Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    
    
    No, Steve, I don't think I would like to watch a film like you
    mention either at a theatre or at home.  I think eroticism varies
    from one person to another and I might not find their films
    erotic or even tasteful.  I've seen only one X-rated film and
    that one well over 10 years ago.  It was called "The Best of
    John Holmes" and as near as I can remember his "best" was
    waving what nature over-endowed him with all over the silver screen.
    Not erotic - not even tasteful. I'll make up my own erotic
    scenes in my own bedroom, thank you. But it is a very interesting
    question. How do the rest of you gals feel?
    
    Vicki
    

    I'd give one a shot. After (finally) deciding that "traditional" porno
    was just not worth my time (and often darned insulting [ooh, hurt
    me! :-(]). I wonder, were there any claims made about men finding
    these erotic as well? It's often said that men are more easily
    stimulated, so perhaps porn oriented towards what stimulates women
    would actually work out better for partners.
    	Mez

    Re: .1
    
    I believe the films being discussed were NOT of the sort you
    describe.  The clips I saw reminded me of romance novel images.
    Of course, I didn't see the "naughtier" parts.  I was basically
    wondering if those who love the romance novels, particularly the
    steamier sort, would consider watching a movie that is similar.
    
    Re: .2
    
    Yes, they did mention that some men enjoyed the films.  I believe
    the quote was that the "raincoat set" didn't care for them, but
    many other men did.
    
    There was also a discussion of whether women would get caught up
    in the fantasies and have a hard time dealing with reality.  (Jane
    Pauley asked this.)  The therapist didn't think so.  I find
    it interesting to look at the discussions in the "Harlequin" note
    for related views. 
    
    The impression I got was that these films concentrated a lot more
    on the romance aspects than do traditional "men's" films, where
    any romance is a thin veneer over sex, sex and more sex.  I would
    imagine that most women would prefer the different balance.  (So
    would I, to be honest - I found traditional X-rated films boring
    to the extreme.)
    				Steve

    Anything to bring up the quality of erotica is fine with me.  I
    wouldn't go to a theatre to watch it though...
    
    In Barbach's book, Pleasures, (erotica by female writers -- ie they
    write "good" fiction and essays too -- on incidents which actually
    happened to them and they found particularly exciting) she prefaces
    it saying that the SOs of the authors had often been "caught" indulging
    in the draft copies of the book and having a really hot 8-) evening
    afterwards.  
    
    Erotica by women and feminists is much more imaginative and ...
    er ... well, you know, than what I have seen of porn in general,
    but I think it would have to be a VERY good film to beat what you
    can do with your imagination (or another nice warm body).
    
    Lee

    Can I get fired for saying this? I love them . . .
    
    Steve's right, the sex in these women's erotica movies is far different
    from sex in any traditional x movie you've seen. Remember (this
    dates me) Romeo and Juliet from the '60's? It's that general kind
    of romantic sex, with lots of muted lights and so on. 
    
    Statistics kept by owners of video stores indicate that half the
    rentals of sex movies of all types are by women, so maybe conventional
    porn is more popular with women than is generally believed. 
    
    --bonnie
    

RE: .5
    ... or their husbands told them to pick it up while they were out.
	(remember, women traditionally do the errands in this society)

:-) ..Karen

	A couple of weeks ago Time magazine did an article on this
	phenomenon, talking with some of the leading women
	porn-makers. Apparently there is a market for these films,
	since women are seeing them. The "women's porn" films
	emphasize romance and foreplay, rather than mechanics and
	anatomy as the "traditional" porn films do. I don't know about
	other men, but it sounds like a major improvement to me. I saw
	a few X-rated films in college, each more boring than the last
	- once you get past the original prurient excitement at seeing
	explicit sex on the screen, it gets dull very quickly when all
	that's being shown is, as I said, mechanics and anatomy.
	
