Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    I don't object to the existence of porno (with the standard exceptions
    as noted in .0), nor to its sale to adults.  I strongly object to its
    being displayed in public for sale.  I think one should have to make
    the effort to walk into a porno store and purchase it rather than have it
    foisted on your sensibilities from every mailbox, billboard or grocery
    store magazine rack.
    
    my .02,
    Marge

    I think that "porno" magazines that show only models posing should be
    available at any place that cares to sell them. They should just put
    them out of the reach of those under 18. Hard core pornography should
    only be available at "porno shops" where admission is only granted to
    those over 18. 
    
    The Doctah

	 I agree with Doctah.



	 I don't agree that anything that is morally or otherwise
	 objectionable to some of the population, yet legal, should be
	 censored.

	 I believe there should be limits to availability (ie, such as
	 for children under 18).

	 As is, I don't believe I've ever seen even a
	 Playboy/Penthouse/etc in any store on open display. I've seen
	 it behind the counter, and with the front cover obscured in
	 some manner (ie, not readily visible).

	 I think any more restriction of pornography gets into
	 censorship.......


	 I, for one, would not be caught dead in many of the Porno
	 stores in my own town....not because of the material, but
	 rather because of the area of town that they are in, etc.  At
	 least, not alone, I wouldn't (Anyone care to take a trip to
	 First Amendment with me, though?!)


	 kath

Re .3, porn on open display -

Ever been in Out of Town News in Harvard Square, or the Colonial Pharmacy 
in the middle of (would you believe) Lexington? Not much left to the
imagination there!    

    G'Day,
    
    	I am also of the opinion that if somebody wants to buy something
    then they should be able to do so.  Our X-rated video business in
    Australia is quite a fiasco.  Every state has banned the sale of these
    videos with the exception of the ACT (Canberra).  The result of this is
    a BOOMING mail order business from the ACT to every other state.  Now
    the ACT has said that it is not going to stop the sale from there so
    why don't the rest of the states realise that people are getting what
    they want anyway and make them available a little closer to home.
    
    	I agree that this type of material should not be displayed publicly
    ie in the normal video hire area as the covers are usually quite
    explicit too.  But what is wrong with a seperate small (large?) room
    where they can be displayed for anybody that wants to hire or buy these
    films?
    
    David.
    	
    

    I did not find a dictionary definition in 820.212.  Please post the
    applicable defs here or check the pointer.
    
    Thanks,
    Nancy

    The definitions are in 820.214.
    
    Steve

    re -1:
    
    Sorry, the definition is in 820.213, not 820.212, but for convenience
    here it is again:
    
    censor: 1. a person authorized to examine printed or other materials
    and remove or suppress what he [sic] considers objectionable.
    Verb: to examine and expurgate.
    
    censorship: 1. The act or process of censoring.
    
    BTW, other dictionaries may have different definitions, and I
    think this might be an appropriate place to post them too, if you
    like, but please, don't put in what you *remember* you read once
    upon a time in some dictionary, please copy it straight out of the
    dictionary, and name the dictionary.  Thanks.
    

    I'm against censoring "pornography" or what-have-you.

    As with other people, I'd generally prefer restricted access.
    I might even prefer mail-order only access.

    Unlike .3 (?), I *have* seen skin mags readily available:
    when I was about 10 (1970) I picked up a magazine in Gibson's
    while my family was shopping there (I had apparently wandered
    out of my parents' sight).  It had full frontal nudity of
    women, although I think the men's genitals were discreetly
    hidden, and it had some poses that were obviously intended to
    suggest intercourse, although nothing explicit.  I remember
    that it seemed interesting, exciting in a way I didn't
    understand (I *was* only 10!), and mostly just plain weird.
    My sister was looking at it with me: she was about 7, and
    mostly thought it peculiar, too. 

    I think the couple of men who were standing around by the
    magazines were probably rather disconcerted by our giggles!

    -- Linda

    re: .8 (Ellen)
    
    Ooops; sorry 'bout dat.  My error.
    
    Steve (enrolling now at the Helsinki Institute for Going a Bit Red)

	 RE: .4
	 
>Ever been in Out of Town News in Harvard Square, or the Colonial Pharmacy 
>in the middle of (would you believe) Lexington? Not much left to the
>imagination there!    

	 Well, since I'm from Colorado....I've only been in Harvard
	 Square twice.

	 And my mind wasn't on the pornography on the newsstand! ;-)



	 If porn is displayed where 18- can see it, then something
	 needs to be done.  (And I'm not just talking titles here, I'm
	 talking the viewing of Porn).


	 kath


	 

   	IMO, their shouldn't be any form of censorship and what ever it is
	someone wants to buy, it should be readily available were they 
	can conveniently buy it.
     

>   	IMO, their shouldn't be any form of censorship and what ever it is
>	someone wants to buy, it should be readily available were they 
>	can conveniently buy it.
 
 A couple of quick points-

  Material which can be procured only through illegal acts is justly prohibited.

  There is no need to mandate availability; only to prevent involuntary 
prohibition.

 The Doctah

    I don't recall ever seeing a Playboy/Penthouse cover that
    I considered pornographic.  I've seen occasional 'adult books'
    with 'full frontal nudity', but no more graphic than I've seen
    on TV and the movies.  I see no reason they shouldn't be displayed
    in shops, perhaps close enough to the register to be supervised.

    opposed to Censorship
    bob

I'm interested: why is something that's ok for over 18 not ok for under 18? (If
you want this rathole moved, send me mail by 11am, or as the co-mods).
	Mez

May I suggest that perhaps the, ah, nature of the question is designed
to elicit a certain type of response?

A while ago, someone did a poll that illustrated bias in poll questions -
they asked both questions like "do you support a women's right to terminate
her pregnancy?" and "do you support the rights of the unborn?"  A shocking
(to me) percentage of the respondees answered yes to both.

"Censorship" is a "bad word" in our society.  Very few people are going to
stand up and say "yes, I favor censorship."  Supporting censorship puts one 
into a category with Stalin, Hitler, and Khomeini.

So... who here supports limiting the distribution of pornography which 
objectifies women?  Just curious.

    Sharon

>                     <<< Note 907.16 by COBWEB::SWALKER >>>

>So... who here supports limiting the distribution of pornography which 
>objectifies women?  Just curious.


	 First off....what might be "objectification" (I made up that
	 word...) to you, is probably not "objectification" to
	 me....so that is a misleading question as well (unless you
	 define what you mean by it.


	 Second.  No.....I'm not for it, because I see nothing wrong
	 with it.  Responsible adults accept it for what it is, and
	 realize that there ARE other sides to people.  I don't
	 believe the problem lies in ANY magazine....I believe it lies
	 in societal conditioning.

	 By taking away this pornography that objectifies women,
	 you're taking something away from the responsible adults that
	 read/look at it.....you're taking it away from people that
	 CAN distinguish......


