csluder@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (KirK) (10/17/90)
In article <kaveh.655919781@s.ms.uky.edu> kaveh@ms.uky.edu (Kaveh Baharestan) writes: > >hmm... the fight against porn movies may not be on the agenda of most >feminists simply because they are dirty or what ever. Porn is basically >anti-feminist and promotes the objectification, humiliation, control, >and hate of women. Isn't this an objective thing? I feel that men are downgraded just as much in bad pornography as women. Look at how men are portrayed. Men in pornography are usualy jaded, insensitive piledrivers. I find this to be almost as insulting as its portrayal 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. (this does not mean that I believe the >church fanatics are correct - as one article i read said, the church >and pornographers are codependent.) I have a problem with the idea that porn is exclusively women exploitive. Who is exploiting whom? Recently I've met a semi-professional drag queen, and a topless dancer who both say that what they love about performing is the control they have over their audience. Is pornography a case of male consumers exploiting female porn stars? Or is the female porn star exploiting the men who chose to buy into her image of a wanton uninhibited "slut"? I'm not opposed to the idea of pornography. IMHO there can be pornography (there is but it doesn't sell well) that caters to both men and women and refuses to buy into sexist steriotypes. On another note how do feminists feel about performers like Madonna who are subtlely twisting our ideas of gender by taking sexual "femininity" to an extreme? RE: Story of O Yes there are some women and men who enjoy masochism. I have met quite a few people into a milder form of S&M, usualy dubbed bondange and dicipline, who claim that sadomasochism is a thriving sexual fetish. Some people are unable to get sexual pleasure unassociated with the giving or receiving of pain.
kaveh@ms.uky.edu (Kaveh Baharestan) (10/18/90)
csluder@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (KirK) writes: >In article <kaveh.655919781@s.ms.uky.edu> kaveh@ms.uky.edu (Kaveh Baharestan) writes: vvvvv -- do you mean subjective? >Isn't this an objective thing? I feel that men are downgraded just as >much in bad pornography as women. Look at how men are portrayed. Men >in pornography are usualy jaded, insensitive piledrivers. I find this >to be almost as insulting as its portrayal of women. No, that's stereotyping. With very few exceptions it is the men in the porn flicks that degrade the women, or the women doing or saying self-degredant(is that a word - should be ;->) actions and lines. Men, generally are not degraded. They do not beg, usually. And they are almost always in control of any situation. Then, of course, there is the rape aspect of pornography. Most pornographic material has elements of rape, or down right, out-and-out forcible (most times without an actual beating) rape. 90% of the porn that I have ever seen involved a woman, who at one point, says "no" or has an erotic scene that involves a woman and a stranger in a situation that would normally be construed as rape (eg. burgler with knife breaks into home of woman--they proceed to do whatever...) Point being, do you know anyone who would be excited (sexually) by a burgler, a guy in an alley....? Porn promotes rape. (Well, that's for another group. there's a few great papers by Griffin(sp?) of rape and pornography, i recommend them highly.) >>There is no pornography that does not promote one >>or more of these ideas in its viewer-readers. So the fight agianst >>Porn is the fight for equality. (this does not mean that I believe the >>church fanatics are correct - as one article i read said, the church >>and pornographers are codependent.) >I have a problem with the idea that porn is exclusively women >exploitive. Who is exploiting whom? Recently I've met a >semi-professional drag queen, and a topless dancer who both say that >what they love about performing is the control they have over their >audience. Is pornography a case of male consumers exploiting female >porn stars? Or is the female porn star exploiting the men who chose >to buy into her image of a wanton uninhibited "slut"? 8-O i feel so exploited when I watch M. Chambers!!!! Give me a break! >I'm not opposed to the idea of pornography. IMHO there can be >pornography (there is but it doesn't sell well) that caters to both >men and women and refuses to buy into sexist steriotypes. What you have just described here is impossible, or your definition of porn is not the same as mine. If you are referring to something like Lady Chatterley's Lover (THE BOOK! ;-)) then you are not referring to pornograph, but of a work that has sexually explict scenes that are within the context of the plot and not sex for the sake of sex. >On another note how do feminists feel about performers like Madonna >who are subtlely twisting our ideas of gender by taking sexual >"femininity" to an extreme? Twisting? I would say stretching not twisting. Madonna is not pornographic, just incredibly smart!
gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) (10/19/90)
In article <kaveh.656196375@s.ms.uky.edu> (Kaveh Baharestan) writes: >Men, generally are not degraded. They do not beg, usually. And they >are almost always in control of any situation. Still the anti-porno laws that were written by Catherine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin outlawed porno where men are not in control as well; S&M with female dominant / male submissive and all-men gay porno were outlawed because it is supposed to be "a form of discrimination against women" (it was written in the *law* so stop laughing). I think that these women just did not like *all* form of porno and they think that they have the right to outlaw any material that they don't like, and shout "it degrades women" just because they feel so. >Point being, do you know anyone who would be excited (sexually) by a >burgler, a guy in an alley....? No, but I know people who are excited by *playing* a game like this. The porno you described is a *play* between adults and not a real rape. I hope that you can see the difference. >Porn promotes rape. Your arguments why it is so are flawed, and the statistics don't prove your point either. Is there any fact that can change your opinion that "porno promotes rape", or do you believe in it regardless of all facts? >8-O i feel so exploited when I watch M. Chambers!!!! Give me a break! And I feel degraded when I read Brownmiller and Dworkin, but I will *never* try to use any law to shut them up. >Lady Chatterley's Lover (THE BOOK! ;-)) then you are not referring to >pornograph, but of a work that has sexually explict scenes that are >within the context of the plot and not sex for the sake of sex. Would you mind to tell us what is so bad about "sex for the sake of sex"? [Also, how do you draw the line? This is the big issue that was responsible for the change in the movie ratings system, for example. - MHN] Hillel gazit@cs.duke.edu "Only if one thinks of sex itself as a degrading act can one believe that all pornography degrades or harm women." -- ("AMONG US, AGAINST US the new puritans", Pat Califia)
csluder@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (KirK) (10/19/90)
In article <kaveh.656196375@s.ms.uky.edu> kaveh@ms.uky.edu (Kaveh Baharestan) writes: >csluder@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (KirK) writes: > >>In article <kaveh.655919781@s.ms.uky.edu> kaveh@ms.uky.edu (Kaveh Baharestan) writes: > > vvvvv -- do you mean subjective? >>Isn't this an objective thing? I feel that men are downgraded just as Yes I did, thank you. >No, that's stereotyping. With very few exceptions it is the men in >the porn flicks that degrade the women, or the women doing or saying >self-degredant(is that a word - should be ;->) actions and lines. >Men, generally are not degraded. They do not beg, usually. And they >are almost always in control of any situation. In certain situtations begging can be fun ;-) >Then, of course, there is the rape aspect of pornography. Most >pornographic material has elements of rape, or down right, out-and-out >forcible (most times without an actual beating) rape. 90% of the porn >that I have ever seen involved a woman, who at one point, says "no" or >has an erotic scene that involves a woman and a stranger in a >situation that would normally be construed as rape (eg. burgler with >knife breaks into home of woman--they proceed to do whatever...) >Point being, do you know anyone who would be excited (sexually) by a >burgler, a guy in an alley....? Porn promotes rape. (Well, that's >for another group. there's a few great papers by Griffin(sp?) of rape >and pornography, i recommend them highly.) Now do you see why I find bad pornography degrading to men? If women are offended by being steriotyped as bitches in movies and blacks offended by being stereotyped as inner city criminals, can't I be offended by rape stereotypes in porn movies? [I think the distinction is between being offended at degradation and being offended at a stereotype. They are both valid reasons for being offended, but different ones. --CLT] [Excess requoting deleted. --CLT] ... >>I'm not opposed to the idea of pornography. IMHO there can be >>pornography (there is but it doesn't sell well) that caters to both >>men and women and refuses to buy into sexist steriotypes. > >What you have just described here is impossible, or your definition of >porn is not the same as mine. If you are referring to something like >Lady Chatterley's Lover (THE BOOK! ;-)) then you are not referring to >pornograph, but of a work that has sexually explict scenes that are >within the context of the plot and not sex for the sake of sex. That IS my definition of pornography, a work that deals exclusively with sex for the sake of sex. The only reason why pornography is offensive is that the porn industry has been historicly dominiated on the supply and demand side by sexists. Things are changing though. With an increasing demand for pornography by women has come pornography with a focus on "couples." This genera of pornography is basicly the same thing, a series of sex scenes separated by very little plot, but it discards rape scenes and other sexist cleches common in old style porn. For example, it is no longer a cardinal rule that the man MUST ejaculate outside of the woman's body. Lesbian scenes are no longer manditory. Also discarded are the "ramrod" fetallio scenes where the woman takes the man's penis into her mouth and bobs her head as fast as possible. In "couple's porn" the woman has control a lot of the time. Take a look at Penthouse Forum or Letters some time. While you will see stories where the man is in charge you will also find a lot, maybe even a majority, of stories where the woman is using men. (I believe that the editor in chief of these mags is female, anybody know anything about this?) Also the statement "there is no porn that..." must take into acount homoerotic pornography. Is gay or lesbian porn sexist? My point is that pornography is a genera, not a homogenous description. It's like saying that science-fiction is sexist because the vast majority of science-fiction writers are sexist. What we need is not to fight pornography to advance the cause of equality, but to advance the cause of equality within pornography. Then again we might just be picking nits and spliting hairs. To me the only difference between pornography and erotica is that pornography makes no pretence at being art. KirK
larryc@poe.jpl.nasa.gov (Larry Carroll) (10/19/90)