	Another thing the Time article discussed was the effect of
	VCR's on the porn market - there is now a huge market in
	videocassettes while the porn theaters and Combat Zones of
	America are dying off. Why don a raincoat and hat when you can
	watch at home? And women who wouldn't dare go to a grubby
	theatre (for good reason) can also watch comfortably. As a
	side effect, "kinky" stuff (garbage like child porn, S&M,
	etc.) which isn't going to be carried by a mainstream video
	store, is getting harder to find. A distinctly positive
	side-effect...
	
	Mike

    Warning -- this note might contain material which some people might
    find offensive.
    
    
    
    
    
    \/
    
    
       A few years back Lonnie Barbach did a lot of writing about
    "pre-orgasmic" women -- women who did not particularly enjoy sex,
    and had never experienced an orgasm.  Her thesis, in her book, For
    Yourself, was that women have to learn to give themselves pleasure
    and not be dependent on their partner's skills and abilities.  Her
    books suggested that women needed to learn to masturbate since a
    number of women appeared not to know what gave them pleasure.  Like
    other researchers, she found that fantasy and visual erotica of
    the suggestive type helped most women arrive at a place they found
    pleasureable.  One of the most interesting aspects of her program
    was that women were supposed to "practice" on their own, and not
    have sex with partners for several weeks, although partners could
    partcipate in massage, and other pleasure and sensory oriented (as
    opposed to climax oriented) activities.  A number of women who tried
    this program felt that visual erotica stressing sensory pleasure
    and foreplay from a women's point of view would have been very helpful.
    
    A number of women said that they would have been too uncomfortable
    to go into a theatre showing an XXX movie on their own, so perhaps
    this new trend will provide women who are working on sexuality issues
    with helpful material.
    
    Holly                           
    

    "Pornflicks"
    
           by Erica Jong
    
    
    Who wants to see
    other lovers
    doing it?
    
    Not me.
    What skin does to skin
    is not capturable
    by camera.
    
    Bright or obscure,
    eight or sixteen millimeter,
    nothing gives
    the silken feel
    of sex,
    but sex.
    
    One touch
    is worth a thousand pictures.
    
    But they will go on
    selling it -
    the way medieval hucksters
    sold pieces
    of "the true cross",
    or "pigges bones"
    for holy saints'
    drumsticks.
    
    Chaucer was right
    about everything.
    
    Those who can't tell
    the difference
    deserve to be fucked
    with their eyes open.
    
    
    
    
    Lorna
    

    I think .8 answers .9 
    
    

    I'd say I would be willing to try watching one and then decide if I'd
    want to watch more or not. 
    
    I've only watched a few XXX movies and never found them stimulating,
    just funny or boring. I have watched several GP and R rated movies
    though, that always seem to cause a reaction. 
    
    I think (and this was mentioned in an earlier reply, but don't remember
    the number) that the XXX movies put too much emphasis on the mechanics
    and the size of anatomy, which really isn't sexy at all (the
    emphasis... not the anatomy  :^)  ). Whereas the other movies put more
    emotion and feelings into it. Also, leaving something to the
    imagination can be more stimulating then having it all hanging out
    there (at least in my opinion, and I feel the same way about horror
    movies too) .

    
    a little more explicit follows form/feed
    
    
        
    A few pieces of literature that I've gotten through the mail about "sex
    merchandise" usually includes something about the "hot and heavy"
    materials one can buy. One of these was something about "amazing
    Freddy" or some name like that. His claim to fame was  his 24 inch
    "wonder-machine" - yes they really called it that! They had pictures
    (which I guess were supposed to entice you to buy the book/film),
    side and front views of this guy standing in a bedroom scene....

    All I could do was laugh! The pictures of this guy were so silly
    looking, I can't imagine anyone finding that sexy. But that was
    the theme of the ad, "the bigger the better".... I don't know, would
    men find that a turn-on?  All I could think of was "gee....it must
    be painful for that guy to wear tight pants..."

    Oh well - give me romantic settings with lots of emotion/fore-play
    anytime over the mechanics!
    
    janet b.

