Conference turris::womannotes-v3

reply moved from topic 34
    
    
               <<< RANGER::$2$DUA8:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V3.NOTE;1 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 34.43          Sexism Is Alive And Well And Living In...           43 of 43
FDCV01::ROSS                                         13 lines  24-MAY-1990 13:28
                   -< Male naming: PC = Pornography Control >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Re: .42
    
    Dorian, you and Sandy Ciccolini (there must be something in those
    GEMVAX:: electrons :-) )appear to have strong views on pornography, 
    although I think you each feel negatively about it for different 
    reasons.
    
    I have a serious question for you: Do you consider photos of heter-
    sexual/homosexual couples engaged in sex, that are taken with their 
    consent, neither person having being coerced into giving their consent,
    and both parties enjoying what they're doing to be "pornography?"
    
      Alan

           <<< RANGER::$2$DUA8:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V3.NOTE;1 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 34.45          Sexism Is Alive And Well And Living In...           45 of 45
GEMVAX::KOTTLER                                      26 lines  24-MAY-1990 13:40
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    re .43 -
    
    Probably not, as you describe it. It would come close to what I'd
    consider erotica, if the whole surrounding pornographic climate in our
    media made that possible. If it seemed neither one was exploiting the
    other. But I'd have to see it.
    
    I don't want to get into criteria for the one as vs. the other. But I
    think exploitation is one key. If that were absent, I might well like it.
    The problem is, we (I anyway) are so inundated with images in which
    women *are clearly* being exploited (perhaps even violently assaulted
    or murdered; or just "there" as sexual toys for men), that we (I anyway) 
    can't help having these images in mind when viewing *any* depiction of 
    sexual expression/activity. That's wnat I mean by erotica being "tainted." 
    And I feel that that is a very sad loss.
    
    By way of analogy, a friend said that she is so disturbed by the issue
    of child abuse, that when she sees a father picking up his little
    daughter, a quick sense of suspicion - what's he doing to her? -
    flashes across her mind; even though everything is probably perfectly
    innocent. Another case of, you might say, the ugliness spoiling the
    beauty.
    
    Why do you ask?
    
    Dorian                                            
        

    See also
    
    Womannotes-V1 
    45 - pornography
    
    Womannotes-V2
    544 - pornography:  who cares
    755 - porn, bookstores, and women
    
    -Jody
    

    Alan, are you insinuating that you *don't* have strong feelings about
    it?  That if you went home to find your collection sold, you wouldn't
    be upset?  *More* upset than if something else of equal value of yours
    was sold?  I don't know, I think men guard their paper and celluloid 
    harems pretty seriously.  I don't know too many men who ever threw
    anything like that away!  "Married With Children" had an episode
    regarding Peg selling Al's harem.  I don't think most people were
    confused over his reaction, (horror, panic, anger), I think most
    understood it quite well.  Sitcoms do have to relate to the general
    public's understanding!
    
    I personally don't have strong feelings about it at all.  I have strong
    feelings about what I think it represents in our society but as to the
    stuff itself, I find it kinda silly and I really find the dead serious 
    way men take it to be even sillier.  But then I find sports and the 
    serious way men take that to be pretty silly, too.  (And romance and
    diamond rings and the serious way women generally take that - just to 
    show I'm not simply taking this opportunity to male bash!)  
    
    I think people's sexual preferences and desires should be private.  So
    when men flaunt theirs all over creation, I think something else is at 
    work than just plain personal sexuality.  And that's where I think the 
    silliness comes in.  I mean really - boobs hanging out of bathing suits 
    in the damn supermarket?  Get real!  I get sick of seeing boobs
    everywhere just as men would get sick of seeing huge wangs and fat
    wallets everywhere.  Enjoy it but keep it to yourselves.  Unless of 
    course the public demonstration of a man's enjoyment of it is 
    part of the point...  

    I had a roommate (well, apartmentmate) who had posters of scantily clad
    females all over the wall - and when he moved out I discovered that he
    had quite a "collection" of magazines.  
    
    I think it may have given him a taste in women that was unattainable in
    reality (perfect, airbrushed women who speak using the breathy
    brainless text that often accompanies the pix in the mags are hard to
    come by in real life) - and it may also have encouraged him to
    objectify women as simply "things to be played with", rather than
    potential serious partners or positive emotional or intellectual
    additions to his life.
    
    -Jody
    

    I agree, Jody.  But I also think the majority of men believe that it's
    just unattainable *for them*.  So I think they take what they can get,
    female-wise, and hang on to their paper harems and their unrealistic 
    dreams and live vicariously through these creations, through "girl-
    watching", through other men's exploits and remain always on the lookout 
    for the real women that match these dreams the closest.  Not to sleep
    with them, (because they're already convinced they can't), but just to
    reassure themselves that they're there because if they're there, then
    maybe someday....  
    
    Nothing wrong with that, I just feel bad for the women they've "gotten" 
    in the interim - the ones who are installed in their houses, cleaning
    them and raising their kids while these guys are off in dreamland
    wishing and hoping, secure in the knowledge that their woman is or
    should be completely content with 'just' a real man. 

    re .6, do you think that's starting to work both ways these days?
     I mean, I sometimes feel like *I* have developed "a taste in" *men*
    "that is unattainable in reality."  It's just that I have no interest
    at looking at pictures of them naked or keeping stacks of porno
    mags around.  But, when I saw Mel Gibson in a movie the other night
    I found myself starting to daydream....
    
    (Deep in my heart, I don't really want a homely, *nice* man - I
    want a *cute* nice man....at least I'm honest!  And, at least I
    realize I probably won't really get it....)
    
    Lorna
    

Re: .2
    
Dorian, the reason I asked had to do with my trying to understand
how you differentiated between pornography and what you considered 
erotica.

I think you answered my question in your reply.

If I correctly understood what you wrote, you'd like to be able
to find some things to be "erotic". Yet, you're unable to think
of them as such, because they *may* be pornographic (by your
definition). Is this what you're saying?

What would it take to convince yourself that something is, indeed, not
pornographic?
  
  Alan  

>    About victims and addicts there appears to be no room for dicsussion

Why not?

>    (except that I didn't say all people who enjoy porn were addicts).
 
No, you said those who like it are "most likely" addicts.  From which I
infer that you are saying *most* of those who like porn are addicted to
porn. I say - why do you say that?  (The paragraph you quoted says that
some men are addicted to porn, not most men, or even most porn-likers.)
I would guess that there *are* some men who are addicted to pornography,
and, like any addiction, that is a big problem in their lives.  But 
alcohol isn't evil just because some people are alcoholics (I believe.)
   
>    About perverts, I didn't say people who enjoy porn were the pervets. 

Well, first you said they were, then you amended it to say that they were
just "victims".  You still haven't supported this.

>But to me porn
>    seems like the antithesis of sex. Does "perverted" cover that? Maybe
>    so, maybe not.
 
No. Because the word "pervert" carries connotations far beyond "IMHO".
Using words like "perverted" implies there is some absolute definition of
what sex *should* be, and moreover, that you know it.  Porn may seem like
the anti-thesis of sex to *you*, and be the ultimate turn-off, but
calling it "perverted" implies that it *should* turn off everyone.  And
I think that is just plain hogwash.
   
>    I'm sorry if I offended you. Clash of pornts of view I guess,
 
I do not object and am not at all offended by differing views of pornography.
You obviously think it is Bad.  I don't.  And I don't give a whit that your
opinion disagrees with mine.  I *do* give a whit if you 1) make judgements
without data about *real people* (calling the addicts, for instance) or
2) (and I am not suggesting that you have done this) work to impose your
opinion on me by making those things you disapprove of unavailable to me.

I won't bother discussing *my* view of porno because we went through this
all in V2 and I think everyone who cares is quite aware of how I feel.

(Clash of pornts: groan!  Almost as bad as "The best nudes...")

D!

    Yes, Lorna, I think it's beginning to work the other way too,
    thanks to feminism making everyone aware that women have lustful
    desires, too.  The media isn't quite sure how to go about cashing in on
    it yet tho, so lust fodder for women is still pretty sparse and tentative 
    compared to the total media saturation of lust objects for men.  But you 
    brought up an excellent point - Do your lust objects make you happier, 
    (for being able to fantasize about them), or sadder, (for realizing you 
    can't have them)?  Does it give you hope or make you despair?  What do 
    you guys think - how does it affect you?
    
    D!, everyone, everywhere makes judgements about other people.  That's
    human nature and it can't be stopped, only the expression of it
    supressed. 

    Reply to .6
    
    I had a friend who's husband had quite a collection of the porno
    magazines.  She was a wonderful person, a great mother, but always
    felt so inadequate that her husband had to have these magazines
    around all the time.  This was an ongoing situation for many years.
    He became an alcoholic and his obsession increased.  
    
    Well to make a long boring story short, they divorced, his drinking
    was very out of control and he began to harm her.  But the point
    of the story is that to this day she panicks if her present husband
    even glances at a girl in a porno picture.  She has gone to counseling
    and has come a very long way, however, I wonder if men really can
    appreciate what this can sometimes do to the self-esteem of a woman.
    
    Do you think this can go both ways.  Or are men more capable of
    handling this type of thing?
    
    Just curious.
    

    Dorian,
    
    I'm still not sure what makes something "pornography".
    
    If my wife and I take videotapes of ourselves during sex, and later
    watch it, is that pornography?
    
    Is it pornography if we show it to our friends?
    
    If *we* show it to strangers?
    
    If we make copies and give them away?
    
    If we trade them to other people for their "home movies"?
    
    If we sell them?
    
    How about any of the above, if we include some of our friends in the
    movies?
    
    How about if we pay them (our friends)?
    
    If we recruit people for our movies via ads?
    
    I'm trying to determine where you see the line between healthy
    enjoyment of sex and perversion and pornography. It seems only fair
    that if I ask this of you that I admit my own answers. I don't know if
    any of these is "pornography" that's a word I don't like to use, but I
    don't see anything wrong with any of them, with the faintest
    possibility of the last one.
    
    I worry the the "models" in "pornography" are being "exploited", but I
    feel that it is probably a question of degree, not kind. What I mean
    is, is this exploitation any more or less than say, migrant farmworkers
    are being exploited? Any more exploitative than nursing? Possibly, on
    two grounds. First, these people my have no choice, they may be being
    coerced. That, I will agree with you, is evil and should be stamped
    out. The second difference is that the exploitation is sexual. Is
    sexual exploitation worse in kind that other, economic, exploitation?
    Perhaps it takes an additional toll on the psyche, on the soul, both of
    the exploiter and the exploitee. It results in objectification, and I
    agree that that is bad. But is this really different from other kinds
    of exploitation? Do not the people exploiting the farmworkers think of
    them only as animated agricultural equipment? Is this not
    objectification as well? Denying the innate worth of a person is evil
    and should be fought, but let's not lose sight of what the real evil
    is. It isn't pornography per-se, it's the degradation of human beings
    that the existing porn industry causes. Don't confuse your personal
    sexual morality with absolute "good" and "bad". What you find perverse
    and shocking other people find a rip snorting good time.
    
    I mistrust anyone crusading against "pornography", I immediately
    suspect them of trying to force their personal *sexual* morality on me.
    I reject that. On the other hand, I recognize that there are valid
    objections to "pornography", but I want to recognize that "porn" is no
    different from, say, underpaid and uncredited catalog models. Sex is
    not the issue, exploitation is.
    
    	-- Charles

    
    1)
    Pornography, is it 'bad'?
    I think that depends on what porn is, exactly.  I think that watching a rape or a murder is DEFINITELY
    bad.  Films where women are sort-of tossed around are bad too, ( could lead to violence against women?).
    However, I think films where there is one couple or maybe a few couples
    and the sex is 'even', can be quite erotic.  (By 'even', I mean that both the man and the woman are 
    equal contributors to the sex act or acts.  Both give and receive.)
    BTW:  I think that for homosexual people, the homosexual versions of
    what I stated above would be fine too.  I can't see how they would do
    much harm, if viewed once in a blue moon.
    
    2)
    How does porn, magazines of naked women and magazines of half-naked women affect a 
    woman's view of herself?
    
    Oh, what a question.  I tend to think that hard porn does not affect a woman's 
    view of herself.  I can look at that and say, "yeah, so what she's
    gorgeous?  Look what she's doing with her life!  What diseases might she have?"
    That, to me, diminishes the threat.  I don't want to look like most
    porn queens.
    On the other hand, soft porn can be threatening and half-naked women all over
    the cover of Cosmo definitely makes me take a second look at my thighs.  However,  
    I think that's a problem that I have.  It is those womens right to dress like that;  
    it is the magazines right to print it; and it is my husbands right to
    read it.  I should be able to say, "But I'm smart" or "but I love ME and so does my
    husband/lover/whomever".  I don't think we should limit anyones rights.  I think that
    if we are threatened, we should adjust.  I also think that beefcake pictures of men might
    help a bit.  If men could ever feel as insecure as women do when faced
    with perfect versions of themselves all over town, then perhaps what
    sells a product might change?  (One can hope)
    
    Rachael
    

    
Re .9, D! -

I don't know what I can say that I haven't said already. Maybe if I add 
some more context to my offending words, they'll be less so.

I believe we're all *victims* of a *perverted*, repressive attitude towards 
sex as evil and as women's fault, that has been handed down to us for 
centuries. In older, "pagan" times, sex was actually part of religion, an 
experience of divine pleasure. I think it was mainly the founding (and I 
would say fearful) fathers of Christianity who changed all that; even now 
many of us grow up on its repressive attitude towards sex and have to spend 
much effort getting past it.

