Ian & Stuart's Australian Mac: Not for Sale/Another.not.for.sale (Australia).iso/hold me in your arms/Michael Ney's Cyberculture/Cyberculture/Pornography

Text File | 1994-02-03 | 133KB | 2,847 lines

Topic 1 Pornography: question about feminis     46 responses
obstore alt.feminism    11:49 pm  Dec 25, 1993
(at bohemia.med.utah.edu)       (From News system)

It seems obvious to me that the pornography industry is generally exploitative
of the women who work in it and usually depicts women in sexually submissive
roles. In addition, violence is not uncommon and there can be no doubt that
this combination of sex and violence sells because there are plenty of men who
seem to enjoy reading about or watching women being violently dealt with.

Therefore, to defend this industry and to buy its products is unethical.

I) The fact that the porn industry chiefly sells to men and male adolescents and
not to women implies that its depictions of sex are repugnant to women.

II) Also, I believe that most feminists would consider that a male-dominated
culture attempts to destroy or suppress womens' sexuality and that sex for
women should be a joyous act .

        If I and II are true, what kind of art, literature or cinema with
        sexual content  should a feminist culture tolerate or encourage ? What
        kind of depictions are ethically acceptable ?
                    -----------------------------------

Propositions I and II also seem to imply that men and women have fundamentally
incompatible concepts of sexual enjoyment.

I conjecture that the root cause of the existence of pornography and its
expression~ in real life as rape is the social tolerance of violence. If we can
instill in young minds (especially the minds of adolescent males) that violence
is unethical perhaps we shall see the disappearance of this depressing
industry.

~I am not making the assumption that the consumption of pornography causes men
to rape women. That may or may not be true. I am merely stating that rape is
the acting out of a common pornographic depiction of sexual relations between
men and women.


Conf?


Topic 1 Pornography: question about feminis     Response  1 of 46
dk
alt.feminism     7:28 pm  Dec 26, 1993
(at crl.com)    (From News system)

Object Store Administrator ([e-mail]) wrote:
: It seems obvious to me that the pornography industry is generally exploitative
: of the women who work in it and usually depicts women in sexually submissive
: roles.

Why is it so "obvious"?  Do you understand anything about male sexual
arousal?  Visual stimulus is very important.  As for being an exploitive
(or as you call it "exploitative") industry, the women make a lot more
money doing porno than they can make as receptionists -- which is about
the only other avenue open to those women who have few job skills.

Which is the exploitive job -- 3 days of porno at $5,000 or 5 days of
office work at $300?  I know two women who were able to go to college
ONLY because they were able to do porno, and several others only because
they did sex work.

As to your concern that porno "usually depicts women in sexually
submissive roles" this is clearly not the case.  It's a mixed bag.  If by
"submissive" you mean the woman is on her back, maybe.  But if you mean
the woman is tied up, groveling on the floor, or looking up adoringly
from a kneeling position, I'd say this is about 50/50 along with images
of women with riding crops riding men, jamming spike heels onto guys'
backs, and similar kinds of positions.

: In addition, violence is not uncommon and there can be no doubt that

You're wrong here, too.  Violence is not COMMON.

: I) The fact that the porn industry chiefly sells to men and male adolescents and
: not to women implies that its depictions of sex are repugnant to women.

Have you ever worked in a porno store?  If so, have you ever noticed how
many gay male sex magazines are bought by women?  While it's not high in
number (probably because women aren't as turned on by visual stimulation
as much as men are), still it is a number large enough to be noticed.

: II) Also, I believe that most feminists would consider that a male-dominated
: culture attempts to destroy or suppress womens' sexuality and that sex for
: women should be a joyous act .

You may be aware of "Good Vibrations" the internationally famous
feminist-run vibrator store for women.  They also carry a lively variety
of porno in both magazine and video form.  So much for "men" controlling
women's sexuality.


Topic 1 Pornography: question about feminis     Response  2 of 46
cburian
alt.feminism     9:25 pm  Dec 25, 1993
(at ux4.cso.uiuc.edu)   (From News system)

[e-mail] ( Object Store Administrator) writes:

]It seems obvious to me that the pornography industry is generally exploitative
]of the women who work in it

Gee, it might be "obvious to you," but it's false nevertheless.  I don't
suppose you've ever heard of Nina Hartley or any of the hundreds of actors
who are in the industry because they like it?

]and usually depicts women in sexually submissive
]roles.

The men and women are depicted in whatever roles that will sell the most
product.  There is no misogynist plot, just the bottom line--profits.  I
have not noticed anything particularly "submissive" about the female
characters in most adult movies.

]In addition, violence is not uncommon and there can be no doubt that
]this combination of sex and violence sells because there are plenty of men who
]seem to enjoy reading about or watching women being violently dealt with.

Violence is very uncommon in the adult movie industry.  However, violence
and sexual violence in R-rated Hollywood movies is rampant.  The isolated
cases of violence in porn are restricted to specialty markets like S&M, which
are made _by_ people who enjoy the scene, _for_ people who enjoy the scene.
You'll also find violence and submission in gay and lesbian art.  You will
NOT find it in whitebread porn made for consumption by adolescent males.

]Therefore, to defend this industry and to buy its products is unethical.

Since all of your assumptions are in error, so is your conclusion.

]I) The fact that the porn industry chiefly sells to men and male adolescents and
]not to women implies that its depictions of sex are repugnant to women.

Please define 'chiefly,' and then present a shred of evidence to back up
the claim.

]II) Also, I believe that most feminists would consider that a male-dominated
]culture attempts to destroy or suppress womens' sexuality and that sex for
]women should be a joyous act .

I agree with both these, yet they don't apply to your ridiculous claims.

]       If I and II are true, what kind of art, literature or cinema with
]       sexual content  should a feminist culture tolerate or encourage ? What
]       kind of depictions are ethically acceptable ?
]                    -----------------------------------

All depictions in which the actors are voluntary participants are ethically
acceptable.  The critical-thought-free opinions of groupthink robots have
no bearing on the propriety of the adult film industry.

]Propositions I and II also seem to imply that men and women have fundamentally
]incompatible concepts of sexual enjoyment.

No, they don't, because the typical fare of whitebread porn reflects what
producers think target audiences will pay money for--and does not reflect
the concept of sexual enjoyment as understood by men at large.

]I conjecture that the root cause of the existence of pornography and its
]expression~ in real life as rape is the social tolerance of violence.

You guess wrong.  ["conjecture" is a noun, not a verb]

There is no correlation between viewing porn and rape.  Claims that such
a correlation exists have been demonstrated to be false.  Since not even a
correlation exists, naturally there can be no causal effect, either.

]~I am not making the assumption that the consumption of pornography causes men
]to rape women.

Saying "the root cause" sure makes it look like you're assuming a causal
relationship.

]That may or may not be true. I am merely stating that rape is
]the acting out of a common pornographic depiction of sexual relations between
]men and women.

That is utterly false.  Rape is routinely depicted in Hollywood R-rated
movies, yet non-consentual contact is practically never depicted in adult
movies.

Your tired, old arguments are so pathetically flawed, one must wonder
whether you just transcribed them from a Meese Commission pamphlet with
a dose of pseudo-feminism squeezed in.

Try again.  (Some orgininal thought might help.)

--
=<Christopher Burian>======<Orwell was an optimist.>======<[e-mail]>=
====<PGP public key on the server, or finger [e-mail]>====
=============<Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice.>===============


Topic 1 Pornography: question about feminis     Response  3 of 46
jpurbric
alt.feminism     9:26 pm  Dec 25, 1993
(at nyx.cs.du.edu)      (From News system)

No quote!

I'm very perturbed by attitudes like the one in the original article here.
"Pornography" has a very slippery definition, and feminists with whom I'd
like to agree often seem to define it purely as material which depicts
violence or demeaning behavior against women; they accept that there might
be "erotica" which is more innocent. The trouble is, society at large defines
"pornography" as any explicit literature whose primary purposes include sexual
excitement of the reader/viewer (nonexplicit material can be quite erotic too,
but generally passes). And that's the LIBERAL definition--you can find plenty
of more conservative types who'd call anything remotely revealing the body
or relating to sex "pornographic".

The result is that banning "pornography" leads to the banning of a lot of
material with sexual content which may even have a feminist message. This is
happening right now in Canada, where laws against sexually-oriented literature
were recently strengthened. The ranks of enforcers of laws (police, judges,
customs agents) aren't going to be augmented by feminist-pornography-definers.
They're going to be the same old cops as before--think they have a feminist
agenda? I don't.

Rape may or may not be linked with pornography: I think it stands to reason
that a man whose thrills come from dominating women will start with legal
thrills (looking at magazines, etc) before trying the bigger ones (rape).
Maybe the magazines will give him enough to keep him happy, maybe they'll
encourage him to act. Who can say.

The original article was right on the money with the point that our general
acceptance of violence leads to rape. In Japan and northern Europe you can get
pornography far more freely than here, yet their rates of rape are low by
our standards: but then, their rates of all kinds of violence are low.

John Purbrick


Topic 1 Pornography: question about feminis     Response  4 of 46
lmann
alt.feminism     2:04 am  Dec 26, 1993
(at drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu)     (From News system)

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] ( Obj
ect Store Administrator) writes...
>It seems obvious to me that the pornography industry is generally exploitative
>of the women who work in it and usually depicts women in sexually submissive
>roles. In addition, violence is not uncommon and there can be no doubt that
>this combination of sex and violence sells because there are plenty of men who
>seem to enjoy reading about or watching women being violently dealt with.
>Therefore, to defend this industry and to buy its products is unethical.

Well, yes, but....

Women have as many different opinions on this issue as do
men.  And feminists, also have many different opinions.

The major two "feminist" positions seem to be:

It's demeaning to women and should be stopped.

If we start mucking around with the First Amendment, we're
all in deep trouble.

Also, once you start getting into definitions of what
is pornography, you open up several major cans of worms.

I am a very strong supporter of the First Amendment, so I am unlikely
to get into a fight with people who think Playboy is "great literature."
I do fight against kiddie porn and the like.

>I) The fact that the porn industry chiefly sells to men and male adolescents and
>not to women implies that its depictions of sex are repugnant to women.

This is frequently true but not always true.  For the heck of it,
I once had the "Spice" channel turned on in my house for one night.
One porno film was stupid and very demeaning (to men as well as
to women).  Another one attempted a little humor, but was still
extremely formulamatic.

>II) Also, I believe that most feminists would consider that a male-dominated
>culture attempts to destroy or suppress womens' sexuality and that sex for
>women should be a joyous act .

I don't think it's done deliberately.  There's not some big
"conspiracy" or something.  However, let's face it, the "porn industry"
is a male-run industry with a mostly het male audience.  They
know their audience.

>       If I and II are true, what kind of art, literature or cinema with
>       sexual content  should a feminist culture tolerate or encourage ? What
>       kind of depictions are ethically acceptable ?

One reason why I suggested discussing The Piano in this newsgroup
was to see how people felt about the treatment of sexuality in
this movie.  It's done differently than in a typical movie that
includes sexual content.

>Propositions I and II also seem to imply that men and women have fundamentally
>incompatible concepts of sexual enjoyment.

Depends on the individual!

Laurie Mann


Topic 1 Pornography: question about feminis     Response  5 of 46
psi
alt.feminism     3:12 pm  Dec 27, 1993
(at genesis.Mcs.Com)    (From News system)

In article <[e-mail]>,
Object Store Administrator <[e-mail]> wrote:
>I) The fact that the porn industry chiefly sells to men and male adolescents and
>not to women implies that its depictions of sex are repugnant to women.

I take a more capitalist approach in my analysis.  The fact that the porn
industry sells chielfy to men and male adolescents implies that makers of porn
feel that that is who chiefly has money _and_ inclination to buy porn.  Since,
as women have come to control more money, and have more control over their
sexuality, people have started selling porn geared towards women's tastes, I
think that this is bourne out.

>
>II) Also, I believe that most feminists would consider that a male-dominated
>culture attempts to destroy or suppress womens' sexuality and that sex for
>women should be a joyous act .

No argument there...

>       If I and II are true, what kind of art, literature or cinema with
>       sexual content  should a feminist culture tolerate or encourage ? What
>       kind of depictions are ethically acceptable ?

I am a first amendment fanatic.   I don't think that sexual content, in and
of itself, is grounds for refusing to tolerate art, literature, or cinema.

>
>Propositions I and II also seem to imply that men and women have fundamentally
>incompatible concepts of sexual enjoyment.

See my discussion of proposition I.  The vast number of men and women who have
been sexually compatible over the millenia refutes any notion of a basic sexual
incompatibility between them.
--
======= Daniel B. Holzman =======
PSI pays me to run computers, not write press releases.  As far as I know, they
don't have any opinions.
Blessed Be.


Topic 1 Pornography: question about feminis     Response  6 of 46
palmer
alt.feminism     4:19 pm  Dec 26, 1993
(at rain.cs.odu.edu)    (From News system)

In article <2fli95$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Practi-Col Services) writes:

>The vast number of men and women who have been sexually compatible
>over the millenia refutes any notion of a basic sexual
>incompatibility between them.

Do you mean that since reproduction occurred, the act must have been
satisfying to the female?

-Jean


Topic 1 Pornography: question about feminis     Response  7 of 46
skyler
alt.feminism    11:18 pm  Dec 26, 1993
(at starburst.umd.edu)  (From News system)

[e-mail] ( Object Store Administrator) writes a
thought provoking post.  I like that in a post.  But my thoughts
are somewhat confused.  I'm going to think out loud.  Comments
on my thoughts are welcome.