    
    When it comes to enticement, I find compendiums of female fantasies
    to be enjoyable.  A suggestion would be the two books by Nancy Friday
    "My Secret Garden", and the second has a similar title.
    
    As for erotic movies without the graphic detail, something along
    the line of the R (or is it X) rated Emmanuelle series is nice,
    and seeing it in the privacy of your own home (if you own/rent a
    VCR as well) makes it even more enjoyable.
    
    But, in all honesty, I appreciate these more as preludes or
    accompaniments to the real thing...
    
    -Jody
    

    re .12
    
    The second book is "Forbidden Flowers".

    In real life I enjoy sex when it's with the "right" person (these
    days my current SO).  But, when it comes to X rated movies or novels
    that go on and on about how he thrust his hand against her hot heaving
    bosom, etc., my reaction is "bleah!" and then total boredom.
    
    Nothing could drive me towards a chaste life quicker than a steady
    diet of porno movies.  I don't know why, but movies like that make
    sex seem nasty and dirty to me, and something *I* would never care
    to do.  But, in real life sex just seems like a natural thing to
    do (with selectivity).
    
    I don't mind it when "real" movies have hot love scenes as a necessary
    part of the plot, such as "Desert Hearts" or "Coming Home".  It's
    when the movie seems to exist only to exploit sex that I'm turned
    off.
    
    As far as books go, reading about sex is just plain boring.  I'd
    rather *have* sex and then read a book that deals with what's going
    on in the characters heads rather than just a description of their
    sex lives.
    
    Lorna
    

    RE .11
    
    I can't imagine sleeping with someone with 24".  I don't mean having
    sex (making love???), I mean actually sleeping next to him.  
    
    Can you imagine rolling over and trapping him under you, so that
    he can't move without causing great pain????

    J'ai vu quelques films pornographiques et/ou erotiques au temps
    ou je vivais (durant un mois) avec un imbecile qui avait entrepris
    de faire mon education sexuelle (j'avais 16 ans, il en avait 19,
    et si je ne l'avais pas pris en pitie, le pauvre enfant, il serait
    encore puceau...) : Tous etaient nuls; l'intrigue etait nulle, le
    jeu des acteurs nul, les scenes tristes et nulles, bref, c'etait
    plat.
    
    Il n'empeche qu'il nous arrive, mon ami et moi, de desirer voir
    un film erotique (non pas que notre imagination ne suffise pas a
    notre intimite, mais juste histoire d'ajouter un ingredient de plus
    a ce que je pourrais appeler "notre complicite amoureuse"). Nous
    ne l'avons pas encore fait, mais ce n'est que partie remise.
    
    Film ecrit par un homme ou par une femme ? Filant le parfait amour
    (ou presque), le roman Harlequin ne m'interesse absolument pas;
    quant a l'erotisme vu par un homme, pourquoi pas, etant donne que
    les femmes m'attirent au moins autant qu'elles attirent mon ami
    (en theorie tout au moins; en pratique, je ne sais pas... encore).
    
    
    Zoziau

      Has anyone seen 9 1/2 weeks? My wife liked that one....
    
                Comments?
    
              REK

    I read the book about 4 years ago. The movie was boring
    beyond words.

    My wife belongs to a book club.  They kept sending those Harley-kin
    romances (sorry, I don't feel like looking it up) and she got so
    bored with them that she was about to cancel with them.  They finally
    changed.  
    
    She would probably be interested in seeing them in movie form, mostly
    out of curiosity.  We enjoy movies like "Debbie Does Dallas" and
    she enjoys the XXX movies more than I do.  *They* bore me.  I can
    only take so much of it.  "Debbie...", "Emanuelle", etc. at least
    have somewhat of a plot.  Has anyone ever seen "A Boy and His Dog"?
    It stars Don Johnson.  No, no, its not an X rated movie. (Gotcha)
    Its a sci-fi movie.  Although, his dog *does* sniff out women.
    
