Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    
    In some feminist circles, anti-pornography is a key issue. In other
    feminist circles, freedom of speech/ anti-pornography is a hot
    topic.
    
    am

    I'll take a wag that it's mere male-bonding-type harrassment, D!, that
    the only thing intended to be protected is their mystique as a place
    "where only men can go".  
    
    I've thought of myself as a feminist for some time now, btw, but if
    you're serious about your parting shot then I guess this will damage my
    standing in your view:  I think you _should_ look at as much as you
    want to of what's being peddled, and that nobody should try telling you
    any different!  You are certain to come away changed in some way.
    
    The women I know who have checked it out have had reactions all over
    the map:  some get excited, some nauseated, some become outraged, some
    are left unmoved/bored.  (Mine was somewhere in between bored and
    nauseated...I suspect I'd have shifted to nauseated/angry if I had
    forced myself to look at enough of it, because a *lot* of it is
    predicated on psychological and/or physical abuse of the women being
    portrayed.)
    
    						=maggie

re: .431 (Maggie)

>    I'll take a wag that it's mere male-bonding-type harrassment, D!, that
>    the only thing intended to be protected is their mystique as a place
>    "where only men can go".  
 
Hmmm...I don't know.  There was no mystique about these places.  I would
agree with that if it was something like a "men's club".  But this place
was "home" to some real slimy looking characters who seemed like they
were there to get off any way they could because they *couldn't* get
a woman, not because they wanted to go to a "all male space".
   
>    I've thought of myself as a feminist for some time now, btw, but if
>    you're serious about your parting shot then I guess this will damage my
>    standing in your view:  I think you _should_ look at as much as you
>    want to of what's being peddled, and that nobody should try telling you
>    any different!  You are certain to come away changed in some way.

Being a feminist doesn't damange your standing in my view.  I have always
considered myself a feminist (until recently when I decided "humanist"
fit my ideas better), but always felt alienated and disappointed when 
people whose views I respected in many other areas seemed so damn closed-
minded in this one.

Anyway, I have seen a *lot* of pornography, and when i finally did see
a peep show (in Schenectady) it didn't change me one way or another.
My opinion in terms of sex/porno/anything related is truly "whatever floats
yer boat".

BTW, for anyone interested in this topic and in a feminist reaction against
feminist anti-pornography propaganda, read "Caught Looking".  it provides
a pictorial history of pornography, beginning around 1890 (first came
cameras - next thing came dirty pictures) and a series of feminist articles
supporting free speech, etc...

D!

    Once, because I was curious, I went into a dirty bookstore in Worcester.

    My friend and I were curious about what was in there, and he wanted 
    a magazine to send home to his love-starved friends in East
    Cornpoke in the midwest. We walked in, I got carded (I was 21, so no
    prob).  They didn't card him (and he was only 20 at the time).  The guy
    didn't hassle us unpleasantly or anything.  It seemed like a pretty decent
    establishment, everything wrapped and shelved neatly - and I didn't
    have any desire to go to the "private viewing booths" I think they had
    in the back. I thought everyone had to be over 21, but maybe they just
    card the women? 
    
    Go figure....
    
    -Jody
    

>    Once, because I was curious, I went into a dirty bookstore in Worcester.

 What? They didn't sweep the place? Oh, you mean an "adult" book store. :-)

 Naughty Naughty. :-)

 The Doctah

    well Maggie, you are mistaken.  The usually card for this simple
    reason...
    
    Most women of the evening, hooker, prostitutes (pick one) are wither
    under age or without ID.  By checking your (not you per ce) ID they
    are insuring that you are "probably" NOT a lady of the evening or
    whatever you wanna call her.....  Lotta vice stuff around that sorta
    thing ya know....
    
    NOT because its a sexist pig thing, male bonding thing or any of
    the sort.
    
    How do I know?  that is irrellivant... I will say that I DONT like
    them, wouldnt mind them all shut down either.
    
    Answer your question RE??
    
    Now back to the topic....
    

    I never thought of that one, Al, I bet you're absolutely right.  And
    the fact that they card even women who are obviously *not* "working
    girls" can be accounted for either by the clerks' lack of power not to,
    or their lack of, hmmm, judgement(?)...but, almost certainly in at
    least some cases, the simple desire to harass the women, too.
    
    						=maggie

�    I never thought of that one, Al, I bet you're absolutely right.  And
�    the fact that they card even women who are obviously *not* "working
�    girls" can be accounted for either by the clerks' lack of power not to,
�    or their lack of, hmmm, judgement(?)...but, almost certainly in at
�    least some cases, the simple desire to harass the women, too.

	=maggie, do you really want to be challanged to pick out women that
are �obviously *not* "working girls"�.  What do these sort of women look like?
Careful about your stereotypes...

	It's very similar to the clubs that card *everyone* who comes through
the door - why?  Because the ABC sends in underage kids who look old enough
so the state can claim they're doing something about underage drinking.

	An "obviously" underage male would most likely get carded and booted,
but the danger of being prosecuted for "contributing to the delinquency of a
minor" is much more likely of the vice squad catches underage women in the
store.  It's sad commentary that this is true, but it's a fact of the
business, and carding women is the solution for the store owners.

	I personally, resent being carded for alcohol purchases or club
entrance, but I also sympathize with the owners who seem to bearing the brunt
of the responsibility that should be mine.