I'm with Hillel on this one. I'm a user of pornography. So are my two Lesbian housemates (for the last six years). All of us have impressive feminist credentials. None of us are exploiters of women. "Pornography" is sexually arousing material prudes (or people with a hidden agenda) disapprove of, "erotica" is sexually arousing material prudes (or wimps) approve of. Larry Carroll "Takes-us" (correct pronunciation of Texas) Dancin' Fool
llama@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis) (10/20/90)
Kaveh Baharestan writes: >No, that's stereotyping. With very few exceptions it is the men in >the porn flicks that degrade the women, or the women doing or saying >self-degredant(is that a word - should be ;->) actions and lines. >Men, generally are not degraded. They do not beg, usually. And they >are almost always in control of any situation. I see. If you say women are degraded, they are. If I say men are degraded, they aren't. >Then, of course, there is the rape aspect of pornography. Most >pornographic material has elements of rape, or down right, out-and-out >forcible (most times without an actual beating) rape. 90% of the porn >that I have ever seen involved a woman, who at one point, says "no" or >has an erotic scene that involves a woman and a stranger in a >situation that would normally be construed as rape (eg. burgler with >knife breaks into home of woman--they proceed to do whatever...) >Point being, do you know anyone who would be excited (sexually) by a >burgler, a guy in an alley....? Porn promotes rape. (Well, that's >for another group. there's a few great papers by Griffin(sp?) of rape >and pornography, i recommend them highly.) Ahh, the famous, bogus, porn promotes rape argument. Porn is not strongly linked to rape. Depictions of violence (such as we see all over TV and movies) is strongly linked to rape and other violence. The everyday violence we see on TV contributes far more to rape and other real world violence than porn. It is also false that most porn depicts rape. >>>There is no pornography that does not promote one >>>or more of these ideas in its viewer-readers. So the fight agianst >>>Porn is the fight for equality. (this does not mean that I believe the >>>church fanatics are correct - as one article i read said, the church >>>and pornographers are codependent.) The fight against porn is a which hunt. If porn degrades women, then the Bakers degrade religious leaders. Pro wrestling degrades amateur wrestling. The enquirer degrades the Washington Post. You allow me the legal right to publish print stating that women are inherently inferior, that they deserve any treatment they get from men, that their only reason for existence is to please men and make babies. You grant me and anyone else to degrade as much as we want in print, and then argue for criminalizing porn because it is degrading (or are you not trying to criminalize porn? If not, what are talking about with "the fight against porn"?) If our culture did not have a long history of casting it's repressive sexual "morals" into law, the "fight against porn" would be easily spotted for what it is. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- "If our moderation really upsets you [...] then unsubscribe." - CLT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Read My Lips: No Nude Texans!" - George Bush clearing up a misunderstanding
kaveh@ms.uky.edu (Kaveh Baharestan) (10/20/90)
gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes: >In article <kaveh.656196375@s.ms.uky.edu> (Kaveh Baharestan) writes: >>Men, generally are not degraded. They do not beg, usually. And they >>are almost always in control of any situation. >Still the anti-porno laws that were written by Catherine MacKinnon and >Andrea Dworkin outlawed porno where men are not in control as well; >S&M with female dominant / male submissive and all-men gay porno were >outlawed because it is supposed to be "a form of discrimination >against women" (it was written in the *law* so stop laughing). >I think that these women just did not like *all* form of porno and >they think that they have the right to outlaw any material that they >don't like, and shout "it degrades women" just because they feel so. I don't know which laws you are talking about. Could you please clearify or tell me where to find the written laws? -thanks. >No, but I know people who are excited by *playing* a game like this. >The porno you described is a *play* between adults and not a real >rape. I hope that you can see the difference. Most people don't. Thats my point. Last night i heard a friend say about a woman walking dowwn the street, "I'd really like to fuck her.." He did not know this woman , did not care to know this woman in any but a carnal manner. My point is that he objectified her to something he wanted to fuck. This same objectification is done with porn, and THAT and the *playing* leads to rape. If you doubt me, then think of it as war. If i am a general and i want to win a war i do not tell me soldiers that they are killing people just like their mothers, fathers, siblings, friends, selves.. I tell them that they are fighting an EVIL EMPIRE, blood-thearsty(sp?) fanatic-arab-infidels, anyTHING but humans! >>Porn promotes rape. >Your arguments why it is so are flawed, and the >statistics don't prove your point either. what statistics? >Is there any fact that can change your opinion that "porno promotes rape", >or do you believe in it regardless of all facts? show me the facts. >And I feel degraded when I read Brownmiller and Dworkin, but I will >*never* try to use any law to shut them up. You and I and everybodyelse have the right to argue and discuss anything. what i am doing here is revealing my thoughs to others. I am not forcing anybody to do or think anything! My statement that *I* am against pornagraphy goes no further than that, than myself. YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO ASSUME THAT I AM PRO-CENSORSHIP because of this. People have the right to be exposed to what they want to be eposed to. >Would you mind to tell us what is so bad about "sex for the sake of sex"? isn't it obvious? >[Also, how do you draw the line? This is the big issue that was responsible >for the change in the movie ratings system, for example. - MHN] where i draw the line is my business, where you draw it is yours. I disagree with the movie ratings period. They treat sex as a crime and violence as "grown-up". >"Only if one thinks of sex itself as a degrading act can one >believe that all pornography degrades or harm women." this person is bunching sex into one catagory. There are different kinds of sex and not all are degading. PS - i never said that sex was degrading. Kaveh. +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | "Men are like lizards that bask in the sun, and say "what a nice place | | someone has built for me!"" -The Stone Of Farwell | | Tad Williams | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