    Like Jody said, we like them as a prelude to sex.  Does anyone know
    how "Debbie Does Dallas" ends?
    
    She wasn't crazy about "Flesh Gordon" and "Alice in Wonderland"
    because they don't show men.  Well, "Alice..." does show Tweedledee.
    I prefer Tweedledum more, though.
    
    Spence

    Re:  .16
    
Quote :

				-< Dare I ? >-

I saw a few porn and/or erotic films when I was with an imbecile who undertook
my sexual education (I was sixteen, he was nineteen, and if I hadn't felt
sorry for him, the poor boy, he would still be a virgin...) :  the films
were all worthless, the acting bad, the scenes sad and of no account, briefly,
it was flat.

That doesn't stop my boyfriend and I from wishing to see an erotic film
(not that our imagination does not suffice, but just to add an ingredient
to what I would call our amourous collusion).  We have yet to do so, but
that is just a postponement.
    
A film written by a man or a woman ?  Because they spin out the perfect love 
(or almost perfect) story, Harlequin novels don't interest me in the least;
as for eroticism seen by a man, why not, given that women attract me at
least as much as they attract my boyfriend (in theory, less; in practice,
I don't know...yet).    

    Zoziau

Unquote.

    RE:  .19  "Don Johnson"
    
    While it was not by, or necessarily for, women, Don Johnson was
    the title character for a soft core porno flick of the late '60's
    entitled "The Magic Garden of Stanley Sweetheart".  Johnson played
    a college dropout in New York City who discovers drugs and sex while
    "searching for himself".  What's interesting is that Johnson is
    currently filming a movie in Vermont, entitled "Sweetheart's Dance".
    While the earlier film has disappeared completely, I can't help
    but wonder if this one is a sequel because of the title.
    

    At one point in time, I enjoyed X rated movies.  As
    I have "matured" I find my taste is changing.  Recently
    I viewed two movies which brought out the "lust" in me-
    Murphy's Romance and Camelot!!
    
    Must be getting romantic in my old age!!
    
    

    I rented CALIGULA (sp?) this weekend.  Starring Malcolm McDowell,
    Sir John Guigoud (sp?), and Peter O'Toole.  My only comment:
    
    
    
    Unf***ing believable!
        ^
    	| sorry about that!
    
    M-L

    I made an all-out effort a few years back to see CALIGULA.  When
    it first came out my parents forebade my seeing it... that was
    back when I was dumb enough to take their threats seriously.
    
    In 1983 I joined a friend at the Orsen Welles Cinema in Cambridge
    for a midnight showing.  I didn't make it thru the flick.  The
    next time I dragged my then boyfriend Patrick to see it.  I fell
    asleep.
    
    He constantly offers to rent it for me just so I can see the end..
    
    The *only* reason I wanted to see this film so badly was because
    Mom and Dad wouldn't let me before!                            
    
    And yes, I saw "9 1/2 Weeks" on the cable awhile ago.  It was so
    bizarre I couldn't really take it.  It gave me a Charlie Brown
    stomach ache.
    
    Erotic, no... I figured she was a dead woman by the end of the
    film.
    
    Bugs

    Re .24, the reason I will never see Caligula is because of the
    violence, not the sex.  My ex-husband saw it without me because
    I refused to go.  He went expecting to have a good time.  He came
    home and told me it was the most tasteless, sickening movie he
    had ever seen and that the violence almost made him throw-up.

    Re .22, I agree, Murphy's Romance brought out the lust in me, too.
     Jim Garner isn't bad for an old coot.  (Here's a sexist comment
    for you, why can't all 60 yr. old men look like Jim Garner?  Old
    age would be a far more appealing prospect sexually.)
    
    As far as film bringing out the lust in me, Bruce Springsteen's Dancing
    In The Dark video takes the cake.  As for romance, A Room With A
    View, the kiss in the field in Italy *sigh*.
    
    Lorna
      

    
    
    
    I always thought 9 1/2 weeks was a comedy....
    