	 Also, I would have to say that society has more problems
	 handling non-pornographic objectification of women than
	 pornographic........Pornography is a fantasy...a dream
	 world...

	 And I also think WOMEN have a much bigger problem with the
	 objectification of women than men do.  Many men I know seem
	 to put it in its proper place.  Many women I know tend to
	 gripe and strive to look like it, and/or hate those that DO
	 look/act like some magazines portray.


	 I'm ready to start another topic after this reply......

	 kath
	 

Re.13
> Material which can be procured only through illegal acts is justly prohibited.

> There is no need to mandate availability; only to prevent involuntary 
> prohibition.

>The Doctah

If you limit the distrubtion of material to a sleazy part of town then you
limit the access of said material to many people.  
What is an illegal act?
Oral sex, sodomy, sex between unmarried people, a picture of your 3 year
old in the bath tub.  These are all" illegal" acts in Az.  Two years ago the 
police started arresting the people running the mom & pop video stores for
renting adult videos from  back rooms that you had to be over 18 to get into.
The police left the adult stores alone.  The purpose was to limit access of
this material to certain parts of town that decent citizens didn't/wouldn't
go to.  

Re.16
I'll repeat myself, I would not support any law that would limit the producing
and distribution of any "pornagraphic" material no matter who or what is 
objectivfied.  (whatever you mean by objectivfied)
    

>What is an illegal act?

 Sex acts between children, sex acts between humans and other animals, sex acts
between non-consenting adults, etc.

 The Doctah

    re .21 -
    
    To me, to equate something that "objectifies women" with something
    that "is sexually explicit" completely misses the point. 
    
    Although the moral majority's objection to (for want of a better
    word here) pornography may well be that it is sexually explicit,
    this is *not* the objection voiced by most anti-porn feminists. They 
    object to it because, 99% of the time, the main message it conveys
    is woman-as-victim, sexually submissive to men, woman-as-toy-always-
    available-for-men's-sexual-pleasure.               
    
    If skin magazines, etc. truly showed couples equally keen on engaging 
    in sexual ventures, that would be one thing. However, for the most part 
    this is not what they show, and what they do show -- women = men's
    sexual playthings -- doesn't, in my view, do women any good when they
    want to do something serious. 
    
    Dorian                                                              

    Well, I suppose you could try generalizing the question:
    
        "Are there circumstances in which you would favor prohibiting the
        distribution of printed material which offends you?"
    
    -- Mike
    
    P.S. Hey Steve, aren't you supposed to be in Colorado?

    Well I certainly don't like to see hordes of naked babes pouting
    at me in the grocery store but they're there.  They're everywhere.
    I don't go to the museum and expect to smell permanent wave solution
    from an in-house beauty shop, and I don't expect to see mutual or
    sexist porn in the drycleaners or the grocery store or the billboard
    or during the commercial breaks in the evening news.
    
    I don't think it should be shunted to a sleazy part of town, however.
    That's a value judgement that that's where that stuff belongs. 
    I don't see why "porn shops", for want of a euphimism, don't just
    show up wherever - malls, the suburban shopping center, etc.  I'd
    like to see it bought and sold in places where one must make an
    active choice to enter, rather than forcing it onto the general
    public.  Theres a bookstore in Worcester and do you know what they
    call their porn section?  "Social".  Isn't that absurd?  Let's call
    a spade a spade, shall we?  If it's so "social", why don't we
    "socialize" our children with it?  It should never be censored but
    it should also never be where it can be sprung upon an unappreciative
    audience.
    
    Kathy, you make me shudder with your comment that you think women
    who oppose Playboy et al are just jealous.  There's far more at
    work here than women competing physically for male attention.  That
    a woman would reduce it to mere winners and loosers in the game of 
    'turning on the boys' is depressing.  You are a man's woman, that's
    clear.  I suspect you consider yourself one of the obvious "winners"
    which allows you to be so cavalier about this topic.  I'm not flaming
    you, really.  I may be all wrong because I'm basing most of this
    on my personal perspective.  I used to think I was hot stuff and
    only ugly women crabbed and I had a lot of the same attitude you
    seem to display in notes.  I didn't feel threatened because I could
    compete.  But then I realized how I was *expected* to compete -
    how society, (which I've said before I believe was fashioned from men's 
    ideas and is run according to men's rules), demanded women compete - 
    and how soft porn is actually *supposed* to be seen by women,
    (hense its increasing prevalance in the mainstream, the increasing
    similarity between Playboy and Cosmo, etc); because it's the dangling 
    carrot that keeps us running the race for the ultimate prize; not the 
    love of one good man, but general male approval.  Their "scenery", if 
    you will.  And it doesn't really matter if you're a winner or a looser 
      in the game as much as it matters if you're a player, as you're
    expected to be, or a "spoilsport".
    

    
    re:.27
    as usual, i couldn't possibly agree more.
    one little slant i'd like to add, which i may have mentioned elsewhere,
    is the idea that it's important to realise what's going on and *then*
    make a choice about how to deal with it. that is, if one wishes to
    purchase pictures of idealised women enacting male fantasies (and i
    freely admit that i have done this) it is very important to say,
    "i am buying pictures of idealised women enacting male fantasies"
    as opposed to, say, "i am buying the s.i. swimsuit issue". it makes
    it a whole lot easier to deal with the problem when one is not
    kidding oneself.
    
    

RE: .27 (Sandy)

    
>    Kathy, you make me shudder with your comment that you think women
>    who oppose Playboy et al are just jealous.

	 Could you please refer me to where I made this comment?
	 


	 kath

	 I seem to be misunderstood (or so it seems from an off-line
	 discussion).

	 The note in question is 907.18....in that note I said...

		"...I don't believe the problem lies in ANY
		magazine....I believe it lies in societal
		conditioning."

	 Then I went on to say....
	 
		"...And I also think WOMEN have a much bigger
		problem with the objectification of women than
		men do.  Many men I know seem to put it in its
		proper place.  Many women I know tend to gripe
		and strive to look like it, and/or hate those
		that DO look/act like some magazines portray."

	 This seems to be to have been misconstrued that I believed
	 that women should compete .... and that I felt competition to
	 be "okay."  When in fact, I present it, societal
	 conditioning, to be the root problem with pornography.

	 Pornography is, to me, a form of enjoyment.  Something I can
	 pick up, like a mystery book, enjoy, then put down and walk
	 away.  I accept it as fiction, I enjoy it while it's in my
	 hands, then I walk away.  A murder mystery does not give me
	 thoughts of murder, nor does pornography give me thoughts of
	 people as "objects."

         I don't feel we can EVER portray every side of a person.  I
         feel that all we can hope to do is view each side for what
         it's worth.....and let imagine take control with the the
         other sides.  I can't count the times I've looked at a
	 picture of a man and fantasized about an intimate
	 conversation over dinner.