kaveh@ms.uky.EDU (Kaveh Baharestan) (10/21/90)
csluder@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (KirK) writes: >In article <kaveh.656196375@s.ms.uky.edu> kaveh@ms.uky.edu (Kaveh Baharestan) writes: >>csluder@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (KirK) writes: >> >>>In article <kaveh.655919781@s.ms.uky.edu> kaveh@ms.uky.edu (Kaveh Baharestan) writes: >> >In certain situtations begging can be fun ;-) >can't I be offended by rape stereotypes in porn movies? yup. >Take a look at Penthouse Forum or >Letters some time. While you will see stories where the man is in >charge you will also find a lot, maybe even a majority, of stories >where the woman is using men. (I believe that the editor in chief of >these mags is female, anybody know anything about this?) Now that i know that, i think i'll subsrcibe to penthouse, after all, anything a woman does is feminist and anything a woman says about feminism is true ;->. Women using men is no better. Thats like saying because women beat me its ok for men to beat women. >Also the statement "there is no porn that..." must take into acount >homoerotic pornography. Is gay or lesbian porn sexist? The lesbian porn in forum is meant for cunsumption by men. That says it all (at least for "leasbian porn" in men's mags). >KirK kaveh
w25y@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (10/23/90)
In article <65210@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu>, csluder@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (KirK) writes: > In article <kaveh.655919781@s.ms.uky.edu> kaveh@ms.uky.edu (Kaveh Baharestan) writes: >> >>hmm... the fight against porn movies may not be on the agenda of most >>feminists simply because they are dirty or what ever. Porn is basically >>anti-feminist and promotes the objectification, humiliation, control, >>and hate of women. > > Isn't this an objective thing? I feel that men are downgraded just as > much in bad pornography as women. Look at how men are portrayed. Men > in pornography are usualy jaded, insensitive piledrivers. I find this > to be almost as insulting as its portrayal of women. You are both missing a far more basic point. Whether porn degrades men or women or sex in general, so far it is not against the law to degrade a certain group of people. To ban porn is to ban works based on content. Once it becomes OK to censor "bad" ideas, you may very well find that some of your ideas are considered "bad". First they came for the pornographers, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a pornographer... -- Paul Ciszek W25Y@CRNLVAX5 Bitnet W25Y@VAX5.CIT.CORNELL.EDU Internet UUNET!CORNELL!VAX5!W25Y UUCP "The trouble with normal is it always gets worse." --Bruce Cockburn
llama@eleazar.dartmouth.EDU (Joe Francis) (10/23/90)
Kaveh Baharestan writes: >No, that's stereotyping. With very few exceptions it is the men in >the porn flicks that degrade the women, or the women doing or saying >self-degredant(is that a word - should be ;->) actions and lines. >Men, generally are not degraded. They do not beg, usually. And they >are almost always in control of any situation. I see. If you say women are degraded, they are. If I say men are degraded, they aren't. >Then, of course, there is the rape aspect of pornography. Most >pornographic material has elements of rape, or down right, out-and-out >forcible (most times without an actual beating) rape. 90% of the porn >that I have ever seen involved a woman, who at one point, says "no" or >has an erotic scene that involves a woman and a stranger in a >situation that would normally be construed as rape (eg. burgler with >knife breaks into home of woman--they proceed to do whatever...) >Point being, do you know anyone who would be excited (sexually) by a >burgler, a guy in an alley....? Porn promotes rape. (Well, that's >for another group. there's a few great papers by Griffin(sp?) of rape >and pornography, i recommend them highly.) Ahh, the famous, bogus, porn promotes rape argument. Porn is not strongly linked to rape. Depictions of violence (such as we see all over TV and movies) is strongly linked to rape and other violence. The everyday violence we see on TV contributes far more to rape and other real world violence than porn. It is also false that most porn depicts rape. >>>There is no pornography that does not promote one >>>or more of these ideas in its viewer-readers. So the fight agianst >>>Porn is the fight for equality. (this does not mean that I believe the >>>church fanatics are correct - as one article i read said, the church >>>and pornographers are codependent.) The fight against porn is a witch hunt. If porn degrades women, then the Bakers degrade religious leaders. Pro wrestling degrades amateur wrestling. The enquirer degrades the Washington Post. You allow me the legal right to publish print stating that women are inherently inferior, that they deserve any treatment they get from men, that their only reason for existence is to please men and make babies. You grant me and anyone else to degrade as much as we want in print, and then argue for criminalizing porn because it is degrading (or are you not trying to criminalize porn? If not, what are talking about with "the fight against porn"?) If our culture did not have a long history of casting it's repressive sexual "morals" into law, the "fight against porn" would be easily spotted for what it is. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- "If our moderation really upsets you [...] then unsubscribe." - CLT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Read My Lips: No Nude Texans!" - George Bush clearing up a misunderstanding
gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) (10/23/90)
#Also the statement "there is no porn that..." must take into account #homoerotic pornography. Is gay or lesbian porn sexist? In article <kaveh.656435350@s.ms.uky.edu> (Kaveh Baharestan) writes: >The lesbian porn in forum is meant for cunsumption by men. That says 1) Do you define "On Our Backs" as porno for men? 2) Why it seems to you so strange that lesbians may enjoy lesbian porno? 3) Why have you ignored the question about all-men gay porno? 4) If women enjoy all-men gay porno, does it mean that the men are exploited by these women?