    Fill me in!
    
    yet another
    bonnie

    
    I am writing on the assumption that .26 was not kidding, and for
    the benefit of anyone who hasn't seen the film.
    
    9 1/2 Weeks is based on short novel of the same name by a woman
    writing under the pseudonym of Elizabeth MacNeil.  It is the chronicle
    of her affair with a man who is almost a complete stranger to her,
    even at the end of the relationship.  Both the book and the film
    caused something of an uproar because it portrays Elizabeth as being
    a submissive, willing participant in a relationship where the male
    pretty much does anything he likes with her.     
    
    Descriptions of erotic parts after the form-feed:
   
    The movie is not as graphic in its depictions as the book, which
    left me cold, but there are two particular scenes people tend
    to find very erotic.  They both feature the female lead, Kim Basinger.
    In one, she is alone in a semi-darkened room, and while it's never
    shown directly it's pretty obvious she's masturbating.  The other
    is when she does a strip-tease.
    
    The book and the movie end up very differently.  In the book, Elizabeth
    ends up in therapy (and it's implied that the therapy isn't doing
    her much good).  In the movie, Elizabeth comes to the realization
    that enough is enough and leaves the man, played by Mickey Roarke.
    He goes to pieces, and she goes on with her life, demonstrating
    she is the stronger of the two, but that doesn't become apparent
    till the last minute of the film.
    
    DFW

    
    
    Thank you.
    
    bonnie

	I found "About Last Night" very romantic and humerous.
	Some tasteful nude scenes in it that made me think about
	repeating something similar with my husband when we got home.
	It was more love provoking than erotic.  I haven't seen any
	X movies that have turned me on (most make me mad).

	...Karen

    Ah, Karen, you may have hit the nail on the head!
    Provoking love is most erotic, isn't it?
    
    

	Yes, when you're blessed enough to be with someone you love.

    I've seen...three X-rated movies (1 typical, 1 fantasy, 1 s.f.)
    and two porno flicks.
    
    The latter were part of a series of three:  The Collegiates,
    Lickety-Split, and Rollerbabies, and were scripted by a woman
    I knew, Janet K.
    
    They weren't at all erotic, but at least they were funny, which
    I gather is unusual.  They would have been funnier if the actors
    hadn't muffed (heh, heh) most of their lines, like "Oh, Lexington!
    You're much taller lying down!"  Still, the bathtub scene in The
    Collegiates was fun, and M.W. added a nice touch in the bus ride
    in Lickety-Split.  But no turn-ons.
    
    And no real names.  As it was, M.W. was arrested, tried, convicted,
    and jailed for producing Lickety-Split.  (Note to would-be
    pornographers:  Never make something that is too popular, and never,
    never make anything with a catchy title song.)
    
    							Ann B.
    
    P.S.  I never did see Rollerbabies, so I never did get to see my
    friend J.S. skating around and around in a lab coat.  Sigh.

    I now see ads in TV Guide and other places for a new "Shades of
    Love" series of videocassette romances, featuring well-known
    "hunks" (I suppose) such as Dack Rambo (what a name!), Parker
    Stevenson (wasn't he one of the "Hardy Boys"?), Simon
    McCorkindale and Nicholas Campbell.  The ad calls these "beautifully
    filmed love stories", and they'll be sold in bookstores alongside
    the romance novels.
    
    I presume that these are fairly "clean" films, unlike the ones
    I described in .0.
    				Steve

    I've seen a few porn movies, of the ones I remember:
    
    Debbie Does Dallas - This is a classic?!?  It's boring, the stars
    are ugly (I mean rolls of fat on these women and some of the men
    are bald (no offense to those without hair out there)) and the plot?
    How does it end you asked?  Debbie does the owner of the store and
    he gives her all the money she needs.  The only reason I saw it
    was because it was supposed to be a classic and I wanted to see
    it all.
    