I see this attitude reflected in many aspects of our society, including 
pornography, especially violent porn but also non-violent porn where women 
are depicted as the submissive sexual playthings of men, devoted solely to 
men's pleasure. In my view, none of this stuff has anything to do with 
*women's* sexuality, just men's.

These images are everywhere. It bothers me that our routine, unthinking 
consumption of such images of women leads some men to expect -- sometimes 
force -- real women in real life to behave thus, whether those women want 
to or not. To quote from Barbara Walker, "today's psychologists are 
beginning to understand the leading role played by sexual repression in 
developing the kind of woman-hatred that leads to rape. Western thinkers 
have only recently caught on to the fact that cultural suppression of the 
need for bodily pleasure will eventually result in perverted expression 
through cruelty." (Woman's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets, article 
"Sex")

I know some men who are *addicted* to porn, much like an addiction to 
drugs. I believe if our society were freer about sex there'd be fewer such 
addicts. In a way we're all addicted to visual images in our overwhelmingly 
visually oriented culture; addiction to porn seems an extreme case of that. 
I'm sorry to see anyone addicted to anything, but it especially bothers me 
that criminals are getting rich off this particular addiction.

I hope this helps explain what I mean by saying I see porn as the 
antithesis of sex. To me, sex and erotica have more to do with intimacy, 
feeling, equality, non-exploitative relationships -- and they include 
the acknowledgement of and attention to women's sexuality as well as men's. 

These are my views. I can see you don't share them. But so what? Can't we 
agree to disagree? What I don't understand is, why do you seem so upset? 
Fear not, no views of mine are going to make porn any less "available" -- 
it's here for the duration, I'm sure!

Dorian

Re: .10

>    Yes, Lorna, I think it's beginning to work the other way too,
>    thanks to feminism making everyone aware that women have lustful
>    desires, too.  The media isn't quite sure how to go about cashing in on
>    it yet tho, so lust fodder for women is still pretty sparse and tentative 
>    compared to the total media saturation of lust objects for men.

Sandy, can you define it?  *You* could make the pile of money. %^)
I asked it elsewhere and I'll ask it again: Is it that men are predominantly
visually stimulated and women are predominantly mentally stimulated?

Re: .15

>    What I mean is, is this exploitation any more or less than say, migrant 
>    farmworkers are being exploited? 

Charles,

Here's where I lost your argument.  If "exploitation" is bad, then isn't this 
like saying "is this bruise on my leg any more or less than say, thje bruise
on my head?"

    
>    I mistrust anyone crusading against "pornography", I immediately
>    suspect them of trying to force their personal *sexual* morality on me.
>    I reject that. On the other hand, I recognize that there are valid
>    objections to "pornography", but I want to recognize that "porn" is no
>    different from, say, underpaid and uncredited catalog models. Sex is
>    not the issue, exploitation is.

There can be several reasons people "crusade" (which I do not think has happened
in this note; argued, yes - crusaded, no.).  Further, your "immediate 
suspicions" lump everyone into one narrow category.

On the other hand, I do think you have a point that exploitation in any form,
sexual or otherwise, is an issue one might "crusade" against.

Mark Metcalfe

>I believe we're all *victims* of a *perverted*, repressive attitude towards
>sex as evil and as women's fault

Oh absolutely!  I couldn't agree more.  And if this is what you meant when
you say pornography readers are "victims" then I can't disagree - but I must
you say pornography readers are "victims" then I can't disagree - but I must
add that pornography readers are no more victims of societal sexual
repression than are non pornography readers.  We are *all* victims of
our patriarchal and puritanical history.  In fact, because women have been
blamed, women are even more the victims, and women tend not to be the
readers, and therefore I might venture to say that non-readers are more

However, given the current reality of the sexual repression that exists in
our society, I don't see why *pictures* or *stories* about sex are any worse
(or better) than sex itself.  And I don't see why some forms of pictures or
stories are more "perverted" than others.

>In my view, none of this stuff has anything to do with
>*women's* sexuality, just men's.
                                                                             
Well, your view is wrong. The truth is, that it *does* have to do with
*some* women's sexuality.  It may have nothing to do with yours, and you may
not like it, but some women do.  Trust me on this, I know.
                                                                              
Furthermore, what if it *doesn't* have to do with women's sexuality?  This
file is here to discuss "topics of interest to women."  The mere existence
of this file implies that it is *okay* to have things and spaces that are
centered around women's enjoyment, women's needs, etc.  I think it is also
okay to have things that exist mainly for men's enjoyment.  Romance novels
have very little to do with *men's* sexuality, but a lot of women read
them and I think that is okay.  I don't think everything in the world has
to be about or for both sexes!

>To quote from Barbara Walker, "today's psychologists are
>beginning to understand the leading role played by sexual repression in
>developing the kind of woman-hatred that leads to rape. Western thinkers
>have only recently caught on to the fact that cultural suppression of the
>need for bodily pleasure will eventually result in perverted expression
>through cruelty." (Woman's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets, article
>"Sex")

I guess I am not sure about the relevence of this quote.  Ms. Walker is
saying that societal sexual repression is at least in part responsible for
male sexual aggression, yes?  She didn't say *pornography*, she said
*repression*.  I, personally, think that repression is exhibited by
societies attempts to control/eliminate pornography/erotica.  I agree with
the quote above, but I don't think it says that porno leads to rape (
(which seems to be what you are implying.)

>I know some men who are *addicted* to porn, much like an addiction to
>drugs. I believe if our society were freer about sex there'd be fewer such
>addicts.

Again, I agree completely and I feel sorry for addicts of any variety.
are alcoholics?  (FWIW, I am also very much for the legalization of drugs,
and I think there would be less addicts in general if our society wasn't
so repressive of pleasure.)

>These are my views. I can see you don't share them. But so what? Can't we
>agree to disagree?
                                                                             
Certainly.  The views you have presented in this note are not at all
offensive to me. I am continuing to discuss them because I find them
interesting, and I find discussing them productive.  You don't have to
coninue if you don't want to.

>What I don't understand is, why do you seem so upset?

Again, what upset me was your statement that "those who read pornography
are most likely addicts" and "victims".  (Where the implications was that
readders of porno are in *particular* victims of pornography, rather than
just victims of cultural sexual repression, as we all are.)

>Fear not, no views of mine are going to make porn any less "available" --
>it's here for the duration, I'm sure!
                                                                             
Even if a crusade against pornography was hopless, I would still object
to it.  You say that no views of yours will make it less available, but
you didn't say that you wouldn't *try*, however hopeless it may be.  I
find attempts to get rid of it, even if they fail miserably, offensive, and
I will continue to argue against and be upset by your views if it seems to
me that, even, you would if you *could* get rid of pornography, despite
the real ineffectuality of it.  so you didn't really answer my question -
are you for or against the unavailability of porn/erotica.

D!

RE:                    <<< Note 157.10 by GEMVAX::CICCOLINI >>>

    
>    D!, everyone, everywhere makes judgements about other people.  That's
>    human nature and it can't be stopped, only the expression of it
>    supressed. 

As an aside, I'm not sure I agree with this statement.  Many things
that are supposedly human nature can be examined and changed or at
least softened.  I hope so anyway!

john

    
    	RE: being addicted to porn. What is being "addicted"?
    	Does this mean the guy that has a subscription to
    	playboy? How about the guy that owns one porno flick
    	that he may view once every couple of months/years with
    	his wife? Or are you talking about the guy that just has
    	to go out and buy every hard-core porno mag he can get
    	his hands on each month?
    
    	 I find this discussion interesting, One past SO had it
    	set in her mind that sex was okay to do, as long as it
    	was done in the dark. To her, me seeing her body in the
    	light, or her viewing mine would be pornography. To her,
    	anyone wanting to look at their mates naked body must be
    	a pervert. Sex was something you did, not something to
    	be viewed, even by ones own partner.
    
    	G_B

Shades of gray!

There is evidently no black and white on this, or maybe there is.
We all have have our ideas of where the gray becomes too dark and we call it
black, or it becomes sufficiently light to call it white.

Because one person's definition of "crossing the line" of erotica to
pornography is a shade or two lighter/darker than another person's, can it
be said that nothing is pornography? Or is everything, except the hermit without
sight, thought, or emotion, pornography?

I don't think it would be right to say nothing is pornography.  I have
my crossing line.  My question is how can we demark an "acceptable"
gray neutral zone where we can agree to disagree on what is "pornography
to you, but not to me"?  Or even grayer: if a majority draws a line, 
should the minority accept it?

Mark

>Because one person's definition of "crossing the line" of erotica to
>pornography is a shade or two lighter/darker than another person's, can it
>be said that nothing is pornography? Or is everything, except the hermit without
>sight, thought, or emotion, pornography?

You are missing the point.  Yes, there are shades of grey.  But the way you
say something about "where does it cross the line" implies that there is
a line, and that everyone has some limit on a single spectrum, where past
that limit it is pornography, below that limit is erotic.  And that while
different people have different limits, they are on the same line.

But that is not the case.  I, for one, don't differentiate at all! I think
pornography and erotica have the same meaning, except that one connotes
goodness and one badness, which is why I say the only different between
erotica and porn is whether I am reading it (erotica) or you are reading
it (pornography.)

Some people consider it porno if it had pictures involving nudity.  Period.
Nothing more nothing less.  Others consider it pornography if it contains
graphic depictions of intercourse, whether those depictions be pictures or
words.  Therefore  there are some things that one group A considers porno,
and group B considers erotica, and some things that group A consider erotica
and group B consider porno.  So it is not simply a matter of how "heavy" it
has to be, and where along a single spectrum people draw the line.  It
varies along many, many parameters.  

Most people I have talked to define erotica as those sexually explicit works
that turn them on, and pornography as those that don't.  Therefore, it really
is true that the difference between pornography and erotica is who is 
reading it.

D!

This whole discussion reminds me of "Commoners sweat; gentlemen perspire;
ladies glow."  They are all doing the same thing, but if a "good" person
is doing it, it gets a "good" word, if a "bad" person does it it gets a
"bad" word.  And everyone considers themselves "good."

    Actually pornography and erotica are the same thing.  Pornography
    just has the more negative connotation.  I read a lot of
    Pornogramphy=obsinity,  which it does not.
    fred();

    Is it deja vu, or have I read these discussions before?
    
    Anyway, while I'd tend to agree more with D!'s opinions stated above, I
    would think that somewhere, sometime, erotica could cross a line and
    reach a low that nearly everyone would agree is "pornographic."  The
    examples that come immediately to my mind are so-called kiddie porn and
    depictions of violent and maiming masochism.  What about it, D!, even
    if you would draw your line in a different place than Dorian would, can
    you imagine pornography at all?
    
    Karen

    
    re:.23
    i suppose if the definitions of pornography and erotica are 
    'taste based' as you describe them, there really isn't any
    debate. is it possible, then, to come up with definitions of 
    pornography and erotica that are a little more objective?
    would that useful? for example, could we agree that pictures
    of minors engaged in sex acts are pornographic on the principle
    that minors are not capable of giving informed consent and then
    proceed from there to say that pictures of anyone engaged in
    sex acts, without their informed consent, are pornographic?
    

>What about it, D!, even
>    if you would draw your line in a different place than Dorian would, can
>    you imagine pornography at all?
 
?????

What line???  I say, the two words are exactly identical in meaning. If it
is pornography, then it is erotic, and vice versa. I don't draw any line at
all.

Some pornography/erotica is nonconsensual in nature (not that it *depicts*
nonconsensuality, but that it existence is the result on nonconsensuality)
and that kind of pornography/erotica is and should be illegal.  And it
includes kiddie-porn.

Pornography is not a measure of how good or bad or dirty or low erotica is.
They are simply two words with different connotations that mean the same
thing, like glowing and sweating.

Perhaps you are looking for the word "obscene"?  Legally, pornography/erotica
is not automatically obscene.  *Some* forms of erotica/pornography are 
judged "obscene" (by some pretty arbitrary standards, if you ask me) and
obscenity is not protected by the first amendment.  Kiddie porn is obscene.
It is also pornography.  It is also erotica, though few people would apply
that word, not because it doesn't fit the definitions, but because it has
positive connotations.

"Can I imagine pornography?"  I don't have to imagine it, I have a fair
collection of it myself, and have viewed much more than that.  Is what you
mean "Can you imagine pornography so disgusting that you would agree that
it is Bad?"  The answer to that is yes - and my definition has nothing to
do whether whether it is erotic to me or not, but whether it involves
nonconsensuality (real, not fictional.)  (Kiddie porn is nonconsensual 
because children cannot consent.)

What I object to is the supposeded difference between erotica and pornography
where supposedly erotica is that which is erotic and porno is "just sex",
and therefore porno is bad.  That definition relies entirely on personal
taste, and is in fact a non-difference.  I don't believe there is a class
of literature/whatever that can univerally be considered erotica/non-porno
or vice versa.  I believe there are things that fall into both categories
that are also Bad.

D!

Shades of the Language note!  :-)

>Others consider it pornography if it contains graphic depictions of 
>intercourse, whether those depictions be pictures or words. 

Re: .23   D! say "sexual intercourse"  :-) :-)  I had to laugh when I thought
of picture of people engaged in social intercourse. [But I was *not* aroused
by it!!!]