>It seems obvious to me that the pornography industry is generally exploitative
>of the women who work in it
I can't comment on this.
>and usually depicts women in sexually submissive
>roles.
In my experience it does sometimes, but not usually.  Real women seem to
me to be sexually submissive far more than I would like.  Did they
learn this from pornography?  If so, then I would support changing
the nature of pornography.

>In addition, violence is not uncommon
Not in my experience.  Violence is much more common on prime
time and in movies with plots than it is in pornography.

>and there can be no doubt that
>this combination of sex and violence sells because there are plenty of men who
>seem to enjoy reading about or watching women being violently dealt with.
Yes there can be doubt.  If all porn was violent, there are
a lot of people who would buy it just for the sex.  I'm one
of them.  In fact, one of the reasons I do buy porn is that
it is more sexually pure than other art forms.  In order to get
to the sex in an R rated movie or suggestive television show
you have to wade through a lot of extraneous material, often
including violence.  Some extraneous material in pornography
would be welcome, but sitting through a two hour movie for a
five minute sex scene is not acceptible to me.

>Therefore, to defend this industry and to buy its products is unethical.
This does not follow.  Let me read your comments again.  Nope.
It still does not follow.  Even if your assertion about violence
was true, porn is fantasy.  In my opinion, it is more ethical for
someone who enjoys violence to get it through fantasy than in
reveling in real violence as seen on the 6:00 news.
If your assertion that the porn industry mistreats its workers is ture,
well most industries mistreated their workers 100 years ago.
The solution was not to ban industry and throw people out of work.
The solution was to invent labor unions and pass laws which resulted
in better working conditions.  And there is still room for improvement
in all industries.  But it's not usually cost effective for a company
to just give improved conditions unless their competitors are forced
to do it too.

>I) The fact that the porn industry chiefly sells to men and male adolescents and
>not to women
I accept this as true, thought I have no data to support it.
>implies that its depictions of sex are repugnant to women.
I think it implies that women aren't interested in the product.
Few men buy tampons, but that doesn't mean that men find them
repugnant.  It means that the genders have different needs.
Men are more likely than women to respond to visual depictions
while women can respond to words and flowers more than men.

When I was in high school my girlfriend read Harlequin romances.
These were novels with a lot of sexual content.  They didn't do
a thing for me, but her reaction to them was similar to my
reaction to pornography.  And she could buy them at her age
in any bookstore, while I couldn't get my porn until I was older
and then my porn was hidden away.  Why this double standard?

>II) Also, I believe that most feminists would consider that a male-dominated
>culture attempts to destroy or suppress womens' sexuality and that sex for
>women should be a joyous act .
I agree with you 100% here.  By the way, some men's sexuality
also gets damaged in my culture (the united states).  I think
the idea that porn was bad and that nice religious kids like myself
weren't interested in sex is partially responsible for my present
difficulties in relating to women as anything more than just friends.
(Before anybody suggests that maybe this means I'm gay, I've already
thought of that.  I wish it were that simple.  So now I hang around
on alt.sex.* and read sexually positive posts.)

>       If I and II are true, what kind of art, literature or cinema with
>       sexual content  should a feminist culture tolerate or encourage ? What
>       kind of depictions are ethically acceptable ?
>                    -----------------------------------
Reguardless of which premises are true, this is a good question.
Although it is a little strong.  I like freedom of expression
so I wouldn't say "tolerate" or "ethically acceptable", but I do
think that a culture that values equality between the sexes
should encourage something other than what we have now.  I would like
to see pornograpy integrated with mainstream art forms.  I would like
to feel lust in conjunction with other emotions rather than by itself.
Mainstream movies with less violence and more unashamed sex would be a
step in the right direction.  But I don't see that happening anytime
soon because sex is condemed more commonly than violence.  I think
competition is more inherently violent than sex is, and competition
is highly valued in my culture.  I don't see violence going away
anytime soon.

>Propositions I and II also seem to imply that men and women have fundamentally
>incompatible concepts of sexual enjoyment.
I wouldn't say incompatible.  They seem to be to be different, on
average, with a lot of individual variation and overlap between
the groups.  Difference is only an incompatibility when compromise
and tolerance are in short supply.

>I conjecture that the root cause of the existence of pornography and its
>expression~ in real life as rape is the social tolerance of violence.
I disagree.  Pornography exists for the same reason other artforms
exist: people like art that expresses our emotions.  Raw, unashamed,
uninhibited lust is in short supply in other art forms so naturally
a genre formed to fill that gap.

(I used to wonder if porn was art.  Then somebody told me that art
is meant to communicate something, usually an emotion.  And since
porn appears to me to communicate only lust, it is a valid art form
if and only if lust is a valid emotion.  I think it is.)

>If we can
>instill in young minds (especially the minds of adolescent males) that violence
>is unethical perhaps we shall see the disappearance of this depressing
>industry.
No, I think if we reduce the amount of violence society accepts
we will see in increase in the amount of sex depicted in art.
We wil need something to fill the space left behind.

Good luck convincing people that violence is unethical.  Lots of people
enjoy recreational violence.  One of the reasons I dislike sports is
that so many are violent.  Curling and gymnastics are two of my favories
because they are so nonviolent.

>~I am not making the assumption that the consumption of pornography causes men
>to rape women. That may or may not be true.
I won't comment on this.
>I am merely stating that rape is
>the acting out of a common pornographic depiction of sexual relations between
>men and women.
No, rape is not commonly depicted in pornography.  Either they don't
say why the woman is involved in sex, or they make it clear that she
wants it.  Usually.  In my experience.  Most of my experience hearing
about rape comes from prime time T.V. shows, the news, and feminist
educational material.

**
Skyler                         [e-mail]
You may mail me anonymously at [e-mail].
I can't believe I did that, but I'd do it again in a minute.


Topic 1 Pornography: question about feminis     Response  8 of 46
meyer
alt.feminism     5:46 am  Dec 27, 1993
(at formosa.NoSubdomain.NoDomain)       (From News system)

As far as violence in the porn industry is concerned, could someone
name just one movie that has violence in it.  From what I have seen, it
is movies like "9 1/2 Weeks" that are violent, and it got and R rating.

If there is one common thread to the plots of porno movies, it is
that everyone involved is horny to the point of jumping from one
sex partner to the next.  If there is anything demeaning about porn,
it is that the plots are commonly quite stupid.

One movie I saw had a group of people who were getting together for their
regular dose of "immortality formula."  All these people had started using
it 100 years earlier, and their bodies were perfectly preserved.  Much to their
horror, though, the formula would preserve the body for 100 years max, then
it would fall apart.  So what you had was people having sex, then their arms and
legs would fall off.  The special effects were funny because they were so bad.
Still, it was not much of turn on.

Marc


Topic 1 Pornography: question about feminis     Response  9 of 46
avjohns
alt.feminism    11:19 am  Dec 27, 1993
(at teal.csn.org)       (From News system)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] ( Obje
ct Store Administrator) writes:
>It seems obvious to me that the pornography industry is generally exploitative
>of the women who work in it

Obvious to you, not to others.  Generally, the women who work in the
field do not consider themselves to be exploited.  Some facts: they are
paid (on average) more than men, and can choose the parts/roles they wish
to play and still consistently get work.

>and usually depicts women in sexually submissive
>roles.

'Sexually submissive' is an opinion.  Not some kind of a fact.  Your opinion
of what is submissive may be totally different from what someone else
consders to be submission.

>In addition, violence is not uncommon

Cite distributor/title/director/actors or actresses to back up this claim,
please.  My studies indicate that violence in mainstream erotica is VERY
rare.

>and there can be no doubt that

Sighhhh.  When ever some on says this it usually indicates that what is
coming is anything but sure. . .

>this combination of sex and violence sells because there are plenty of
>men who seem to enjoy reading about or watching women being violently
>dealt with.

As I thought.  No real content here.  If the majority of erotica can be
taken as being indicative of what most men enjoy (and that statement is
NOT one I support or believe in), then violence against women is something
most men have very little interest in.

>Therefore, to defend this industry and to buy its products is unethical.

Yeah, right.  Start with a bunch of statements of opinion, ignore the
facts, and at then end draw a conclusion based on your fantasies. . .

Not bloodly likely.

>I) The fact that the porn industry chiefly sells to men and male
>adolescents and not to women implies that its depictions of sex are
>repugnant to women.

Yup.  We all knew this was coming.  Of course, the object store administrator
(neat name, did your mother suggest this, or did your father?) chooses what
goes into the set of "porn industries", neatly leaving out those purveyors
of porn that sell almost exclusively female oriented pornography.

>II) Also, I believe that most feminists would consider that a male-dominated
>culture attempts to destroy or suppress womens' sexuality

Total fantasy here.  As any intelligent person can quicly discern, the
author chooses to make yet more unsupported assumptions and allegations.

The primary one being that a male-dominated culture attempts to destroy or
supress womens' sexuality.

>       If I and II are true, what kind of art, literature or cinema with
>       sexual content  should a feminist culture tolerate or encourage ?
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Ohhhhh!  Guess WHAT!  sexual content instead of "porn" or "pornography"!

Why!?  Because "pornography" is bad, while "feminist culture tolerated
sexual content" carries no such connontations. . . so the author thinks.

To me his/her sentence gives rise to thoughts of censorship and state
supported CONFORMITY to political/social/RELIGIOUS guidelines.  If this
thought doesn't terrify you, nothing does.

>What kind of depictions [with sexual content] are ethically acceptable ?

May I suggest something really radical here?  How about the answer being:

LEAVE THAT DECISION TO EACH AND EVERY INDIVIDUAL ADULT!

>Propositions I and II also seem to imply that men and women have
>fundamentally incompatible concepts of sexual enjoyment.

Sheesh!  This author/poster seems to think that erotica represents some
kind of reality!  For crying out loud, hasn't this poster ever heard of
"fantasy"?  OR, does this person simply not recognize the difference
between fantasy and reality?

Many people enjoy movies that contain "adventure".  Yet, most people, if
asked, would state unequivocally that they have absolutely no interest
in actually experiencing in real life the kind of adventure that they
see depicted in such movies as, for instance, "Predator".

The entertainment industry produces such films in such abundance PRECISELY
because people want to fantasize about such things WITHOUT actually having
to experience them.

>I conjecture that the root cause of the existence of pornography and its
>expression~ in real life as rape

This attempt to link pornography and rape is yet another of the posters
extremely despicable attempts fool the other readers into thinking that
the poster is stating FACT, when indeed the poster is simply stating
an unsupported opinion.

>is the social tolerance of violence. If we can
>instill in young minds (especially the minds of adolescent males) that
>violence is unethical perhaps we shall see the disappearance of this
>depressing industry.

Not likely.  Because any fool can see that most pornography is NOT based
in violence.

>~I am not making the assumption that the consumption of pornography causes men
>to rape women.

Finally, the poster admits that s/he is making assumptions.

> That may or may not be true.

If you yourself are in doubt, then please WARN your readers that you have
no facts, just your own unsupported opinions and assumptions.

>I am merely stating that rape is the acting out of a common pornographic
>depiction of sexual relations between men and women.

This poster is like most of the people who post about pornography. . .
s/he knows little about the industry, the people who act in the movies/
videotapes, the women who pose for men's magazines, the author's of
erotic fiction or even the general classification of stories/scenarios/
vignettes that most erotica falls into.

And the poster toally ignores the fact that pornography for women already
exists, and that its depicition of sex is, in general, boring or repugnant
for most men.

For the enlightment of the poster. . .explain how your theories fit the
"industry" acknowledged phenomenon of amateur acted/produced/directed
(if any direction occurs at all, that is) erotic videotapes taking the
market by storm?  If you doubt me, feel free to investigate on your
own, but none of these tapes have any depictions of violence in them
whatsoever.

This poster has a political agenda that would be hindered by exposing
[pun intended] the truth.  Don't believe what others say, go look
for yourself.  The worst that can be said about the erotic industry
in general, is that it pays it's workers far to little, and in most
cases shows far to little imagination.

[ With the exception of the stripper/exotic dancers who work the
  bigger/flashier clubs in the richer cities, where top dollar
  earners can pull down 1000 to 1500 dollars WEEKLY!  (And most
  of that is tax free kiddies.  If you don't believe these
  figures, take a plane to New York and visit any of the larger
  strip clubs.
]

Exceptions [of course] exist.  As they do in EVERY industry.


Topic 1 Pornography: question about feminis     Response 10 of 46
tghosh
alt.feminism     5:19 pm  Dec 27, 1993
(at labhp20.cs.utah.edu)        (From News system)

Exploitation in pornography
--------------------------
A number of postings about this subject have pointed out that the principal
(capitalist) objective of the pornographer is to make money and not to exploit
women. May I point out that the principal objective of the businessman running
a sweat-shop is also to make money and not to exploit women and children, yet
s/he does not hesitate to exploit these people ?

Again, a number of postings stated that women acting in video pornography make
a lot more money out of it than they would have through other careers. I am
sure that there are women who do make a lot of money and there are women who
have undertaken the career as a conscious choice. However, my guess is that
majority do not make much money and they are exposed to occupational dangers
such as AIDS~. The industry survives at the periphery of legality and at least
some women in this industry are probably in some amount of physical danger and
coercion. In other words, pornographers (by definition, purveyors of sexually
explicit material which is exploitative or demeaning of women & children) make
money by much the same means as sweat-shop owners do: by the exploitation of
the disadvantaged.

The sex-trade, in general, is a dirty business. It is not marked by fairness
towards its workers.

Violence in pornography
-----------------------
 While violence in pornography does not frequently involve whips,chains and
rape (other than for a specialized clientele) there is definitely a quieter
violence in the labelling of women by derogatory names and their depiction as
individuals who exist to gratify the male customers desires. Certainly, in
child pornography, one may not see physical violence; but can anyone deny the
reality of the violent violation of the child's' mind ?