csluder@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (KirK) (10/24/90)
Pornography, like any entertainment industry, responds to the laws of supply and demand. While most pornography is sexist the statement "there is no pornography that does not degrade women" is inherently false. The content of pornography is determined by it's demand, and the porno industry is starting to respond to a new market, women. The answer is not to fight pornography, but to demand that the industry responds to your power as a consumer. Pornography is not in and of its self sexist. To say that it is would be like saying "horor novels are sexist because the genera is dominated by men who cast women into unfavorably sexist roles." It is not difficult to start improving a genera in your favor. Science fiction was notoriously sexist until women joined the ranks of SF writers. [Is the cause and effect that clear? How do societal changes affect what literature gets published and does this open the ranks of authors? - MHN] At any rate, moving to ban any form of literature is quite dangerious. It is much better to change it than to outlaw it. KirK
mittmann@ral.rpi.edu (Michael Mittmann) (10/24/90)
In article <kaveh.656432661@s.ms.uky.edu> kaveh@ms.uky.edu (Kaveh Baharestan) writes: >gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes: >>No, but I know people who are excited by *playing* a game like this. >>The porno you described is a *play* between adults and not a real >>rape. I hope that you can see the difference. >Most people don't. In my opinion this is blatantly false. Do you have a lover? Do you ever play games with hir? Most of the people I've spoken to about this (admittedly a small sample) do, and I would bet that they know they are playing a game. >That's my point. Last night i heard a friend say >about a woman walking dowwn the street, "I'd really like to fuck her.." >He did not know this woman, did not care to know this woman in any but >a carnal manner. My point is that he objectified her to something he >wanted to fuck. This is a completely different point. Yes, some porn movies treat women (and (IMHO) men) as sex objects. Some normal movies also do this. Did you see "Do the right thing?", police are objects, have you seen "das Boot"? all of the non-germans are objects. I don't think that that made them worse movies. Furthermore people objectify other people all the time. It is necssary, I couldn't go through life if I had to see every person I walk past and treat them as a person, I don't have enough time and brain power, consequently, in the supermarket people become moving obstacles. Objectification isn't even necessarily bad, if I see a toddler crying in a park I treat it just as I would an injured bird. It's something that is having trouble, so I try to help it. If a person has their car stuck in an intersection, I don't care about them as a person, but I will try to get the car out of the street, but they are still an object. -mike
turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) (10/24/90)
csluder@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (KirK) writes: >> Also the statement "there is no porn that..." must take into acount >> homoerotic pornography. Is gay or lesbian porn sexist? In article <kaveh.656435350@s.ms.uky.edu>, kaveh@ms.uky.EDU (Kaveh Baharestan) writes: > The lesbian porn in forum is meant for cunsumption by men. That says > it all (at least for "leasbian porn" in men's mags). I don't know what KirK meant, but one cannot dismiss lesbian and gay porn by pretending it does not exist, nor by limiting the discussion to the mandatory girl-on-girl stuff in boy's magazines like Penthouse. There is real lesbian and gay pornography, and it is often meatier stuff than the naked cheerleaders ("my turn-offs are heavy thought") and boring stories ("I stuck my foot-long piece of steel into her luscious bod") that fill the magazines that begin with P. Anyone who wants to see one example of what a lesbian writes for other lesbians can look at Pat Califia's books, such as "Macho Sluts", a collection of erotic stories, or "Doc and Fluff", a biker novel set in a dystopian future. You won't find them at your local 7-11, nor at your local dirty bookstore. You may have to venture into a woman's or lesbian or gay bookstore. Califia likes leather and S&M, and breaks all the rules that characterize the slick magazines aimed at heterosexual boys. Old women are shown both sexually active and politically empowered -- indeed, about half of "Doc and Fluff" takes place at a separatist farm -- and the author is just as likely to have two men become sexually attached as two women. The homophobic male who likes to read about nineteen year-old girls will be turned on in one paragraph, only to have his head spun in the next. Now how are you going to dismiss Pat Califia? We're not talking about the boy's magazines anymore, but about the real stuff. Russell
kaveh@ms.uky.EDU (Kaveh Baharestan) (10/24/90)
w25y@vax5.cit.cornell.edu writes: > You are both missing a far more basic point. Whether porn degrades >men or women or sex in general, so far it is not against the law to >degrade a certain group of people. To ban porn is to ban works based >on content. Once it becomes OK to censor "bad" ideas, you may very I never said that i wanted to ban anything! What You read and watch should be an EDUCATED choice. -kaveh
csluder@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (KirK) (10/25/90)
In article <kaveh.656432661@s.ms.uky.edu> kaveh@ms.uky.edu (Kaveh Baharestan) writes: > >gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes: > >>Would you mind to tell us what is so bad about "sex for the sake of sex"? > >isn't it obvious? No it isn't obvious, I know quite a few quite normal people who feel that sex is good when totally removed from everything else. These are not people who are afraid of relationships, they just recognize that sometimes all they want is sex and nothing else. There is nothing wrong with it so long as they are perfectly honest with themselves, and with their partner as to their motives. >>"Only if one thinks of sex itself as a degrading act can one >>believe that all pornography degrades or harm women." > > this person is bunching sex into one catagory. There are different >kinds of sex and not all are degading. Isn't degrading a relative statement? So long as both parties honestly consent, how can sex, in any form, be degrading? While you might see the role of the slave in a sadomasochist relationship degrading I sincerely doubt that the slave sees it that way. >PS - i never said that sex was degrading. Just certain kinds of sex. Who are you to make distinctions? KirK Sluder