The AH dictionary defines pornography as "written or pictoral matter intended
to arouse sexual feelings."  Now that's sounds innocuous enough, I'd say.

But just as someone objected to the connotation *they* had for the word
"companion" (which I hold as "dear friend or comrade"), the word 
pornography connotes to many "erotica turned bad".

Ah, now we get back to the good/bad thing.  In .26, there was a suggestion
to try to objectify this.  No minors because they cannot make a good judgement
to consent, (therefore, no animals because they have no choice either).

Mark

    
    re:.27
    
    to most people the words 'pornography' and 'erotica' are not
    identical in meaning; you can't just say they are and expect people
    to just accept your assertion. and the word 'obscene', i think,
    is as vague as 'pornography' or 'erotica'.
    
    regardless, whatever terms we use, it appears that we are in agreement
    that there are at least some forms of sexually explicit material
    that should not be sanctioned and we are already in agreement on at
    least one standard, consentuality. 
    
    but as you noted, the standard of consentuality has to do only with 
    the production of the material in question, not the content. while i
    (unfortunately) agree with those who hold that it would be impossible,
    and legally reprehensible, to find some kind of objective criteria 
    that judge the content of sexuality explicit material, i find it 
    very useful and informative to discuss what it is that *is* offensive
    about some sexually explicit material. 
    
    pornography/erotica/obscenity is art. as such it should not be
    censored. but also, as such, it has *meaning* that cannot be ignored.
     
    

    
Re: .28
    
> Ah, now we get back to the good/bad thing.  In .26, there was a suggestion
> to try to objectify this.  No minors because they cannot make a good judgement
> to consent, (therefore, no animals because they have no choice either).

Mark, but if one believes in the Bible (I believe you've stated you're a
Christian), then humankind has been given dominion over all the animals.
    
Why should an animal have to give its consent for sex with a human, but not 
to be killed for food by that same human?
    
BTW I'm not advocating sex with animals nor dis-advocating it. I'm trying to
understand why "bestiality" (now there's a charged word) is bad. Is it *only* 
because the animal has not consented? 
    
Or have you brought some of your own value judgements into the discussion?
    
  Alan    

re: .18 TOKNOW::METCALFE

>Sandy, can you define it?  *You* could make the pile of money. %^)

Don't laugh!  I've been thinking about it for about a year or so!
I think I could put Playgirl out of business which is too cutsie-poo,
too tongue-in-cheek and seems to laugh at its intended audience, (which
is why it doesn't sell and NOT because women don't like looking!).  I
don't think they really believe women do or should buy it for any other 
reason than to "get back" at men.  I think I could show another reason!

I'd be as deadly serious in my approach as the men's mags are.  And I think
that would make more than a few men a little squirmy and a little more
understanding of what women have been saying all along.

D!, that was a great explanation and I'm beginning to really understand
what you mean.

> I say, the two words are exactly identical in meaning. If it is 
> pornography, then it is erotic, and vice versa. I don't draw any line at
> all.

I look at the two terms as overlapping, but certainly not the same.
I use the term pornography to describe the material and erotic to 
describe the reaction to the material.  Thus, for me, not all pornography
is erotic and not all that is erotic is pornographic.  

(Not specifically to you, D!),

Remember the Jovan ad campaign, "What is sexy?"  There was a picture of 
milk being poured over a peach.  Was it pornographic?  Of course not.  
Could it be considered erotic in that some people might get a little twinge 
from it?  You bet!  By the same token, a guy bound up in chains with the 
Crisco can nearby is pretty pornographic, without question.  Can it also be
erotic?  Yes, to some.

I think most will agree when they think about it - and I think you even
said the same thing, D! - what is erotic is what I, (the person doing the
viewing), like.  And that may be pornography, but it may also be the 
smell of the damp night air on a camping trip or it may be a picture 
of milk being poured over a peach!

Porn and erotica do overlap but one is distinctly not the other, unless
the viewer feels that it is, and even then it's only on a case by case
basis and can't be generally defined.

UNLESS we get into what I think Dorian's thinking about - the "perversion"
whereby something becomes erotic *just because* it is pornography rather
than the pornographic aspect simply being coincidental.  And we have 
to agree there are people for whom porn is erotic simply because it's porn.  
I think the reasoning behind that mindset is what most people are trying 
to explore when they talk about perversion and sickness.  The personal 
erotic element is *dependent* on it being porn.  The milk and the peach are 
a joke to such people, the sensuality of a damp, dark night leave them cold 
and warmth and love in their partner's eyes are passed over in favor of flat 
out heat and desire, (which has its place, don't get me wrong!).

A full human being has erotic buttons that can be pushed.  And porn, rightly
so, should be able to push some of those buttons.  But if they are the only
buttons a person has, then something else is at work other than normal
human response and desire.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that porn can smoothly be incorporated
into anyone's sexual repertoire as an element of their personal erotica.
But when it is the only element of their erotica, I too think there's some
sickness at work.  And, sadly, our culture does push the porn as *the*
pinnacle of erotica.  Playmates and Pets are hailed as the creme de la
creme of male desire, the only logical conclusion of male erotica.  PICTURES 
over people.  Fortunately, some men escape it.  But most lose, to varying 
degrees, the ability to find erotica elsewhere;  in the everyday, in the 
simple and sublime, in the availability of real life.  And in my opinion, 
that's what women sense when they find hair growing on their legs and armpits,
when they don't wake up perfectly coiffed and made-up, when they sweat 
instead of glow, and when men turn away from them, however subtlely, because 
of it.

Do I like porn?  Sometimes it's a great side dish, (and I don't mean the
silly airbrushed images of women dressed up as rabbits and other cutsie pets).
But it can't hold a candle to a damp night and a sweaty man with the hair that 
grows naturally on his body and the love and warmth he has in his eyes for 
me alone.  The simple and the sublime.  May I never lose my appreciation 
and preference for that.  Sex is real life.  Don't cheat yourselves out
of it or allow others to cheat you out of it!

    re .31
    Sandy, your note reminds me of back when me and my friend swiped
    his dad's magazines. We enjoyed the heck out of looking at the 
    naked women, but we didn't know *why* :-)
    
    "He keeps these hidden in the workbench, this *must* be good stuff"
    

    re: .31 (Sandy)

    If I'm understanding correctly, you're saying that "pornography"
    would be defined as that for which the sole purpose is to arouse
    sexual excitement whereas "erotica" would be that which evokes
    a sexual response whether or not said response is it's sole raison 
    d'�tre.  "Pornography" is a sub-set of "erotica", right?
    
    That sounds to me like an interesting way of defining the two, but
    I'm wondering if it doesn't eventually run into the same kind of
    "eye of the beholder" snag that other definitions do.  F'rinstance,
    if a person takes pictures of a 1957 Thunderbird and plasters them
    on the bedroom walls *soley because* the mere glimpse of these photos 
    sends him/her into a sexual frenzy, is (s)he looking at "pornography"?
    At erotica?  
    
    Steve
    
    With appropriate apologies to all the 'vette lovers out there 
    who are no doubt thinking that getting off on Fords is utter
    perversion. . .
    

          Well, I was just about to mention the lack of consent of animals
    and the basic instinctual abhorrence almost all people have in requards
    to sex with other species. (notice the "controversy" on "Alien Nation".) 
    The "pornographic" element common to all these scenarios seems to be
    the lack of informed consent. That, to me, is the problem also
    with the idea of "exploitation" in such matters. Most of us seem to
    find the idea of anyone being exploited as abhorrent. I am personally
    saddend by what appears, to me, to be exploitation of some people
    in sexually explicit material, but if they are adults, they are
    exploiting themselves. That is no less a sad situation. Personally,
    the *targets* of sexually oriented material are a sadder situation.
    Men have been conditioned to be "sex junkies" by it all, approaching
    their relationships with women in a very imbalanced way. The result,
    in some ways, has been that it is less of an emotional, political
    complication to have some fantasy oriented sex with the photograph
    of a woman's body. (as distinquished from the woman herSELF) Why
    else would prostitution be the "oldest" profession? All this is
    symtomatic of a lack of a healthy sexual outlet for us ALL. Women,
    to some degree, at the same time, have been conditioned to have
    an equally unhealthy, guilt ridden, but diametrically opposed 
    response to sex. Put the two together and what else do you expect?
                                                             
           Under the same subject, to me, is the phenomena of sex in
    advertising. Again, the lack of consent is the "pornographic"
    element. I resent the constant attempts to get me buy something
    by using female anatomy. It is an attempt to alter the informed
    consent of a mammal to use mammary glands in advertising! And, of
    course, to suggest to me, as a man, that I am so incapable of rational
    judgement, that I would actually base my purchase on the reccomendation
    of a bikini-clad somebody is an insult (squared). Unfortunately,
    sex is one password that gives world - write privileges in the software
    of our minds. When will we stop using it as a weapon against each
    other?          
                                                 M... 
    
              
           
             
    

    
    .31 - 
    
    Playgirl? From what I've seen of it, they must not know where babies
    come from!
    
    Dorian

    Yeah, Dana, I remember my friend Karen and I doing the same thing with 
    a deck of cards her father had.  We giggled and looked, assuming that's
    what adulthood was all about.  Unfortunately, we found out later that
    it was and then we didn't giggle so much anymore.
    
    >If I'm understanding correctly, you're saying that "pornography"
    >would be defined as that for which the sole purpose is to arouse
    >sexual excitement whereas "erotica" would be that which evokes
    >a sexual response whether or not said response is it's sole raison 
    >d'�tre.  "Pornography" is a sub-set of "erotica", right?
    
    Yeah, yeah, that's the ticket!  BTW, Steve, I have your book for you -
    great read!  ;-)
    
    >if a person takes pictures of a 1957 Thunderbird and plasters them
    >on the bedroom walls *soley because* the mere glimpse of these photos 
    >sends him/her into a sexual frenzy, is (s)he looking at "pornography"?
    
    Nope
    
    >At erotica?  
    
    Yup
    
    But for me, it'd have to be a Targa or an XJS.  ;-)

    But if the *sole* purpose of these T-bird photos is, for
    this individual, to arouse sexual interest, wouldn't that
    fall within your definition of "pornography"?  Or, from
    another angle, wouldn't it fall within her/his definition
    of porn?
    
    Steve
    
    P.S.  And I'll take the Ferrari 308, thanx.  Or, on my PMS
    	  days (Primitive Macho Syndrome), I'll take an AC Cobra
    	  ( 0 to 100 and back to 0 in under 11 seconds. . .Ungawa!!)

    Disclaimer - this is all IMO, an objective statement would take
    time I don't have right now.
    ================================================================
    My 'rule of thumb' is "if it's just sex, it's erotica, if it's
    sex and/or hurting others, it's pornography." 
    
    Two X's humping is erotica. One X raping or mutilating or
    otherwise hurting the other is pornography. (I'm not talking
    about depictions of hard-but-non-damaging stimulation, I'm
    talking physical or emotional injury.) One adult X having sex 
    with a child is causing that child harm, therefore it's porn. 
    Injury depicted as sex is porn. (Whether the injury is real or 
    faked for the camera is irrelevant, it's the *idea* that I find 
    obscene.) Human X having sex with animals ? Even if the animal 
    enjoys it, it's still degrading to humans, therefore porn.

    Dana

>    Two X's humping is erotica. One X raping or mutilating or
>    otherwise hurting the other is pornography. 

Sheesh, when did pornography develop such a negative definition?
I have never heard of anything like this.  I mean, I know that porno
had a slightly negative *conntation* as compared to the word erotica
and I have heard it argued thta pornography is "bad", but I have
never heard it said before that the *definition* of porno is,
essentially, equal to badness itself.

So in other words, you are basically saying that most of what the rest
of us call "porno rags" and "porno flicks" are really "erotic rags"
and "erotic flicks"?  What is strange is that a lot of what you call
"erotica" is called porno by those who produce and consume it!

I think it is one thing to assign connotations to a word.  i think
it is another to define it entirely different than 1) the dictionary
and 2) the general public.

Oh, and Dorian, re: playgirl - a total waste of time, I don't know any
women who get into it.  I have heard that the target market is really
homosexual males, but they pretend to market it to women so it'll stay
available.  I mean, you never see any gay male porno rags for sale in
B. Dalton!  I would think most gay men would find it as inane as most
het women do, but I have no idea.  If I'm buying slick skin mags, I'll
read the stories in Penthouse long before I'll get off on pictures of
limp, hairy men!

D!

This note was sent to me to enter in the file by a member of the file
    who wishes to be anonymous.
    
    Bonnie J
    =wn= comod
    
    _________________________________________________________________

I am incredibly dismayed by the notes in the pornography string.
They show an unbelievable lack of understanding as to what 
pornography really is.  Pornography IS NOT the viewing or
reading of sexual encounters.  Pornography is the blatent
acceptance and ENCOURAGEMENT of acts that inflict pain, humiliation, 
fear, and shame upon its victims.  There are NO consenting adults
in pornography; it is based on a relationship that consists
of one person being victimized, against her or his will.

To see pornography so readily accepted -- and even defended --
in this notesfile helps to explain why there are so many
cases of abuse, so many murders, so many rapes, in this country.
This acceptance and defense of pornography--is it our attempt
to be "worldly," to be open minded, to be free?  Is it a
crazy way to show the world how "cool" we are; that we are
not squares?   

I think we have crossed over the line.  

As one who has been sexually abused, let me say that there is
nothing errotic about being someone's sexual toy, and let me
say that the pain that is inflicted, never goes away.