    Deep Throat - This isn't that bad if you're into bad dialogue, silly
    plots, and blow jobs.  It certainly was a teaching experience. ;-)
    
    Fanny Hill - I really liked this.  It had more plot than porn and
    was set in what looked like old England.  It was cute, it was funny,
    it was romantic and it was erotic.  Erotic scenes did not consist of
    the usual "Get close enough to see up to her tonsils".    
    
    And I agree, they are a form of foreplay if they turn you on.
    Anyone have some suggestions on some more good ones?
                                                                        

    RE: .-1
    
    "Rolls of fat on the women and some of the men were bald" 
    (no offense to those without hair)"
    
    Any offense to those with rolls of fat??
    
    DAwn
    

re: Deep Throat

Though I watched the darn thing a while back. I can no longer thing
about this movie as "just another porn movie" since I read Glorai Steinem's
essay on Linda Lovelace in "Outrageous Acts and Everyday Rebellions".
	Mez

    
    	While we are by no means "connoisseurs" of adult movies, my
    	 girlfriend and both enjoy watching them.  
    
    	I think it's important to note that we _both_ enjoy watching
    	 them.  I first suggested one to her (my sister has quite a
    	 nice collection), and she was interested.  We find them quite
    	 stimulating, if they are well done, and a good aid to fore-
    	 play.  They can be quite a turn-on, and they bring us closer
    	 together.
    
    	The ones we don't like are the ones where _anyone_ is degraded,
    	 be they male or female.  By degraded I mean tied up against
    	 their will, etc.  The people in the movies must appear to really
    	 want each other, and neither one being forced into anything.

    	We also like to read adult magazines.  Again, we look at them
    	 and imagine each other there, not just the models on the pages.
    	 I don't know if I'm being clear on this, but we do enjoy them.

    	SET ALERT/TANGENT
    
    	I think what really annoys me though is when people try to
    	 regulate what my SO and I do together.  Here in Georgia, you
    	 cannot rent X-rated videos.  They're illegal to rent, but not
    	 to own.  I also don't like it when someone pressures stores
    	 not to sell these magazines/videos, etc.  Why can't I, as an
    	 adult, purchase these items if I wish??

    
    					Oh well.
    
    
    					-Rich
    

  
    From what I understand, Linda Lovelace was forced to make that film
    by her [then] husband.  In essence, Deep Throat is a rape from
    beginning to end, whether or not it looks that way plot-wise.  I
    would discourage anyone from supporting the schmuck who made it;
    BOYCOT !!!
    
    [or is that person-cot??]
    
    Lee

    RE: .40 "personcot"
    
    There is no boy in boycott.  The term derives from the name of Charles
    Boycott, the 19th century Irish landowner who was the object of the
    first such action which now goes by that name.  If you start down that
    road you'll end up with personstruation before long. 
    
    
    As for "Deep Throat", I was a little surprised to see that mentioned
    under a title of Eroticism by and for Women.  Not only was it not
    made for or by women, but it isn't really erotic.  Aside from it's
    introduction of a little-known technique which made "Miss Lovelace"
    a cause celebre', it was just another stupid porno flick, virtually
    devoid of any romantic or erotic images.

    Even less erotic and more exploitative was the film in which she
    was forced to fellate, and have intercourse with, a dog.
    

    Off the subject a tad (or, digging the rathole deeper) ...
    
    Iterating "personcot" would suggest "peroffspringcot".

    If you think I was in any way seriously suggesting that "personcott"
    as a non-sexist way to say boycott...
    
    Boy oh boy, last time I try to lighten up one of my notes with an
    obviously inane joke...
    
    Lee

Every year  the  student  senate  at Brandeis (where I went to school)
showed  a pornographic movie. After unsuccesfully protesting for a few
years, a woman's group showed and evening of "non-sexist erotic films"
as  competition.  I  couldn't  go,  but my friends told me that it was
fantastic.  In  particular  they  raved  about "Orange" which consists
entirely  of closeups of someone peeling and eating an orange. I don't
know  what  the  other  films  were  like,  but  it  certainly sounded
intriuging.

