NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/soc/feminism/3393

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-25 | 3.8 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!usc!news.service.uci.edu!ucivax!gateway
From: [e-mail] (Russell Turpin)
Subject: Re: On being offended
Nntp-Posting-Host: alexandre-dumas.ics.uci.edu
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Summary: When being offended becomes offensive.
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
Approved: [e-mail]
Keywords: Pornography, conventions, courtesy, stereotypes
Lines: 69
Date: 25 Jan 93 23:50:33 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>

-*----
In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] ("M. Bickis") writes:
> The question is this: When is it ethical to persist in an activity
> which we know that others find offensive? ...
>
> I think this entirely misses the point.  The fact that
> pornography is offensive (to women) should be *in itself*
> grounds for discouraging it. ...

Absolutely not.

> ... Why should I want to be involved in something that is
> in itself offensive?  Is my private pleasure of such importance?

I think your private pleasure *is* that important.

Let me make myself a little more clear.  If a lot of people are
offended by a certain kind of media, then that is *a* reason to
be circumspect in its display, a reason that is perhaps offset by
other reasons to be other than circumspect.  People who do not
want to view a particular kind of media or who do not want to
participate in a particular kind of activity should have some
respect shown to their non-participatory desires by those who do.
In this much, I agree with Mik Bickis.

But I think a group's offense, in and of itself, is no reason at
all to modify *private* pleasure.  In my view, this notion --
that a group's offense is, by itself, a good reason to modify
*private* pleasure -- is one of the harmful and dangerous aspects
of what I label puritanical.  Fighting this notion may even be a
good reason to be less than circumspect about activities that
offend.

Let's get down to real examples.  Many people are offended by
sexual activity between members of the same gender.  Fine!
Ideally, these people will not be pushed into viewing or
participating in such activity.  Unfortunately, for many such
people, it is not enough that they can choose different (or no)
sexual activity.  The very fact that there are gay women and men,
having sex in private is enough to cause these puritans to decry
this activity, pass laws against it, and act rudely any time two
women or men hold hands in public.  Feh!  Against this inanity, I
think it is an appropriate response to put homosexuality into the
public's face.  This does not mean that I think gays should have
sex in public.  By all means, let's not get too offensive.  But
it does mean that I support their public shouts: "We're here,
we're queer, get used to it."

In the same way, if you are offended by the books I read or the
movies I see, I will not push them on you.  Out of respect for
your sensibilities, I may even be careful not to display them when
you visit my house.  But when you try to turn your *offense* into
a reason for me not to read the books I choose even in *private*,
then my response is: I'll read it anyway, get used to it.

One final note.  The usual arguments about pornography go beyond
the issue of offense.  They try to present more substantial
reasons to oppose it, and these reasons must be addessed on
grounds different from the ones above.  On the other hand, I
suspect that these reasons are often veiled attempts to make
reflexive offense into something greater.

Russell

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to [e-mail].
Questions and comments should be sent to [e-mail].  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.