Re. 28 and .30

>> Ah, now we get back to the good/bad thing.  In .26, there was a suggestion
>> to try to objectify this.  No minors because they cannot make a good judgement
>> to consent, (therefore, no animals because they have no choice either).

>Mark, but if one believes in the Bible (I believe you've stated you're a
>Christian), then humankind has been given dominion over all the animals.
    
>Why should an animal have to give its consent for sex with a human, but not 
>to be killed for food by that same human?

>BTW I'm not advocating sex with animals nor dis-advocating it. I'm trying to
>understand why "bestiality" (now there's a charged word) is bad. Is it *only* 
>because the animal has not consented? 
    
>Or have you brought some of your own value judgements into the discussion?

My belief as a Christian and of the Bible is separate from the point here,
which is about [the lack of] *consent*.  Therefore, my belief system has
little to do with the *point*.

Now if you are asking about biblical mores on the subject, you have twisted
the Scripture out of context in regards to "dominion"  because you do not also 
point out what the Bible says God says about having sex with animals (and it 
isn't very nice).  If you *are* advocating that kind of dominion over the
animals of the world, then you must have no problem with the torture of animals
for cosmetics, the use of their pelts for fashion (instead of warmth), or 
the use of them in pitbulling and cock fights.

Use and misuse are very different but they both deal with the same matter.
Having dominion over the earth does not give license to misuse it.

    This discussion of pornography reminds me of a Miss Manners column 
    I read this morning. A reader had written to Miss Manners asking her
    why people carrying video cameras were allowed to stand in front of
    other people at graduation ceremonies. After Miss Manners made 
    suggestions on how photographing should be handled at formal events,
    she mentioned her inability to understand why people regard important
    moments in their lives as photo opportunities. I am of the same
    opinion. One of the most boring things in the world, IMHO, is someome 
    else's wedding video. Not only is the result boring, but in trying
    to photograph the event, the photographing takes away from the
    the meaning of the occasion. Photography brings one's mind down to
    earth at a time when it could be communing with the sublime. Miss
    Manners mentions that memory is so much better for recording
    events, an opinion I also share.
    
    I think this is applicable to pornography. IMHO, pornography is
    not so much bad as banal. I suspect, and I'm not speaking
    of any individual in this file, that people who are interested in 
    pornography are sexually repressed. I really think people who can, do, 
    and people who can't, look at pornography. (By the way, I don't want any 
    mail offering me a demonstration of the contrary!)
    
    Sex, IMHO, is by nature an experience of the sublime, so a person
    who is soul dead would also have trouble experiencing it fully, and
    that might lead to the kind of sexual self-manipulation that is
    the goal of pornography.
    
    Eileen
    
    
    
    

Re: 43

Wedding videos are boring to others but priceless to the couple (sometimes).
I agree that photographers should be unobtrusive but perhaps not altogether
absent.  I have video-taped the nuptial proceedings (certainly not 
professionally) for a friend and for the most part stayed out of sight
(shooting from the choir loft up front and behind the piano).  So one can
be creative and still capture the memories.

As for memories being the best, yes, but they are not always accurate
and time seems to leave out some details that some would like to remember
(or forget!).

Now for the pornographic application.  Sex begins in the mind.  So the 
imagination is more powerful than any [depicted] reality.  But I suppose
sometimes people need a push, or simply enjoy others' imagination.

I agree with you that sex is a beautiful and wonderful expression.  But there
are people who disagree about what constitutes the beauty and wonder of sex.

    re Eileen, I don't make any claims to know why people who enjoy
    pornography enjoy it (except to say that I have known a couple of
    men who liked pornography and who were also quite capable of doing
    it themselves!) :-), but I, too, find pornography "banal."  I have
    no interest in watching other people have sex.  My former husband
    and I occasionally went to X-rated movies and it became a joke with
    us that I always fell asleep 1/3 of the way into the movie.  
    
    Lorna
      

    RE.40 re .39 I've edited my reply substituting 'OK' and not-OK,
    which have clearer meaning, for 'erotica' and 'pornography',
    which terms are grey areas.
    
    Note 157.39  -< definition by illustration >- version 2.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Disclaimer - this is all IMO, an objective statement would take
    time I don't have right now.
    ================================================================
    My 'rule of thumb' is "if it's just sex, it's OK if it's
    sex and/or hurting others, it's not-OK."
    
    Two X's humping is OK. One X raping or mutilating or
    otherwise hurting the other is not-OK. (I'm not talking
    about depictions of hard-but-non-damaging stimulation, I'm
    talking physical or emotional injury.) One adult X having sex 
    with a child is causing that child harm, therefore it's not-OK.
    Injury depicted as sex is not-OK. (Whether the injury is real or 
    faked for the camera is irrelevant, it's the *idea* that I find 
    obscene.) Human X having sex with animals ? Even if the animal 
    enjoys it, it's still degrading to humans, therefore not-OK.

    Dana

    I don't believe that I have to be of a "sick" mind to enjoy
    pornography/erotica. There are times I like it. Some of the books I
    read are deffinately erotic and I enjoy reading them. Even when the
    particular acts they may describe aren't things I'd go for in reality.
    But just because I wouldn't do them doesn't mean that I don't get
    turned on reading about them. Should I not be allowed that? 

    However, I also believe there is a line that passes from acceptable to
    unacceptable. Many of you have listed consent as the determining
    factor. That seems a given to me. If you do something to me against my
    will you have degraded me. But this gets real sticky when you start to
    consider those forms of sex where submission and domination are part
    of the turn on. I know there's a line, I'm just not very sure where
    it starts.

    The film critics Siskel and Ebret are campaigning for an A rating for
    movies to distinguish what is available for adult viewing but which
    does not carry the stigma of X (which means pornographic to most). The
    spokesman for the motion picture industry says that they can't be
    responsible for deciding what is *art* and what is *pornography* so
    they lump them all together. liesl

    inre .48
    
    well for me, yes

>	It seems that female pornography is usually written.

>	It seems that male pornography is usually pictures/photographs.

Actually there seem to be three categories (broadly) - written, still pictures
and movies.  My preferences are, in order, written, movies, still pictures.
There are, of course, exceptions.  I am, for instance, very partial to still
pictures of the "home grown variety".  (But then, I also collect *written*
amatuer porno too.)  

I guess my tastes are pretty stereotypically female, in that I don't much
enjoy close-ups, written graphic descriptions of the mechanics of sexual
acts, etc.

As to your second claim, I have no idea!  You're a male - what about you?

Judging by the amount of floor and shelf-space devoted to the various forms
of pornography in the "adult bookstores" I have been in, magazines (still
photos) are the biggest seller, movies are second, and sex-books are third,
but still a considerable percentage.  (They have names like Sumptuous Susan
and the Boarding School Headmistress.)

D!

I have bought into the idea that females prefer implied erotica and males 
prefer explicit erotica.  My next question though is "why are these
differences existent?"  The answer to this might change my judgement.

Tee-hee, Ann.  That wasn't so subtle though.  :-)

Any serious considerations?

>I have bought into the idea that females prefer implied erotica and males 
>prefer explicit erotica.  

Ha!  I dunno about "females", but *this* female likes it *explicit*.  I
read a romance novel once...it did *nothing* for me.  I don't like 
*mechanics*, and I don't like *plumbing* shots or descriptions, but 
for me, it's got to be *explicit* to be erotic.

BTW, if anyone is very curious about what kind of erotica women really read
and write, there is a book called "Herotica", which is a collection of
short erotic stories by and for women (some professional, some amateur.)
The stories run the spectrum, from classic Prince Charming fantasies to
sweaty, quick anonymous sex.  A lot of them are *very* graphic or explicit. 
It is editted by Susie Bright (aka Suzie Sexpert) and published by (I think)
Down There Press.  It can be ordered for $8.50 from The Sexuality Library,
1210 Valencia St, San Francisco CA 94110.

I have no idea whether the tastes and preferences exhibited in the book
are "representative" of women's tastes, but they certainly provide more
information than men speculating.

I found, while reading it, that while the stories were no less explicit
or graphic than male-oriented oriented porno of the same type (ie: erotic
shorts stories), there was something distinctly different that I have 
trouble putting into words.  Basically it had a sense of "wholeness" or
"connectedness".  The stories focused a lot on the *interactions* of the
characters, even when those interactions were strictly sexual.

D!

A List of Porn Titles:


Films
-----

A Woman's Torment
Bound & Punished
Captive Coeds
Captive - a Story of Bondage
Captives
Gwen's Tit Torment
Pain & Punishment
Pain Dance
Pain Mania
Pain & Pleasure
Night of Submission
Maimed Women
Revenge & Punishment
Rope Burn
Punished
Angel in Distress
Revenge by Lust
Bizarre Bookstore
Bondage Job Interview
Bound for Slavery
Harem Girls in Bondage
Painful Reunion
Mamas in Bondage
Rope That Works
Slave of Pleasure
Slave Piercing
Slaves for Sale - Part One
Slave Therapy
The Sister's Punishment
Terri's Lesson in Bondage
Taming of Rebecca
Savage Sadists
Sex Crimes
The Slave Exchange
Savaged & Ravaged
Bound in Wedlock
Dominated by Desire
Angel in Bondage
Sally Roberts in Bondage #1
Chained
Bondage Classics
Bound
Bondage 101
All Tied Up
Abducted & Trained
Alex's Slave Lessons
Audra's Ordeal
Bitch Busters
Dick of Death
Ira's Ordeal
Passion for Bondage
Beyond de Sade
Bondage Interludes
Geisha Girls
Kidnapped Girl's Agency
Leather Revenge
Make It Hurt
Maid to be Spanked
Paula's Punishment
Piercing of Laura
Submission of Serena
Sweet Dominance
Taste the Lash
The Story of O
Torture Dungeon
True Crimes of Passion
Violated

Incest Films
------------

Bondage Incest
Incest Delight
Too Young to Know
Family Affair
Family secrets
Strange Family
Sister Dearest
Daddy's Girls
Naughty Nieces
Daddy's Day of Reckoning
Lolita Rape
Daddy's Little Girls
Daddy Dearest
Spank Me Daddy


Paperback Books
---------------

Rape Heat
Rebel Rape
Abused, Defiled & Degraded
All Night Abuse
Abused Runaway
Battered Bride
Bound to Pain
Bound, Whipped & Raped
Deck the Bitch
Chained Slave Secretary
Dorothy: Slave to Pain
Forced into Spanking
Rape Fantasy
Gag the Bitch
Raped by Arab Terrorists
Tied & Tormented
The Schoolgirl's Rape Night
Sally's Anal Punishment
Slave to a Sadist
Slave Wife Sucks
Unwilling Sex Slave
Torture Hunger
Tied Up Tits
Teacher's Rape Attack
Virgin Slaves Torment
Greta's Dungeon Ordeal
I Want All Night Abuse
In Pain
Hot Chains, Cold Wife
Melanie's Torment
Nurse in Distress
Degraded
Naked Teen on a Leash
Virgin Captives
Jap Sadists Virgin Slave
Wife Punishers
Whipped Wives
Punishing His Wife & Daughter
Punished Naughty Schoolgirl
Rape High School
Siren Slave Girls
Humiliate Me
Pussy Slaves
Punished
Treat Me Rough
Trained to be Chained
Abused Vietnamese Virgins
Abusing Their Servants
Anal Slave
A Wife Used
A Virgin's Shame
Bondage Brat
Bondage Fetish
Bondage for Three Wives
Bound for Sex
Chained Up Babysitter
Chained Youth: Girls in Bondage
Chain Whipped Bride
Girls Who Submit
Holding Wendy Down
Josephine's Submission
Night of Agony
Rear Attack
Sheer Torture
Slave Girl & the Leash
Submissive Miss
Teen in Terror
Teen Rape Orgy
Teen's Brutal Ordeal
Teens in Bondage
Teens in Restraints
Tying Up Rebecca
Trial of the Virgin Captive
Whipped Cousins
P.O.W. Sex Slave


Incest Paperback Books
----------------------

Daughter Loves It
Incest Tales
Daddy's Sweet Slut
Whipped & Chained Cousins
Black Stepfather
All the Way In Mom
Come With Sister
Cousin in Chains
Down on Dad
Deep Throat Daughter
Daughter's New Hot Family
Too Young to be Wed
Uncle's Desires Satisfied
Uncle Don's Secret
Two Sucking Nieces
Island of Incest
Karen a Loving Daughter
Naked Naughty Nieces
Orgy Nieces
Sex Toy Daughter
Sibling Sex Swing
Sister's Hot Secret
Sister Blows Big Ones
Suck Eager Daughter
Stepfather's Slave
Spanked Daughters
Small Town Sisters
The Family's Hot Nights
Hot Coming Niece
Daughter's Peeping Fun
Darling, Darling Niece
Dad Goes Down
Daddy Tastes So Sweet
Family Captives
His Daughter's Big Tits
Horny Darling Niece
Horny Family Suckers
Horny Holy Roller Family
Horny Little Nieces
Hot Wide Spread Daughter
Hot Schoolgirl Sister
Hot Easy Sis
Hot Family Lovers
Hot Sister, My Lover
Nights with Daddy
Naughty Sister in Heat
Making Mother Suck
Hot New Daughter
Karena, Loving Daughter
Over Daddy's Knee
Kneeling for Daddy
Naughty Family Urges
Naughty Family Orgy
Sex Slave Daughters
Sluttish Daughter
Very Horny Daughter
Serving Her Dad
Panties for Daddy
Wild Easy Daughter
Daughter's First Time
Daughter's Hot Urges
Rammed, Crammed Sister
Dad & Daughter Ecstasy
Daughter Learns Fast
Daddy's Hot Daughter
Raped Stepdaughter
Too Young

    re .55 Yeesh ! And I thought those Harlequin titles were ridiculous.