	 Am I 'not of the norm' in my fantasies?  Am I 'not of the
	 norm' because I don't compare every man I meet to my 'fantasy
	 boy'?  Am I 'not of the norm' because I don't feel a need to
	 be like the women I see in magazines....because I
	 dress/act/talk to please myself, not others?

	 Perhaps I'm not 'normal' in my attitude toward magazine
	 portrayals......I don't feel that anyone is any better or any
	 worse than anyone else....I don't believe anyone should be
	 idolized (ie, put on a pedestal) because of what they do or
	 who they are.....I don't compete to try and fit the mold for
	 what someone else defines as being "perfect", but rather I
	 fit what *I* want to be be.

         Anyhow....I hope this clarifies........I feel pornography can
         be an EXCELLENT source of enjoyment as long as it's taken in
         it's proper perspective.  I think that societal conditioning
         rarely allows this, however.

	 Better?

	 kath	 

 <<< Note 907.31 by SSDEVO::GALLUP "as I go along my way, I say hey hey..." >>>
>>>		"...And I also think WOMEN have a much bigger
>>>		problem with the objectification of women than
>>>		men do.  Many men I know seem to put it in its
>>>		proper place.  Many women I know tend to gripe
    
    Really, I can't believe all those women who hate being seen solely
    as objects. 
    
    Too bad they aren't as well adjusted as us men who can put it in its
    proper place, eh Kathy?

    
.32>    Too bad they aren't as well adjusted as us men who can put it in its
.32>    proper place, eh Kathy?


	 I wouldn't know about you, I don't know you, and I spoke
	 simply from the viewpoint of men I know.


	 kath

    I was a bit too cryptic.  I think its *obvious* that women would
    be more likely to find this uncomfortable since it directly affects
    them, whereas some/most males might not care at all since it doesn't
    affect them.  Your note makes it sound like males are better adjusted
    because of it, which I think is completely off the mark.
    
    Jim

>    Your note makes it sound like males are better adjusted
>    because of it, which I think is completely off the mark.


	 Not better adjusted *because* of it, but rather, better
	 adjusted *to* it...

	 But, then, I'm simply talking from MY viewpoint, many men I
	 know don't even find pornography the least bit
	 interesting...and when they do, they enjoy it, then put it
	 down.....they don't live their life around it.....

	 Pornography doesn't "influence" me.....I enjoy it, though.


	 kath

	 kath,

	I would guess from your reply that the men "you know" don't
	buy the S.I. swimsuit issue, or have images of scantily clad
	women digitized for display on their workstations, or go see
	movies and videos that show women only as bed warmers, or
	watch television programs that have women with little clothes
	and lots of make-up with little brains, or watch the Dallas
	Cowboys cheerleaders jump around, or travel anywhere in the
	U.S. where there are advertisments for automobiles (parts or
	service).

	Give me a break - soft porn is everywhere in our society, what
	you are refering to is the obvious stuff.  That is easy to
	put down the rest is "the way it is" right?

	_peggy

		(-)
		 |
			One has to embrace the female within
			to appreciate, respect and love the
			female in others.

>	I would guess from your reply that the men "you know" don't
>	buy the S.I. swimsuit issue, or have images of scantily clad
>	women digitized for display on their workstations, or go see
>	movies and videos that show women only as bed warmers, or
>	watch television programs that have women with little clothes
>	and lots of make-up with little brains, or watch the Dallas
>	Cowboys cheerleaders jump around, or travel anywhere in the
>	U.S. where there are advertisments for automobiles (parts or
>	service).

Well, then you guess wrong.


Would someone PLEASE explain to me what is wrong with viewing pornography,
enjoying it, putting it down, and not having it effect your life?  

It seems to me that I'm being told here that it is IMPOSSIBLE for a man
(or a women for that matter) to be able to do this.  That it is IMPOSSIBLE
for some people to NOT fall "under it's spell."  That it is IMPOSSIBLE to
view pornography and still understand that women are MORE than just objects.
That it is IMPOSSIBLE to look at a pornographic picture and fantasize about
an intellectually stimulating erotic situation with the person.

Please tell me if I'm correct in my assumption that many of you believe 
tha pornography has an adverse effect on the majority of the people that
view it.

I maintain that pornography DOESN'T have an adverse effect on the *majority*
(but rather a *minority*) of the people that view it.  I maintain that OTHER
stimulus has a GREATER effect on the majority......Stimulus such as real-life
portrayals in PG-13, and R rated movies--portraying violence as 'OK' and
portraying women as a simple object of sexual desire, and portraying sex
as whimsical and spontaneous (ie, not referring to protection at all).

Pornography is fantasy, and I believe that stable human beings can take it
at face-value BECAUSE it is not-the-norm (not a plausible real-life occurance).
I believe OTHER stimulus is what the problem is.


Is this clear enough? Please re-read this before answering it, I want to 
make SURE that you REALLY know what I am saying about pornography and it's
impact before you dispute it.........Please?  I really can't take any more
misunderstandings and ridiculing of my position.

kath 

    <--(.37)
    
    Kath, I think that people do actually understand your position...or at
    least most do.
    
    Check me on this:  You're arguing that even porn which depicts violence
    against women or which portrays the debasement of women is innocuous
    because the majority of viewers understand that it depicts an unreal
    state, that they understand it's not a depiction of real life.  Right?
    
    I think most people do understand on a surface level --if you ask them,
    they'll say the right words-- that violent, objectifying porn is
    "unreal".  But the same people will, if asked, also tell you that
    advertising is a bunch of baloney...and we both know that advertising
    *works*.  
    
    Regardless of what our conscious, rational minds know, our brainstems
    may "know" something different.  That the odds of a coin coming up
    tails is better after a long run of heads than after a long run of
    tails, for instance.
    
    That's the kind of "knowledge" that propaganda of any kind depends on,
    and the consequences can range from a preference for one kind of
    laundry soap, through losing the rent, to rape and murder.  That's what
    makes violent, objectifying porn so nervous-making to so many people.
    
    						=maggie

    
    Re: .37
    
    	I'd like to say I couldn't agree with you more, Kath. I know I've
    viewed my share of both 'soft core' and 'hard core' porn. And I don't
    think that it has influenced my views of the REAL women in my life.
    
    
    I view each woman(person for that matter) on an individual basis and
    the perception of them is made at the time I am dealing with them and
    not because of a magazine, film or advertisement. And I believe that
    this is true for a majority of the people in this world.
    
    ed

    Kath,
    
    It seems as though there is more than one issue going on at the same
    time in the same note.
    
    I think it may partly what people view as pornography and also the
    notes seem to shift from magazines to actual movies.  While both are
    fantasy of a sort, movies where action is taking place, the actress
    and actor have to "live" the fantasy.
    
    On the whole, I reluctantly, agree with "the doctah" in that if it is
    illegal, then ban it.  Else make sure a person has to make a conscious
    choice to view it.
    