Ethics, constitutionality and censorship
----------------------------------------
In my opinion, advocating an ethic is not the same thing as advocating a law.
In other words, one may pursue an individual ethic of being anti-porn and yet
being against censorship (the legal approach). In the case of porn, I doubt if
there can be any working definition of what can be defined as being
exploitative and certainly my standards may differ from yours. Then again, we
would be deprived of many works which have great intrinsic merit despite being
the products of male dominated cultures. A legal approach is just not practical
and brings the much great danger of the suppression of radical views by the
majority.

We can, however, tackle the problem by personally following the ethics of
        1) not buying porn (by definition, material which is exploitative) and
        2) by convincing others that it is not ethical to buy porn.
I am sure that most readers on the net have a well-developed enough sense of
judgement as to what is exploitative or not (eg the products of "Good
Vibrations" as opposed to Hustler).

Differing perceptions of sex
-----------------------------
In this world of ours, the sexes are divided by fundamentally different views
of the world in many things; especially that of sex. The physiology of sex is
somewhat different amongst men and women. The similarities, however, are even
more important. Yet, men and women often see differing and incompatible ideas
as far as sexual pleasure goes (for example, a small fraction of men get great
pleasure out of rape which is undeniable a sexual act and undeniably a
searingly painful one for the woman). And very often, male dominated cultures
suppress (not consciously,perhaps) information and ideas about the sexual
nature of women.

If the two genders are to live together equitably and have happy sexual
relationships we must make some effort to create a culture where that is
possible.

Art which has sexual content and is not exploitative
----------------------------------------------------
In Indian culture, at one time, sex was seen worthy of depiction on temple
walls.  You can see on the walls of Khajuraho exquisite depictions of a
tremendous variety of sexual acts. The Kama Sutra (and the less well known Koka
Sutra) are of course well known for their explicit and poetic descriptions of
sex. In neither, will you find any trace of violence. In the carvings at
Khajuraho, both men and women seem to be having the most sublime fun :).

In Western cultures, there seems to be little literature or art with sexual
content; we have unimaginative and brutal men producing banal and disgusting
work in sleazy back-streets. Which is why you have "plots ...are commonly quite
stupid".

I do not advocate a horrible uniformity in the depictions of sex; but we should
certainly expect new and imaginative attitudes in art with sexual content.

I believe that there are works which project a feminist view of sexuality; I
wish there would be more of it. Encouragingly, pop culture seems to be
producing more positive views of womens' sexuality (eg Madonna, Janet Jackson
and c.).

~I wonder if anyone has ever conducted a study of the rate of venereal disease
and specifically the rate of HIV +ve individuals amongst porn movie
actors/actresses.


Topic 1 Pornography: question about feminis     Response 11 of 46
btshelp
alt.feminism     5:45 pm  Dec 27, 1993
(at rigel.tamu.edu)     (From News system)

[e-mail] (Taranga Ghosh) writes...

>Then again, we would be deprived of many works which have great intrinsic
>merit despite being the products of male dominated cultures.
       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Are you getting this, Charles?

>I am sure that most readers on the net have a well-developed enough sense of
>judgement as to what is exploitative or not (eg the products of "Good
>Vibrations" as opposed to Hustler).

Translation:
Porn for women is okay, porn for men is not.

Feh.

b r e t t
--
I do not wish to control myself.  I am having more fun controlling you.  ATOM

                                                        -- K.


Topic 1 Pornography: question about feminis     Response 12 of 46
cburian
alt.feminism     9:08 pm  Dec 27, 1993
(at ux4.cso.uiuc.edu)   (From News system)

[e-mail] (Taranga Ghosh) writes:

]Again, a number of postings stated that women acting in video pornography make
]a lot more money out of it than they would have through other careers. I am
]sure that there are women who do make a lot of money and there are women who
]have undertaken the career as a conscious choice. However, my guess is that
]majority do not make much money and they are exposed to occupational dangers
]such as AIDS~.

Both your guesses are wrong.  An actress makes $5000 or $10,000 for a few
days in front of the camera.  That counts as "much money" in my personal
opinion.  The risk of AIDS is low because the adult film community is very
hyper about it--not working with people that mess around outside their clique,
and frequent testing.

]The industry survives at the periphery of legality

A meaningless argument.  It's "at the periphery" only because of useless
politicians trying to regulate people's private lives and livelihoods.

]In other words, pornographers (by definition, purveyors of sexually
]explicit material which is exploitative or demeaning of women & children) make
]money by much the same means as sweat-shop owners do: by the exploitation of
]the disadvantaged.

By your definition, sure.  But this whole discussion is about "adult films" or
"erotica," not specifically about exploitive fringe producers.

]The sex-trade, in general, is a dirty business. It is not marked by fairness
]towards its workers.

Baloney.  I'd love to make the dough those actors and actresses make for
doing something I like to do anyway.  What can be more fair than getting
paid for doing something everyone does for free?

Chris


Topic 1 Pornography: question about feminis     Response 13 of 46
palmer
alt.feminism    10:35 pm  Dec 27, 1993
(at rain.cs.odu.edu)    (From News system)

In article <2fopha$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Christopher J Burian)
writes:
>
>Both your guesses are wrong.  An actress makes $5000 or $10,000 for a few
>days in front of the camera.  That counts as "much money" in my personal
>opinion.  The risk of AIDS is low because the adult film community is very
>hyper about it--not working with people that mess around outside their clique,
>and frequent testing.

I was under the impression that a fair percentage of the actors and
actresses in these films were runaways just trying to get by.  I am
also certain that I have seen track marks on the arms of both males and
females in a few of these films.
While I have NO data to back this up, I think it's fair to say that
there are a lot more films out there that sell for $5 or $10 than the more
expensive ones for which the players would earn those types of salaries.
The current trend seems to be towards LOTS of "home video" type films,
though from viewing the covers one can readily see that few husband/
wife couples make up the chief acting teams of those.

>Baloney.  I'd love to make the dough those actors and actresses make for
>doing something I like to do anyway.  What can be more fair than getting
>paid for doing something everyone does for free?
>

Do you also support legalized prostitution?
(but I suppose that's a whole new thread :)

-Jean


Topic 1 Pornography: question about feminis     Response 14 of 46
trevay
alt.feminism     6:22 am  Dec 29, 1993
(at marcam.com) (From News system)

[e-mail] (Taranga Ghosh) writes:

>I believe that there are works which project a feminist view of sexuality; I
>wish there would be more of it. Encouragingly, pop culture seems to be
>producing more positive views of womens' sexuality (eg Madonna, Janet Jackson
>and c.).

In the words of two Pop Culture Icons, Wayne Campbell and Garth Algar,
"Madonna-the-Feminist-Babe?  Sheee, right!"

_Truth or Dare_ convinced me that she was probably one of the most calculating,
insincere and mean employer/exploiters I've ever seen on stage or screen.
Virtually everyone in her entourage had to accept her scoldings and tantrums
as though they were her children, without minds of their own.

But the most telling scene came backstage, at a New York show, where her
hair stylist reported that the night before, she'd passed out in a club,
and discovered that someone had brought her home, and then had sex with
her.  As you might guess, the hairstylist was pretty upset by this -- it
was, in fact, a possible rape.  Madonna giggled hearing it, and when her
reaction was finished, noone else in the show gave the hairdresser's
complaint another second of thought.

If -this- behavior represents "postive views of female sexuality," then
I suppose I'm at a loss to describe a "negative" view.  And with regard
to her show, I'm not sure I understand the distinction between her
feigned masturbation scenes, her revealing outfits, and her double-entendre
lyrics being "feminist," while similar porn films, strip shows and
male rock-group's sexually oriented lyrics are not.

I suspect your analogy is more along the lines of, if a man does it,
it's pornagraphic.  If a woman does it, it's a "positive view of female
sexuality."


...................Tom
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I'm a boy, I'm a boy, but my ma won't admit it.
    I'm a boy, I'm a boy, but if I say I am, I get it!
        -- Pete Townshend
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


Topic 1 Pornography: question about feminis     Response 15 of 46
albert
alt.feminism     6:19 am  Dec 28, 1993
(at wixer.bga.com)      (From News system)

Taranga Ghosh ([e-mail]) wrote:
: Again, a number of postings stated that women acting in video pornography make
: a lot more money out of it than they would have through other careers. I am
: sure that there are women who do make a lot of money and there are women who
: have undertaken the career as a conscious choice. However, my guess is that
                                                                ^^^^^^^^
: majority do not make much money and they are exposed to occupational dangers
Any evidence?  From what I've read, actresses in adult films make quite a
bit of money.

: Violence in pornography
: -----------------------
:  While violence in pornography does not frequently involve whips,chains and
: rape (other than for a specialized clientele) there is definitely a quieter
: violence in the labelling of women by derogatory names and their depiction as
: individuals who exist to gratify the male customers desires. Certainly, in
Should the anti-male attutudes taken by many in the feminist press be
considered violence?  This PC escallation of everything to violence, rape,
abuse, etc. is getting very tiring.  Is your definition of feminist one who
views women as helpless victims?

: Art which has sexual content and is not exploitative
: ----------------------------------------------------
Ok.  Now what is art?  And who are you to assume that the models for the
temple walls you mention below weren't exploited?  Perhaps by priests who
assured them some sort of after-death hell if they didn't pose?  Your
political correctness is showing.  :)

: In Indian culture, at one time, sex was seen worthy of depiction on temple
: walls.  You can see on the walls of Khajuraho exquisite depictions of a
: tremendous variety of sexual acts. The Kama Sutra (and the less well known Koka
: Sutra) are of course well known for their explicit and poetic descriptions of
: sex. In neither, will you find any trace of violence. In the carvings at
: Khajuraho, both men and women seem to be having the most sublime fun :).
In most 20th century Western adult films, both men and women seem to be
having the most sublime fun, too.

:
: In Western cultures, there seems to be little literature or art with sexual
: content; we have unimaginative and brutal men producing banal and disgusting
: work in sleazy back-streets. Which is why you have "plots ...are commonly quite
: stupid".
Sounds to me like you need to visit your local (non-adult) bookstore, and
look up the works of Anne Rice and many, many others.

: I do not advocate a horrible uniformity in the depictions of sex; but we should
: certainly expect new and imaginative attitudes in art with sexual content.
:
: I believe that there are works which project a feminist view of sexuality; I
: wish there would be more of it. Encouragingly, pop culture seems to be
: producing more positive views of womens' sexuality (eg Madonna, Janet Jackson
: and c.).
Do you equate feminist=good, masculine=bad?  It sounds like you consider
your view of sexuality to be the only healthy one.


--
............................................................................
.. Albert Nurick                                                          ..
.. [e-mail]                                                         ..
............................................................................


Topic 1 Pornography: question about feminis     Response 16 of 46
avjohns
alt.feminism    10:10 am  Dec 28, 1993
(at teal.csn.org)       (From News system)

In article <2foulu$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (J. Palmer) writes:
>In article <2fopha$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Christopher J Burian)
 writes:
>>
>I was under the impression that a fair percentage of the actors and
>actresses in these films were runaways just trying to get by.

Can you give us any indication of how you got this impression?  Say, by
telling us which films you've seen?

>I am
>also certain that I have seen track marks on the arms of both males and
>females in a few of these films.

It's possible.  I dated a girl for quite a while that had track marks.

She was a diabetic.

>While I have NO data to back this up, I think it's fair to say that
>there are a lot more films out there that sell for $5 or $10 than the more
>expensive ones for which the players would earn those types of salaries.

Very few videos sell for less than $30.  Those that do are usually
"clearance" stuff.

On the other hand, I can get a copy of "The Addams Family" for about
5 bucks.  I wonder, is Angelica Huston just getting by? . . . :-)

Just kidding, of course.  No, the erotic film industry does not have
*quite* the distribution and sales that the main stream (more violence,
less sex) films do.  But even 500$ for three days work shooting a
"loop" is still pretty good money.  It is aprox. $20 an hour.  Pretty
good money for "unskilled" labor.

>The current trend seems to be towards LOTS of "home video" type films,
>though from viewing the covers one can readily see that few husband/
>wife couples make up the chief acting teams of those.

And these films are bought by distributors who pay from $500 to $5000
dollars per tape.  Again, the money isn't that bad.

>Do you also support legalized prostitution?

Yes.  To many women are getting knifed, shot, strangled, maimed and
beaten to death.  And all over a victimless crime.  A great many of
these women are alcoholics, drug users and single mothers.  If
legalized, the women could be protected by letting them work in
brothels (ala Nevada) and those with serious problems could be
identified and *offered* help.

>(but I suppose that's a whole new thread :)

Cool.  Whatever.

How about using the Subject line: Let's Legalize Prostitution!

:-)  That ought to get some interesting flames. . .er, responses.


Topic 1 Pornography: question about feminis     Response 17 of 46
cburian
alt.feminism    10:34 am  Dec 28, 1993
(at ux4.cso.uiuc.edu)   (From News system)

[e-mail] (J. Palmer) writes:

]In article <2fopha$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Christopher J Burian)
 writes:
]>
]>Both your guesses are wrong.  An actress makes $5000 or $10,000 for a few
]>days in front of the camera.  That counts as "much money" in my personal
]>opinion.  The risk of AIDS is low because the adult film community is very
]>hyper about it--not working with people that mess around outside their clique,
]>and frequent testing.

]I was under the impression that a fair percentage of the actors and
]actresses in these films were runaways just trying to get by.

Anti-porn crusaders might like you to think that.  Actually, I don't know
how much bit players and fluffers make, but the name stars make plenty of
dough.

]I am
]also certain that I have seen track marks on the arms of both males and
]females in a few of these films.