--David

    re: Hard_core porn ...
    
    I caught one of these (several) several years ago under the 
    then_usual_setting: A b/w 8 mm (no sound) film .. back room ... old and
    young men gazing at the film .... obscene comments ... blah .. even
    then I knew the difference between "real" and "contrived".The film
    sucked.
    
    Recently, while waiting for a mechanic in a very small town to wave
    his majic wand over my car - i watched another 'X_X_X_' film with
    amusement, as the "Sequels" of sex acts leapt from one "improbable"
    sequence to another. One part did tantalize me a bit. Didn't work
    well in "real life" though. 
    
    At least it was in color, and had sound, although it might've been
    better if the sound was off; as it added nothing to the film except
    to mask out "roadway sounds" from the passing trafffic.
    
    I agree, Sex, isn't "spectator sport". Its like dancing. It might
    be fun to watch others to get a few ideas; but its better to 
    practice ,practice ,practice ,practice ,practice  for the most fun.
    
    .bob.

    There was a program on TV last night, entitled "Dirty Pictures, Dirty
    Words", sponsored by Digital no less, which addressed the question of
    pornography and censorship.  Among those speaking against censorship
    was a woman filmmaker who feels her movies do not demean women or treat
    them as sex objects.  On the other side was [Andrea?] Dworkin, who has
    tried the path of civil rights, pushing for legislation which would
    allow women who had been raped or otherwise harmed by "users" of
    pornography, to sue the publishers and porno film makers for damages. 

    I do not like what Dworkin is pushing for.  Once you start having
    pressure groups that decide what may, or may not be printed or filmed,
    it's only a short step from suppressing sex to suppressing ideas. The
    validity of her argument aside, however, I think Dworkin is at a
    disadvantage in her efforts. 



    
    
    
    
        
                 'scuse me while I put on my ASBESTOS suit...


    
    
    
       
        


    
    

    
    
    
                I must be having suicidal tendencies today...
    
    
    
    


    

    

    
    
    
            
        Dworkin is not in much danger of being viewed as a sex object.

    
    
    
    
    
    
        

    
    Andrea Dvorkin (sp?) also recently advanced the idea that women
    will never be equal to men unless there is an all-encompassing boycott
    by women on penetration during sexual intercourse.
              
    I saw this in an article excerpt on usenet, which I was forced to
    delete.  I wonder if anyone else saw it.
    
    DFW

    re: .47
    
    If that is truly the case, then I am for an all-encompassing boycott
    on Andrea Dworkin ;-)
    
    

    RE: .46
    
    It's no fun to flame somebody who knows he's gonna get it, so stand
    there and sweat in your asbestos suit, and I'll calmly say:
    
    Whether you or anyone else considers any woman worthy of being a
    sex object has LESS than nothing to do with whether she gets raped
    or not. Period.
    
    I'm afraid I,too, must disagree with Ms. Dworkin. It's not often
    I find myself on the other side of the fence from a sister feminist
    on these issues but: To let the state decide (which her proposal
    would do, if I am not mistaken) what is pornographic is VERY scary
    to me. To take an extreme, but not far-fetched example, the newspaper
    GCN (Gay Community News) has already been called "pornography" many
    times, and many news stands treat it as such (Scotch-tape the pages
    together as it sits on the rack). The ^(%&*^& thing is a NEWSpaper,
    f'er crying out loud!
    
    TO let the state decide what is pornography is not the answer. Besides,
    as has be re-iterated many times (in this note? or somewhere in
    here) the SEX of "pornography" must be separated from the VIOLENCE
    of "pornography" - I'm not at all sure that Ms. Dworkin does that.
    
    Dawn

    
    
    Andrea Dworkin was on Phil Donahue recently and was quite firm in
    saying how she felt that men ONLY WANTED SEX from their wives. they
    didn't love them and if they loved them they wouldn't force them
    tohave sex except for when they wanted children. She also stated
    that men do it simply for themselves and the dominant feeling that
    they get from being in charge. Unmarried and proud of it she claims
    also that men are just abusive sex fiends.
    