    I once remarked to my husband that I thought X rated movies should not
    be allowed for public viewing.  He challenged me - Have you ever seen
    one?  My answer was ... no.  He took me to one and I lasted less than
    5 minutes, told him that he could remain and I would quietly amuse
    myself in a nearby bookstore until the movie finished.  He elected to
    leave with me.  By this I don't say is wrong for anyone but me so I did
    learn from that experience that ADULTS probably have that choice.
    
    Having been a victim of violence twice - once at an early age, I
    realize I am super sensitive.  But people (or at least people as dumb
    as me) can unwittingly stumble onto magazines without realizing what
    they are at first.
    
    I returned stateside after 5 years and was in a drug store where they
    did have playboy and playgirl among others displayed.  I had heard
    about playboy but never thinking that playgirl was just the opposite
    opened the magazine to leaf throug.  I wish I hadn't.  But that was MY
    error not sociey's.
    
    I think there are those that can read/watch pernography and not change
    their behavior.  But let the material be in a porno store where people
    enter for one purpose and one purpose only.  But that is only my
    opinion and others I see as I read view it differently.  I acknowledge
    your difference and feel that is only one aspect of a person and they
    should not be judged solely on one aspect of themselves as people.
    
    I know my explanation sounds confusing, but then I have confused
    feelings about the issue.  I just wanted to support your right to have
    your view even if I do not have that particular interest.  No two
    people are exactly the same.
    
    Cathy

Re .37 -

> Would someone PLEASE explain to me what is wrong with viewing pornography,
> enjoying it, putting it down, and not having it effect your life?  

> Please tell me if I'm correct in my assumption that many of you believe 
> that pornography has an adverse effect on the majority of the people that
> view it.

> Pornography is fantasy, and I believe that stable human beings can take it
> at face-value BECAUSE it is not-the-norm (not a plausible real-life
> occurance). I believe OTHER stimulus is what the problem is. 


To me, the main thing that is wrong with porn. is the damage I believe it
does to women, in terms of shaping social attitudes towards them. 99% of the
time it's women, not men, who are depicted as sex objects in porn, whether
they're shown as victims of violence or just posing seductively a la
Playboy or (recently) in women's magazines. When you flood the media with
images of women available sexually to men -- images of women as sexual toys
to be used by men for men's pleasure -- the result, I believe, is that
those images percolate by sheer osmosis into the consciousnesses of all of
us, men and women; and then these images -- even though, as you say, they
are "fantasy" and perhaps intended to be consumed as fantasy -- get
translated into real-life situations where real women ae expected to live
up to those images. Because these images of women as sex objects are
*everywhere*, they can't help but affect men's and women's attitudes towared
real women in real life. Porn/the media become a kind pf propaganda for keeping
women in their place, defined as sex objects whether that's what they want
to be or not, and for keeping men thinking of them in this way. 

This is not to say that some individuals, such as yourself, may be immune 
to any effect of these porn-induced atttitudes on their own lives, on their 
own attitudes towards women. But what about the rest of us great unwashed
consumers of images? I guess I just don't share your optimism that most
people can really think of these images as fantasy and only fantasy. In
particular, young men, whose attitudes towards women are not yet fully
developed, would seem to me to be highly vulnerable to having those
attitudes shaped by porn. 

All I can think of now,

Dorian

    Kath,

    I agree with Maggie that the argument here is that pornography can
    have a SUBLIMINAL effect on those who view it; while it does not say 
    "women are objects", it sends a message that it's okay, even desirable, 
    to make women into objects.  And that [even] the most classically 
    desirable looking females *don't mind* if they are made into objects.

    Do I believe that pornography is more dangerous and insipid than some of 
    the "real life" portrayals of women in movies?  No.  Or that people can't
    take it at face value?  No again.  But women tend to be overrepresented
    in pronographic magazines, and that bothers me.  And, to view things in
    a slightly different light for a minute, I don't think the majority of
    women who fantasized about the man in the Soloflex ad were thinking in
    terms of stimulating dinner conversation.

    I don't think it's impossible to view pornography and understand that
    women are more than just objects.  I think it's possible to view it
    and _not_ understand that, which is disturbing.  But that's not what
    goes through my head when I look at some of this stuff.  That's not
    what really makes my teeth grit.

    What it is is... "Face value".  That's all women are presented as having 
    in the SI swimsuit issue, whereas, well... Sports Illustrated probably 
    shows more great male bodies than it does female, but it shows them in 
    action, achieving, *not* standing around waiting for male attention.  
    Put a man (alone) on the cover of the SI swimsuit issue for once and I 
    might think differently.  It's not an equal world out there, pick up
    a swimsuit calendar and look.

    A lot of pornography sends the message that it's okay to objectify women
    but not men, and I've got a problem with that.  I see a connection (not for
    everybody, thank heavens!)  between the scantily clad woman in restrictive-
    looking clothing and the old "she was asking for it" line used to defend
    rapists.  

    Imagine for a minute that you looked just like the next SI cover girl or
    Playboy centerfold.  You'd probably get a lot more male attention for it, 
    and it would have little or nothing to do with your personality.  Walking 
    alone would probably be more dangerous.

    Although for different reasons I wouldn't ban pornography (once you open
    the door to censorship, ultimately nothing is sacred... and where do you
    draw the line anyway?), I don't like the fact that a lot of it is there.

    And I hope the next SI cover girl doesn't look like me.

	Sharon

    I think that there are two issues here, which have become intermingled!
    
     First of all (american) society today is very much oriented towards
    male 'sexual' gratification, with the various images of semiclad and
    unclad women pouting lustily at the camera.  It is very hard to find
    equivalent pictures of semiclad and unclad men posturing for the camera
    (the occasional ad for blue jeans notwithstanding).
     This is coupled with the strange (american) attitude that sexual imagery
    and gratification is somehow "dirty" and "not something that nice
    people do"!  So the net result is an almost subliminal degradation of
    women in magazines, in television and on "posters" in record stores,
    since they (women) are seen as sex objects, and thus cheap! (not my
    opinion, but it is hard to put a sarcastic tone of voice in notes).
    
     There are two steps (in my opinion) toward solving this first issue.
    Step 1 (in my opinion) is to bring about equality in sexual
    gratification; that is, to orient advertizing/television/magazines
    more towards female 'sexual' gratification, so that both sexes are
    equally displayed.  ["Hey, check out the new 'Pecker Checker' issue of
    New Woman Illustrated!!"]. If nothing else, this should raise cultural
    awareness amongst men that it IS uncomfortable to see members of your
    own sex (99.44% of which are more attractive/desireable/"hung" than you
    are!) displayed like watermelons in the grocery store!
    
     I believe that such an equality would help Step 2, which is to change
    the social attitude towards sexuality, and make people realise that
    "Gee, some people even enjoy it!". 
    