tittle@alexandre-dumas.ICS.UCI.EDU (Cindy Tittle) (10/25/90)
In <67205@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> csluder@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (KirK) writes: >Isn't degrading a relative statement? So long as both parties >honestly consent, how can sex, in any form, be degrading? While you >might see the role of the slave in a sadomasochist relationship >degrading I sincerely doubt that the slave sees it that way. Hm. In my view, consensual sex is not degrading. Non-consensual sex is degrading. In fact, I then refuse to call it sex (so in a roundabout way, for me sex is not degrading because when it is, I don't view it as sex 8-) and then I call it other things like rape. But here is the problem: when non-consensual sex is viewed as "alright", then many of us, particularly women get degraded by those attitudes. Date rape is one consequence. There is a tangled relationship by all this: I am not degraded by the actual activity of an S&M couple, because they understand what consensuality and trust is; I *am* degraded by the fellow who thinks "no means yes" and "when they're forced, they *really* like it" and proceeds to force me despite my actions, perhaps even thinking he's put in an enjoyable filip of S&M. The question is where this fellow gets his ideas from; from an imperfect understanding of S&M?, from pornography?, from societal attitudes? The question of when sex is PERCEIVED as consensual or non consensual are very difficult to answer. Now, for me the kicker is that I view a lot of pornography as depicting non-consensual sex, or implying that many people WANT non-consensual sex. I don't see that there is any real way to tell what a POSED picture of a sex-scene is actually conveying (since there is no event, you cannot point to the picture and say "they were consenting!" -- all they are consenting to is to pose for the picture & get paid). Therefore, most interpretations of what a pornographic picture depicts are due to the society we are in and as such pornography and especially its interpretations point up SYMPTOMS in this society that make it very easy to objectify and degrade people in a sexual context. Banning pornography will mask the symptoms (sort of) but certainly not address the root causes. (Note that I myself am displaying some of these societal symptoms by viewing most porn as depicting non-consensual sex.) On a related note, one of the biggest problems that S&M has is that many people view it as examples of people enjoying non-consensual sex. The perception of S&M and the posed pictures of it promote this view. The grand irony, of course, is that actual participation in S&M is highly consensual. If I know of people that participate in S&M, I know that they precisely understand the notion of consensual sex. If I know of a person who fantasizes about S&M, then I need to consider whether s/he understands consensuality or not (i.e., whether or not that person really understands what S&M involves) and I may need to consider if that person presents a danger to me or not. >Just certain kinds of sex. Who are you to make distinctions? This is precisely why I won't try to censor pornography, although I'm strongly anti-porn (I do think it is reasonable to insist that pornography be sold only to those above 18, though). I will, however, be happy to expound my views to anyone who wants to listen, and teach them to my children. The phrasing has been sloppy here, though. DEPICTIONS of sex in porn is what I believe is being discussed. To bring this topic back to feminism, I think that the questioning of pornography by feminists has proved to be a good thing, particularly in the development of various thoughts as to the whys and wherefores of pornography. Feminist analysis of pornography provide another viewpoint from which to consider the implications of porn other than from, say religious or androcentric. (Of course, the new viewpoint doesn't necessarily imply that the correct "solution" will be found.) --Cindy -- Anyone's death diminishes me, \ | ARPA: tittle@ics.uci.edu Because I am involved in Humanity, /\ | BITNET: tittle@uci.bitnet And therefore never send to know | UUCP: ...!ucbvax!ucivax!tittle For whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee | USNAIL: POB 4188 Irvine CA 92716
kaveh@ms.uky.edu (Kaveh Baharestan) (10/25/90)
mittmann@ral.rpi.edu (Michael Mittmann) writes: >In article <kaveh.656432661@s.ms.uky.edu> kaveh@ms.uky.edu (Kaveh Baharestan) writes: >>gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes: >>>No, but I know people who are excited by *playing* a game like this. >>>The porno you described is a *play* between adults and not a real >>>rape. I hope that you can see the difference. >In my opinion this is blatantly false. Do you have a lover? Do you >ever play games with hir? Most of the people I've spoken to about this >(admittedly a small sample) do, and I would bet that they know they are >playing a game. Ahhh... excuse me... you do realize that the pargraph above is talking about playacting *rape* don't you? You know people that playact rape? I've been involved in some imaginative lovemakeing but I'm just really sad to say that it didn't involve acting out rape. >>Most people don't. At this point i would like to clearify the statement "Most people don't": most people do not have a clear idea of what rape is. (granted there are some foggy areas here) A LOT of porn rapes are where the women initailly say "no" or are aprehensive about sex, but the guys know what women want-need and after a little protest, the women start to enjoy it. Sound like rape? does to me. Sound like a lot of defenses rapists use? does to me. Nuf said.