							--Doug

>but the danger of being prosecuted for "contributing to the delinquency of a
>minor" is much more likely of the vice squad catches underage women in the
>store.  

Why is that? I've been following these ideas with interest, and I missed the
reason for this (if it was already stated).

Is it just the vice squad that's sexist? Is that what you're saying?
	Mez

    Maggie:
    Yes I would agree, there are all sorts of wenies out there... :-)
    There is always one in the bunch that'll harass a person for the
    hell of it, or for sexist (racist) reasons...
    
    439:  Yes that could be so also.... But you must inderstand their
    point of view...
    
    If you were to cruise by a smutt shop and saw a couple of women
    inside, wouldnt you wonder what they were doing in there?  I sure
    would!  Not because I am sexist, its just they would appear....ummm
    out of place, for a lack of better wordage.
    
    Those who frequent smutt shops are USUALLY male, nto always, but
    usually.
    
    

    re: getting carded for liquor...
    
    I'm flattered when they card me if I'm buying at a liquor
    store.  If they don't, I start feeling like I'm showing my age ;).
     
    
    -Jody
    

Don't they have smut for women? Are those stores _truly_ just for men and
hookers?
	Mez

.443 (Mez)
>Don't they have smut for women? Are those stores _truly_ just for men and
>hookers?

They do have smut geared toward women, but its rare.  And the adult books
store are filled exclusively (in all the ones I have been in which at this
point totals about 15) with male-oriented porn.  however, some women (like
myself) enjoy smut of any sort, no matter who it's marketted to.

(Interesting - the only stuff I find offensive in adult book stores is
"Lesbian Porn".  It bugs me to no end that they advertise the stuff *as* *if*
it was intended for Lesbians, but if you look at it it's clear it's really
intended for men who like to look at pictures of female-female sex.
To ward off flames: there is nothing wrong (IMHO) with *real* Lesbian porn,
in fact I have read everything I could get my hands on [not much].)

D!

    I enjoy smut on occasion, but I like the *suggestion* and the *art*
    of sex, rather than graphic close-ups.  Thus I tend to read it rather
    than look at photos or movies.  And, it seems to me with smut that
    (IMHO) after a while it all begins to look the same....emotionless,
    cold, and mechanical.
    
    -Jody
    

Mez,

	I think it's societal.  I took Human Sexuality in college and
one of the things I remember is that statuatory rape laws are almost never
used against women,(older woman having sex with underage male) while they
are used frequently against males.  [Note, I'm talking about sex with
teenagers here.  The age of consent varies from 13 - 18 across the US. I'm
not talking about molesting children.]

	A 14 year old male who had sex with a 19 year old female might raise
a few eyebrows, but is not likely to raise a great hue & cry.  Reverse the
ages however, and it's "obvious" to some people that the bad older male must
have taken advantage of the younger girl and it's a question of whether or
not the parents want to press charges.  Males at 14 are expected to be "young
men" and can make decisions on their own.  I don't think a similar view is
commonly held for women at that age.

	[If need be, I could probably find statistics to back this up, but
my college texts are all packed away someplace in the mess I call an attic.]

	Look at some of the arguments we had here in this reasonably enlightened
conference that violence against "porn peddlers" was "understandable."  The
societal stereotype that young women in bad positions are always the victims 
makes it real easy for folks to scream "perversion" if a curious underaged 
female (or underaged lady of the evening in the company of her "escort") 
wanders into an adult book store.

							--D

    re: .14
    
    I read an article about "women's" pornography not too long ago;
    I'll see if I can find it and find time to type in at least some
    extracts.  Its main point was that there's a growing market among
    women and couples for, um, a kinder, gentler, porn -- stuff that's
    both graphic and suggestive, taking into account the emotional as
    well as the physical aspects, leaving out the "come shot", and all
    that sort of stuff.
    
    --bonnie

    There are two discussions that might be pertinent in Womannotes-v1
    
    45 - pornography
    290 - erotic films by and for women (which discusses erotica in
    		general, also)
    
    -Jody
    

    First off, I bristled at the comment that women look "out of place"
    in a porn shop.  Consuming sex is not the exclusive priviledge of
    men, however strongly our society wants to believe it should be.
    
    I would be absolutely outraged to be treated as the base note author
    was.  I would definitely make trouble for the store.  I always get a
    kick out of things like this.  Ever notice men who swear and then
    apologize in front of a woman?  Men say the filthiest things imaginable
    directly TO women but somehow must be demure and apologetic if a woman
    hears something they didn't intend to aim right at her.  Go figure. 
    This seems the same thing.  Did the shop owner not want the woman to
    watch the videos because she doesn't know what sex is?  She SHOULDN'T
    know what sex is?  (I suppose she's supposed to just be raped all her
    life...)
    
    But none of this happened to me at all the day I took a field trip to
    the Combat Zone in Boston in the good old days.  I felt I had as much
    right to the bars and stores there as anyone and although the strippers
    in the clubs didn't like my presence, (couldn't get any money off ME!),
    the bookstore owners didn't seem to care whose money they took.  I even
    checked out the video booths.  Amusing.  Some customers seemed
    uncomfortable and I was dying to ask them why.  Are only men and
    *certain* women supposed to know about sex and perversion?  Believe me,
    EVERYONE knows about it!  There are no "good" girls and "bad" girls.
    There are women.  And we all know about sex.
    