     Neither of these steps are SMALL; I suspect that we'll achieve step 1
    long before step 2, especially in the "Bible Belt!"
     
    	----
    
    Issue 2: Pornography.
     Well, I LIKE it. I wish there was a better choice available.  I'd be
    more than happy to go to a "porn store" (sort of a Pornucopia (-: ) to
    buy/rent the stuff, much as I go to a hobby store today.  When I lived
    in Germany (many many years ago), there was a chain of "sex stores" all
    across the country, and you could find them in many major shopping
    areas; not just in the various "combat zones". Having such stuff
    readily available also took a lot of the 'mystique' away from
    pornography, and made the average consumer realise just how boring 80%
    of it is!!!!  
    
     I believe that I can differentiate between fact and fiction; maybe I'm
    an exception.  And I'd much rather my son was reading/watching stories 
    about sex (between consenting adults in various numbers and
    distributions) than stories about violence (Rambo, "The Executioner"
    series...).
    
    					Sorry for rambling
    						Nigel

RE: Maggie

>    Check me on this:  You're arguing that even porn which depicts violence
>    against women or which portrays the debasement of women is innocuous
>    because the majority of viewers understand that it depicts an unreal
>    state, that they understand it's not a depiction of real life.  Right?

No, I never qualified what type of porn I'm talking about.  Porn which 
depicts violence is censored....much of it must be obtained in porn stores,
if it can be obtained at all.  The majority of people that look at porn
are looking at Penthouse/Playboy material.  None of this material, that I 
have ever seen has depicted violence and/or debasement of women.

I'm talking about porn that the majority of stable people look at.  

I'm TRYING to get the point across that, even though there ARE weirdos
out there that DO get off on this stuff and treat it a real life, that ther
are MANY MORE stable rational people that DON'T.  

I don't want to see anything taken away from stable rational people who know
what they are doing.  And I believe the problem with the other minority is 
NOT porn itself but other more major influences.

RE: .43
>It is very hard to find
>    equivalent pictures of semiclad and unclad men posturing for the camera
>    (the occasional ad for blue jeans notwithstanding).

No it isn't.....pick up your handy GQ magazine, or your Sports magazine 
and look at the ads in those (men portrayed to look beautiful in their new
Guy Laroche suit).  

Remember...most magazines on the market are WOMEN'S magazines.  And the 
portrayals of beauty are to entice the WOMAN.  

Playboy does have an equivelant in Playgirl.  Women choose to not view it
to the extent men view Playboy, but never the less it is there.  And, I for
one, find a woman's body to be more 'beautiful' than many men's.

>     This is coupled with the strange (american) attitude that sexual imagery
>    and gratification is somehow "dirty" and "not something that nice
>    people do"! 

You've got it...THIS is the reason porn has a negative effect on society..it's
not eh portrayals as much as it is societies dictation of how you should 
REACT to those portrayals.



The over all point on censorship here is....do ANY of you have the right to 
take pornography away from mature, stable adults that can view it in it's
proper perspective.  If you do NOT feel you have that right, then you 
cannot censor it.

Also, another sideline I would like to address....WHY are porn stores banished
to the 'bad' side of town?  On the 'bad' side of town you typically have 
people that have not been treated well by society and some harbor a lot of 
hate for society because of that...you have uneducated people, you have
people who can't afford a paper/TV to see the news and what goes on....they
only get what society gives them, and that isn't much.  

Are these the people that you would typically call stable adults how can 
put it into proper perspective?  I wouldn't....I'd like to see porn shops
readily available to EVERYONE.......and not forced to portray a "dirty"
atmosphere...

kath

    re Kath .37 in response to PeggyL's .36:
    
    I think the point that Peggy was trying to make is that very soft-core
    porn images of women are everywhere.  One doesn't have to go out of her
    or his way to get it or see it, and one can't put it down, because it's
    all around us.
    

Also, something else........the marketing people are getting VERY smart.


Walk into a music store....and/or a poster store....the images are moving 
away from the women being used to advertise, but they've now advertising MEN
in a seductively gorgeous way to pull the women in.

Ask any teenage girl WHY she likes Cinderella, Whitesnake, Bon Jovi, etc, etc.
'Because he's CUTE!' is a very STANDARD answer.  Take for example the
_New Kids on the Block_ they had to cancel a concert because screaming 
little girls RUSHED the stage.  _New Kids on the Block_ don't play any 
instruments, they don't write any of their lyrics, and most concerts they
lip-sync.  It certainly isn't TALENT that draws these girls to them!!!  

And look at the concert t-shirts and posters....the guys in the groups 
dressed up in leather and chains, long flowing hair, pouty lips and
hungry eyes.  Most rock groups don't even USE women in their videos (Skid
Row, for example)...they find that when they hook the women/girls, they
hook the men.......


Yes, male objectification is pervading, and it's reaching for our 
younger generation!!

And to put it bluntly, it terrifies me, because 13 yr old girls very RARELY
can put anything in perspective.


kath

    in re magazines with men...
    
    I'm currently working a 2nd job in a bookstore and one of the jobs
    that I have to do is straighten the magazines. In with the Playboys
    and Penthouses and Hustlers are two magazines with pictures of men.
    Having had to pick up and close and reshelve copies of the later quite
    a few times (we find them hidden in a wide variety of other magazines
    opened to full color photographs) I have briefly (and embarassedly)
    noticed that they are *very* explict and that the men all look arogant
    as all get out, unlike the cute little girl type expessions on the
    women's magazine shots that I have like wise had to reshelve. Needless
    to say, I've not spent a lot of time perusing either type.
    
    Bonnie

    re: .46 Kath
    
         Actually the attraction of adolescent girls to "attractive" male
    has been around a long time.  I remember seeing shots of young women
    going ga-ga over Frank Sinatra in the 40's (??).  There aren't too many
    female groups which achieve anywhere near the same following of
    testoserone influenced young men.  However there are female groups
    which seem to pander to the hormones of the 15-25 year old male.
    
         One thing which strikes me is that the young women seem to outgrow
    their hormonal attractions earlier than young men do.
    
    Tony

    
    to me, the question is 'what do all these images *mean*?' (or
    purport to mean. from that point of view i'm inclined to agree
    with ms. gallup. that is, 'hustler' is (and claims to be)
    sleazy pictures of pretty women doing sleazy things. a rational
    person is probably going to know exactly what they're getting
    into. but i also must agree with ms. leedberg. what do all the
    images of scantily clan women, slightly put down women, weak,
    mindless women in everyday society mean? i would suggest that
    this is the *real* pornography.
    

While you all debate whether pornography is "good" or "bad" for society,
or whether it objectifies women, or whether the "average" viewer can
seperate reality from fanatsy...would you support limited/prhobited 
distribution?

