home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!news.service.uci.edu!ucivax!gateway
- From: uunet!infmx!robert@ncar.ucar.EDU (Robert Coleman)
- Subject: Re: Archetypical anti-anti-porn comment
- Nntp-Posting-Host: alexandre-dumas.ics.uci.edu
- Message-ID: <robert.727750054@labyrinth>
- Newsgroups: soc.feminism
- Organization: Informix Software, Inc.
- Approved: tittle@ics.uci.edu
- Lines: 71
- Date: 23 Jan 93 20:51:43 GMT
- References: <1j21kq$sep@agate.berkeley.edu> <1j47dk$b25@agate.berkeley.edu> <1993Jan18.200547.3659@fuug.fi> <1ji7gg$bhh@agate.berkeley.edu>
-
- cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:
-
- >No, porn does not CAUSE people to act like homocidal maniacs. What it
- >DOES do, however, is to affix a target to the body of every woman on the
- >street and say "attack here."
-
- I enjoyed this analysis. Thanks for contributing some
- substance to the discussion.
-
- I would appreciate it if you could email me your definition of
- pornography.
-
- I agree with you that pornography is a symptom of a repressive
- culture...
-
- However, you've set up the following tree:
-
- Repressive culture => pornography
- pornography => targetting of women
-
- May I suggest that pornography, being a symptom, is probably
- not the problem?
-
- |=> pornography
- Repressive culture |
- |=> targetting of women
-
- In other words, it's not pornography that gives the disorder a
- ready-made shape to assume, but the repressive culture. If
- pornography were not available in this otherwise similarly repressive
- culture, would the disorder take a different shape? Historically,
- pornography has *not* been ubiquitously available, yet I don't think
- I'd get much argument if I said that women have historically been
- sexual-crime targets through most of recorded history (certainly well
- before the invention of the Gutenberg press made mass distribution of
- pornography, by any definition, even possible).
-
- >Please also be aware that porn is not a herald of sexual FREEDOM but
- >a symptom of sexual repression. Why else would there be such
- >incredible mystery and such a huge economy surrounding something so
- >simple?
-
- I would say it's both. I don't think it's existence could be
- said to further sexual repression, but rather to act as a backlash to
- the repression. Similarly, feminism might be said to be a "symptom" of
- a patriarchy. Feminism is the force fighting against a patriarchy;
- pornography is a force fighting against sexual repression. We
- certainly wouldn't then characterize feminism as only a symptom; it
- *is* a freedom movement, as well.
-
- >People say this all the time for drugs; why do they never take the
- >conceptual leap to sex? Perhaps we should be screaming
- >"Decriminalize sex!" in the streets; I'd do it. Perhaps also,
- >"Decriminalize the female body!"
-
- 100% agreement. When they legalized pornography in Denmark,
- certain kinds of sexual crimes decreased significantly. One can only
- wonder what would happen if we "legitimized" sex itself. (And
- incidentally, we'd have to decriminalize the male body, as well).
-
- Robert C.
- --
- ----------------------------------------------
- Disclaimer: My company has not yet seen fit to
- elect me as spokesperson. Hmmpf.
-
- --
- Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
- Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu. This
- news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
- article should be posted within several days. Rejections notified by email.
-