    Oh, really?  What's wrong with titles like
    
    _Love's_Purblind_Concupiscence_?
    
    							Ann B.
    							who never got past
    							a Harlequin cover

    Re: 55 P.O.I. question, where did you get these titles from?
    
    
    REK

                 -< for yer romantic fantasizing pleasure... >-

:-9!!

BTW, most of the films listed have no sex in them, ie: no insertion of
any sort.  (I would say *all*, and certainly all of the ones listed that
I have seen, but there might be one or two that slipped by the censors
so I won't generalize.)

Tacky titles, that's for sure.  The better ones have more subtle names
like "The Story of K" (that's K not O) and "The Class of '86".

D!

    re .48,
    
    >	It seems that female pornography is usually written.
    >
    >	It seems that male pornography is usually pictures/photographs.
    >
    >	Is that the case?
    
    Where to start....hmph.  Define pornography.  Defend your contention
    that pornography for females is not pornography for males.  Defend the
    obverse (easier).
    
    When your analyses are inconclusive, realize that we don't live in a
    binary world and stop asking such reductionsitic, simplistic questions.
    
    DougO

Re: 61  "stop asking such reductionsitic, simplistic questions"

Binary world, no; but certain generalizations, or perhaps to be more accurate,
observations, may be made.  I did not intuit this concept of whispers for
women and mirrors for men, but I have seen it borne out.

With respect to D!, if I may be so bold as to use a clich�, whatever turns
you on.  ;-)  Have it explicit.  

One way to a conclusion is to set forth the hypothesis first, which is what 
I did.  It is a point of interest to me why [there seems to be] a preponderance
on the one side and one the other.  Not completely binary but not completely
dispersed either, or there wouldn't be [a need for] market studies that target 
consumer groups on everything from toothpaste to antacids.

What's wrong with exploring this question?

Mark

    Eh?  Mark, my .61 wasn't referring to your notes.  The note to which 
    I did refer was so simplistic as to be unanswerable.
    
    DougO

.63>   Eh?  Mark, my .61 wasn't referring to your notes.  The note to which 
.63>    I did refer was so simplistic as to be unanswerable.
.63>    DougO


.48>	It seems that female pornography is usually written.
.48>	It seems that male pornography is usually pictures/photographs.
.48>	Is that the case?
.48>  -mike z


I see this as very similar to my questions, hence my response in .62.

Perhaps Mike should have postulated it a little differently but I'll let 
him write for himself.

To answer Mike, I think it is *generally* the case (with respect again to
D!'s broader tastes in sexual material).  But I am not usually satified with
holding generalizations without knowing why.

Mark

P.S. Not all generalizations are bad; false or irrational generalizations 
can be bad (right?); but that's a rathole.

>To answer Mike, I think it is *generally* the case (with respect again to
>D!'s broader tastes in sexual material).  

???

Ignoring the content and just looking at the *style*, I would guess (based on
books like Herotica, which I liked a lot, and on talking with lots of female
friends, and on reading (and reading about) women-oriented porn) I would say
my tastes in erotica are not that far off from the norm.  I think calling
my tastes "broader" (presumably broader than "average") is making assumptions
you don't have info to back up.

What I was saying was that I think most men, and in fact, most women, don't
have any idea what really turns *most* women on.  A lot of women like porno
(even if they don't call it that.)  And a lot of women who like it, think
that they are *unusual* for liking it.

The media has consistently downplayed female sexuality.  Since Victorian
times, females aren't supposed to *have* a sexuality.  Women don't like sex,
remember?  Therefore they couldn't enjoy reading about sex.  Women want love,
men want sex, so women only like reading about *romance*, not down-and-dirty
sex.  But slowy, slowly, society is beginning to realize that women 
*are* sexual beings, and do like sex.  Some women can (*gasp*) enjoy sex on
a purely physical level, just like men!  But I think society is still clinging
to the asexual portrait of women, and therefore clings to the idea that
sexually graphic material wouldn't interest women.  We are taught to believe
that women can only be turned on by cute, warm-fuzzy romantic stuff, but
a casual glance at Nancy Friday's books will show that this isn't true.

So just *throw away* all those media and society induced images of women's
sexuality you have.  Ask women!  Read self-identified women's erotica.
Read "My Secret Garden" by Nancy Friday, to know what women fantasize about.
Read "Herotica" to know what women write and read.  Read "Caught Looking" to
know what women *think* about pornography!

D!

Mark,

On rereading, I see that my previous note might be interpretted that I was
angry at you or offended by your remark.  I was not, and my tirade was not
really directed at you.  It was just that your comment about my tastes 
being different from the norm brought to mind what the "norm" is supposed
to be.  My anger was directed at a society that created that "norm",
which is not true or realistic.

I *do* get angry, very angry, when I think about it. Because I agree with
Dorian that sex has been repressed, and thus perverted, in our society, and
I believe that is *particularly* so with women.  My anger is personal, for
I feel personally repressed, and angry at the years that I spent not even
knowing that I had a sexuality, and then the years after that that I spent
not knowing I was *allowed* to have a sexuality, thinking I was weird and
feeling guilty.

To me, *my* enjoyment of erotica, and any woman's enjoyment of erotica, and
especially the existence of erotica that exists *for* the enjoyment of women,
is an very empowering reclaiming of female sexuality!  I don't think it is
sick, and furthermore I don't think it is particularly unusual, for women
to enjoy "men's pornography".  And I think calling it sick, calling people
who read it "victims" and "perverts", attempts to take away the hard won 
right for women in this society to *be* sexual beings.

D!

Re: .66

Thanks, D!  I am not angry.  And the term "broader" was intended as a 
positive remark for you, not to mark you as out of normalcy but perhaps
instead out in the forefront of changing sexual attitudes.

All of you know enough of my ideas to know that when it comes to sexual
matters, I tend to view it as more of a private matter.  My "crossing line" 
is probably far different to yours.  And in that, *I* am more likely
out of the main stream.

But Diana is right in that we are sexual beings and we are allowed to 
do more than "think of England."

Then perhaps Diana answers (or is answering) the question in saying that
women do like "explicit" stuff.  When you (D!) said you prefer in order, 
written, movies, and still photos, I wonder what the men's order would be?  
Of course, this assumes you fall into the majority who prefer in order 
written, movies, and still photos.

I certainly do not intend to imply that women do not become visually stimulated
but that the first choice or tendency goes from brain to sexual arousal
with less emphasis on the visual.

Now my wife claims that its simply a difference in gender make-up,
and that's it. You know - different chemistries.  

I have actually tired of this track (are men and women stimulated differently
and if so, why), but it may have more to do with a bright sunny Friday.

So, offense was not my intent, D!  Thanks for the book referral, and of course,
I'll more than likely pass on it.   :-)

Mark

    
    re:.59
    
    am i misunderstanding you? every porn film i have ever seen (including
    at least one from ms. kottler's list) had plenty of 'insertions'...
    

    re:.55
    
    The problem I have seeing a list of titles like that is that it
    contains no perspective. The implication here is that this list
    is representative of pornography in general. I'm not convinced.
    What percentage of the entire realm of pornography do titles of
    this sort represent?  Probably much less than the list is meant
    to imply (though the thought can certainly be entertained that
    a single title like "Savaged and Ravaged" is one too many). I'd
    be surprised if there wasn't at least 20 relatively innocuous
    titles such as "Debbie Does It All" or "Cafe Flesh" for every
    one in your list.
    
    (On the other hand, violence-oriented pornography is much more
    prevalent these days than it used to be, mostly because the
    "vanilla" porn has made it into the mainstream. A single Harold
    Robbins novel contains sex that it far more explicit than that
    which was considered pornography thirty years ago.)
    
    The other problem I have with the list is the inclusion of the
    bondage titles. Each one is just as likely to be female-dominant
    as female-submissive, and so aren't necessarily relevant to an
    argument about pornography as an expression of violence against
    women.
    
    --- jerry

    	"Bimbo Cheerleaders from Outer Space" was actually pretty funny,
    for what "plot" it had...
    
    							--D

>    am i misunderstanding you? every porn film i have ever seen (including
>    at least one from ms. kottler's list) had plenty of 'insertions'...
 
Sorry, I was referring to the "Bondage, etc" category, not the others.
Films with names like "Slaves in Bondage" either 1) do not have bondage
or 2) do not have insertion.  More likely the latter, and I've seen 
bunches of those.  Because, in the truth, the anti-porn-and-violence
feminist groups *are* actually quite powerful, unfortunately.

D! 

    (There's no way I could express these ideas as well as Russ; sorry
    about the length. - Ray)
    
    
    "The more your life has had to do with the violence and cruelty of
    (male) sexuality, the more salient these are are to you, the more you
    will attack (male) sexuality as violent, callous, and cruel.  And you
    will be perfectly correct.  The more your life has had to do with the
    autonomy and joy of sexual expression, whether you have had to work
    your way through to the joy or not, the more sensitive you will be to
    issues of sexual supression, and the more you will tend to defend
    sexuality per se as a valuable good.  And you will be prefectly
    correct.
    
    "To make the whole business even worse, on the anti side there's not
    only sensitivity to the violence of patriarchal sex, but also _some_
    women who perceive any kind of open expression of sex as dangerous and
    brutal.  And the other side has _some_ women who perceive sexual
    expression as so important and valuable that any kind of sexual
    expression, no matter what it is, is fine...
    
    "Is there any way of establishing that we are not at each others'
    throats?  That what's driving us all crazy is that women's experience
    of sexuality under sexism is inescapably double?"
    
    
    "As for the men's magazines, surely heterosexual men's desire to look
    at women's bodies is in itself perfectly acceptable.  What's not
    acceptable is that the images sold to men are plastic and unreal, and
    that such sale takes place as part of a deeply sex-hating and
    woman-hating society.  But to attack pornography seems to be going in
    the wrong direction.  Sexual fantasies - to judge from women's - don't
    make much sense if taken at face value.  Moreover, those fifteen" <S &
    M books she was looking at> "(chosen by a friend of mine for the
    horribleness of their covers) are much more concerned with f*ing than
    they are with violence.  It's not pornography but the mainstream
    culture which delivers violence as a substitute for sexual pleasure... 
    The classic union of sexual repression with violence can't occur in
    pornography, which has sexual expression as its raison d'ete; it's, as
    far as my experience goes, in supposedly non-sexual material that the
    viciousness gets really bad."
    
    
    "Perhaps a word here about `sexual repression'...  When I speak - as
    Reich does - about sexual `liberation' I do not mean (as he didn't
    either) any kind of sexual outlet of any quality, and the only
    superiority of this to that being which one happens more often...  I
    don't know what Reich's opinion of S & M would be since he never
    mentions it.  What he does call `sadism' is what we would call simply
    cruelty and viciousness - like (he mentions) getting a woman drunk so
    that she can't resist when several men f* her, a practice that used to
    be common in college fraternities when I went to school twenty years
    ago, and may be still.
    
    "`Sexual liberation' does NOT mean, when I use the phrase, joylessness,
    furtiveness, compulsion, threats, or the kind of behavior Phyllis
    Chesler notes in _About_Men_ in which she asked men wheter they enjoyed
    sex with women and got the answer, `I like orgasm, of course; who
    wouldn't?'  This kind of partial and miserable activity is a sign of
    repression, not freedom...  Anyone who thinks this society is anywhere
    near `sexual liberation' should try sitting in a bus with her hand on a
    friend's genitals, and watch the faces around her.  Unfortunately we
    are caught today between two lies, not one:  The still powerful beliefs
    of the right and the `you _must_ be sexual and any way is O.K.' which
    involves the utter unreality of, say, Playboy pictures and any damned
    thing at all, from the pleasures of shared fantasy (which do promote
    intimacy) to the acting out of power fantasies _against_ others.
    
      - "Pornography and the Doubleness of Sex for Women", printed in
        "Magic Mommas, Trembling Sisters, Puritans & Perverts: Feminist
        Essays" by Joanna Russ, The Crossing Press.

    
    re:.75
    i think it's unfortunate that the anti-violence folk, feminist or
    otherwise, are not *stronger*.
    
    please try not to blame feminists for the lack of market clout for
    your particular kink.
    

    re. .75
    
    You're kidding, right?
    

re: -1:    You're kidding, right?

Kidding about which part?

D!

    
    Please try to avoid using 4-letter words.  If you must use them, please
    soften them using *s, as outlined in 1.7
    
    
    Justine

My objection to porn is that it's so onesidedly male-oriented. Most porn,
and the "sexy images" that spin off from it in all the media & advertising 
and that exist everywhere you look, have nothing to do with women's
sexuality except to show men controlling it. 

Unlike D!, who (I think I'm correct here) sees porn as freeing women's
long-denied sexuality, I see porn and its associated images as perpetuating
that denial. Whether women are shown as men's sexual playthings or selling
merchandise or as victims of explicit violence or humiliation, these images
validate men's power to use women's bodies for their own purposes, whether
sexual or economic or political. 

Thus to me porn is perfectly consistent with (and is indeed a vehicle for)
the hatred and fear and contempt for women's bodies/sexuality that we
incorporated into our major religions several thousand years ago. If we 
want sexy images, let's have a little mutuality, not exploitation. But I 
don't see that happening. To show women with a sexuality of their own, not 
under male control, would be too threatening to those in charge. 