You might convince me that pornoraphy objectifies women.  You might
convince me that pornography subliminally teaches men and women to strive
towards being and/or having the women portrayed in pornography.  You
might convince me that pornography negatively affects equality.  But
I doubt you could convince me that it should be illegal or otherwise
restricted.

The fix to objectification is to change *society*.  Eliminating 
literature that is enjoyable because of societal attitudes won't change
the attitudes; it just limits individual freedoms.  

Quick question to a number of you who talk about not being nonconsensually
exposed to pornography, especially Cathy First.  I am very curious about
why you have such an extreme negative reaction from a brief exposure,
however offensive the ideas behind the pictures are?  I am very offended
by a lot of the pamphlets they hand out in Harvard Sq. but a brief
glance at their contents doesn't harm me a bit.  What is so terrible about
accidentally glanging at Playboy when you meant to pick up Popular 
Enchanter?

D!

	Thanks - jwhite - That is the pornography that I am against.
	The rest would not matter if the soft-porn wasn't there every
	day.

	I have seen X-rated real porn flicks - they were boring.  Men
	in nothing but socks is funny at best.

	It isn't picking up Hustler by mistake (though I doubt that
	would ever happen), it is the buy of MS and seeing insulting,
	degrading ads that protray women as objects that I am against.

	Pro-porn people have the right to deal with it as they see fit
	BUT I do not have to see it if I choose not to.  I do not see
	any need for age limits since most of the damage to sensibilities
	is done by the rejection of our bodies and their functions.

	_peggy

		(-)
		 |
			All bodies are the temples of the Goddess
			and should be treated as sacred.

    
    you are quite welcome ms. leedberg!
    
    and for those of you who are keeping track, by my rough calculations,
    there are about 7 votes for 'limiting open display of sexually
    explicit materials' and about 3 votes for 'no limitations whatsoever
    on sexually explicit materials'. there are 0 votes for making any
    of these materials illegal or for any kind of censorship of the
    actually content.
    

    	RE: .39  ed
    
    	>    -< i can deal with it >-
    
    	Well, that's great to hear (that you can deal with it when *others*
    	are objectified.)
    
    	Let me ask you something:  If you and I were standing side by side,
    	and someone came along and started repeatedly kicking **YOU** in
    	the shin (and not me,) which one of the two of us do you think
    	would adjust more easily to your being kicked - you or me?  :-)
    

    	RE: .46  Kath
    
    	> Walk into a music store....and/or a poster store....the images are 
    	> moving away from the women being used to advertise, but they've now 
    	> advertising MEN in a seductively gorgeous way to pull the women in.
    
    	Kath, as someone else pointed out, this is *nothing new*!  How did you 
    	think Elvis got so popular (or the Beatles???)  
    
    	Don't you ever recall seeing films of the tens of thousands of 
    	screaming teenaged girls that swarmed the airport when John, Paul, 
    	George and Ringo landed in America for the first time?  Haven't you 
    	ever seen the screaming, crying, *fainting* fans photographed at early
    	Beatles' concerts?
    
    	Rock'n'roll was literally *built* on the romantic fantasies of
    	young girls who spent all their allowance/babysitting money on records 
    	- there wouldn't *be* a music business (as we know it) without the
    	dedication of young female fans over the past several decades.
    
    	However, has this amounted to the "objectification" of men?  (In
    	other words, was the implication made that rockers represented the
    	"ideal male" and that such men only possessed great faces and bodies, 
    	without any talent or brains?)  
    
    	Is Paul McCartney so drop-dead-good-looking that he would have been 
    	a National Hearthrob on the basis of his face or body alone (without 
    	all the hit records and the singing talent?)  I don't think so.
    
    	Have the romantic fantasies of young girls oppressed men on a
    	culture-wise basis?  If so, please explain how.  
    
    	Please explain to me how the two cultural phenomena (the objectifi-
    	cation of women and the popularity of male rock performers based on
    	their looks) can be compared at all.  In my opinion, they are quite
    	different (in both intent *and* impact.)

    	RE: .46  Kath
    
    	> Yes, male objectification is pervading, and it's reaching for our 
	> younger generation!!

	> And to put it bluntly, it terrifies me, because 13 yr old girls 
    	> very RARELY can put anything in perspective.
    
    	Terrifies you???  What is it that you think will happen if 13 year
    	old girls see men as objects?  
    
    	Do you think 13 year old girls have the ability to damage men in
    	our culture, or are you more worried about what the men will do to
    	*women* in retaliation for such objectification?
    
    	Women are *already* objectified in our culture, so it seems to me
    	that the worst thing that would happen if men were objectified as
    	well, is that the *whole population* would then be objectified, 
    	instead of just women.  
    
    	Would that be beneficial to anyone?  Not necessarily.  Do I want to 
    	see it?  Not especially.
    
    	However, what is it about this idea that "terrifies" you (whereas
    	the objectification of women does not even seem to bother you much?)

    re .53
    
    .53	Well, that's great to hear (that you can deal with it when *others*
    .53 	are objectified.)
    
    
    Let's put this in real terms - The statement should be  when *other*
    are *perceived* to be objectified.
    
    I have seen plenty of porn films where the female is getting just as
    much as giving.
    
    As to me getting kicked in the shins - I wouldn't get kicked repeatedly
    because I would handle the situation. And I think you prove MY point.
    YOU don't have to handle anything dealing with ME, I'll do it.
    
    ed

    	RE: .56  ed
    
    	> Let's put this in real terms - The statement should be  when *other*
    	> are *perceived* to be objectified.
    
    	> I have seen plenty of porn films where the female is getting just as
    	> much as giving.
    
    	Are you trying to imply that men are also objectified by porn films
    	(when the female is "getting just as much as giving")??
    
    	> As to me getting kicked in the shins - I wouldn't get kicked 
    	> repeatedly because I would handle the situation. And I think you 
    	> prove MY point.  YOU don't have to handle anything dealing with ME, 
    	> I'll do it.
    
    	You said you could "deal with it" when women were being objectified
    	in porn films, to which I responded with an analogy to demonstrate
    	that, OF COURSE, it's easier to "deal with it" when it's happening
    	to someone else (and not you.)
    
    	Your original statement to this effect was in response to the assertion
    	that men *do* deal with the objectification of women better than women
    	deal with it, which I regard as a rather bizarre statement (since, yes,
    	it is quite obviously easier to "deal with" harm when it's done to
    	someone else.)  
    
    	Thus, if you were being kicked, I would find it less of a problem than 
    	you would (as long it was only your shin involved, and not mine.)
    
    	It would be *even easier* for me to deal with it if I was *with* you 
    	for the specific purpose of intentionally *watching* you get kicked in
    	the shin.  

    
    re .57
    
    I'll make my opinion clearer if I can,
    
    I (and I only speak for myself, and don't we all) do not see porn as
    objectifying ANYONE. Porn is a fantasy. 
    
