you want to out-law other literature that mixes fantasy and reality? >(The junk romances that so many women read, for example.) Hmm...I didn't talk about outlawing, as such. In an ideal world, such "escapism" would perhaps be unnecessary. However, as this world is far from ideal, we have to work with what we've got. I think it's sad that these forms of escapism take the form they do - fantasy and dreams are an important part of all our lives, they motivate and refresh us. However, fantasies are very dangerous animals when you are in a position to make them real, (as I've found to my own great cost) as they can never be fulfilled - there is always discrepancy between your fantasy and reality. This dichotomy is similar to the one mentioned in my previous posting: pornography promotes myths and stereotypes of human sexuality. Cheap fiction does likewise. You're right to the extent that to single out pornography would be to miss the point somewhat, however, it appeals on a much lower level (to direct sexual stimuli) and as such is much more potent at influencing people's thoughts. Ban it/them? No...I wouldn't want to live in such a world. I would be in favour of marginalising it, making it less easy to obtain and less socially acceptable, but global censorship is a revolting concept. -- # J.Gold | mapjilg@uk.ac.bath.gdr # # University of Bath , UK | jilg@uk.ac.bath.maths # # The more improbable an event is, the more likely it is to happen :-) #
feit@acsu.buffalo.edu (Elissa Feit) (01/05/91)
Hillel, I want to make one thing clear - I am NOT trying to prevent anyone from practising consensual sex, whatever flavor... I am not comparing S&M with staying in an unhealthy relationship (and I'm not sure what posting you originally based that idea on)... I don't think abuse of children is healthy. If one is compelled to act out whatever hurts were done to them as a child on a child, that is not fine... If you "act out" your hurts (if this is actually what you are doing - my claim is that in some cases it is) with a consenting adult, fine. If you TEACH people, through porn, that non-consensual sex is fine (so that they *learn*), that's where I draw the line.... (though you MAY notice that I am not proposing censorship, as you have accused me of - I have made no proposals.) I happen to be against any medium which preaches a double standard and teaches that women (as a class) like to be hurt... This means I am against CERTAIN porn. This also means that if a man ever said to me: "you love this, slut", he'd find himself alone in bed... I am NOT dictating what you may or may not do... truly... this is not my intent, never was... As far as my claim that men are oppressed in ways A, B, and C, and your rejoinder that you never asked for my help, well, some of my men friends APPRECIATE my being an ally... and certainly my 2 nephews deserve to be exposed to some other ways of looking at the world, rather than the patriotic/patriarchal stew we seem to find ourselves in... I mean, hey, according to more than one newspaper source, the whole Iraqi thing has something to do with Bush's manhood.... I fight it for my OWN life, not simply for the men around me.... Take care, Elissa