kaveh@ms.uky.EDU (Kaveh Baharestan) (10/25/90)
csluder@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (KirK) writes: >Pornography, like any entertainment industry, responds to the laws of supply >and demand. While most pornography is sexist the statement "there is no >pornography that does not degrade women" is inherently false. The content >of pornography is determined by it's demand, and the porno industry is >starting to respond to a new market, women. The answer is not to fight >pornography, but to demand that the industry responds to your power as >a consumer. This supply and demand stuff is not completely true. Companies try to MAKE the consumer want their product. Case in point: That big blowup a few months ago over a cigarette company specifically targeting a group of people (poor- metropolitan-blacks) for a new brand of cigarette. There is a fine line between suppling a demand, creating a demand, and exploiting demographics. Thisthatandeveryother product is sold using sex. The other day i saw butter being sold with sex. Pretty soon it'll be ... "Fleshman's Light, No clorestorol, no calories, so spread it all over!" Sex is obviously a powerful means to promote a product (they would use something else, if it weren't) so what does porn promote? >Science fiction was notoriously >sexist until women joined the ranks of SF writers. Still is. -kaveh
kaveh@ms.uky.edu (Kaveh Baharestan) (10/26/90)
gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes: >#Also the statement "there is no porn that..." must take into account >#homoerotic pornography. Is gay or lesbian porn sexist? >In article <kaveh.656435350@s.ms.uky.edu> (Kaveh Baharestan) writes: >>The lesbian porn in forum is meant for cunsumption by men. That says ^^^^^ penthouse is described on the cover as "the internation magazine for men" or some such thing. >1) Do you define "On Our Backs" as porno for men? I've been asking my friends about "on our back" and they keep saying "off our backs?" I don't know what "on" is about. and i've never read "off". >2) Why it seems to you so strange that lesbians may enjoy lesbian porno? I didn't say it was strange! I was refering *specifically* to forum in penthouse and the lesbian sex in it! (If that is what you mean by thinking it strange for lesbians to enjoy lesbian porn.) I was not refering to lesbian novels that you find (or never find) in book stores. One of my favorite short stories is one by Katherine V. Forest about a space vampire and her lover. I love vampires. >3) Why have you ignored the question about all-men gay porno? I've never read gay-men's porn so i cannot judge it. >4) If women enjoy all-men gay porno, does it mean that the men > are exploited by these women? it's porn isn't it :->
falk@peregrine.Eng.Sun.COM (Ed Falk) (10/26/90)
In article <kaveh.656810519@s.ms.uky.edu> kaveh@ms.uky.edu (Kaveh Baharestan) writes: > > I've been asking my friends about "on our back" and they > keep saying "off our backs?" I don't know what "on" is > about. and i've never read "off". Off Our Backs is a feminist magazine; more radical than Ms. I don't know if it's still published, but I saw a few issues in the late 70's. On Our Backs is a lesbian S&M porn magazine. It was still being published as of three years ago. If you live in the San Francisco area, you can get it at Good Vibrations -- I believe there's some overlap between the folks who run Good Vibrations and those who publish On Our Backs. Many feminist bookstores won't carry On Our Backs because they consider it to be pornography. Also, Ms. magazine won't carry ads from Good Vibrations, although they once did a feature on the store. -ed falk, sun microsystems sun!falk, falk@sun.com card-carrying ACLU member.
joanne@ncar.UCAR.EDU (Joanne Retzlaff) (10/26/90)
Hillel Gazit writes: No, but I know people who are excited by *playing* a game like this. The porno you described is a *play* between adults and not a real rape. I hope that you can see the difference. Kaveh Baharestan writes: > Ahhh... excuse me... you do realize that the paragraph above is > talking about playacting *rape* don't you? You know people that > playact rape? I've been involved in some imaginative lovemakeing > but I'm just really sad to say that it didn't involve acting out > rape. Excuse me, I came in late on this. But my understanding has always been that rape is not an act of sex, but an act of violence. That being the case, imaginative *sex* games played betweeen consenting lovers bear no resemblance to *real rape*. That is, regardless of the script the players are working with, they are choosing to participate. Again no resemblance to *rape*. Theatric portrayals are a different story. I agree that they can and do present rape, the violent assault. They also promote the idea that women saying "no" don't mean it. Ok. I'll go back to lurking... JR
gazit@cs.duke.EDU (Hillel Gazit) (10/27/90)
In article <9010241437.aa17726@ICS.UCI.EDU> (Cindy Tittle) writes: >On a related note, one of the biggest problems that S&M has is that >many people view it as examples of people enjoying non-consensual sex. >The perception of S&M and the posed pictures of it promote this view. >The grand irony, of course, is that actual participation in S&M is >highly consensual. If I know of people that participate in S&M, I >know that they precisely understand the notion of consensual sex. I think that the idea that rape fantasies cause rape has no base. One can understand S&M perfectly well, even play it *safe* and still have fantasies about non-consensual S&M (violent rape for example). Hillel gazit@cs.duke.edu "I prefer partners who do not make hard and fast distinctions between masturbation and lovemaking, between what we can think of and what we can do, who are willing to risk their dignity in pursuit of delight." -- Pat Califia