Just a few, from fringe producers.  Heroin abuse isn't tolerated in the
major companies.  (Though coke is.)

]While I have NO data to back this up, I think it's fair to say that
]there are a lot more films out there that sell for $5 or $10 than the more
]expensive ones for which the players would earn those types of salaries.
]The current trend seems to be towards LOTS of "home video" type films,
]though from viewing the covers one can readily see that few husband/
]wife couples make up the chief acting teams of those.

They're not getting paid much, because they don't need to be paid much.
They're exhibitionists and want to do it.  No exploitation there!

]Do you also support legalized prostitution?
](but I suppose that's a whole new thread :)

Certainly.  But I don't think of it as "legalization," I think it's not, and
has never been, any of the government's damn business.  Using the word legalize
implies that the gov't would be condoning or endorsing it.  It should simply
ignore it.

--
=<Christopher Burian>======<Orwell was an optimist.>======<[e-mail]>=
====<PGP public key on the server, or finger [e-mail]>====
=============<Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice.>===============


Topic 1 Pornography: question about feminis     Response 18 of 46
laurel.halbany
alt.feminism     2:29 pm  Dec 28, 1993
(at hal9k.com)  (From News system)

-=> Quoting Taranga Ghosh to All <=-

TG> The sex-trade, in general, is a dirty business. It is not marked by
TG> fairness towards its workers.

That is like saying because clothing factories are often sweatshops,
we must shut down all the clothing factories.

No, the sex industry is not a wonderful, cozy place. The problem
is not that the *work* is inherently awful; it's the working
*conditions*. Unscrupulous pornographers, *not* pornography,
is the issue.

Women in the industry ought to encourage people to get their
skin mags, videos, etc. only from companies that treat their
employees well (e.g. Fatale Video); complain to companies
with bad working conditions; etc.

TG> We can, however, tackle the problem by personally following the ethics
TG> of  1) not buying porn (by definition, material which is exploitative)

What is porn? X-rated movies? John Preston's latest book? _On Our
Backs_?

TG> and 2) by convincing others that it is not ethical to buy porn.
TG> I am sure that most readers on the net have a well-developed enough
TG> sense of judgement as to what is exploitative or not (eg the products
TG> of "Good Vibrations" as opposed to Hustler).

Good Vibrations sells many commercial pornographic films and books.
How can you state that they do not sell "pornography" just because
nice people are the porn brokers?


... I love men as much as I hate patriarchy.
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12

----
| HAL 9000 BBS:  QWK-to-Usenet gateway | Six 14,400 v.32bis dial-ins      |
| FREE Usenet mail and news for you!   | Call [phone] or 663 3959 |
+--------------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| Now supporting the Hayes v.FC 28,800 bps modem for dialin access!       |


Topic 1 Pornography: question about feminis     Response 19 of 46
k135745
alt.feminism     9:29 am  Dec 30, 1993
(at lehtori.cc.tut.fi)  (From News system)

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Taranga Ghosh) wr
ites:

>Again, a number of postings stated that women acting in video pornography make
>a lot more money out of it than they would have through other careers. I am
>sure that there are women who do make a lot of money and there are women who
>have undertaken the career as a conscious choice. However, my guess is that
>majority do not make much money and they are exposed to occupational dangers
>such as AIDS~.

The profession has occupational dangers => The profession should be banned ?

Please clarify this. Does it count for both men and women, for example?

BTW, promisquous gays are also exposed to dangers of AIDS. Ban that lifestyle
too?

>In other words, pornographers (by definition, purveyors of sexually
>explicit material which is exploitative or demeaning of women & children) make
>money by much the same means as sweat-shop owners do: by the exploitation of
>the disadvantaged.

Here I must put a piece of news from here I just read. An old man got addicted
to phone sex and voila, received a $20,000 phone bill. It is quite unlikely
that the man can get the bill paid. A question: did the women working for the
phone sex company exploit the man, or was it the other way around?

>While violence in pornography does not frequently involve whips,chains and
>rape (other than for a specialized clientele) there is definitely a quieter
>violence in the labelling of women by derogatory names and their depiction as
>individuals who exist to gratify the male customers desires. Certainly, in
>child pornography, one may not see physical violence; but can anyone deny the
>reality of the violent violation of the child's' mind ?

Nice nonchalant skip of subject. I wonder if there is a single person is this
arena who is pro child pornography. Next time someone starts talking about
feminism, should I bring up some quotes from Ms. Dworkin to show how horrible
an ideology feminism is? (One of these days I'll be smarter than that...)

>Then again, we
>would be deprived of many works which have great intrinsic merit despite being
>the products of male dominated cultures.

Cut the sexism, please. A similar remark about the achievements of blacks or
jews would get you heavily flamed.

>A legal approach is just not practical
>and brings the much great danger of the suppression of radical views by the
>majority.

But hey, here I agree. It would be quite funny if feminists and jesus-freaks
formed an alliance and succeeded in purging the porn from the face of the
Earth, but the latter group took it further and banned the feminists too!

>We can, however, tackle the problem by personally following the ethics of
>       1) not buying porn (by definition, material which is exploitative) and
>       2) by convincing others that it is not ethical to buy porn.

In this, I wholeheartedly agree. Everyone has the right to buy or not to buy,
and the right to express their opinions on the subject to other people.

>If the two genders are to live together equitably and have happy sexual
>relationships we must make some effort to create a culture where that is
>possible.

>In Indian culture, at one time, sex was seen worthy of depiction on temple
>walls.  You can see on the walls of Khajuraho exquisite depictions of a
>tremendous variety of sexual acts. The Kama Sutra (and the less well known
>Koka Sutra) are of course well known for their explicit and poetic
>descriptions of sex. In neither, will you find any trace of violence. In
>the carvings at Khajuraho, both men and women seem to be having the most
>sublime fun :).

In Indian culture it was traditional for centuries to burn the female widow.
I bet those women had some really sublime fun indeed, and oh yes, happy
sexual relationships. Next?

>In Western cultures, there seems to be little literature or art with sexual
>content; we have unimaginative and brutal men producing banal and disgusting
>work in sleazy back-streets. Which is why you have "plots ...are commonly
>quite stupid".

>I believe that there are works which project a feminist view of sexuality; I
>wish there would be more of it. Encouragingly, pop culture seems to be
>producing more positive views of womens' sexuality (eg Madonna, Janet Jackson
>and c.).

You mean the same Madonna, of whom feminists said a couple of years ago that
she's taking back the women's liberation by <some power of 10, can't remember
which one> years?
--
Our fun and learning never ends!


Topic 1 Pornography: question about feminis     Response 20 of 46
baba
alt.feminism    10:06 am  Dec 29, 1993
(at Tymnet.com) (From News system)

In article <2flk79$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (J. Palmer) writes:
|> In article <2fli95$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Practi-Col Services) writes
:
|>
|> >The vast number of men and women who have been sexually compatible
|> >over the millenia refutes any notion of a basic sexual
|> >incompatibility between them.
|>
|> Do you mean that since reproduction occurred, the act must have been
|> satisfying to the female?

Do you think that just because some women fake orgasm they all do?

--
d'baba Duane M. Hentrich    [e-mail]                We have yet to
learn that the thing uttered in words is not therefore affirmed. It must
affirm itself, or no forms of logic or of oath can give it evidence. The
sentence must also contain its own apology for being spoken. - R.W.Emerson


Topic 1 Pornography: question about feminis     Response 21 of 46
thig
alt.feminism    10:15 am  Dec 29, 1993
(at csd4.csd.uwm.edu)   (From News system)

--
             That circus music's got to be hard on the ice cream man
                           [e-mail]


Topic 1 Pornography: question about feminis     Response 22 of 46
baba
alt.feminism    12:45 pm  Dec 29, 1993
(at Tymnet.com) (From News system)

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Laurel Halbany)  writes:
|> -=> Quoting Object Store Administrato to All <=-
|>
|> OSA> It seems obvious to me that the pornography industry is generally
|> OSA> exploitative of the women who work in it and usually depicts women in
|> OSA> sexually submissive roles. In addition, violence is not uncommon and
|> OSA> there can be no doubt that this combination of sex and violence sells
|> OSA> because there are plenty of men who seem to enjoy reading about or
|> OSA> watching women being violently dealt with.
|> OSA> Therefore, to defend this industry and to buy its products is
|> OSA> unethical.
|>
|> "It seems obvious to me" is not proof.
|>
|> The real issue is, if this stuff is so awful, *why* do men like it?

In my experience violence is neither as pervasive nor required as the
poster OSA states.

But to answer Laural's question:
Perhaps it is because it allows us, for a moment or two, to ignore
our powerless and dreary lives and attain some small level of satisfaction,
no matter how fleeting, without harming anyone or bringing anyone down
to what we perceive as our level. It's called masturbation.

|> OSA> I) The fact that the porn industry chiefly sells to men and male
|> OSA> adolescents and not to women implies that its depictions of sex are
|> OSA> repugnant to women.

I have read that the majority of the renters of adult material from
video stores are women. What does this say?

(besides the fact that I shouldn't believe everything I read ;^)

|> OSA> I conjecture that the root cause of the existence of pornography and
|> OSA> its expression~ in real life as rape is the social tolerance of
|> OSA> violence. If we can instill in young minds (especially the minds of
|> OSA> adolescent males) that violence is unethical perhaps we shall see the
|> OSA> disappearance of this depressing industry.
|>
|> What about sexually-explicit material that is not violent?

Which brings up the question:

Does masturbation affect non participants? Is J. Random Woman hurt or
affected by my fantasies of her if they are not realized?

--
d'baba Duane M. Hentrich    [e-mail]                We have yet to
learn that the thing uttered in words is not therefore affirmed. It must
affirm itself, or no forms of logic or of oath can give it evidence. The
sentence must also contain its own apology for being spoken. - R.W.Emerson


Topic 1 Pornography: question about feminis     Response 23 of 46
jenni
alt.feminism     3:53 pm  Dec 30, 1993
(at cac.washington.edu) (From News system)

In article <2fjg71$[e-mail]>, David A. Kaye <[e-mail]> wrote:
>Object Store Administrator ([e-mail]) wrote:
>
>Which is the exploitive job -- 3 days of porno at $5,000 or 5 days of
>office work at $300?  I know two women who were able to go to college
>ONLY because they were able to do porno, and several others only because
>they did sex work.

Now there's a sad commentary.  Same thing about strippers - making a ton
o' dough - lots of women put themselves through school this way.

For starters, if they thought "doing porno" was so great, why bother with
the college degree?  I know of few jobs one can get, even with benfit of
a college degree, where you can pull in that kind of money.

More importantly, though, is that it is clear women can make the most
money by selling thier bodies, not by using thier brains.  The top money
earning professions for women in this country are modelling, acting, and sex
work.  The top ones for men are physicans and another professional job (i
forgot which one, but it wasn't modelling).

Society values women's bodies and men's brains and pays them accordingly.

- Jennifer


Topic 1 Pornography: question about feminis     Response 24 of 46
dk
alt.feminism    12:21 am  Jan  1, 1994
(at crl.com)    (From News system)

Jennifer Taub ([e-mail]) wrote:

: For starters, if they thought "doing porno" was so great, why bother with
: the college degree?

That's obvious.  Because good looks don't last forever.  They're
preparing themselves for the future, which shows to me that they know
EXACTLY what they're doing and are using porno as a tool to a secure
future, not being abused by it as has been indicated here.

: I know of few jobs one can get, even with benfit of
: a college degree, where you can pull in that kind of money.

True.  This may be why a lot of women do it and have no complaints,
compared with a Linda Lovelace who apparently didn't prepare for her
future and felt the need to tell all in a book she sold for a lot of
money.  I still don't think she's been to college yet.

: More importantly, though, is that it is clear women can make the most
: money by selling thier bodies, not by using thier brains.

Is this so different from men?  Conan O'Brien is on late night TV pulling
down about $2 million a year and doesn't appear to have much talent to
speak of.  But, heck, I'll watch him because he's pretty.  And then
there's Fabio...

: The top money
: earning professions for women in this country are modelling, acting, and sex
: work.  The top ones for men are physicans and another professional job (i
: forgot which one, but it wasn't modelling).

I dare say that women physicians who choose to go the same route as men
can also pull down high pay jobs...and are doing so.

: Society values women's bodies and men's brains and pays them accordingly.

Only because women aren't IN those highly-paid professions, but they're
getting there.  You do realize, of course, that in the past 5 years the
growth of income among women versus men in the USA has been 5 to 1?  It's
obvious that this is because women are going out there and traing for
those careers.  Sorry, the men-as-victor, women-as-victim doesn't wash
with me.


Topic 1 Pornography: question about feminis     Response 25 of 46
gwangung
alt.feminism     6:18 pm  Dec 30, 1993
(at carson.u.washington.edu)    (From News system)

In article <2g047c$[e-mail]>,
Jennifer Taub <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>Which is the exploitive job -- 3 days of porno at $5,000 or 5 days of
>>office work at $300?  I know two women who were able to go to college
>>ONLY because they were able to do porno, and several others only because
>>they did sex work.
>More importantly, though, is that it is clear women can make the most
>money by selling thier bodies, not by using thier brains.  The top money
>earning professions for women in this country are modelling, acting, and sex
>work.  The top ones for men are physicans and another professional job (i
>forgot which one, but it wasn't modelling).

        Hm? I suspect any survey of this type that doesn't include
professional sports athlete.

>Society values women's bodies and men's brains and pays them accordingly.

        Hmph. ANd this explains the cult of the athlete?

--
Roger Tang, [e-mail], Artistic Director  PC Theatre
"David Henry Hwang's BONDAGE is about an Asian male attaining his fantasy: being
dominated and humilated by a Caucasian blonde. Sheer fantasy, of course; we all
know in real life it's the other way around."