    Do YOU think porn objectifies women or are you afraid other people will
    think it objectifies women and cause problems for YOU. 
    
    ed

CONVICTED

Dwaine Tinsley, 44, the cartoonist who created Hustler magazine's "Chester 
the Molester" has been convicted of molesting a teen-age girl. He was found 
guilty Friday of five child molestation counts by a Superior Court jury in 
Ventura, Calif.

		-- Boston Globe, 1/7/90

>Dwaine Tinsley, 44, the cartoonist who created Hustler magazine's "Chester 
>the Molester" has been convicted of molesting a teen-age girl.

EXCELLENT!!!  I'm glad to hear that someone who has committed a horrendous 
crime has been made to pay for it.

>here's yer "porn as fantasy"...

However, I doubt that he used "porn as fantasy" and am sure that he probably 
had quite a few more problem that porn had NOTHING to do with.

kath

Re: .59

>here's yer "porn as fantasy"...


	Do you feel that citing one example proves your point?

						--D

SSDEVO::GALLUP 

>No it isn't.....pick up your handy GQ magazine, or your Sports magazine 
>and look at the ads in those (men portrayed to look beautiful in their new
>Guy Laroche suit).  

Fully dressed and standing up with background symbols of action and ac-
complishment, as the majority of these models are posed, does not, to my mind, 
equate with women lolling around wearing odd bits of non-functional clothing
in a picture filled with symbols of inactivity, sex and passivity.

>Remember...most magazines on the market are WOMEN'S magazines.  And the 
>portrayals of beauty are to entice the WOMAN.  

Ah!  Big point here.  These images are not to "entice" the woman.  They
are created to play to her fear of not being physically good enough to get
a man.  The fear the culture has already created.

Advertising geared to men generally proposes to fill a need a man 
already has.  Good tires.  A sturdy wallet.  A nice Guy LaRoche suit to 
make the boss notice.  But advertising geared to women manufactures a need 
where one was not.  Women don't really *need* new clothes for fall or yet
another "new" lipstick.  Only the names change, anyway.  Last year's
Cinnamon is this year's "new" Sienna.  But women are buying protection
and insurance rather than lipstick and women's magazines are created
to drive home the point that EVERY woman needs protection from spinsterhood
and insurance against loneliness and ridicule.
    
Women aren't sold things like a good, functional pair of shoes with ad
copy talking about aching feet, back problems, etc.  Women are sold things
like lipstick with fears that someone else will get our man before we do.
The picture of a model's professionally made up lips drives the point
home by showing women 'the competition' who of course is better because
"they" are wearing the "hot new fall colors".  We don't "need" new
lipstick, but are told by society, (and reinforced by women's magazines
and the softcore images everywhere), that if we don't buy it, we'll be
left behind in the major race of life, getting a man, by the hoardes of
women who eschew comfortable shoes and willingly spend their time, money 
and energy on useless things like "new" lipstick.  The so-called women's 
magazines do not exist to entice and entertain women but to both create
fear and dread in women and then offer hope in pretty little tubes and
bottles.  It's the modus operandi of a heroin dealer and frankly, I'd
like to see IT censored.  An industry built around making women feel
like worthless pieces of crap and sending them scurrying for useless
consumer goods to ease the pain is tyrrany, sadism and misogyny at its
very American best.                

Men's advertising works by making men feel good.  Women's advertising works 
specifically by making a woman feel like shit, (and by making men feel
good).

>Playboy does have an equivelant in Playgirl.  

No, it does not.  Too often the photographers are men.  Do you think playboy
would have the female equivalent of Lyle Waggoner and Andre Previn as
centerfolds?  These may be very talented men but as sex objects, they're
about as exciting as old farmers.  Playgirl has a VERY long way to go.
The true equivalents are the few images creeping into the mainstream - the
Soloflex guy, one quick shot in a Chunky ad a year or so ago, the ads for
Iron after-shave.  The examples can be counted on one hand where you cannot
escape the prevalance of images for men.

>And to put it bluntly, it terrifies me, because 13 yr old girls very RARELY
>can put anything in perspective.

But 13 year old boys reading playboy are of course, able to understand
the difference between fantasy and reality.  Those silly, little girls.
But what specifically is it that terrifies you?  That they might not
settle for a nice, quiet boy who wants to get married but instead pursue
men with the lust and the vigor with which men pursue women?  Are you
afraid a little equality might happen? 
    
This betrays a bit of misogyny.  Your staunch defense of soft core for men
is intersting in light of your 'terror' at softcore for women.

You seem to imagine the average skin mag reader as a well dressed, nice-
looking, intelligent man.  "What kind of man reads Playboy?"  You've bought
into the Hugh Hefner propaganda hook, line and sinker.  Hugh's claim to fame
was that porn is as harmful as ice cream -  as innocent and fun as
Disneyland - that porn is good when it airbrushes the humanness from
women, (no sweating, grunting women like those sleazy rags),  and is placed 
next to a Ray Bradbury story or a Ferdinand Marcos interview, peddled by a
guy in a silk smoking jacket.  I think, Kathy, that you yourself aren't as 
able to separate fact from fiction as you claim to be.

RE; Tony Purmal

>I remember seeing shots of young women going ga-ga over Frank Sinatra in the 
>40's (??).  

The first female "fainters" at a Sinatra concert were hired by the record
company.  The rest is history.        

    First, I am opposed to censorship. Second, I am opposed
    to using illegal acts to sell magazines - sex with children,
    and others of that sort. Third, I'm sick and tired of 
    swimsuit-clad women being used to sell everything from
    cars to cargo services.
    
    SI's swimsuit issue is not about selling swimsuits, it's
    about selling magazines. Using sex. Car ads with women
    in swimsuits isn't about selling swimsuits, it's about
    selling cars. With sex. Hey, you want to sell me a car ?
    Show me a good car. Or is *she* included in the sticker price ?
    I didn't think so. There are magazines on the stands
    with *nothing but* swimsuits. Are they selling swimsuits
    or magazines ? Not sure, but I'll bet dollars-to-donuts
    that a lot of people buy these magazines with no intention
    of shopping for swimsuits.

    Frankly, I'm tired of Madison Avenue trying to grab me by
    the b*lls. 
    
    Swimsuit-clad women have a place in two types of advertisements.
    Ads for swimsuits
    and bordellos. 

    Dana
    
    PS sorry if this is a bit off the topic. Sometimes remaining true
    to my political beliefs drives me crazy :-)

Sandy (.62)

I'm getting rather sick of your condescending attitude and your assumptions 
about me and your constant twisting of my words and your projection of your
opinions onto me to make me seem that I am portraying things that I'm not.


So don't mind me if I refuse to answer any more of your notes.  Your 
accusations really don't 'turn me on' to replying to you.  And they really
don't become you.

So sorry.

kathy

Why in the world would I spend my time trying to make Kathy Gallup seem to be 
something she isn't?  Aren't you being a little self-centered there?
                 