    And one last outrage - I would be insulted to have to prove to ANYONE
    that I was *not* a hooker!  Think about it!  The most obvious thing
    that comes to mind is that it is not illegal to BE anything.  In this
    case, it would be illegal to solicit and anyone doing that is breaking
    the law.  But to expect a woman to humbly prove to a public business
    that she is *not* a hooker is disgusting.  Even the constitution says
    we're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.  But I guess that
    doesn't apply to women - especially women who are not home where they
    belong!  I'd make lots of real trouble for that store.  I know where the 
    one in Worcester is, Jody.  I'm tempted to go there and see how they treat 
    me.  Heaven help them if they accuse me of being "bad" or even "out of 
    place" and expect me to identify myself and justify my whereabouts. 
    Gag.
    
    As an aside, this may possibly shed light on the reasons for the above
    tyranny...  Has anyone seen porn movies specifically for women? 
    During any and all of the "hot" parts, a large warning is flashed on
    the screen for the duration or the scene saying, "For Viewing Purposes 
    Only".  An industry spokesperson said the warnings were to discourage 
    women from masturbating.  I wonder why women must be DIScouraged while 
    men are continually ENcouraged, (and why women are being discouraged from 
    even *seeing* the encouragement of men!).   An independently sexual woman 
    is a frightening thing in our culture.  It is preferred that we only
    become sexual in specific situations when a male wants us to, otherwise
    forget about such things.  That's why women look "out of place" and are
    accused of being hookers or are demanded to identify themselves or
    other such harassment when in a porn shop of our own free will. 

>    During any and all of the "hot" parts, a large warning is flashed on
>    the screen for the duration or the scene saying, "For Viewing Purposes 
>    Only".  An industry spokesperson said the warnings were to discourage 
>    women from masturbating.  
    
    Huh???????????????????
    
    Why, if we do it to ourselves is it getting wasted, or something?
    
    I presume this spokesperson's company doesn't also manufacture
    dildoes.
    
    --bonnie

    RE: "For Viewing Purposes Only"
                               
    Does this mean for viewing but not for thinking about, or for viewing
    but not for talking about, or for viewing but not for eating popcorn
    to, or for viewing but not for breathing along with, or for viewing
    but not masturbating to, or don't try to watch this with your eyes
    closed?
    
    Robbie

    I have a feeling I am falling into a rathole.  But I cannot bypass
    the basenoter's last sentence.
    
    <D!  (who doesn't expect any support from staunch feminists since
    <anti-pornography is currently politically correct in feminist
    <circles.)
     
    Personal observation:
    
    I am a feminist.
    
    I detest pornography.
    
    I do *not* detest it because it is "politically correct" which implies
    that at other periods of history, I might find it "politically correct"
    to approve of it.
    
    I detest and protest it because it offends my sense of decency.
     It offends my sense of self-worth and what I am as a woman and
    a human being.  It implies that I am a body that can be manipulated,
    abused, and degraded and that I am less than worthy of honor, respect
    and equal treatment.  And if I did not protest it, it would mean
    that I approve what happens to those women who are being viewed.
    
    My feminist stand does not permit me--for any reason--to watch any
    of my Sisters being treated as objects and things.  I protest and
    work against woman and child abuse, I abhor and protest rape, and
    I feel betrayed when my Sisters do not share this Sisterhood to
    that extent.
    
    And I strongly protest the idea that anything which debases me and
    my Sisters would be abhorrent for the reason it was "politically
    correct."
    
    M
    

May I suggest that terms such as smut etc be left out of this discussion?

By applying judgemental labels(IMHO) you may limit participation in a 
discussion that will, by it's nature, be sensitive. think about the comments 
re:sharing  in notes.

This can be an interesting discussion if done reasonably
Amos

    re: viewing purposes only
    
     I never heard of that. You have a right to be PO about that. That's
    the best part! :-) It seems so ridiculous that it must be true- no one
    would make anything that absurd up. Unreal.
    
    The Doctah

	Note 755.18
	TOOK::CICCOLINI
    
   > Ever notice men who swear and then
   > apologize in front of a woman?  Men say the filthiest things imaginable
   > directly TO women but somehow must be demure and apologetic if a woman
   > hears something they didn't intend to aim right at her.  Go figure. 
 
        
	Well, if I am talking to a person I know, and I am using salty 
	language (and I know that person doesn't care), and I notice 
	another person heard me (whom I didn't know), I'd be inclined to
	beg the person's pardon. (Talk about run-on sentences!).

	And I would have this inclination regardless of the person's 
	gender.

	Gregg

     <<< Note 755.21 by HAMSTR::IRLBACHER "not yesterday's woman, today" >>>

>    I am a feminist.
    
>    I detest pornography.
 
[...]
    
>    My feminist stand does not permit me--for any reason--to watch any
>    of my Sisters being treated as objects and things.  

Hmmm....I was expecting this response sooner or later.  I would rather let
one of the wonderfully well-spoken and well-read women who wrote the articles
in "Caught Looking" work on this point, but they aren't here and I am...

My feelings are "What good is feminism if not to protect the rights of
women to be what they want to be and feel what they want to feel?"  

You say your philosphy doesn't permit you do stand by while women are
objectified.  What if they personally do *not* consider themselves
objectified?  Is it your job to go in there and first try to convince
them that they *shouldn't* like what they do?