Topic 1 Pornography: question about feminis     Response 26 of 46
urquan
alt.feminism    12:48 pm  Jan  1, 1994
(at news.delphi.com)    (From News system)

[e-mail] (Christopher J Burian) writes:

>[e-mail] ( Object Store Administrator) writes:

>]It seems obvious to me that the pornography industry is generally exploitative
>]of the women who work in it

>Gee, it might be "obvious to you," but it's false nevertheless.  I don't
>suppose you've ever heard of Nina Hartley or any of the hundreds of actors
>who are in the industry because they like it?

>]and usually depicts women in sexually submissive
>]roles.

>The men and women are depicted in whatever roles that will sell the most
>product.  There is no misogynist plot, just the bottom line--profits.  I
>have not noticed anything particularly "submissive" about the female
>characters in most adult movies.

I agree. Hell, I've seen some where women are quite the dominatracies (sp?)

(lots of good counterpoints to foolish arguments deleted)

>]That may or may not be true. I am merely stating that rape is
>]the acting out of a common pornographic depiction of sexual relations
between >]men and women.

>That is utterly false.  Rape is routinely depicted in Hollywood R-rated
>movies, yet non-consentual contact is practically never depicted in adult
>movies.

This is true. This also makes me wonder just how much erotica the person
has seen. Of course, people will always bring up things like the beatings
during "Deep Throat", etc. I would argue that these relatively few
instances are functions of the people and not the system. (For this I will
get slammed.)

I would also like to know why this person keeps referring to feminism as
though it's one entity or political/social philosophy.

Chris Restifo
[e-mail]
"The ball will get underway at 0600."


Topic 1 Pornography: question about feminis     Response 27 of 46
jenk
alt.feminism     5:16 pm  Dec 31, 1993
(at microsoft.com)      (From News system)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Laurel Halbany)  writes:
>-=> Quoting Taranga Ghosh to All <=-
>TG> The sex-trade, in general, is a dirty business. It is not marked by
>TG> fairness towards its workers.
>
>That is like saying because clothing factories are often sweatshops,
>we must shut down all the clothing factories. [...]
>Women in the industry ought to encourage people to get their
>skin mags, videos, etc. only from companies that treat their
>employees well (e.g. Fatale Video); [etc]

For that matter, so can the MEN in the industry.  MEN act in the porn videos
too -- not just women.  Male actors are also at risk of contracting diseases
-- not just the female actors (and the female actors don't have to get
erections under spotlights, in front of a film crew, at the producer's or
director's convenience).

This is part of what I find so ludicrous about the "women in the porn
industry are exploited" assertion [which others, not Lauren, was making]
-- many of the men in the industry work under similar conditions.  I
would not be surprised if the majority of management, crew, writers, and
other off-camera people were men, not women.  I don't know.  Porn has
traditionally been an "entry" slot to the entertainment biz, and as
more women go into behind-the-camera work they may find porn has the
same relative ease to get into that other [male] beginners have found.
But not all on-camera people are women, either.

In a movie a friend loaned to me the other night, a woman dressed in
black leather slowly dripped melted wax from a burning candle onto the
penis of a bound and blindfolded man.  Was this degrading to men?  Turn
it around. Would it then be degrading to women?

-jen

--
not speaking for microsoft  -=-  [e-mail]  -=-  msdos testing
"About all you can do in life is be who you are. Some people will love
you for you. Most will love you for what you can do for them, and some
won't like you at all."         - from _Venus Envy_, by Rita Mae Brown


Topic 1 Pornography: question about feminis     Response 28 of 46
alyoung
alt.feminism     3:30 pm  Jan  2, 1994
(at cherry.ucs.indiana.edu)     (From News system)

In article <[e-mail]>,
Object Store Administrator <[e-mail]> wrote:
>It seems obvious to me that the pornography industry is generally exploitative
>of the women who work in it and usually depicts women in sexually submissive
>roles.

Usually, but not always.  What defines "submissive" is also highly
subjective.  For instance, I know women who feel that giving a man
oral sex is a very submissive act for the women.  I, on the other
hand, feel that in most cases it is a submissive act for the man.
When a man's penis is in a woman's mouth, who REALLY holds the cards?

>In addition, violence is not uncommon and there can be no doubt that
>this combination of sex and violence sells because there are plenty of men who
>seem to enjoy reading about or watching women being violently dealt with.

But this is not present in ALL material.

>Therefore, to defend this industry and to buy its products is unethical.

Not it is not, but to save all that you have said above IS making huge
and sweeping generalizations.

>I) The fact that the porn industry chiefly sells to men and male adolescents and
>not to women implies that its depictions of sex are repugnant to women.

You are making hasteful judgements.  The word "repugnant" is quite
subjective.  No, I don't actively purchase most forms of porn, but
that's just because they aren't for me, just like not all food in a
grocery store is for me.

>II) Also, I believe that most feminists would consider that a male-dominated
>culture attempts to destroy or suppress womens' sexuality and that sex for
>women should be a joyous act .

Regardless of my label, I think sex should be a joyous act for
everyone who choses to consentually engage in it.

>       If I and II are true, what kind of art, literature or cinema with
>       sexual content  should a feminist culture tolerate or encourage ? What
>       kind of depictions are ethically acceptable ?
>                    -----------------------------------

>Propositions I and II also seem to imply that men and women have fundamentally
>incompatible concepts of sexual enjoyment.

I feel that this is untrue, otherwise the human race would have died
out by now, most likely.

>I conjecture that the root cause of the existence of pornography and its
>expression~ in real life as rape is the social tolerance of violence. If we can
>instill in young minds (especially the minds of adolescent males) that violence
>is unethical perhaps we shall see the disappearance of this depressing
>industry.

I do not find the sex industry depressing; quite the contrary.  roll
into our local adult bookstore, I see very few items which are
violent.

>~I am not making the assumption that the consumption of pornography causes men
>to rape women. That may or may not be true. I am merely stating that rape is
>the acting out of a common pornographic depiction of sexual relations between
>men and women.

As you may well know, the word "pornography" carries with it certain
moral judgements, and there is no clear legal definition of it.  Of
course there isn't, what is obscene and offensive to one person is not
to another.

amy>


--
[e-mail]                    Occupation:  Lifetime Student
*****************************************************************************
*This post was made on personal time and has nothing to do whatsoever with  *
*              the attitudes or opinions of Indiana University.             *
*****************************************************************************


Topic 1 Pornography: question about feminis     Response 29 of 46
alyoung
alt.feminism     3:37 pm  Jan  2, 1994
(at cherry.ucs.indiana.edu)     (From News system)

In article <2fjhpt$[e-mail]>,
Christopher J Burian <[e-mail]> wrote:
>[e-mail] ( Object Store Administrator) writes:
>]It seems obvious to me that the pornography industry is generally exploitative
>]of the women who work in it
>Gee, it might be "obvious to you," but it's false nevertheless.  I don't
>suppose you've ever heard of Nina Hartley or any of the hundreds of actors
>who are in the industry because they like it?

I have always found it odd that people who have a bug up their butt
about sexually explicit material always ignore those who say they
genuinely like it, and chose to do it or insist that they are being
taken advantage of and they don't even know it.  I find this horribly
offensive because we have women telling other women that they can't think
for themselves, that they are being taken advantage of just because
they FEEL they are, etc.

Isn't it strange how some women and men who are fighting to "empower" other
women can't seem to admit the fact that some women may like sex well
enough that they'd like to do it for a living?

With all situations we have to expect some level of responsability
from those who are actively participating in the situation.  If you
are working in the sex industry and you want out, then get out.  If
you have someome threatening you, then go to the police and buy
yourself a handgun.  If you allow yourself to be victimized, that's
probably what you'll end up being.  Saying, "Oh, but I won't make as
much money working a regular job" is not an "excuse" for staying in an
industry and hating it and then saying you are being victimized.

amy
--
[e-mail]                    Occupation:  Lifetime Student
*****************************************************************************
*This post was made on personal time and has nothing to do whatsoever with  *
*              the attitudes or opinions of Indiana University.             *
*****************************************************************************


Topic 1 Pornography: question about feminis     Response 30 of 46
alyoung
alt.feminism     3:49 pm  Jan  2, 1994
(at cherry.ucs.indiana.edu)     (From News system)

>J. Palmer ([e-mail]) wrote:
>: No...
>: but I do think that if you think your partner has an orgasm every
>: time that you have one, then she is likely one of those who fake.

Well, Mr. J. Palmer, we are beginning to see that your name is very
logical.

Apparently outside of your realm of knowledge, women can AND do have
orgasms just as often, and many times MORE OFTEN than men during the
act of intercourse.  My husband and I have rounded out after four
years with a general ration of me:him at around 3:1 or some such.

I suggest you either learn how to please a partner or find one who is
in touch with and comfortable with her body.

amy
--
[e-mail]                    Occupation:  Lifetime Student
*****************************************************************************
*This post was made on personal time and has nothing to do whatsoever with  *
*              the attitudes or opinions of Indiana University.             *
*****************************************************************************


Topic 1 Pornography: question about feminis     Response 31 of 46
moo
alt.feminism    10:36 pm  Jan  1, 1994
(at brahms.udel.edu)    (From News system)

>Object Store Administrator <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>It seems obvious to me that the pornography industry is generally exploitative
>>of the women who work in it and usually depicts women in sexually submissive
>>roles.
>

Is being submissive automatically bad?  Many women (and men) enjoy playing
submissive sexual roles.  IMHO, there's nothing wrong with that.  Keep in
mind that sex is only *one* aspect of life, and being submissive in that
way does not necessarily mean that a person will be submissive in all ways.
A woman (or man) should not have to feel guilty because s/he likes to be
sexually passive/submissive, which I think can be the result of (some)
feminists condemning it.

Before someone leaps in saying that women are programmed by society to be
submissive sexually -- I think there's some truth in that, but it's way too
simplistic an explanation, especially considering how complex human
sexuality is.  I don't feel I'm qualified to hazard an explanation of *why*
some people like to be dominated sexually, but neither do I think that,
as a feminist, I should *always* be on top.

-Liz Chao
 [e-mail]



Topic 1 Pornography: question about feminis     Response 32 of 46
simon
alt.feminism     3:19 am  Jan  2, 1994
(at mis.status.gen.nz)  (From News system)

[ alt.sex. removed from newsgroup list ]

Jennifer Taub ([e-mail]) wrote:
>More importantly, though, is that it is clear women can make the most
>money by selling thier bodies, not by using thier brains.  The top money
>earning professions for women in this country are modelling, acting, and sex
>work.  The top ones for men are physicans and another professional job (i
>forgot which one, but it wasn't modelling).

Actually I would think that the top jobs for men would be
Sports,Entertainment and the 'top' bussiness men..

These are the people who are in the >$10mil a year bracket.
I know doctors are fairly well paid but I dont think that they are in the
Tom Cruise,Michael Jordon and Ceo's of F-500 companies income bracket.

--
Simon Lyall. | Lots of Jobs | Email - [e-mail]
"Inside me Im Screaming, Nobody pays any attention. "   | MT.


Topic 1 Pornography: question about feminis     Response 33 of 46
pepke
alt.feminism    12:12 pm  Jan  5, 1994
(at scri.fsu.edu)       (From News system)

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Laurel
Halbany) wrote:
> I wouldn't call it masturbation, since that act doesn't require
> dominance fantasies. What puzzled me was not that men might enjoy
> looking at women's bodies, or pretending that Miss February is
> having sex with them. I don't quite understand why the idea
> of a woman *suffering pain*, for example, or being forced
> to perform acts against her will, would be exciting.

The notion of women suffering pain is an emotionalistic red herring in the
pornography debate.  There certainly exists heterosexual sadomasochistic
pornography, but A) the violence in such pornography is almost entirely on
a symbolic level, B) material where the woman is the "top" is as or more
common than material where the man is the "top," and C) such pornography is
a very tiny percentage of all total pornography.

As for the eroticization of women being forced to perform acts against
their will, I think a conservative estimate would be that 90% of such
material is to be found in romance novels, maybe 9% is to be found in
mainstream (<=R) films, and less than 1% is to be found in anything
commonly called pornography.  In fact, pornography is frequently criticized
for quite the opposite characteristic--that it portrays sex as always happy
happy.

I'm not advocating that argument, just reporting it.  In fact, it is my
observation that when people give two conflicting reasons for a belief,
that both justifications are phony, and the belief usually comes from a
third, unstated reason.  When somebody tries to tell me that a photograph
of a smiling nude woman from _Playboy_ degrades women, while a photograph
of a grimacing nude nipple-clipped woman from _On Our Backs_ is a healthy
display of sexuality, the needle on my bogometer shoot up so rapidly it
wraps around the pin.

-EMP


Topic 1 Pornography: question about feminis     Response 34 of 46
rstevew
alt.feminism    10:42 pm  Jan  8, 1994
(at armory.com) (From News system)

In article <[e-mail]>,
Object Store Administrator <[e-mail]> wrote:
>It seems obvious to me that the pornography industry is generally exploitative
>of the women who work in it and usually depicts women in sexually submissive
>roles. In addition, violence is not uncommon and there can be no doubt that
>this combination of sex and violence sells because there are plenty of men who
>seem to enjoy reading about or watching women being violently dealt with.
>
>Therefore, to defend this industry and to buy its products is unethical.
>
>I) The fact that the porn industry chiefly sells to men and male adolescents and
>not to women implies that its depictions of sex are repugnant to women.
>
>II) Also, I believe that most feminists would consider that a male-dominated
>culture attempts to destroy or suppress womens' sexuality and that sex for
>women should be a joyous act .
>
>       If I and II are true, what kind of art, literature or cinema with
>       sexual content  should a feminist culture tolerate or encourage ? What
>       kind of depictions are ethically acceptable ?
>                    -----------------------------------
>
>Propositions I and II also seem to imply that men and women have fundamentally
>incompatible concepts of sexual enjoyment.
>
>I conjecture that the root cause of the existence of pornography and its
>expression~ in real life as rape is the social tolerance of violence. If we can
>instill in young minds (especially the minds of adolescent males) that violence
>is unethical perhaps we shall see the disappearance of this depressing
>industry.
>
>~I am not making the assumption that the consumption of pornography causes men
>to rape women. That may or may not be true. I am merely stating that rape is
>the acting out of a common pornographic depiction of sexual relations between
>men and women.