Dorian

>Unlike D!, who (I think I'm correct here) sees porn as freeing women's
>long-denied sexuality...


Actually it would be more accurate to say that I see women's *enjoyment* of
porn (whether that porn is "male-oriented" of "female-oriented") and increasing
(aleit slowly) societal acceptance of that enjoyment as resulting from and
adding to the freeing of women's long-denied sexuality.  Porn, per se,
means nothing and does nothing.

Meaning that it is not the images presented *in* the pornography, but its
availability to women and it's acceptability (as opposed to supression)
that are freeing to women.  

D!

    re .82, Dorian and D!, both of your views seem very extreme to me.
     I don't feel the way either of you do about porn.  I guess for
    once I have a middle-of-the-road attitude.  I don't think porn is
    as bad as Dorian thinks it is, or as exciting as D! seems to think
    it is.  
    
    Lorna
    

    Well, after having read an interview with Andrea Dworkin over the
    weekend I'm convinced that there are some people, her and Dorian
    included, who deliberately misrepresent what porn is to further their
    own political goals.
    
    The list of movie titles posted, for example, was a very selective
    posting with names designed to inflame.  If there was a good point to
    be made here, and I believe there is, it quickly gets lost in the
    hyperbole.  Dworkin takes a similar approach when talking about the
    "pornography industry" as a well organized, well connected,
    conglomerate bent on the subjugation of women.

    Re: Mark a few back
    
    That was a notes collision; I was responding to Dorian, not you.

    .87 -
    
    not much

.87 -

Well I did think of two things in the world that aren't necessarily
male-dominated/oriented. Yogurt isn't. And the stars - the stars aren't.

A lot of discussion groups tend to be though. ;-)

D.

    Mike,
    
    If you start with the idea that about, oh, 4,500 years ago a few
    patriarchal societies elbowed their way out of the wilderness
    (herding cultures) and tried very hard to make themselves dominant
    (a foreign concept to the agricultural cultures), and that these
    patricarchal cultures just developed, and evolved, and refined their
    techniques for century after century, then you might come up with
    the mapping of society that a lot of women in this file have.
    
    One thing you might have missed:  All this was not done for THY
    benefit.  It was done for the benefit of a *few* men -- and you're
    not one of them -- but they understand the gains to be reaped from
    tossing crumbs to the masses.
    
    This is a very paranoid vision, isn't it?  Just try to look at it
    while thinking that there is NO MALICE in any of it.  Then it looks
    weird, but in a plausible, even compelling, way.
    
    							Ann B.

    Dorian, you must've missed these in your travels:
    
      Pissing on Pauline
    
      Licking Lucinda's Labes (Major and Minor)
    
      Defecation Defeats Deborah
    
      Hannah's Hundred Hand Jobs
    
              and (a 4 Letter Word Follows the Form Feed)
    
    
      Coming in Caitlin's C*nt     
    
    
    There's more, but I'm getting weary typing them. And I must now control
    my urges to walk down the hall of PKO, raping, pillaging, plundering,
    plugging..........
    
      Alan

How acceptable would porn be if it depicted various ethnic or minority 
groups (Jews, Blacks, Italians,...) the way it depicts women? For example,
if the following titles (from that long list) are acceptable: 

	Maimed Women
	A Woman's Torment
	Gag the Bitch


would those titles be acceptable if you substitute one of the groups
above?  Fill in the blanks:

		Maimed ____
		A _____'s Torment
		Gag the ___


D.

    It's always open season on women, Dorian.  To quote Yoko Ono, "Woman is
    the N*gg*r of the world".  All of the other groups contain some men, you
    see and so can garner some sympathy and understanding from our patriarchal
    culture.  Women truly are in a class by themselves when it comes to
    human decency and respect.  Notice not even rapists can be treated as
    a class as I tried to do in V2.  That quickly got turned around into
    modeling the victims - the women.  And the discussion of male violence
    quickly segued into a discussion of how women bait men.
    
    But it's always open season on the group known as women.  And if we
    balk, we are called hypersensitive, strident, militant - well, we all
    know the list quite well.  We're expected to be jolly good sports about
    it all, you know and instead of whining about our own feelings, we
    should be paying attention to men's feelings that it's just "art
    appreciation" and that they really "know the difference", etc.
    
    With silence, we are tacitly agreeing. In speaking up, we betray 
    ourselves as hypersensitive bad sports.  That's part of the definition 
    of oppression - damned if you do, damned if you don't.

    Re: .91
    
    > How acceptable would porn be if it depicted various ethnic or minority
    > groups (Jews, Blacks, Italians,...) the way it depicts women?
    
    There is a certain subcategory of "porn" that does exactly that. It is
    no more or less acceptable (as far as I can tell) as any other "porn".
    
    Your argument would be stronger if you knew more about the specifics of
    the subject you were talking about.
    
    	-- Charles

    
    re: 95
    
    > There is a certain subcategory of "porn" that does exactly that. it
    > is more or less acceptable (as far as I can tell) as any other "porn"
    
    It is not common or "mainstream" in the same sense as movies about
    women being maimed for the pleasure of men, and even if it were, it
    wouldn't make it right.  This stuff is degrading... to whomever it
    victimizes.
    
    dm

    Having seen a few "mainstream" porn flicks, I would love for you to
    tell me about the "mainstream" porn that shows women being maimed for
    the pleasure of men.  That's about as mainstream as the list Dorian
    posted (i.e. not at all).
    
    Jim

    dm,
    
    I was not justifying it, since I feel this argument is a lot like
    Abortion arguments. Both sides have made their minds up and are yelling
    at each other in order to make themselves feel good. Mental
    m*st*rb*t**n if you will. I posted my note as a direct reply to a
    specific question/misstatement of fact/bad analogy. Dorian seemed to be
    making the claim that porn about specific minorities would not be
    tolerated, whereas porn about women (evidently in analogy to
    minoriteies) was not only acceptable but popular.
    
    My point, my ONLY point, is that this is not true. Porn directed at and
    depicting specific minorities AS MINORITIES not only exists, but is a
    popular sub-genre. MUCH more popular than say, bondage or incest
    flicks. Check out titles with "Oriental" or "Black" in them.
    
    This is not, and was not, an attempt to ascribe any "right" or "wrong"
    to it, merely that Dorian's argument, was false in fact.
    
    In case it isn't clear, I find the theory of "pornography" completely
    acceptable. I have problems with the American Pornography industry, and
    I have problems with the degree that women as sex objects are depicted
    in other media, but that is not "porn". (FWIW I have no problem with
    the theory of prostitution either, but it's current implementation is
    horrifying.)

re: Jim

I've only seen MIT reg day porn, and two flicks rented by a friend, one with
the famous ivory soap baby on it. Two scenes come to mind; one was from the
ivory soap flick. I only remember them vaguely; there were pretty awful to
someone with the body parts in question. I honestly don't remember which was in
what title, but I'm absolutely certain all were "mainstream".

	Mez

    Hmmm, maybe my "mainstream" only warrants an "R" rating?  I'm not
    really an expert in content, so may have bene off base.

    I originally wrote these comments last year, in the previous volume of
    Womannotes, but I then deleted it a few hours later out of concern over the
    appropriateness of the topic.  However, after reading this discussion,
    I have decided that my hesitation was groundless.  So here it goes...


    Some time ago, I was watching a rerun of "Saturday Night Live", where
    a reference was made to an organized censorship effort directed at the
    show's advertisers, because of a sketch in an earlier episode which had
    used the word "penis".  I don't understand why so many individuals were
    offended by the use of the term, since I have no doubt that many of the
    offended parties themselves possess the very object that the term
    describes.

    This reminds me of an incident that occurred when I was taking sex
    education back in the sixth grade.  For purposes of the class, the
    sexes were temporarily segregated; the boys went to one classroom, and
    the girls to another.  The girls' class had finished early, and they
    were congregated outside, peering through a window in the door.  At
    that moment, the overhead projector in the boys' class was displaying a
    drawing of a penis.  Out of embarrassment, several boys in the class
    struggled to remove the overhead slide so that the girls couldn't see
    it.  Finally, the teacher established order and lectured the boys with
    the message that if we were going to be ashamed of the male sex organ,
    then we were missing the entire point of the class.

    Well, I guess he did have a point.  I had just assumed that 11 year-old
    girls found the penis to be a totally disgusting part of the male
    anatomy, and, no doubt I was right about that; but I suspect that by
    the time they become adults many of them learn to tolerate its
    existence as an inescapable reality of human life. In fact, my concern
    about females seeing a drawing of the penis is rather ironic, given
    that in their adulthood most women have done more than just observe a
    drawing of the thing; in fact, of the five senses (sight, taste, smell,
    touch, and hearing), I would guess that, depending on the individual,
    most adult females have encountered an actual penis with anywhere from
    one to four of them.  The only sense I am omitting right off the bat is
    that of hearing, simply because most penises don't make much noise; the
    person to whom it is attached may himself make noise, but that doesn't
    really count.

    And then there was the incident back in high school geometry, when a
    classmate of mine, through an apparent Freudian slip, described to the
    class the process of circumcising a triangle.  I presume, although I'm
    not sure, that the word he meant to use was circumscribe.

    I think it is time for Americans to take a more mature attitude toward
    the human anatomy, which, of course, includes the penis.  While it is
    true that only half of us actually have one, most of the other half has
    to live with its existence.  This fact alone suggests the need for
    society to change its outlook.  I believe that we should not let this
    issue dangle any more.

    -- Mike

    Mike,
    
    A good friend of mine long ago personified his penis.  Its (well,
    "his") name was Alexander and nickname Sasha (of course!).  Freddie
    remarked that Alexander was very friendly, always willing to greet
    a new friend with a happy "Splat!".  Perhaps you should listen more
    closely.
    
    						Ann B.

    Geeze, and I'd always heard you should never date a man who names his
    penis. :*) Though I remember laughing myself silly over the talking
    penis in a movie whose title I can't remember. I was about TV and
    called "boob tube" or "tunnel vision" or something.

    Mike's comments reminded me of my sex ed class where all the pictures
    of a natural childbirth were *cut out* of the text books. Apparently it
    was considered pornography for youngs girls and boys to view a birth.
    liesl

    
    	Re 104. Was that movie called Groove Tube?
    
    	Guy
    

    Thanks, Ann, for pointing out that, with the help of a friend, it
    can indeed make the "splat" noise (as well as others, such as "pop").
    
    -- Mike

    re .105, it *can*?  (splat?pop?)
    
    (Oh, well, I never had a sex education class so I guess that's why
    I don't know about it.)
    
    Lorna
    

    (sort of) re: .102 (Ann)
    
    Dear Ms Womannotes,
    
    For years I've been trying without success to teach "Wally" to 
    recite the Gettysburg Address.  Are you saying that I should
    start him out with easier words like "Splat!", "Rad!" and "Ni!"?
    
    Confused,
    
    Anonymous

    It obvious. 
    
    You should've named him "Abe".
    
    "Wally" could probably do TV commercials for used cars.
    

<    	Re 104. Was that movie called Groove Tube?
    
<    	Guy
    
    Thanks, Guy, that was it. I found it quite amusing.

    That thought also brings me to the idea of porn as humor. I have a
    fondness for intentionally funny pornography. I don't watch it often
    but over the years I've seen a few I enjoyed. "Is there Sex after
    Death" had some hysterical sexual olympics where the Russins were
    expelled for faking orgasms. And I've seen a take off of "Alice in
    Wonderland" that was pretty funny.

    And come on, parts of "Deep Throat" were a giggle. Could you ever
    forget the scene where the woman says "do you mind if I smoke while you
    eat?" Maybe if we spent more time laughing in the bedroom porn would
    lose much of it's ability to degrade. liesl

    re .110, I thought Groove Tube was funny, too.  I remember a quiz
    show scene.  I think one of the contestants was from Gonad, Idaho.
    
    I remember seeing a movie called Trash that I thought was hysterical,
    too.  But, I'm afraid "Deep Throat" bored me.
    
    No, it's not all grim degradation.
    
    Lorna
    

    re: .109 (Dawn)
    
    Dear Ms Womannotes,
    
    Thank you so much!  You were absolutely right - it was a case 
    of mis-guided career choices.  Last night I tried teaching
    Wally to say "Ford" and "Pontiac" and before you know it,
    he was jabbering merrily about "4.8 percent financing" and
    "tremendous dealer incentives".  I'm so grateful!  And so
    is Wally.  What with Joe Isuzu announcing his retirement and
    the new model year being nearly upon us, Wally is optimistic
    about getting his first big break.
    
    Still anonymous, but perhaps not for long.
    

re .98 -

>  Dorian seemed to be making the claim that porn about specific minorities
>  would not be tolerated, whereas porn about women (evidently in analogy to
>  minoriteies) was not only acceptable but popular. 
    
>  My point, my ONLY point, is that this is not true. Porn directed at and
>  depicting specific minorities AS MINORITIES not only exists, but is a
>  popular sub-genre. MUCH more popular than say, bondage or incest
>  flicks. Check out titles with "Oriental" or "Black" in them.
    

How visible is it? To repeat a well-known example, how acceptable would it 
be to show J*ws or Bl**ks or It*l**ns being put through a meatgrinder in
(on the cover of?) an extremely popular magazine, available at any and every
drugstore, which did show a w*m*n thus? 