I like to think that feminism protects *my* rights as an individual.
I resent the idea that feminism in actuality only supports the rights of
individual women if those rights agree with certain political views.
Why shouldn't I be able to read pornography if I want to?

>I protest and
>    work against woman and child abuse, I abhor and protest rape, and
>    I feel betrayed when my Sisters do not share this Sisterhood to
>    that extent.
 
I abhor rape and child abuse.  I would also feel betrayed as a *human*
when someone doesn't share this view.  What does this have to do with
pornography?
   
>    And I strongly protest the idea that anything which debases me and
>    my Sisters would be abhorrent for the reason it was "politically
>    correct."

You are using my phrase out of context.  I said I "didn't expect any support
because anti-pornography is politically correct."  I did not suggest that
the *reason* that some feminists are against porno hs to do with political
correctness.  Only that some women who *aren't* against porno might not
be willing to come out and support me, because the general feeling in most
feminist circles (that I have been exposed to) is anti-porn...it would
be "politically incorrect", and would result in them being flamed.

D! 

    re: .21
    
    And I'm offended by the assumption that sexually explicit and
    arousing material automatically degrades me.  It seems that both
    women and men assume that a good woman can't have contact with sex
    and still be good.
    
    There is offensive material out there, no doubt about that. 
    There's material that degrades both men and women out there. 
    There's stuff that will turn stronger stomachs than mine, brutal
    stuff and sadistic stuff and just plain kinky stuff.  But not all
    of it degrades women, and not all of it treats people of either
    sex as objects.
    
    I'm aware that many women aren't aroused by visual portrayals of
    sex or sexy bodies; I'm not one of them.  I like visual porn.  I
    like being aroused.  I like being a sexual woman.  One of the best
    things the women's movement did for me was allow me to explore my
    sexual being.  But I've been flamed often enough in this and other
    notesfiles for saying that in public that  I don't expect a much
    different reception this time.  
    
    --bonnie

                     <<< Note 755.18 by TOOK::CICCOLINI >>>

>    This seems the same thing.  Did the shop owner not want the woman to
>    watch the videos because she doesn't know what sex is?  She SHOULDN'T
>    know what sex is?  (I suppose she's supposed to just be raped all her
>    life...)
 
Actually his attitude seemed to be one of fatherly concern.  I would be\
upset and traumatized by what went on in the booths.  BTW, it wasn't
just the movies I was being "protected" from, but the men who watch them.
Men often masturbate in the booths (*gasp*).  Also, people cut holes in 
the walls between the booths and stick their penises (is that a forbidden
word in notes?) through.  (My SO's response when this happens is to
say, loudly, "I have a knife in here.  If anything come through that hole
again, I'll cut it off.")
   
>    As an aside, this may possibly shed light on the reasons for the above
>    tyranny...  Has anyone seen porn movies specifically for women? 
>    During any and all of the "hot" parts, a large warning is flashed on
>    the screen for the duration or the scene saying, "For Viewing Purposes 
>    Only".  An industry spokesperson said the warnings were to discourage 
>    women from masturbating.  

Really?  Wow, never heard of this.  What company, do you remember?

It is interesting to note that many of vibrators (the phallic kind) come
with the warning "not for internal use".  Then whats it for???  I think that
is the same type of thing.  Also, many adult movies and toys come with 
the sticker that says osmething like "This is for education purposes only;
persons purchasing this must have a governmental, industrial or education
reason for doing so."  Ha!  "Yeah, Mom, it's *educational*!!"

(Different, but related - almost all S&M/B&D movies come with the 
disclaimer along the lines of "This is a fantasy produced for erotic
purposes.  We at <company name> do not intend to support or condone these
activities..."  Even on tapes produced by Bill & Debbie Majors, Inc, where
Bill and Debby are wellknown to be very involved in the S&M scene.)

D!

    Hey - don't flame me!  I find the warning absurd too!  But I can
    understand it considering the culture it's in!  We've been "grudgingly"
    allowed women-oriented porn BUT it must include this little hand-
    slap.  Naughty, naughty women!  Aren't you supposed to be thinking
    of England??  ;-)
    
    I wonder what the disclaimer on a dildo WOULD be, Bonnie!  "Warning -
    for external use only!  Do not use on wet surfaces!"  How hysterical.
    
    I'm a feminist and I don't feel objectified by porn anymore.  I used
    to, but then I realized that porn has little to do with women,
    actually, and everything to do with men.  They are the objects of
    porn.  (Male) porn does not reflect real women or real female sexuality in
    any way so I believe porn believers are as deluded as a guy on a 
    psycho ward who thinks he's Napoleon.  Now I just laugh at them.

    You would be *traumatized* by what you would see in a porn bookstore?  
    Then don't go IN one.  You're an adult who walked in on your own
    two feet.  For a man to patronize you, (there, there, girlie, you
    don't wanna go in there now, do you?), is to assume you're so dumb
    as to not know where the hell you are.  And you aren't dumb, are you?
    The rationale is that in our culture women AREN'T supposed to know.
    The insinuation that the woman doesn't know what she's doing is what's 
    insulting.                

	"I do have a cause though... It's obscenity.  I'm for it!
	 And since most people are marching for their causes these
	 days, I have here, a march for mine..."

					Tom Lehrer

    Yes, my teenagers have that record...it also includes the 
    song 'folk song army' the message of which is more or less
    'how could we lose, we had all the right songs'.
    