----------------------------------------------

You are obviously lacking: clarity to your definition of "pornography",
experience in having viewed what DOES abound as pornography in video stores
and was for the last two years more rented by women than men, and you
clearly are neglecting the reshowing of old sitcoms for their similar
"prostitution" of acting ability, and their promulgation of subordinate
roles for women, and as for the repugnance with which women still view
"Bewitched", "Gilligan's Island", and other such sexist shows, I think you
are likely to find as many avid female viewers as male. And as far as
women's enjoyment of run of the mill video store triple-X pornography, not
only do they rent more of it than men, but they really do seem to enjoy it.
In fact the only time I have seen a woman want the remote as badly as a man
was when they are propped on a pillow in the act of intercourse, facing the
TV and they run the big penetration scene back and forth so much that they
damage the tape!!! As for men and women having "incompatible concepts" of
sexual satisfaction, you must genuinely either just be a lesbian and
jealous, or extremely out of your fucking mind!!!!
-Steve Walz

--
* Richard STEVEn Walz   [e-mail]   [phone]  *
* 515 Maple Street #1   * Without safe and free abortion women are   *
* Santa Cruz, CA 95060    organ-surrogates to unwanted parasites.*   *
* Censorship is unAmerican! Just IMAGINE: Burning All the Churches!  *


Topic 1 Pornography: question about feminis     Response 35 of 46
rstevew
alt.feminism    12:39 am  Jan  9, 1994
(at armory.com) (From News system)

In article <[e-mail]>,
Taranga Ghosh <[e-mail]> wrote:
>Exploitation in pornography
>--------------------------
>A number of postings about this subject have pointed out that the principal
>(capitalist) objective of the pornographer is to make money and not to exploit
>women. May I point out that the principal objective of the businessman running
>a sweat-shop is also to make money and not to exploit women and children, yet
>s/he does not hesitate to exploit these people ?
>
------------------------
While people often sweat during sex, we still do not quite get your twisted
illogic here.
-Steve

>Again, a number of postings stated that women acting in video pornography make
>a lot more money out of it than they would have through other careers. I am
>sure that there are women who do make a lot of money and there are women who
>have undertaken the career as a conscious choice. However, my guess is that
>majority do not make much money and they are exposed to occupational dangers
>such as AIDS.
-------------------------
A very simple unfounded and simple-minded assertion. A throw away, in other
words. They make very good money. If they didn't, they wouldn't bother. The
men are not paid as much as the women and their pay has been admittedly
satisfying by a number of men in that business. Ever know any and see how
they can dress and what they drive? I have. They do better than I do by
far!
-Steve

>The industry survives at the periphery of legality and at least
----------------------------------------------
Now that's really absurd. You clearly do not know what you're talking
about. Read some of the personal books of the actors and find out the
truth. It's a very 1) legal business and 2) the people who work in it are
not compelled. If they were compelled, they wouldn't have to be paid, and
since they are paid, they don't have to be compelled. In other words, do
not try to exptrapolate what it must be like from the fact that you
wouldn't perhaps choose to do it!!! You make ludricrous mistakes that way!
-Steve

>some women in this industry are probably in some amount of physical danger and
>coercion. In other words, pornographers (by definition, purveyors of sexually
>explicit material which is exploitative or demeaning of women & children) make
>money by much the same means as sweat-shop owners do: by the exploitation of
>the disadvantaged.
------------------------------
And in what ways are these generally quite beautiful women at a
disadvantage? The public clamors for pretty women to virtually hand them
money WITHOUT taking their clothes off! You must not be paying very good
attention! And by bringing up children you are escaping the bounds of the
discussion with an innuendo of child abuse in the video porn industry. I
haven't seen a video store with a child porn section yet, and somehow I
doubt that I will for some time. As for sweating, yes, people sweat often
during sex. This doesn't mean they work horrible hours or work without
breaks and can't speak the language and are paid a trifle!! Those are the
hallmarks of a "sweat-shop", and your usage of it is humorous!!! Partly
because of sweating during sex and partly because of the other definitions
of a sweat-shop being the exact opposite of this vocation!!!
-Steve

>The sex-trade, in general, is a dirty business. It is not marked by fairness
>towards its workers.
-------------------------------------
Gee, it's a "dirty business" but somebody's gotta do it, eh???!!!:) :)
Get real. I haven't seen a porn star who was dirty yet, except for some few
and uninteresting mud-wrestling scenes, and I see more of that in stupid
"high-school" genre movies with Rhonda Shear and Gilbert Gottfried!! As for
fairness, I can't fathom what you mean here: maybe you want that the women
get to fuck the men as often as the men fuck the women??? Sounds fair to
me, and they do manage fairness in that respect!:) You're really silly!
-Steve

>Violence in pornography
>-----------------------
> While violence in pornography does not frequently involve whips,chains and
>rape (other than for a specialized clientele) there is definitely a quieter
>violence in the labelling of women by derogatory names and their depiction as
>individuals who exist to gratify the male customers desires. Certainly, in
>child pornography, one may not see physical violence; but can anyone deny the
>reality of the violent violation of the child's' mind ?
-----------------------------------------
A lot of women LIKE being talked dirty to, in case you don't fathom that!!!
More men do not understand it than women!!! It has something to do with
women not being allowed to act unladylike or to express their sexuality,
while men are good and tired of "dirty" words after eighth grade!!! And
again you are fantasizing child abuse among legal porn studios!! They
wouldn't be caught dead with that around!!! Get a grip and quit trying
cheap shots of a deceitful nature.
-Steve

>Ethics, constitutionality and censorship
>----------------------------------------
>In my opinion, advocating an ethic is not the same thing as advocating a law.
>In other words, one may pursue an individual ethic of being anti-porn and yet
>being against censorship (the legal approach). In the case of porn, I doubt if
>there can be any working definition of what can be defined as being
>exploitative and certainly my standards may differ from yours. Then again, we
>would be deprived of many works which have great intrinsic merit despite being
>the products of male dominated cultures. A legal approach is just not practical
>and brings the much great danger of the suppression of radical views by the
>majority.
>
>We can, however, tackle the problem by personally following the ethics of
>       1) not buying porn (by definition, material which is exploitative) and
>       2) by convincing others that it is not ethical to buy porn.
>I am sure that most readers on the net have a well-developed enough sense of
>judgement as to what is exploitative or not (eg the products of "Good
>Vibrations" as opposed to Hustler).
--------------------------------------
Buy what you want, but there are such magazines in Good Vibrations which
indulge in sexual humor, and women are no more the butt of jokes than are
men in either magazine!!! You verifiably do not know what you're even
talking about!
-Steve

>Differing perceptions of sex
>-----------------------------
>In this world of ours, the sexes are divided by fundamentally different views
>of the world in many things; especially that of sex. The physiology of sex is
>somewhat different amongst men and women. The similarities, however, are even
>more important. Yet, men and women often see differing and incompatible ideas
>as far as sexual pleasure goes (for example, a small fraction of men get great
>pleasure out of rape which is undeniable a sexual act and undeniably a
>searingly painful one for the woman). And very often, male dominated cultures
------------------------------------
Searingly painful??? Nope. Sorry. Most rape does no more damage to the
vagina than regular intercourse does. And I have never been with a woman,
including my wife of 18 years who ever complained of pain with sex, even if
it was quick and less lubricated than we both desired. As for men who are
thought to derive sexual pleasure from rape, if that were true, then
acceding to the man's demand would totally ruin his experience, and he
would stop!!! That sounds like a great defense against rape, that is,
acting enticed and interested! Unfortunately that doesn't work!!! The man
enjoys it anyway, with the difference being basically that the woman does
too!! Not that it wasn't rape and shouldn't be punished, but a lady may as
well enjoy herself while waiting to file a police report, mustn't she?:)
Well, that may sound a bit fanciful, so take it with the humor available.
-Steve

>suppress (not consciously,perhaps) information and ideas about the sexual
>nature of women.
-----------------------------------------
And women's resistance to sexuality is what causes resentment and hatred of
women and the rape of women, so if women wish to avoid old patriarchal
religions, the more the merrier, I say, as I am an old church-burner from
way back! The more that women desire to express their repressed sexuality,
the more men will do our best to accomodate them, I should say. I doubt
that there would even be such a thing as rape if women exerted their
sexuality actively as do men.
-Steve

>If the two genders are to live together equitably and have happy sexual
>relationships we must make some effort to create a culture where that is
>possible.
------------------------------
Who would I be to disagree. My ex and I still agree about such things. It
usually runs the direction of "the more sex, the better!". And the
stimulation of the sexual appetite still has good use for good sweaty sex
in videos and movies. Most women who have hidden their sexuality under the
guise of literature in romance novels with flowery language, but I have
noted well that the more sexually experienced a woman becomes, the more she
allows herself and even requests or demands good pornography to entice her
and to wet her appetite, as often do men. The more sexually active women
become, as their active sexual lives go on, the more their sex drive and
the form of their desires resemble those of men! And a part of that is
sometimes observing the ritual of their sex's traditional reluctance being
broken down in dramatic sex films. I never saw a woman so hot as in a
pseudo-rape scene she was watching while I entered her and she rewound and
replayed over and over while going half crazy! While respect for people is
important, so is fantasy!!!!
-Steve

>Art which has sexual content and is not exploitative
>----------------------------------------------------
>In Indian culture, at one time, sex was seen worthy of depiction on temple
>walls.  You can see on the walls of Khajuraho exquisite depictions of a
>tremendous variety of sexual acts. The Kama Sutra (and the less well known
>Koka
>Sutra) are of course well known for their explicit and poetic descriptions of
>sex. In neither, will you find any trace of violence. In the carvings at
>Khajuraho, both men and women seem to be having the most sublime fun :).
----------------------------------------
That's wonderful, but in a culture coming out of sexual repression, the
acting out of the release from guilt and the willing endurance of mock rape
can be important rituals for the deeper mind, and while I agree about
sublime sex being superior, there are still people who need to release
their parent's and teacher's and other cultural "ghosts" from looking over
their shoulder and screaming hateful things at their inner child about what
they are doing. It takes going to hell to get this crap of a heaven out of
the way that the christian religion burdened this culture with. They need
these sexual dramas acted out till they don't need them anymore or till
they are a laughable cliche'. Only then will they be free of them.
-Steve

>In Western cultures, there seems to be little literature or art with sexual
>content; we have unimaginative and brutal men producing banal and disgusting
>work in sleazy back-streets. Which is why you have "plots ...are commonly
>quite stupid".
------------------------------------
The plots being stupid to you simply is evidence of one of two things in
you: Either you really don't need those plots and dramas, in which case I
would expect more charity toward those who do, or else you are still
sexually repressed and can't get past that and into these dramas that are
still ghosts in YOUR mind so that you can get rid of them. In acting
offended, you are simply manifesting your embarrassment at seeing those
images. You must try to live into those images till they are dispelled. No
one is getting hurt by pornography. At very least they are torturing
themselves with their own repression. At most they are being therapized
till they can let go of such judgmentalness.
-Steve

>I do not advocate a horrible uniformity in the depictions of sex; but we
------------------------------
Oh yes you do!!! Think about it a little harder!!!
-Steve

>should
>certainly expect new and imaginative attitudes in art with sexual content.
>
>I believe that there are works which project a feminist view of sexuality; I
>wish there would be more of it. Encouragingly, pop culture seems to be
>producing more positive views of womens' sexuality (eg Madonna, Janet Jackson
>and c.).
------------------------------------------
MADONNA!!!!??:) She is making FUN of your "horrible uniformity"! That's her
art! She doesn't really think that her costumery and her great variety of
personas is necessary to sexuality. And as for Janet Jackson, I think she's
simply trivial!!! I'm amazed you aren't down on her!! She's a bimbette!
-Steve

>~I wonder if anyone has ever conducted a study of the rate of venereal disease
>and specifically the rate of HIV +ve individuals amongst porn movie
>actors/actresses.
-------------------------------
Clearly you have not read the increasing number of books about exactly
that. If you are looking for a hot-bed of HIV transfer, the books wishing
to actually research this will disapppoint you. There is a much lower rate
of HIV transmission among porn stars than among inner city virgins during
their first year of sexual activity! They're cleaner than your kids are, in
other words!
-Steve

--
* Richard STEVEn Walz   [e-mail]   [phone]  *
* 515 Maple Street #1   * Without safe and free abortion women are   *
* Santa Cruz, CA 95060    organ-surrogates to unwanted parasites.*   *
* Censorship is unAmerican! Just IMAGINE: Burning All the Churches!  *


Topic 1 Pornography: question about feminis     Response 36 of 46
rstevew
alt.feminism     2:00 am  Jan  9, 1994
(at armory.com) (From News system)