    
>  I have problems with the degree that women as sex objects are depicted
>  in other media, but that is not "porn". 

I say it is porn. And if it isn't, it might as well be.


Maybe we should try to find out what specifically prevents minority and 
ethnic groups from being shown, *very visibly*, objectified/degraded/
otherwise used/abused, when w*m*n so frequently are. 

I bet it's money,
        
D.

    
    
    I think we need to clarify what we mean by porn.  Dorian, I think
    Charles' point was that there are porn movies that depict members
    of various ethnic groups.  But I agree with your point, that the
    way that women's bodies are (ab)used in advertising (mainstream
    advertising!!!!) would not be tolerated if it were applied to
    ethnic or racial minorities.  So maybe we need to either find
    an operational definition of porn that could include mainstream
    advertising or talk about the two separately -- where porn is
    designed to have some entertainment value, and adverstising is
    designed to sell something.  
    
    Justine
           

    RE: .112
    
    Gawd! What a mental picture! Can you just *see* it in between news
    shots on the Evening News!! 
    
    You'll need something custom-made in a loud plaid sportcoat, tho'....
    
    

    NO FAIR!!!!   I had to answer the phone to an outside call for
    my boss while reading all about Wally etc....   I *did* manage
    to come off professional, if I may say so myself!  
    
    BTW....I *thought* the official name was RALPH!  
    
    justme....jacqui

>              -< Judy Blume is *the* authority on the subject... >-

>    BTW....I *thought* the official name was RALPH!  
    
    	Ohmigod, does *that* bring back memories!

    	And Steve, your notes are a wonderful relief in here! :^)

    	amy

      
    
   > BTW....I *thought* the official name was RALPH!  
   > justme....jacqui
    
    I always thought it was Peter. How silly of me.
    
    Kate
    

    I have frequently heard references to Mr. Happy - but perhaps that's
    formal address.
    
    aq
    

    re .119 "Mr. Happy" is a state of, ummm, mind

"privilege is simple:
going for a pleasant stroll after dark, 
not checking the back of your car as you get in, sleeping soundly,
speaking without interruption, and not remembering
dreams of rape that follow you all day,
that wake you up crying, and privilege
is not seeing your stripped, humiliated body
plastered in celebration across every magazine rack."

    
                Together, UCLA Women's Newsmagazine 1983
   		quoted in A Feminist Dictionary, 1985

                                                        

From the Springfield, Mass. 'Sunday Republican' 6-10-90

"Debate Over Pornography Leaves Feminists Divided"
By Lisa Freiman

'Northampton - When a group of local writers started up a left-wing
journal this winter, they featured the pornography debate in the
first two issues.

"Locally it's a very hot topic," said Celia Cuddy, a member of the 
editorial staff of Left Field. "It's probably the issue that progressive
women are most organized around."

locally and nationally, the pornography debate is dividing feminists
who worry on the one hand that pornography is being used to torture and
murder women and on the other hand that the anti-pornography movement
will set back feminism's gains of the last 25 years by allying it with
the conservative movement. 

"As soon as anything becomes women against women, you have to hope...
(that women are) going to get over it soon" said Pamela J. Kimmell,
editor of The Calendar, a newsletter for lesbians in the Connecticut
River Valley.

Feminist on both sides of the issue agree that violent pornography,
which shows men raping, mutilating and beating women, teaches people 
to connect sex  with violence against women.

But there the agreement ends.

The anti-pornography movement believes that all pornography teaches men
to rape, hurt and humiliate women. The message may be overt (as in 
violent pornography in which women are tortured and killed) or it may
be covert (as in mainstream pornography in which women are dominated 
by men) but the message is always the same, according to anti-porn 
feminists.

"From pornography to Harlequin romances, it's manly to be sexually
aggressive and refuse to take 'no' for an answer, and feminine to
be desirable and submit," said Lierre Keith, one of two women who
is awaiting trial on a charge of malicious destruction of property over
$ 250, after she allegedly spilled red paint on sexually explicit 
magazines at the Amherst Newsroom Dec. 13.

Last fall, Keith developed a slide show to make her point. The
presentation meets with more resistance from mainstream groups,
such as college classes, than it does with women who ask to see
the show, according to Keith.

But every woman looks horrified, she said.

"(Mainstream women) may say: 'you're lying, this didn't happen to
anyone I know.' But there's not as much resistance as I expected,"
said Keith.

The show tries to demonstrate that the message of violence against women
is as prevalent in magazines such as Playboy, Penthouse and Hustler
as it is in blatantly violent magazines. In one example from Hustler 
magazine, an article advises readers how to persuade retarded women 
to have sex.

It ends with this suggestion: "Tell her no one will believe her" if
she tells.

			***

Women who work with battered women say they also are convinced that 
pornography creates violence against women. At Necessities/Necessidades,
a Northampton shelter for battered women, advocates are so convinced of 
the link between porn and violence that they have started asking women 
if their batterers use pornography.

Often, according to Gail W. Kielson, a direct service coordinator for
the group, they do. "The man will do something he has seen in por-
nography or ask her to replicate something he saw," said Kielson.
"Women will say they're being forced to do things that make them feel
dirty, or that they believe is wrong."

hard-line activists say the message underlying all pornography is
that women are available to be hurt, humiliated and raped by men because
that is the message of society. But other feminists say this misses
the point.

			***

"No one disagrees that a lot of porn is male-centered, woman-hating
and racist," argues Amherst College history professor Margaret Hunt
in the spring issue of Feminist Review. "(But) plenty of people, including
many feminists, doubt that pornography is inherently that way, simply
because it is sexually explicit."

Hunt said that feminists jeopardize the gains women have made in the past
25 years by joining conservatives such as former US Attorney General
Edwin Meese to fight pornography. Since conservatives would be much more 
likely than feminist to get any new censorship powers, she said, helping
conservatives turns over to that group the right to shape the image of 
women.

And in that image, she said, "any sexual act not sanctified by marriage
and not tied to reproduction" would be considered pornographic.

"You can't underestimate the increased conservatism of the Moral Majority,"
said Hunt. "They are distressed by homosexuality, abortion and birth 
control."

Other feminists also challenge the premise that pornography directly 
causes men to beat and rape women.

"In isolated cases, I'm sure it does happen, but that's not the evidence 
one needs to make the larger claim," said Meredith W. Michaels, an
assistant professor of philosophy at Hampshire College. "To say that
pornography causes violence is to say that violence wouldn't occur
without it, and I don't think that's true."

Calendar editor Kimmell said she believes pornography can only incite 
to violence those people who are already violent. And working with
battered women at Necessities/Necessidades did not change her mind.

"Pornography is like guns," she said. "In some hands it's not dangerous
and in other hands its a murder weapon."

These women said they are most troubled by the belief among anti-pornography
feminists that the sex act itself is pornographic in that it is degrading
to women.

				***

According to this school of thought, society teaches that women are sex 
objects for men and must be "taken." Therefore, any sexual practice in 
which a woman is submissive or can be perceived as being less powerful
is degrading and should be stopped because it manifests society's twisted
view of sexuality.

The movement therefor scorns many sexual practices and styles of dress
in both the heterosexual and lesbian communities.

"There's a joke about women we call the sex police," said Kimmell.
"They're saying what turns you on is sick, and that's the same (point
of view) as (the conservatives)."

Michaels said she is cheered by the fact that the pornography debate 
has heated up lately within the feminist community.

				***

It means, she said, that feminists are getting nervous about the increased
conservatism in their movement.

"The (anti-pornography) strategy looked good in 1972, but the world was 
different then," said Michaels. "Abortion was legal and Nixon was out."

Hunt said the anti-pornography movement has grown because it is the only
issue that feminists can get conservatives interested in. More impor-
tantly, she said, it is the "quick fix" of a generation that feels
it cannot control crime and drugs, but can do something about pornography.

Though anti-pornography feminists hold to their views, many also say
they have begun finding answers more palatable to more people than banning
pornography. Kielson of Necessities/Necessidades said she won't even 
talk about banning pornography because it is so controversial. Instead, 
she wants to create a movement of men and women who refuse to buy porn.
"If people refuse to support the industry, then it no longer has consumers"
she said.

				***

On the national level, feminists are pushing for legislation which avoids
the criminal system altogether and offers a civil remedy instead. The law,
which is in committee in both houses of Congress, would allow 
pornography victims - such as women forced to make pornography or rape 
victims who could show that pornography contributed to the crime - to
collect damages if they could show that pornography incited someone to
harm them, according to Page A. Mellish of Feminists Fighting Pornography.

Mellish said feminists are not trying to cater to people who argue that 
pornography statutes threaten free speech rights. But she said it is an 
advantage that the law would sidestep the censorship issue.

"You're not empowering the state, you're simply offering the victim
opportunity for recourse," she said.

Despite their differences, feminists on both sides of the issue agree 
they must create new images of women to counteract the subordinate
image of women portrayed in pornography and other media. This must be 
done, they said through existing media, and through new media they 
create.

Kimmell said she is confident the pornography issue will not permanently
divide feminists but will instead be one in a series of arguments
that come and go.

"There will be some hard feelings for a while," she said. "But I think
the next issue will overshadow this."

    
    Gee Kate, that was *official* according-to-Judy.   Another name to 
    put in the mill is Mr. Wiggley.   ;*)
    
    justme....jacqui

From the Springfield, Mass. 'Sunday Republican' 6-10-90

a companion piece to the previously entered note on porn
and feminism

========================================================

"Porn Star Fan Club Head Decries Violence"
by Lisa Freiman

Dennis W. Rylee caters to "the intellectual sexophile."

Rylee, who is president of the St. Louis, Mo.- based Traci Lords
Fan Club, considers himself and the members of his club gentle 
connoisseurs of pornography. he hates violence of all kinds, he
said, and believes that violent pornography should be banned.

Lords is the well-known star of X-rated movies who revealed she
made many of those films before she was 18 by misrepresenting
her age. The movies had to be pulled from shelves because they 
violated child pornography laws.

Rylee's view of women exemplifies the violent view that feminists say
is shaped by pornography. Since some pornography depicts men 
overpowering the women who resist their advances, according to feminists,
men learn to think that overpowering a woman is sexual.

Rylee calls it "the negative sell." In his view it is not the way
a man views sex, but the way a woman behaves.

"The woman turns away and says to a man 'I don't want you', even
though she does," he said. "That's when he really wants her."

Feminists say pornography fosters violence because men like Rylee
believe that when a woman says "no" she means "yes". In this way,
they say, pornography justifies rape because women bring it on 
themselves, according to feminists.

"(A woman) can choose high heels or flat shoes, (she) can choose 
how long (her) skirt is and how tight it is," said Rylee. Whichever
(she) chooses makes (her) more alluring to a man. It's part of
(her) power base in the outside world."

    Wow, whattaguy.  So woman's power is "in part" based on her ability to
    choose how alluring she is to men.  And what does that "power" bring
    her?  It brings her money only if she chooses to go the alluring route
    AND succeeds AND is lucky to not be raped or beaten in the process. 
    And if she succeeds in being alluring to enough men, she can be Pet of
    the Year or Bunny of the Decade and get a CAR!  Yay!  Then she can go
    on to offers for parts in movies such as "Naked Bimbos in Space" or
    she can pant and moan to allow some high paid movie actor to show how
    sexy HE is.  And that's just her WORK life.  I'm sure her private life
    is poplulated by men who are interested in and respectful of her.
    
    Hm, if that's woman's power, (and all the things her power can bring
    her), then every one of us females reading this is pretty much a chump, 
    no?  Because we havn't taken the "alluring" route, we work at least 40
    hours a week for probably 1/4 of what the Kitty-cat of the Week gets.
    We get to spend a large amount of our time and mental energy trying to
    defuse the environment that continually tries to sexualize us and look
    for evidence that we'd really rather have taken the alluring route but
    didn't think we had what it takes.  The corporate suit is checked out
    for skirt length.  The silk blouse is watched for jiggle underneath. 
    The posture is monitored for flirtatious body language and the shoes
    are examined for their heel height which determines the strength of the
    wearer's "f*ck me" call.  
    
    Sometimes I think the exhibitionist women are the smartest ones since
    they don't have to spend time trying to be taken seriously.  They give
    men what men look for in all women and in doing so, reap some pretty 
    nice monetary rewards.  But that still doesn't save the woman who comes
    into the office from being lowered to the exhibitionist's level and
    checked out for where she fits on the desirability scale.  Who set the
    scale?  And who set women upon it?  The male media which includes their
    porn subset.  There is no equivalent female-run medium which sets A
    scale, (ONE scale), for men and which places all men, regardless of
    their choice of avenue in life, upon it.
    
    And one other point - in "mainstream" porn, plenty of violence toward
    women is passed off as "passion".  Look more closely at those women's
    faces when the likes of John Holmes, (may he rest in piece ;-) ), are
    whamming at them.  A lotta times it's thinly disguised pain.  These are
    actresses and their pain is expected to be "acted" into passion because
    only the men in the audience are expected to identify with the scene,
    (and so will read passion rather than pain on the female face), and
    only the men in the scenes need to climax anyway.  Most porn looks
    awfully painful, (for the woman), to me.

    .124 - With friends like this...

    Thanks, Dana.
    
    I thought the last paragraph was the most revealing part of all.
    
    First, here it is in its entirety:
    
    "(A woman) can choose high heels or flat shoes, (she) can choose
    how long (her) skirt is and how tight it is," said Rylee. Whichever
    (she) chooses makes (her) more alluring to a man. It's part of
    (her) power base in the outside world."
    