    I have always liked Tom Lehrer, for his willingness to 
    poke fun at any point of view. If we cannot laugh at ourselves
    and our obscessions...then we lose touch with our humanity.
    
    Bonnie

You know, I would really like to see people, when they reference the 'feminist'
stand on something, indicate where they got the idea that what they're quoting
_is_ The Feminist Stand. Then, when they say the nightly news, I understand how
seriously to take it.

I am reading my first Dworkin; Letters from a War Zone. It is the first time
that I, an admitted feminist :-), have read a book (something longer than 1
page or 1 hour) by another admitted feminist who is anti-pornography. And guess
what; the stand and the reasons are complex! (wow; I always thought those
feminists were just cardboard characters!)

I can't think of one particular thing she's said that hasn't been touched on
here, but it was done in a way I found understandable. It was complex enough so
I felt 'safe' considering it, and taking away only what fit me.
	Mez

                       <*** Moderator Request ***>
    
    Might I ask everyone to remember to carefully monitor their own use of
    language and imagry?  
    
    So far nobody has said or implied anything that would be unacceptable
    by current mainstream literary standards, but it seems to me as though
    we're pretty close in some spots.  It would be wrong of us to get so
    explicit that we offend members of our community, and it *certainly*
    wouldn't be a good idea to leave ourselves open to any comparisons with
    =sexcetera= [the much-more-explicit ancestor of =human_relations=.  It
    was involuntarily shut down in the aftermath of a rather ugly misuse of
    its contents].
    
    						=maggie

    re: .32
    
    Mez --  
    
    Dworkin's reasoning is certainly sophisticated, educated, and
    complex, much more complex than could be contained in a
    summarizing note, but it seems to me that her arguments are all
    rooted in her belief that there's something inherently wrong with
    ordinary male-female penetrative intercourse.  The rest of her
    complex analysis of what is wrong and why is interesting, but it
    doesn't change the fact that I disagree with her basic premise.
    
    Do you think I'm misreading her argument and attitude?  I'm
    willing to be enlightened. 
    
    --bonnie

	Re: .27

	D!,

	Ask, and ye shall receive! Though I have to admit that my memory 
fails me on the first few lines.

	WAYLAY::GORDON, and Bonnie R. -  I was introduced to Tom Lehrer in 
college, and have been searching the world over for other Lehrer fans! Nice 
to have found two! 


	.......
	Stories of tortures 
	used by debauchers 
	lurid, licentious and vile.........

	make me smile!

	Novels that pander
	to my taste for candor
	give me a pleasure sublime.....

	let's face it, I LOVE slime!

	All books can be indecent books
	though recent books are bolder
	for filth, I'm glad to say
	Is in the mind of the beholder,

	When correctly viewed
	Everything is lewd
	I can tell you things about Peter Pan!

	And the Wizard of Oz was a Dirty Old Man!

	I Thrrrrrrrill,
	 to any book like Fanny Hill
	and I suppose I always will

	if it is swill
	
	and really fil.....


	....thy

	Who needs a hobby like tennis or philately?
	I have a hobby! Rereading Lady Chatterly!

	But now they're trying to take it all away
	from us
	unless we make a stand, and hand in hand
	we fight for Freedom of the press!

	In other words, SMUT I love it!
	Ahh the adventures of a slut
	Oh I'm a market they can't glut!
	I dunno what
	Compares with smut

	Hip Hip hooray, let's hear it for the Supreme Court!

	Don't let them taaake it aaawwwayyyyyyyy!


	Gregg

	There is a problem with terms here, I think.

		pornography - written or pictorial matter 
			intended to arouse sexual feelings.
			seen to mean - debasement of women 
				for the pleasure of men.

		erotica - written or pictorial matter
			intended to arouse sexual desire.
			seen to mean - intellectual sexual
				stimuation for the pleasure
				of both/either sex.

	Neither of these are necessarily bad but when either is
	used to demean, debase, dehumanize one gender it is now
	in the political/societial arena and should be monitored.

	I guess I am a feminist, and I am against pornography that
	is aimed against women (there is no acceptable pornography
	that involves children or animals of any desciption).  But
	I am not against erotica that promotes mutual sexual pleasure.

	I am also such a strong defender of the right to free speech
	that I would not want the goverment to be the one to decide
	what is "bad" pornography and what is "good" erotica.

	_peggy

		(-)
		 |

			To control people through the use of
			sexual material is to corrupt sexual acts.

 peggy-

 Not to pick nits (much:-), but your definition of pornography excludes the
possibility of the debasement of a male adult. Is this what you really want to 
say? Granted, the vast majority of pornography� stars females, but I don't
think we want to exclude the possibility of males being the object of 
pornography.

 The Doctah

�Has anyone ever seen pornography? How would I know what the difference is?
Is it simply a matter of taste (like art?) How do I know that my pornography
is not your erotica and vice versa? 

    re: .37
    
    Definitely true --  one of the porn bookstores that wasn't far
    from where we lived in NY specialized in dominance-submission
    stuff -- mostly vague female figures in high heels and black
    leather doing rather nasty things to definitely debased and
    excited men.  The focus was clearly on the man's debasement, and
    the debasement itself appeared to be the source of the excitement.
    