    A lady caller stated (I am quoting as best to memory.)
    
    "Nothing against you personally Ms. Dworkin but I feel very sorry
    for you. I don't know what happened to you in your younger days
    but you must have been hurt by someone you loved. You must be a
    terribly lonely, sad and horny woman. I don't mean this offensively
    but my husband and I love each other and we have enjoyed sex all
    of our married lives. I am sorry Ms. Dworkin that you have denied
    yourself the opportunity of such happiness."
    
    The audience cheered the caller and good ol' Phil cut for a commercial
    so I don't know what she said immediately after. 
    
    Men may get turned on by a sex-object woman but the woman he is
    married to is usually (unfortunately not always) the sex object
    he loves. 
    
    Debbi
    
    

    The issue of censorship aside, the other problem I have with 
    what Dworkin is trying to do, is the denial of individual
    responsibility. Rapists rape, not because of the way they are, but
    because of what they read. 
    
    As Alan Dershowitz pointed out on that program, this is already being 
    used as a defense in a rape trial in Florida. The accused rapist is 
    claiming that he is not responsible for the rape because pornography 
    "made him do it".
    
    Ms. Dworkin also publishes an erotic magazine for lesbians. I wonder
    what she would say if families started sueing her for turning their
    daughters into lesbians. 
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

Andrea Dworkin  is  an  extremely  radical femminist. One of the ideas
which  she espouses is that heterosexual sex is inherently violent. In
particular  she holds that any sexual penetration of a woman is an act
of  violence.  (I  hope  she doesn't object to penetration by a turkey
baster  or  there won't be another generation :-)) She does not object
to lesbian sex; I don't know her position on gay sex.

She just  published  a  book called "Intercourse" it was reviewed very
unfavorably in "The Nation" in the last month, I can probably find the
reference if anyone wants it.

--David

    Just a few thoughts.
    
    I saw the Donoghue show - and when asked whether she had been hurt
    by a man, she declined to answer - that people should not read her
    new book because of what she went through to want to write it -
    they should read it because it needs to be read...('scuse me? I
    think why she wrote it would strongly affect what its contents were)
    
    also, rape is a crime of VIOLENCE - not even necessarily sex.  The
    whole bullshit story about "well, she asked for it - she was wearing
    a skirt and she had breasts out to here and 4" spike heels" is a
    dangerous myth....rape happens to females from the cradle to the 
    grave...from all walks of life...every 9 seconds a woman in the 
    US is raped...
    
    I'd rather go after equality in the boardroom - as the problem does
    not lie solely in the bedroom.   And as for pornography - I believe
    that there is a distinct division between SEX and VIOLENCE.  Sometimes
    they are incorporated in the same sexual media (movie, mag, whatever).
     But if you start censoring everything, then the book-burners in
    the more straight-laced parts of the country will begin banning
    Huckleberry Finn, Catcher in the Rye, Walt Whitman's Leaves of Grass,
    etc.  The freedom of speech/press/etc. act is a two-edged sword.
    
    -Jody
    
    
    

    RE: .52
    
    I have never read the Nation but isn't it a Conservative publication?
    If so, what else did you expect from it?
    
    - Vikas

                           
    I think my earlier comment was inspired by an excerpt from that Nation
    review.  What they think of the book is not an issue.  I couldn't care
    less what The Nation thinks about anything.  I just don't agree
    with a lot of what she has to say.
    
    DFW

Re: .54  The  Nation  is  a  very liberal periodical, and has been for
quite  a  while.  Most of the time it's quite a bit to the left on The
New York Times or Boston Globe.

Re: .55  I  don't  always  agree with the Nation, but I do trust it to
quote  accurately  from  books  being  reviewed.  I've  also  read  an
interview  with  Dworkin,  and  her  statements  in the interview were
consistent with the complaints in the review.

--David