    Now, let's trim it down a bit, and make explicit a few assumptions:
    
    "(A woman) can choose [] flat shoes, (she) can choose [] a long skirt,
    and [not] tight []," said Rylee.  ["]Wh[at]ever (she) chooses makes (her)
    more alluring to a man."
    
    If he said what was quoted, Rylee believes that a woman is "alluring"
    no matter what she does!  If he didn't, the editor believes that!  In
    the one case or the other, women should just forget free will and
    everything else -- we just don't have anything except an involuntary
    "allure" -- which some man somewhere is entitled to use as an excuse
    for any action he chooses to take.  Barfola.
    
    							Ann B.

    
    Dana speaks for himself.
    
    For many of us, women have no more allure than a stuffed pepper..

    <          <<< Note 157.128 by SX4GTO::HOLT "Robert Holt, ISVG West" >>>
<
<    
<    Dana speaks for himself.
<    
<    For many of us, women have no more allure than a stuffed pepper..

    Ah, you must be a fan of Edward Weston's pepper pictures. :*) liesl

One or two people commented on my "macho slut" button at the Pride
march last week, and I have been meaning to enter the quote which
explains the button.  There wasn't a really appropriate topic, so
I chose this one beause of the nature of the book it is from.

It appears in the intro to a book by the same name, a book of Lesbian
erotic/pornographic short stories, by my heroine, Pat Califia.  The
intro is a long article in defense of pornography, S&M and gay rights.\
I might enter other quotes from her other places, because she says
a lot of what I want to say, only better.

"Macho sluts are supposedly a contradiction in terms, like virgin and
whores.  The slut is, in Dworkin's parlance, male property - a
victim of male violence - a woman who accepts male definitions of her
sexuality.  Instead, I believe that she is someone men hate beacuse 
she is potentially beyond their control.  If she has to pleasure men
briefly to escape belonging permanantly to one man, she will. Whores
are always accused of being lesbians because they get men to party with
some of their property instead of becoming property themselves, and
because they are more interested in how thick a man's wallet is than the
length of his dick.  The whore does not sell her body.  She sells her
time.  So she has time that is not for sale, that belongs to no one but
herself.  Domesticated women don't dare put a price on their time. They
wind up with demarcation between business and pleasure, public and
private, so they have no time and space of their own.  They do everything
for love, but nobody gives them the same care they lavish on others.  if
they are used and despised, they can't protect themselves.  They are poor
because they give everything away. But it's the john who has to give
something away to the whore.  He must tell her his secret desire if he
is to get his money's worth.  the whore in turn gives nothing away,
laughs at him while she keeps her secrets and pockets his cash.

"In this country, machismo is a survival mechanism by which minority men
try to preserve their self-esteem and their culture.  In the best sense of
the word, it describes a person who is outnumbered, misunderstood, and
outlawed who nevertheless stives to preserve a sense of pride and honor.
Someone who has machismo insists on his right to dignity and defends
himself and what belongs to him even if it is a hopeless cause, even if
he will be punished for making the attempt.  Women are not supposed to
have machismo, to be macho, but then, we're not supposed to be sluts,
either.  And without machismo, a slut is just a commodity."

D!, macho slut

    but the common stereotype is length, so that is what gets
    mentioned when people try to discuss issues like this.
    
    

re 210.17, Alan -

   >>  You really have a thing about porn, don't you.

   >   I can make that same observation about you.

  
You can probably make the same observation about me as well. :-)  But Sandy
and I have each explained at some length what our "things about porn" are,
what we think & why, whereas -- correct me if I missed it -- I don't think
you've done that. 

So Alan, what *is* your thing about porn?

Dorian

    Re: .134                                                   
    
    Dorian, I guess *my* thing about porn/erotica/obscenity is that I 
    believe you (and some others) lump all these categories together
    and label them "bad". And that if you (generic) had your way, you'd
    prevent their publication and/or distribution to everybody.
    
    It probably comes as no surprise that what you consider to be porn, I 
    don't. And I object to having what I may be allowed to read/see/hear
    dictated by your (generic) tastes. 
    
    However, even if I *did* consider certain things to be pornographic,
    I would be against restricting them in any way, because others might
    not consider them pornographic. Who am I to restrict what they see?
    
    I've never seen any of Mapplethorpe's works. From the description of
    them, I think I'd probably find them disgusting. Yet, I'd never try
    to restrict those who want to view men peeing in/on other men from
    viewing this "art."
    
      Alan

>    I've never seen any of Mapplethorpe's works. From the description of
>    them, I think I'd probably find them disgusting. 

Most of Mapplethorpes work is still-life, like flowers.  Some of it are
nudes, less "pornographic" than the nudes appearing in Playboy.  Only
a very small minority of his work is of the type that caused his show
to be banned in Cincinnati.  (I believe there were 5 pictures found
objectionable.)  I've seen a book of his people pictures, and most were
very elegant and subtle.

D!

>  <<< Note 157.136 by TLE::D_CARROLL "The more you know the better it gets" >>>

>>    I've never seen any of Mapplethorpe's works. From the description of
>>    them, I think I'd probably find them disgusting. 
>
>Most of Mapplethorpes work is still-life, like flowers.  Some of it are
>nudes, less "pornographic" than the nudes appearing in Playboy.  Only
>a very small minority of his work is of the type that caused his show
>to be banned in Cincinnati.  (I believe there were 5 pictures found
>objectionable.)  I've seen a book of his people pictures, and most were
>very elegant and subtle.

	Both of the "kiddie-porn" pictures that are causing an uproar
	where printed in the Boston Globe (or the Phoenix, I dont' remember)
	a couple weeks ago.

	Nothing pornographic about them except that they were nude
	children.  And both children are now adults and have given their
	consent to have them shown.

	As D! says, most of the pictures are dramatic still-lifes--flowers
	and other stuff.

	I'll be going to see the exhibit in August when it hits Boston.

	kath

    I saw one of Mapplethorpe's pictures of a nude boy, titled "Sebastian".
    He was a beautiful little boy about 8 ish, blonde bowl haircut, but he
    was leaning on a podium or pedestal which was in front of him.  You saw
    nothing at all but his upper body.  It's my opinion that the basic flap
    about his work is that he occasionally depicts men as the objects of
    sex rather than the consumers of it.  I've seen far worse in Playboy
    but of course it was women so it's ok.
    
    Last Sunday's Globe ran another of Mapplethorpe's px titled, "Embrace".
    Two men, one black, one white, in an embrace that could be loving but
    could also be pain.  It's the kind of embrace you see when comforting
    someone who's lost a loved one.  It's cut at the waist, (I don't know
    if the original pic is so cut), and their faces are turned away from
    the camera.  The central image is the contrasting shapely arms around
    the contrasting shapely torsos.  It's stirring and not porn at all.
    
    Now if you wanna talk about Vanessa Williams' "artistic" spread in
    Playboy...  no, I'm sure that senator from Texas who objected to
    Mapplethorpe's show probably even has the issue in his collection.
    
    Alan, you and I agree on porn so what do you think of that?  I just
    think it should be removed from the CVS and the grocery stores, (and
    the tv and the billboards), and sold in shops called "Porn Shops",
    or on tv channels called "Hot Babes" or something.  That way, whoever
    wants it can get their fill and we don't have to insinuate it into the
    lives of everyone just so timid men can get their jollies a hundred 
    times a day and claim innocence.  You know what CVS labels its porn
    section?  "Social"!  Talk about a euphemism.  How come guys are so
    timid about it?  How would you guys like to see varied images of 
    childbirth a hundred times a day?  Or images of naked men?  Next time
    and everytime, for a week, you get a gratuitous little thrill, imagine
    it's a well hung and nicely shaped male and you'll begin to realize
    that the offensiveness is not in the subject matter, per se, but in the
    fact that everyone, everywhere is required to face it, whether they
    want to or not.  Frankly I really have to turn off the tv after a
    little while - I get so sick of women, women, women.  I'd get sick of
    wine, wine, wine after a while too though admittedly it might take a
    little longer!  ;-)  Still, in my enthusiasm, I wouldn't shove wine
    down everyone else's throats just because I liked it.  My only 
    objection is that just because men like to be thrilled a zillion times
    a day, they've decided that they'll force it into MY life and make it
    as mainstream as Coca Cola.  Who do they think they are?  The ones who
    run the world, that's who.  Maybe we should start manufacturing men's
    clothing with mandatory magazine pockets so they can carry their jones
    with them and get a fix as often as they like.
     

re .135
    
>    Dorian, I guess *my* thing about porn/erotica/obscenity is that I 
>    believe you (and some others) lump all these categories together
>    and label them "bad". And that if you (generic) had your way, you'd
>    prevent their publication and/or distribution to everybody.
    

Well you're wrong. Unless I've suppressed it, I've never said I'd favor 
banning publication and/or distribution of p/e/o to everybody. You're 
simply reading that into what I did say. I'm very aware of where such
suppression could easily lead.

I've said many times that it's mainly the *imbalance* about porn that
bothers me. The fact that overwhelmingly, especially in what's highly 
visible, it's the women who are shown as being sexually available toys for
men, not vice versa. It's like being in a roomful of people where the women
are all made to take their clothes off while the men aren't. How those
images affect men's attitudes towards women, women's attitudes towards 
themselves, and men's expectations of what women will do in real life. 

I have another problem with the violent stuff, but there again I believe 
outright suppression would be dangerous. My feeling is, if we're going to 
show women being put through meatgrinders, let's do the same for men. If we
don't do that, we're essentially slandering a particular group of people 
(and we don't do that to groups other than women, do we?). 

Fair's fair,  :-)

Dorian

> Perhaps an "adults only" area separated from the main magazine racks
> for "those kind of magazines";

  Picking up on Mark's suggestion --

  Hopefully, they'll also put Cosmo over there too, as it's covers
  are often *MUCH* racier than at least Playboy's.  BTW, would anyone
  care to take up the entire topic of:

     So-called "Women's" Magazines as Demeaning to Real Women

                                   Atlant

    Sorry for mixing up P-Boy and P-house.  I just can't keep all these
    women straight! (especially that one!)  ;-)  ;-)  As for you not
    wanting to have to schlepp to another store for your porn, Mark,
    gee, I'm sure you'd get used to it just like you're used to schlepping
    to special stores for booze.  You could get all your videos, mags and
    toys in one place and see all the latest models, porn queens could make
    the rounds of the stores plugging their new movies, they could put in
    little stages where local women could try out their exhibitionistic
    tendencies and hope to be discovered.  They could run specials on
    breasts or butts, have a discount snatch-of-the-week, etc.  (Parts is
    parts!)  Lets sh*t or get off the pot, I say.
    
    It's all in what you're used to and you've just gotten used to getting 
    your porn at the local drugstore or even the local gas station.  (God I
    hate it when I go up to the window and the guy's quickly stashing a
    hog mag under the counter).  It makes me feel like one of "those" and
    that he's checking to see whether or not I'd make a good picture.
    
    I agree Cosmo is just Playboy for women.  It's basically a "how to"
    rag for little "mouseburgers" who want to dress up like sirens and
    use their looks to land the husband of their dreams.  It enforces in
    women the message that men are shallow and can easily be manipulated
    into following a perfume trail to the altar.  And they sell a LOT of
    perfume because of it!  "No man at the altar yet?  Well, Estee Lauder
    has just the thing and here's a picture of Cindy Crawford wearing it."
    I never understood how one is supposed to decide on a perfume from a
    visual image.  But no matter.  Women are both stupid and desperate goes
    the Cosmo line, apparently.
    
    Viva magazine died, and it had Penthouse money behind it and some
    awsome photos of men!. I don't see much of Lear's anymore.  After its 
    initial splash, it kind of, pardon the pun, petered out.  But even 
    Lear's had its requisite "women as bimbage" displays and defended them 
    in an editorial answer to a reader's letter.  There's just no escape.
    And Helen Gurley Brown's idea of male centerfolds is ludicrous!  It's
    right up there with Playgirl.  David Hasselhoff?  Yuk.  And they needed
    to throw in a "sight gag", (their words), because, as I suspected,
    women aren't really supposed to look at strange men with serious lust.
    The "centerfold" is just supposed to be a little joke.  This hairy 
    legged, goony looking guy was lying on a floor in flat lighting.  There 
    was NOTHING in the picture to suggest sexuality or even sensuality.  
    His expression was almost a smirk.  The background was flat white, (or 
    silver in keeping with the anniversary theme), and EMPTY.  And in his 
    lap were a couple of Sharpei (sp) puppies - those cute ones that are 
    all wrinkled like a bunched up blanket.  It was depressing.  Why not 
    Axl Rose's (or a wannabe), butt?  Why not Ken Wahl in tight jeans?  Why 
    not some depth in the lighting?  Why none of the erotic symbols that 
    are packed into every photo in men's magazines?  And why not a couple 
    of pages of photos?   Because it was, as usual, nothing more than lip 
    service to equality.   Real raging eroticism would probably have driven 
    away the advertisers.   "You're showing women THAT?"  (Thud).  We must 
    keep the little girls concentrating on giving good sex rather than 
    getting it!  Everyone knows their goal should not be sex but marriage 
    and motherhood.  Barf.

    All right Sandy!
    
    (yeah, those porn-for-women mags are pretty lame, aren't they?)
    
    At least women look sexy in their poses--the men just look...naked.
    
    ---kim