    --bonnie

        One of the previous notes about pornography/erotica for women
    and the lack of availability reminded me of another place in San
    Francisco.  It's a store called "Good Vibrations" and it is a shop
    owned and run by women that deals in sex related literature and
    paraphernalia.  It is geared mainly for women, but men are welcome
    there too.  I believe that they have a mail order buisness too.
    
        The store is in the Mission district and four or so blocks from a
    BART station.  You should have heard the directory assistance operator
    giggle when I told her the place I wanted the number for.
    
    Good Vibrations
    3492 22nd Street
    San Francisco, CA
    (415)550-7399
    
    ASP

         <<< Note 755.36 by DELNI::P_LEEDBERG "Memory is the second" >>>
                         -< Be careful with terms.... >-
>		pornography - [...]
>			seen to mean - debasement of women 
>				for the pleasure of men.

>		erotica - [...]
>			seen to mean - intellectual sexual
>				stimuation for the pleasure
>				of both/either sex.

My opinion: the difference between erotica and pornography is who
is reading it.

I don't think its *anyone's* business to say "this is good, this
is 'erotica'" and "this is bad, this is 'pornography' and should be
banned", let alone the governments!

>			To control people through the use of
>			sexual material is to corrupt sexual acts.

Here here!

Never thought of it that way, but....yeah!

D!

    <<< Note 755.39 by WEA::PURMAL "Rhymes with thermal and that's cool" >>>
                 -< Good Vibrations, a San Francisco tangent >-

Yes!  This is a wonderful store!  The atmosphere is very open, friendly
and clean.  *Totally* unlike an "adult bookstore".  They have a large
library of books about sex, books about pornography (that is where we
bought the previously mentioned "Caught Looking"), erotica, etc.  They
have many books about sex for parents and children of all ages, too
(I took a look at some which are quite good.)

>    Good Vibrations
>    3492 22nd Street
>    San Francisco, CA
>    (415)550-7399
 
This is the address and $2 will get you a catalog.  For people interested
in feminist theory on pornography, I would recommend getting the GV catalog
because they have a lot of books I haven't been able to find anywhere else.

(BTW, I don't own "Caught Looking", but I will be visiting my friend who does
this weekend, and will borrow it from him.  If this conversation is still
going strong, I'll type in some of the more relevent passages.)

D!

Bonnie, I have not read Intercourse, or any of her other books, so that _may_
be the premise there (and I'm not quite done with Letters From a War Zone
either). 'Letters' is a collection of essays, introductions, articles and so
on; so it also doesn't meet my snooty requirement of > 1 page by much, if you
take each article on it's own. The articles span from about '77 to about '86.
She probably did a lot of growing and changing there.

Now to the question: _My_ reading of her articles on pornography runs something
like this:

A great deal of pornography for het males depicts violence against women.  She
seems to include things such as: acts that would draw blood, bondage, and other
'obviously' humiliating actions (I'm eating lunch; I don't care to enumerate
those here and now, particularly given Maggie's warning) in that category.

People learn from their environment. 

Men learn to associate sexual/physical pleasure with violence against women via
the pornography that associates those things.

This leads to the belief that either: men may/must take their pleasure via
violence against women _or_ women take their pleasure via violence against
women.


	Mez

      Geez, every time I'm away for a few days something interesting
      starts and I miss getting in on the ground floor.

      Back in '73 my husband and I went to a an adult bookstore known as
      Kitty's Pleasure Palace in Denver. I was 23 and was not carded and
      we did view one of the quarter movies. Pretty rude but almost
      funny. The place was clean and well lit. The best part of the trip
      was talking to the male clerk (who matched the sterotype gay man).
      He showed us several dildos that where hysterically funny Rube
      Goldberg type contraptions. We were laughing so hard we were in
      tears. I've not been in a dirty bookstore since so don't know how
      they are now.

      An erotic movie can be fun with a special friend and I see no
      reason to ban them. I agree with those that dislike anything to do
      with blood or children in a sex film, that goes beyond the line of
      what I see as acceptable.

      As an aside on the issue of clubs that card everyone. One of the
      reasons is to see what credit cards you have in order tell both
      the bartender and waitress (and someone who may try to hussle you
      for drinks) what you might be encouraged to use. liesl

    I don't enjoy pornography.  I was going to say I didn't find it
    interesting but I guess if that were really true I wouldn't have
    just read all these replies on the topic :-).  I guess I would say
    that even though I might find the *idea* of pornography, and it's
    role in society, mildly interesting I have never actually enjoyed it.

    After reading D!'s description of the peep shows and the guy in
    the next booth trying to, shall I say, partially invade theirs,
    I think I can safely pass on that.  I would be really freaked out
    if that happened to me, so maybe I'm a prude a heart.  Really I
    think I'm too much of a romantic (not prude) to enjoy pornography.
    
    Pornography just doesn't seem to fulfill any of the needs, wants
    or desires of my life.  I want, among other things, love, romance,
    affection, companionship, friendship, and good sex with attractive
    men.  What am I going to get out of a peep show?  Not any of those.
     I'm just not interested in watching other people do it.  Depending
    on my mood, I might be disgusted or amused, but ultimately I'd be
    bored.
    
    However, I have no desire to join a campaign to make porn illegal,
    as long as it doesn't involve children or blood (or death).  I don't
    care what people look at as long as they're not bothering me or
    anybody else.
    
    But, I do resent it when people find out another person doesn't
    like porn, and then they assume the person is a prude, who was
    brainwashed into thinking porn is dirty.  For me, I just don't like
    it.  Most porn is just too ugly (to me) to be a part of my fantasies.
    