In article <2foulu$[e-mail]>,
J. Palmer <[e-mail]> wrote:
>In article <2fopha$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Christopher J Burian)
 writes:
>>
>>Both your guesses are wrong.  An actress makes $5000 or $10,000 for a few
>>days in front of the camera.  That counts as "much money" in my personal
>>opinion.  The risk of AIDS is low because the adult film community is very
>>hyper about it--not working with people that mess around outside their
>>clique, and frequent testing.
>
>I was under the impression that a fair percentage of the actors and
>actresses in these films were runaways just trying to get by.  I am
>also certain that I have seen track marks on the arms of both males and
>females in a few of these films.
------------------------------------------------
The industry wouldn't go NEAR them, and as far as tracks, how easy do you
think it would be to get a job in porn with tracks!!! Geez, they don't even
take people with bad skin!, let alone TRACKS! I can see the close-up now!
And the other actors wouldn't work with needle-bums. You are clinging
desparately to the belief that there aren't enough good-looking people who
want to have sex in "public" and make thousands of dollars a day!!! The
runaways are stuck making about a hundred a day or less turning tricks for
some pimp or by themselves, if they are lucky! Shit there are LINES of
people waiting to make thousands of dollars! And you are typically stuck
with the notion that women don't like to have meaningless but fun sex! If
THAT was true, where did my first ten girlfriends come from and they did it
for FREE twenty five YEARS ago!!! And if they are runaways, why do we see
the famous faces for decades!!!???? They are not transients! These people
own large houses and are pretty much stay at homes, many with families! You
need to read some of their books! And you'd be surprised how many of them
were professionally trained into other fields and gave it up to have sex
and make a lot of money! You would like to justify your peri-christian
pre-judgments, but you won't be able to! They AIN'T TRUE! People actually
like sex, and if you haven't had that reawakened in you after a childhhod
of guilt and fear, then you are simply fucked up!
-Steve

>While I have NO data to back this up, I think it's fair to say that
>there are a lot more films out there that sell for $5 or $10 than the more
>expensive ones for which the players would earn those types of salaries.
>The current trend seems to be towards LOTS of "home video" type films,
>though from viewing the covers one can readily see that few husband/
>wife couples make up the chief acting teams of those.
---------------------------------------------
Yes, there are lots of books that get remaindered by good authors, and they
are sold cheap, but the author was and is still well-paid! How does that
happen? So it's the same way with films. Some are overproduced, and then
they put them on sale! I have bought several good films for five or ten
dollars, and they look like they are really having a good time. They may
not be big-name actors, or they might be from an excess production run of
video copying. Doesn't cost much to reproduce these you know! And then
there is the illicit copy market which sells cheap. The salaries ARE REAL!
Read Nina Hartley's book or Hypatia Lee. And the home-made tapes were "in"
for a little while, but they suffered from poor quality, so the porn
studios started making "fake" home-mades!! Started a whole new generation
of porn actors.
-Steve

>>Baloney.  I'd love to make the dough those actors and actresses make for
>>doing something I like to do anyway.  What can be more fair than getting
>>paid for doing something everyone does for free?
>>
>
>Do you also support legalized prostitution?
>(but I suppose that's a whole new thread :)
>-Jean
-------------------------------------------
I won't pay them, unless it was reasonably priced and safe. But then there
has never been a case of HIV in Nevada at the state licensed houses. Sex is
far too expensive and should be no more than a good fair massage. About the
same effort involved. Actually, a woman can reduce the effort involved
considerably if she has a talented vagina. It should be a home business.
Come to think about it, it already is. It's called marriage!:) Nawh, just
teasing, but I have known of a woman who had four "husbands" who all paid to
keep her and none of them wanted to marry, and they all had sex together
and had a great time for years. I forget her name, but she wrote a book
about it in France. They finally all just moved in together and now nobody
cares, so it's kind of ho-hum. Now my wife could have handled that many
men, it would have been about an even match. Very talented vagina. And she
would have loved being made over and dined by four men. And when she was
young she said she had very little feeling in her vagina! BOY DID THAT
CHANGE!!! But it took about a decade. Having expensive police chase women
for making change in the bedroom is a real waste of tax money! That's why
it's a revolving door. Leave the girls alone.
-Steve

--
* Richard STEVEn Walz   [e-mail]   [phone]  *
* 515 Maple Street #1   * Without safe and free abortion women are   *
* Santa Cruz, CA 95060    organ-surrogates to unwanted parasites.*   *
* Censorship is unAmerican! Just IMAGINE: Burning All the Churches!  *


Topic 1 Pornography: question about feminis     Response 37 of 46
laurel.halbany
alt.feminism     4:57 pm  Jan  9, 1994
(at hal9k.com)  (From News system)

-=> Quoting Richard Steven Walz to All <=-

RSW> Searingly painful??? Nope. Sorry. Most rape does no more damage to the
RSW> vagina than regular intercourse does.

You've got to be kidding. Regular intercourse generally doesn't involve
forcibly shoving one's penis into a woman who may be struggling, may
be clenching her vagina in fear (vaginismus), and is quite likely
to be without any lubrication.

You also ignore rape in which the victim is anally assaulted, or in
which the attacker shoves things other than his penis into the
victim's body.

RSW> And I have never been with a
RSW> woman, including my wife of 18 years who ever complained of pain with
RSW> sex, even if it was quick and less lubricated than we both desired.

Lucky them.

RSW> As
RSW> for men who are thought to derive sexual pleasure from rape, if that
RSW> were true, then acceding to the man's demand would totally ruin his
RSW> experience, and he would stop!!!

Not so. The idea that they are in charge, and are forcing the woman to
give in--whether she accedes through fear or force--is the turn-on.

RSW> Not that it wasn't rape and
RSW> shouldn't be punished, but a lady may as well enjoy herself while
RSW> waiting to file a police report, mustn't she?:)

Right. I should enjoy somebody who doesn't interest me in the slightest
using me as a tool for *his* sexual satisfaction. If he decides he
likes beating me up, I should get off on that. And if he wants to
skip using a condom, or to pass me around to his buddies, I should
be practically bursting with orgasms.

RSW> Well, that may sound a
RSW> bit fanciful, so take it with the humor available.

Would you go to a parent who has just had a child die and tell
them "dead baby" jokes?

RSW> And women's resistance to sexuality is what causes resentment and
RSW> hatred of women and the rape of women,

Really? Then why is a popular and successful method of defending
rape cases to paint the victim as a sexually available, indiscriminate
woman? If your theory were true, why do we condemn women who
*embrace* their sexuality? (Ever heard a male equivalent to 'slut'?)

The rape of women is caused by men who enjoy overpowering, abusing,
and hurting women. Not by 'prudish' women.

RSW> The more that women desire to express
RSW> their repressed sexuality, the more men will do our best to accomodate
RSW> them, I should say.

Really? You mean if I express my sexuality by deciding I'm a lesbian,
men will be happy to accomodate me?

RSW> I doubt that there would even be such a thing as
RSW> rape if women exerted their sexuality actively as do men.

You mean, if I say "yes" to every man who asks, then I don't have
to worry that somebody will decide to ignore me if I say "no"?

RSW> The plots being stupid to you simply is evidence of one of two things
RSW> in you: Either you really don't need those plots and dramas, in which
RSW> case I would expect more charity toward those who do, or else you are
RSW> still sexually repressed and can't get past that and into these dramas
RSW> that are still ghosts in YOUR mind so that you can get rid of them.

Or perhaps just somebody liking a good storyline along with their sex.
Why must you assume that *your* sexuality is the only and best kind?

RSW> Oh yes you do!!! Think about it a little harder!!!

Oh no she doesn't. Perhaps some people (male and female) have different
sexuality. It isn't a choice between "Steve's libido" and "prudish,
repressed, and miserable."

... All great truths begin as blasphemies.
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12

----
| HAL 9000 BBS:  QWK-to-Usenet gateway | 6 dial-ins, from 14.4 to 28.8kbps |
| FREE Usenet mail and news for you!   | Call [phone] or 663 3959  |
+--------------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| "Will you be roadkill on the Information Highway?" -- R. Rashid, Microsoft


Topic 1 Pornography: question about feminis     Response 38 of 46
S967701
alt.feminism     3:59 pm  Jan 10, 1994
(at UMSLVMA.UMSL.EDU)   (From News system)

In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] (amy lynn young-leith) writes:

>
>In article <[e-mail]>,
>Richard Steven Walz <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>In article <2foulu$[e-mail]>,
>>J. Palmer <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>In article <2fopha$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Christopher J Buria
n) writes:
>>>>
>
(An informative and entertaining line of thought omitted.)

>Steve,
>
>I think you're getting a LITTLE overzealous here.
>
>Yes, some folks make a lot of money in the business but not all of
>them.  They still make more per hour then I'll ever see, but let's not
>get carried away here.
>
>There are enough nickel and dime porn companies out there, and, more
>importantly to this debate, enough people willing to take their
>clothes off for cold cash that you're average person won't get a lot.
>But if you've got what the industry finds hot and you learn how to
>market it, you're set for life.
>
>amy

Isn't this true of all professions and vocations, though?  I used to practice
law, and one of the regularly recurring misconceptions which people had was the
"rich lawyer" myth; that all of us who practiced law were rich beyond our wild-
est dreams.  True of some lawyers, but hardly true of the vast majority of
them.  And the same holds true in all lines of endeavor.  Some of us are "bet-
ter" at our jobs than others, and can command higher salaries for what we do.
The rest of us just soldier on, or find something we can do better.


 _____________________________________________________________________
|Len Cleavelin                  |                                     |
|[e-mail]       | "They paint you red before they     |
|Opinions expressed herein      |   sacrifice you.  It's a different  |
|are *not* those of UM-St.Louis.|    religion from ours--I think."    |
|Obviously.                     |          --Ringo Starr, *HELP!*     |
|_______________________________|_____________________________________|


Topic 1 Pornography: question about feminis     Response 39 of 46
rstevew
alt.feminism     6:54 am  Jan 13, 1994
(at armory.com) (From News system)

In article <[e-mail]>,
amy lynn young-leith <[e-mail]> wrote:
>In article <[e-mail]>,
>Richard Steven Walz <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>In article <2foulu$[e-mail]>,
>>J. Palmer <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>In article <2fopha$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Christopher J Buria
n) writes:
>>>>
>>>>Both your guesses are wrong.  An actress makes $5000 or $10,000 for a few
>>>>days in front of the camera.  That counts as "much money" in my personal
>>>>opinion.  The risk of AIDS is low because the adult film community is very
>>>>hyper about it--not working with people that mess around outside their
>>>>clique, and frequent testing.
>>>
>>>I was under the impression that a fair percentage of the actors and
>>>actresses in these films were runaways just trying to get by.  I am
>>>also certain that I have seen track marks on the arms of both males and
>>>females in a few of these films.
>>------------------------------------------------
>>The industry wouldn't go NEAR them, and as far as tracks, how easy do you
>>think it would be to get a job in porn with tracks!!! Geez, they don't even
>>take people with bad skin!, let alone TRACKS! I can see the close-up now!
>>And the other actors wouldn't work with needle-bums. You are clinging
>>desparately to the belief that there aren't enough good-looking people who
>>want to have sex in "public" and make thousands of dollars a day!!! The
>>runaways are stuck making about a hundred a day or less turning tricks for
>>some pimp or by themselves, if they are lucky! Shit there are LINES of
>>people waiting to make thousands of dollars! And you are typically stuck
>>with the notion that women don't like to have meaningless but fun sex! If
>>THAT was true, where did my first ten girlfriends come from and they did it
>>for FREE twenty five YEARS ago!!! And if they are runaways, why do we see
>>the famous faces for decades!!!???? They are not transients! These people
>>own large houses and are pretty much stay at homes, many with families! You
>>need to read some of their books! And you'd be surprised how many of them
>>were professionally trained into other fields and gave it up to have sex
>>and make a lot of money! You would like to justify your peri-christian
>>pre-judgments, but you won't be able to! They AIN'T TRUE! People actually
>>like sex, and if you haven't had that reawakened in you after a childhhod
>>of guilt and fear, then you are simply fucked up!
>>-Steve
>
>Steve,
>
>I think you're getting a LITTLE overzealous here.
>
>Yes, some folks make a lot of money in the business but not all of
>them.  They still make more per hour then I'll ever see, but let's not
>get carried away here.
>
>There are enough nickel and dime porn companies out there, and, more
>importantly to this debate, enough people willing to take their
>clothes off for cold cash that you're average person won't get a lot.
>But if you've got what the industry finds hot and you learn how to
>market it, you're set for life.
>
>amy
>--
>[e-mail]                   Occupation:  Lifetime Student
-------------------------------------------------
You're probably right anymore, amy. Good call. And nice to see you again.
Our very own newsfeed seems to be up for good now!
-Steve Walz   [e-mail]

--
* Richard STEVEn Walz   [e-mail]   [phone]  *
* 515 Maple Street #1   * Without safe and free abortion women are   *
* Santa Cruz, CA 95060    organ-surrogates to unwanted parasites.*   *
* Censorship is unAmerican! Just IMAGINE: Burning All the Churches!  *


Topic 1 Pornography: question about feminis     Response 40 of 46
bmcd
alt.feminism     8:34 pm  Jan 16, 1994
(at newton.otago.ac.nz) (From News system)

> In article <[e-mail]>,
> Taranga Ghosh <[e-mail]> wrote:

> >Art which has sexual content and is not exploitative
> >----------------------------------------------------
> >In Indian culture, at one time, sex was seen worthy of depiction on temple
> >walls.  You can see on the walls of Khajuraho exquisite depictions of a
> >tremendous variety of sexual acts. The Kama Sutra (and the less well known
> >Koka
> >Sutra) are of course well known for their explicit and poetic descriptions of
> >sex. In neither, will you find any trace of violence. In the carvings at
> >Khajuraho, both men and women seem to be having the most sublime fun :).

You have obviously not READ the words that go along with those pretty pictures.
You know, the squiggly things on the pages with no pictures.