mittmann@ral.rpi.edu (Michael Mittmann) (10/27/90)
gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes: No, but I know people who are excited by *playing* a game like this. The porno you described is a *play* between adults and not a real rape. I hope that you can see the difference. In article <kaveh.656811427@s.ms.uky.edu> kaveh@ms.uky.edu (Kaveh Baharestan) writes: >Ahhh... excuse me... you do realize that the paragraph above is >talking about playacting *rape* don't you? No, the above paragraph is about people knowing if they are playing a game, or are doing something in reality. You said that people don't know the difference between the two, and I said that they did. Since later in your article you talk about imaginative lovemaking, presumably you do things not based solely on reality. Since you can say that you do this, you apparently are able to tell that there is some play acting going on. Why do you assume that other people are less perceptive than you are? >At this point i would like to clearify the statement "Most people don't": >most people do not have a clear idea of what rape is. (granted there are >some foggy areas here) A LOT of porn rapes are where the women initially say >"no" or are apprehensive about sex,but the guys know what women want-need and >after a little protest, the women start to enjoy it. Sound like rape? >does to me. Sound like a lot of defenses rapists use? does to me. Nuf said. Oh, ok, it appears that the problem is that you believe that porn teaches people about rape incorrectly. Well, in case you haven't noticed movies are not produced for the purpose of educating people. If I learn physics from star wars, or computer science from tron, or law from leagal eagles I will do stupid things. The same thing will happen if I learn my attitudes about sex from porn movies. Personally I don't believe a significant portion of the population (that is to say no one I know) learns their attitudes about sex from pornography, but if you believe otherwise it seems that your time would be better spent finding and teaching people who have incorrect beliefs. -mike
gazit@cs.duke.EDU (Hillel Gazit) (10/27/90)
In article <kaveh.656811427@s.ms.uky.edu> kaveh@ms.uky.edu (Kaveh Baharestan) writes: >Ahhh... excuse me... you do realize that the pargraph above is >talking about playacting *rape* don't you? You know people that >playact rape? I don't know what your question has to do with soc.feminism, but I'm going to answer your question where it was asked. I know people who like S&M, and they playact rape. The assumption that a woman can't enjoys this kind of games (either as the "victim" or as the "rapist") is unfounded. Female sexuality is, basically, as broad as male sexuality, and some women have enough strength to act in a different way than the way that "good women" are supposed to act. I suggest you to read the book "Coming to Power"; it gives a good look into some of the variants (rape fantasies included) in female sexuality.
wp6@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Walter Pohl) (10/27/90)
As far as I know, both On Our Backs and Off Our Backs still exist. I have seen issues of both since May. In fact, one of the writers for On Our Backs (who writes under the pseudonym Susie Sexpert) just came out with a book which I believe is an anthology of her columns from that magazine. Walt Pohl "alt.walt? It has a certain ring to it, no?"
szady@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Does it really matter?) (10/31/90)
In article <1742@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> falk@peregrine.Eng.Sun.COM (Ed Falk) writes: >Off Our Backs is a feminist magazine; more radical than Ms. I don't >know if it's still published, but I saw a few issues in the late 70's. It is still published... it is based in DC, i could probably find the address given a few days. Revolution books, New Words, and i *THINK* Glad Day all carry it in the greater Boston area....although the Sojournor is a little more popular (i *think* once again) >On Our Backs is a lesbian S&M porn magazine. It was still being >published as of three years ago. If you live in the San Francisco >area, you can get it at Good Vibrations -- I believe there's some >overlap between the folks who run Good Vibrations and those who publish >On Our Backs. On Our Backs is edited by Susie Bright (who incidentally did a program at MIT yesterday on "How to read a dirty movie".) She used to work at Good Vibrations and is the author of _Herotica_ and _Susie Sexpert's Lesbian Sex World_ (i believe that's the right title) -- Drew Lewis szady@athena.mit.edu Queers Fight BACK! I am not for Lesbigay civil rights...I am for Queer Liberation
falk@peregrine.Eng.Sun.COM (Ed Falk) (11/06/90)
In article <1990Oct31.055642.19486@athena.mit.edu> szady@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Does it really matter?) writes: |In article <1742@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> falk@peregrine.Eng.Sun.COM (Ed Falk) writes: | |>On Our Backs is a lesbian S&M porn magazine. It was still being |>published as of three years ago. If you live in the San Francisco |>area, you can get it at Good Vibrations -- I believe there's some |>overlap between the folks who run Good Vibrations and those who publish |>On Our Backs. | |On Our Backs is edited by Susie Bright (who incidentally did a program |at MIT yesterday on "How to read a dirty movie".) |She used to work at Good Vibrations and is the author of _Herotica_ and |_Susie Sexpert's Lesbian Sex World_ (i believe that's the right title) That's who I was thinking of. If I'm not mistaken, she also used to review movies for Penthouse. -ed falk, sun microsystems -- sun!falk, falk@sun.com "What are politicians going to tell people when the Constitution is gone and we still have a drug problem?" -- William Simpson, A.C.L.U.