    Lorna
    

�    Pornography just doesn't seem to fulfill any of the needs, wants
�    or desires of my life.  I want, among other things, love, romance,
�    affection, companionship, friendship, and good sex with attractive
�    men.  What am I going to get out of a peep show?  Not any of those.
�     I'm just not interested in watching other people do it.  Depending
�    on my mood, I might be disgusted or amused, but ultimately I'd be
�    bored.

	One of my friends describes this as:

	"Would you show a starving person a picture of a steak?"


						--D

    Several replies back, someone mentioned seeing sexual objects that
    were marked "Not For Internal Use", and wondered what they were
    used for.  I know that some states have laws prohibiting the sales
    of sexual aids, so adult book shops get around that with such signs.
    That is certainly true in the District of Columbia.  I have been
    in one such store when a vice squad detective came in and asked
    the clerk how to use one of the items.  The clerk unfortunately described
    in full detail what each of the products did.  The detective flashed
    his badge, arrested the clerk and closed the store.  (It reopened
    the next day.)
    
    Paula

    When we first came to Mass. (in 1962), birth control was illegal.  You
    could buy condoms for non-sexual reasons -- like planting zinnias
    maybe?

    Use them for water balloons (condoms)!!

    When my mother first saw condoms in her mother's bureau drawers
    (my mom is now 76 so that puts it back a bit :-) ), she thought
    they were for her father - who was a butcher - to use to protect
    his fingers with after he cut them.
    
    Bonnie

    When we were teenagers, it was said that the way to purchase condoms at
    the drugstore was to put a fifty cent piece between your fingers and
    place your hand on the counter.  The young men were instructed to wait
    until the pharmacist was at the register to do this so as not to
    embarrass any female clerks.
    
    Is this a myth or was it true...I have always wondered.

    Only too true in the early '60s.  In order for a young man (No young
    females need apply!!) to purchase condoms, a fifty-cent piece was held
    with the thumb and little finger under the coin, and the other three
    fingers were placed on top of the coin. This signified "One 3-pack,
    please."  There were only certain drugstores you could go to; others
    required/requested a doctor's note or a wedding ring!! 

    	-sue

    PS - As a young bride, the first time I bought condoms at our local
    drugstore I was mortified!  The pharmacist sold them to me, but
    admonished me that he was breaking the law as I did not have a doctor's
    certificate!  Times sure have changed!!!!
    
    	-s

< Note 755.51 by CSG002::APPEL "Sue -- Expect miracles!" >
                          -< You wanna buy WHAT???! >-
>> Times sure have changed!!!!
   
This reminds me of a joke I heard this weekend:

	How times have changed.  Now-a-days you go into a 
	drugstore and say, "I'll have some CONDOMS...and 
	(little	voice) a pack of cigarettes."

 

    	I remember the first time I purchased condoms from a local drug
    store. The owner told me I wasn't old enough (I was 16) to purchase
    those "things". I told him fine, it was his daughter who would end
    up pregnant. 8^)
    
    	He called my mother......she was upset, my father was hysterical.
    I finally had to go to a store incognito with a day's growth and
    act like a weirdo with a female clerk who was so embarassed that
    she threw them at me and wouldn't take my money..
    
    	I'm glad that there is some enlightenment today.
    
    Ken

    I've never purchased condoms, but I'll never forget my embarrassment
    the first time I had to get a prescription for The Pill filled.
     I was single, 21 yrs. old, and convinced that the pharmacist, and
    all the clerks in the store, thought I was a slut. :-)  It was 1972.
     
    (Strange to think I ever felt that way, but at the time, I did.)
    
    Lorna
    

    Few notes ago someone mentioned how surprised they were to find that
    contraceptives were illegal (in some cases).  In reality, Supreme Court
    of United States had to intervene before that was changed.  Even today,
    there are still laws on the book which might get you in trouble (e.g.
    State of Georgia).
    
    - Vikas

    
    
    	After I got out of high school I went to work in a drug store.
    	I had this guy come up to the register with the "economy" size
    	package of condoms.  And he proceeded to tell me a story that
    	the reason he was buying them was to put them on padlocks so
    	that they don't freeze during the winter!!
    
    	Whether is was true or not I don't know...but if it wasn't it
    	was the most creative line I had heard.!!
    
    	JJ
    

    Re: .56
    
    What was he trying to keep from freezing -- the condoms or the
    padlocks?  (%->
    
    
    

    When I was much younger, I was going out on a date so, the idea
    of condoms appeared reasonable.
    
    Enter the Drugstore, and wait until the druggist is all alone and
    no customers within earshot.  Come to the counter.
    
    ME: "I would like some condoms." (Softly)
    DRUGGIST: "Speak up, Sonny, I don't hear so good."
    M: "I Want Some Condoms." (Slightly louder, woman customer approaches)
    D: "Can'T hear you Sonny!"
    M: "I WANT SOME CONDOMS!" (Almost yelling)
    D: "How many?"
    M: "HUH?"
    D: "Do you want 3 or 12?"
    M: "I'LL TAKE A DOZEN, SHOULD DO FOR TONIGHT!" (Embarrassed to the
        utmost.)
    EXIT with head held low.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    All for nothing, the date fizzled out.
    