Try the Kama Sutra of Vatsayana (sp?), the classic Burton translation. (I am
lucky enough to have the illustrated edition; do you want references?)

The level of violence is high, for example; if the woman you want is asleep
surrounded by her guards, you should go there with your friends and kill the
guards or drive them off, then "enjoy" [have sexual intercourse with] her while
she is still asleep. [ie RAPE HER].
Lovers are advised to exchange blow for harder blow in ESCALATING VIOLENCE.

There is lots more where this came from, mostly advice treating women as
objects. Please read works before you quote them. I make no judgement about
this work.

I am not concerned by sexual content in ANY work that I have seen. Some of it
is tacky, true enough, but I do not think that this does any harm, IMHO. Sex is
a normal biological function.

What really concerns me is the casual, gratuitious violence which is fed to our
kids by (mainly) US (not just American, but specifically that from the US)
television. Violence made fun of, with no realistic consequences. No cop show
is complete without at least one murder. And this is all presented in the most
glamourous light.

Any opinions (this is ASKING for it!) ?
Ben.


Topic 1 Pornography: question about feminis     Response 41 of 46
stud22
alt.feminism    11:26 pm  Jan 16, 1994
(at MATIES.SUN.AC.ZA)   (From News system)

jbg

>
> -=> Quoting Richard Steven Walz to All <=-

[quotes removed]

>
> Sorry, I don't like to use quoting this much, but I felt the evidence should
> be in one place. If anyone would like to make a copy of these opinions as
> expressed by Richard Steven Walz to their local police dep't., I'm sure
> the police would be more than happy to look Richard up as a suspect in any
> unsolved rape cases, that is if he isn't already writing from his cell.
>

In South Africa, that statement/suggestion/passing whim of your mind would
very likely be illegal.  Thank heavens for some sense which at least
remained in our system during the insanity of Apartheid.

You are insulting him by saying he is a potential criminal.
You are insulting him by suggesting he is sick enough to be a rapist.  (NOT
a small charge.  Most men I have met hate rapists.  Not dislike.  Not loath,
but burningly hate.  And yes, I have MALE friends in the police.  If anyone
ever has a complaint against them for police brutality, it'll be against a
man who is resisting being taken in on a rape charge, when they have
photographic/fingerprint evidence of his guilt.)
You are insulting him by suggesting that he is already enough of a convicted
criminal that he might be writing from `his' cell.
You are insulting the police by suggesting that they would be impressed by
some opinions being voiced which certainly do not support the hypothesis
that RSW is a rapist, or likes the idea of rape, or approves of rape.  He
was clearly, if slightly disorganizedly stating that he thinks there are
degrees of damage brought on to victims of various different crimes.

Antoine Richelieu


Topic 1 Pornography: question about feminis     Response 42 of 46
rstevew
alt.feminism    12:41 am  Jan 19, 1994
(at armory.com) (From News system)

In article <[e-mail]>, Ben <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> In article <[e-mail]>,
>> Taranga Ghosh <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> >Art which has sexual content and is not exploitative
>> >----------------------------------------------------
>> >In Indian culture, at one time, sex was seen worthy of depiction on temple
>> >walls.  You can see on the walls of Khajuraho exquisite depictions of a
>> >tremendous variety of sexual acts. The Kama Sutra (and the less well known
>> >Koka
>> >Sutra) are of course well known for their explicit and poetic descriptions of
>> >sex. In neither, will you find any trace of violence. In the carvings at
>> >Khajuraho, both men and women seem to be having the most sublime fun :).
>
>You have obviously not READ the words that go along with those pretty pictures.
>You know, the squiggly things on the pages with no pictures.
>
>Try the Kama Sutra of Vatsayana (sp?), the classic Burton translation. (I am
>lucky enough to have the illustrated edition; do you want references?)
>
>The level of violence is high, for example; if the woman you want is asleep
>surrounded by her guards, you should go there with your friends and kill the
>guards or drive them off, then "enjoy" [have sexual intercourse with] her while
>she is still asleep. [ie RAPE HER].
>Lovers are advised to exchange blow for harder blow in ESCALATING VIOLENCE.
>
>There is lots more where this came from, mostly advice treating women as
>objects. Please read works before you quote them. I make no judgement about
>this work.
>
>I am not concerned by sexual content in ANY work that I have seen. Some of it
>is tacky, true enough, but I do not think that this does any harm, IMHO. Sex is
>a normal biological function.
>
>What really concerns me is the casual, gratuitious violence which is fed to our
>kids by (mainly) US (not just American, but specifically that from the US)
>television. Violence made fun of, with no realistic consequences. No cop show
>is complete without at least one murder. And this is all presented in the most
>glamourous light.
>
>Any opinions (this is ASKING for it!) ?
>Ben.

--------------------------------
Actually, long before modern television, boy children played at games of
warfare and heineous murder. It seems to be an impetus that is normal to
their position in the race as the physically stronger, in that even small
boys realize that they may be called upon to be the final arbiter of a
dispute through violence in the defense of themselves or their family and
that this extra danger, characterized most recently by armed service, and
in the past, the duty as protector of their family, and back much farther
as the prime protectors of their tribe both from other humans and from very
LARGE beasts, (even larger than we have had for over 9000 years now!), seems
to be a cultural archetype that simply cannot be done away with. I think an
important consideration in understanding this, especially for women, if
they do not also feel the urge to protect through violence, (and some do,
especially their children!), is to understand that testosterone is not a
chemical imbalance and that in every society it has been an issue as to how
best to enlist and reward cooperative use of physical prowess and how to
enlist, guide and reward the young males for their urge to defend their
people nd their homes and families and the weak. This goes to the heart of
the quest of the archetypic hero, and it CANNOT be ignored or merely
condemned without severe consequences to a society!!! Remember, women, your
bodies make testosterone also, and it is a necessary hormone for sexual
arousal even in women! The fact that men have a bit more of it and that it
hardens our muscles has been one of the reasons that humans did survive to
the present.
-Steve
--
* Richard STEVEn Walz   [e-mail]   [phone]  *
* 515 Maple Street #1   * Without safe and free abortion women are   *
* Santa Cruz, CA 95060    organ-surrogates to unwanted parasites.*   *
* Censorship is unAmerican! Just IMAGINE: Burning All the Churches!  *


Topic 1 Pornography: question about feminis     Response 43 of 46
RN5923A
alt.feminism    12:32 pm  Jan 18, 1994
(at auvm.american.edu)  (From News system)

I just wanted to add something to the discussion on how much damage is done to
a woman during rape.  First, I will agree that there is no evidence that a rape
involving penile penetration will do permanent damage to the vagina..however,
in many cases objects other than the penis are used and may do severe damage-
temporary and permanent.  Because many states now have rape laws that define
rape as being forcibly penetrated by a variety of objects, not just the penis-
this is a valid consideration.  Also, as to the RSW in the quotations section
of these posts...I hope you're trying to come off as being ignorant just to
elicit a hostile response from readers, because I find it very disturbing that
anyone (male or female) could hold such an antiquated view of rape and sexual
assault.  However, in case you are serious in your views, I would like to ask
a few questions.  First, when you say that your wife has never complained of
any vaginal injury, even when the sex was quick and not very lubricated..have
you ever considered the idea that you may intimidate her in some way and that
she may decide to have sex with you and not complain because you want to and
she's afraid to say no (for whatever reason).  I ask this because sex under
those conditions DOES hurt and would give little pleasure, if any to the
woman...I suggest you examine your own experiences before you decide that
they should be the norm for all sexual experiences.  Also, the idea that a
woman should just sit back and relax during a rape is absurd..it is NOT sex,
it has nothing to do with sex (sexually repressed women can be raped as easily
as very sexually open women), and it is physically and mentally terrorizing.
This was not intended as an insult, I just hope that you'll expand your mind
and possibly read varying views on subjects such as rape before you make up
your mind...I honestly thought that the days of women being on trial for rape
were coming to an end, but I'm obviously mistaken.


Topic 1 Pornography: question about feminis     Response 44 of 46
RN5923A
alt.feminism     9:55 pm  Jan 18, 1994
(at auvm.american.edu)  (From News system)

In article <2hihio$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Charles J
Savoie) says:
>
>In article <[e-mail]>,
>Raenell L. Nagel  <[e-mail]> wrote:
>[...]
>->I honestly thought that the days of women being on trial for rape
>->were coming to an end, but I'm obviously mistaken.
>
>Hopefully you are mistaken.  Unless all women stop raping, some
>women will be and should be on trial for rape.
>
>Yes, I know that's not what you meant.  Just trying to open *your*
>mind up a little, too.  I did agree with most of your posting.
>
>Charles
>--

Okay..I get your point; however, women cannot legally
be on trial for rape (as defendants).  According to the National Crime Survey,
male rape victims (those who report their victimization to the police and those
who do not) make only about 2-3% of all rape victims and it is unclear how many
of those men were attacked by men and how many were attacked by women.  Because
there is a distinction between sodomy and rape laws (I have never seen a rape
statute include more than "women" "females" or "girls"), and because sodomy
laws have been implemented in a discriminatory manner (resulting in criminal
prosecution for consenting behavior), it is very difficult to say how many men
are victims of sexual assault.  Consequently, it is difficult to say how many
men are victimized by men and how many by women (the list would certainly
expand if certain forms of verbal coercion are added to the criteria for
determining the various levels of sexual assault).  I just wanted to expand
on this point, especially to emphasize the need for reform of rape laws, which
would greatly benefit both sexes and help eradicate a good portion of the
sexual victimization in this country.  HOWEVER, I just noticed that you're in
Canada---of course, if you've never lived in the US and are not familiar with
our laws, I would not expect you to know this, in which case I'm just being
very US-centric.  Actually, I would be very interested to hear about Canada's
sexual assault laws...I'm only familiar with some of the Canadian anti-porn
legislation (specifically the case which outlawed some porn based on civil
rights rather than morality)...so..if you'd like to post something about that,
I think it would be very interesting....:)


Topic 1 Pornography: question about feminis     Response 45 of 46
laurel.halbany
alt.feminism     7:58 pm  Jan 20, 1994
(at hal9k.com)  (From News system)

-=> Quoting [e-mail] to All <=-

Jb> I can't remember ever hearing rape victims specifically claiming
Jb> irrepairable damage had been done to their vaginal areas. It is almost
Jb> always irrepairable emotional damage.

Depends on the victim. A fair number of rapists make a point of
deliberately hurting their victims, either through beatings,
violent penetration, penetration with objects, or whatever.

There was an article in the Rutgers Law Journal quoting a rape
victim (I believe the date was July of 1990). She explained how
the rapist basically had to shove his way into her, ripping up
external genital tissue (some of which was completely destroyed)
and her vagina.

... We're not fence-sitters. We're bridge-builders.
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12

----
| HAL 9000 BBS:  QWK-to-Usenet gateway | 6 dial-ins, from 14.4 to 28.8kbps |
| FREE Usenet mail and news for you!   | Call [phone] or 663 3959  |
+--------------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| "Will you be roadkill on the Information Highway?" -- R. Rashid, Microsoft


Topic 1 Pornography: question about feminis     Response 46 of 46
nomadweb
alt.feminism     1:52 pm  Jan 23, 1994
(at moose.bcfa.ucalgary.ca)     (From News system)

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ben)
wrote:

> > In article <[e-mail]>,
> > Taranga Ghosh <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> > >Art which has sexual content and is not exploitative
> > >----------------------------------------------------
> > >In Indian culture, at one time, sex was seen worthy of depiction on temple
> > >walls.  You can see on the walls of Khajuraho exquisite depictions of a
> > >tremendous variety of sexual acts. The Kama Sutra (and the less well known
> > >Koka
> > >Sutra) are of course well known for their explicit and poetic descriptions of
> > >sex. In neither, will you find any trace of violence. In the carvings at
> > >Khajuraho, both men and women seem to be having the most sublime fun :).
>
> You have obviously not READ the words that go along with those pretty pictures.
> You know, the squiggly things on the pages with no pictures.
>
> Try the Kama Sutra of Vatsayana (sp?), the classic Burton translation. (I am
> lucky enough to have the illustrated edition; do you want references?)
>
> The level of violence is high, for example; if the woman you want is asleep
> surrounded by her guards, you should go there with your friends and kill the
> guards or drive them off, then "enjoy" [have sexual intercourse with] her while
> she is still asleep. [ie RAPE HER].
> Lovers are advised to exchange blow for harder blow in ESCALATING VIOLENCE.
>
> There is lots more where this came from, mostly advice treating women as
> objects. Please read works before you quote them. I make no judgement about
> this work.
>
> I am not concerned by sexual content in ANY work that I have seen. Some of it
> is tacky, true enough, but I do not think that this does any harm, IMHO. Sex is
> a normal biological function.
>
> What really concerns me is the casual, gratuitious violence which is fed to our
> kids by (mainly) US (not just American, but specifically that from the US)
> television. Violence made fun of, with no realistic consequences. No cop show
> is complete without at least one murder. And this is all presented in the most
> glamourous light.
>
> Any opinions (this is ASKING for it!) ?
> Ben.
  Dear Ben:

                                                I agree with you that violence against wome
n is escalating worldwide
but we have to develop new methods of checking this assault on women
besides the current (and ineffective) forms of censorship.  In Canada at
least, censorship has backfired in that it has been used by
misogynists/homophobes/patriarchs who hold positions of power against
marginalized peoples like lesbians, gays, bisexuals, feminists etc.  Actual
perpetraters of violence against women, children, and the mentally
challenged through the various forms of pornography escape completely
unscathed.  There has to be another way of fighting this kind of violence
and hatred.

                                                Tonya Callaghan. Calgary, Alberta.  Sunday,
 January 22/94