    Dave

    Similar story:
    
    Jon Cryer was on the Arsenio Hall show last week.  He was asked about
    the price of fame...  A few years ago, he'd been in a fairly crowded
    drugstore buying condoms and had to ask the guy behind the counter for
    them.  This is apparently a time when anonymity would be a Good Thing.
    
    He leaned over the counter and murmured, "I'd like to buy some
    condoms."
    
    Unfortunately, the guy recognized him, exclaimed "You're Jon Cryer!",
    and proceeded to recite Jon's film biography at the top of his lungs. 
    He also filled his order at the top of his lungs.  ("Ya want the red
    ones or the blue ones??  How many??  Wow, JON CRYER!!")  No low profile
    here!

    The film AMAZON WOMEN ON THE MOON has what has got to be the
    ultimate embarrassing condom-buying story.
    
    --- jerry

    Haven't seen that ( should I be embarrased?)  but bought some myself
    for the first time, at 27 , and was laughed at... (I probably looked
    embarrased?) last year. At the pharmacy. I'm back on the pill now,
    which is uuh less humiliating at the same place. What do they think we
    do with condoms?? Anyway, I'll never by them again...
    
    Ann

I just have to pick up on this one:

.3 � it provides a pictorial history of pornography, beginning around 1890 
   � (first came cameras - next thing came dirty pictures)

That really is nonsense of course: firstly cameras predate 1890 by half a 
century and more to the point pictorial pornography predates photography by at 
least 2 millenia! (remember the X-rated murals at Pompeii?)

/. Ian .\

Someone was asking which congressional study on porno I had been 
referincing earlier (where did that note go?) and I finally looked it
up...  From my Human Sexuality textbook, which is where I got the
reference from...

"Lacking information about pornography and its effects, Congress in
1967 uathorized the creation of the Commission on Obscenity and Pornography.
(A new Commission was formed in 1985.)  In its final report, in 1970,
the Commission recommended: the abolition of all antipornography laws
for adults; and keeping the restrictions on selling pornography to
minors without their parents' consent and on forced soliciting of
pornography."

D!

From _The_Santmutopia_Guardian, Issue 6... [*1]

"Women's Bookstore Closed

"Womonfyre Books of Northhampton, MA closed in January, 1989, after 11 years
of providing books, magazines, music and related items to Lesbian and
feminist women, gay men and others.  Womonfyre was on eof the largest, most
complete Lesbian-feminist bookstores in thecountry.  It was unusual in New
England in stocking the magazine _On_Our_Backs [*2] and the works of Pat
Califia, Artemis Oakgrove, Cappy Kotz, Joan Nestle and other Lesbian-feminists
who write openly about Lesbian sex including Lesbian S/M sex.

"In addition to the opening of another bookstore, Lunaria, in Northhampton,
in them onths before Womonfyre closed, there were numerous incidents of 
physical violence against its staff and customers, theft of expensive items
from the store, acts of destruction by women who came into the store, waved
copies of _On_Our_Backs_ shouted, 'you sell pornography,' and ripped up
postcards and magazines they apparanetly deemed 'pornographic'.  Stickers 
saying 'This insults women' were pasted on Womonfyre's front windows.  Two
issue of a publication called _Valley_Women's_Vengeance_ were circulated
in the area, with instructions for breaking storefront windows, destroying
local business property and 'get[ting] away with it'.  The publication listed
among its 'accomplishments' theft at a video store, broken windows at a news
stand; it advocates castration of men and lists more than 20 local businesses,
complete with a map as targets for future destruction.  _Valley_Women's_
Vengeance_ is being distributed at Lunaria."

[(*1) Sandmutopia_Guardian is a non-pornographic magazine for people into
S/M, and one of their big causes is anti-censorship...this clip appeared
in the column "News From the Front", which also included short pieces on
AIDS, condoms, FCC regulations about sex-phone-lines, and other reports
on recent court cases and such.

(*2) _On_Our_Backs_ is a Lesbian erotica magazine, complete with graphic
pictures and stories about on the level of Penthouse Magazine (perhaps
a little lighter) except aimed at *Lesbians*, not men who like to watch
to women getting it on.  Their motto is "For the adventurous lesbian".]

D!

re: .64
>                     -< Feminists vs. Les-Fem pornography >-

Ah, but which are the F/feminists in this story?  My guess is that
*both* parties call themselves F/feminists.  Why choose to say that the
"bad" ones are F/feminists and the "good" ones aren't?  My interpretation
would be the other way around, if I had to choose one.  I really think that
they both are, and that feminism can be claimed by women and men with
different beliefs.

	MKV

>*both* parties call themselves F/feminists.  Why choose to say that the
>"bad" ones are F/feminists and the "good" ones aren't?  My interpretation
>would be the other way around, if I had to choose one.  

I would agree.  I don't think the article made any claims or implications
in either direction.  (The magazine is not a "feminist" magazine, it has
it's own agenda which aligns with that of the bookstore, not the VWV.)

If feminism supports the right of women, then I think that anyone (including
the VWV) who deliberately oppresses women (the women running the store,
the women purchasing the books and magazines, particularly On_Our_Backs)
isn't doing justice to thier own ideals.  (ie; hypocrites.)  But that is
the opinion of one woman who does *not* call herself a Feminist, and
is therefore not in a position to be assigning or deassigning the label
to anyone else.

AT any rate, I don't think terrorist tactics are becoming to any group,
even if I support their cause.

D!