>I'm getting rather sick of your condescending attitude and your...

And some of us have long since gotten sick of some of yours.  But no
one would actually come out and say this - uh, except you.  No problem.
I understand completely why you would get sick of me.  I won't let
you rest.  I'll challenge you until you tell me why you think the way you
do or until you cry uncle, which you just have.

>So don't mind me if I refuse to answer any more of your notes.  

Kathy, I didn't mind you when you DID! ;-)  A little condescension of your 
own here, I see. This must be the "good" kind.  ;-)  
    
I'm sure I'll be ok if you don't talk to me anymore.  Thank you for
thinking of my feelings and asking sincerely if you can back 
out of responding to anything I write in the future.  You know how much I
count on your feedback.  I would have been devastated at your unexplained 
silence.  What?  You weren't sincere??  ;-)

>Your accusations really don't 'turn me on' to replying to you.  

Shoot.  Failed again.  And in front of the whole world, too.

>And they really don't become you.

Uh, whaddya mean?  What I say IS me.  I've got a big grin on my face
thinking that you must be at a loss for words to resort to a pat put-
down.  My mother used to say stuff like that when she couldn't give me
a real reason for what she wanted from me.  Haven't you got any real
rebuttals?  <stony silence>  Guess not.

Of course we won't talk about the sentence you used a couple of
days ago, "I know Sandy is going to take offense" or something like that
before intentionally saying something you obviously thought would be 
offensive to me.  Isn't THAT nice of YOU!  She who is without sin...
But we won't talk about your assumptions of me as evidenced by that 
statement.  I blew it off because notes in general, and you in par-
ticular don't have the capacity to offend me.  So you stated an erroneous
assumption about me.  So what?  But that makes it seem like you have little 
here to complain about.

I bring up that phrase now only to show you how much like me you really are.
How you like to drive your point home just like I do - how you'll get up 
and get back in the ring like I do.  The only difference is we're making 
different points.  And my assumption is, (come on, one more assumption, 
puleeze?) that's your REAL problem with me.  You'd love me if I used the 
same style I use now to further YOUR agenda instead of my own.  We'd be 
exhanging phone numbers and lots of personal mail and invitations to
come on out.

>So sorry.

And a little more condescension from the woman who finds it so reprehensible.
Do you wanna be the goose or the gander?  ;-)

Lighten up, kid, it's ONLY NOTES!  :-)

re: Dana Charbonnd
         
I agree you must be sick of seeing women in bathing suits used to lure
men into opening their wallets.  But how long have you been sick of
it - how old are you?  That's rhetorical - you're not expected to answer.
Suffice it to say you aren't the target market.  The guys who are today
where you were when you weren't sick of it still like it and still open
their wallets for a set of pouty lips.
    
>    SI's swimsuit issue is not about selling swimsuits, it's
>    about selling magazines. Using sex. 

Um, no.  Sex takes two (or more) beings.  They are using women.  Women are 
not sex.

>There are magazines on the stands with *nothing but* swimsuits. 

Ahem - swimsuits on hangers?  Swimsuits laid out on tables?  I have
to point out the subtlety of your choice of words "nothing but".  They
are not picturing swimsuits but rather women wearing swimsuits.

>    Frankly, I'm tired of Madison Avenue trying to grab me by
>    the b*lls. 
 
It's about time men got sick of it.  I often asked men why they don't
feel so manipulated.  Flash 'em a smile and they'll do anything.  Men
proved to Madison Avenue that that's true.  The first tenet of advertising
is, and I quote exactly, "Cradle your product in the arms of a seductive 
woman and men will fall all over each other to buy it."  Either continue to 
act like sheep or show them you're deeper and more independent than that!  
Tell them!

RE: .65 (Sandy)

>Aren't you being a little self-centered there?

No.  Are you?
                
>And some of us have long since gotten sick of some of yours.

Well, then they should say something.  I'm always open to criticism.  So
far, I haven't got any criticising mail.

>I understand completely why you would get sick of me.  I won't let
>you rest.  I'll challenge you until you tell me why you think the way you
>do or until you cry uncle, which you just have.

No, I love being challenged, after all, I'm an engineer.  I hate being
treated with disrespect for my opinions.

>You know how much I count on your feedback.  

If that was meant as a snide remark.  I just want you know that I DO count
on your feedback.....when it's presented in what I consider to be an
acceptable way......(in otherwise, I can't get a lot out of your notes
when I sense anger)

>Of course we won't talk about the sentence you used a couple of
>days ago, "I know Sandy is going to take offense" or something like that
>before intentionally saying something you obviously thought would be 
>offensive to me.  Isn't THAT nice of YOU!  She who is without sin...

>The following list contains comments made by Sandy in .42 and .33  I use them 
>as example as to WHY I feel that sometimes some women perpetuate misogyny in 
>others.  I present them as statements made by a woman (really Sandy, this
>isn't personal....you've just given me good examples) and try to put yourself 
>into the position where you were the person they were being said about.

I believe this is the quote you are referring to (it's the only reference
I remember making to you).  It's interesting how you read what I really
said.  So, you see, I really didn't say what I attribute to me.

>I bring up that phrase now only to show you how much like me you really are.

Moot point.  Since I didnt' say what you attributed to me.

>How you like to drive your point home just like I do - how you'll get up
>and get back in the ring like I do.  The only difference is we're making 
>different points.  And my assumption is, (come on, one more assumption, 
>puleeze?) that's your REAL problem with me.  You'd love me if I used the 
>same style I use now to further YOUR agenda instead of my own.  We'd be 
>exhanging phone numbers and lots of personal mail and invitations to
>come on out.

No I wouldn't.  Because what I am complaining about *IS* your style.  You
could say anything you want, and, in fact we HAVE agreed many times, but,
IMO your presentation/style could use some work.  I can't respond to someone
adequately who writes the way you do.  You have valid points and i understand
your points, but I really have a problem with your style/presentation.  That,
Sandy, is my ONLY gripe about you.

So, you see, your assumption is wrong.  I would not appreciate you being on
my side if you used the same tactics you do now.  Your tactics/style
is exactly what I was taking about in the misogyny note.  Not your meaning,
but rather your style.

>Lighten up, kid, it's ONLY NOTES!  :-)

And the 'things' behind the notes are only people, with real thoughts and
REAL feelings.


kath

    At the Worcester NOW meeting we were told about an effort by a group
    calling themselves "Feminists Against Pornography" who have gotten
    legislation in the U.S. Congress that would (paraphrasing) allow:
    
    If a person committs a sex-related felony *and* specific pornographic
    literature directly related to that felony is found in that person's
    position allow the victim to also bring (criminal complaint/suit, I
    don't know the details) against the publisher of that pornographic
    material.
    
    Note that this isn't censorship, per se.  However, there was no one
    at this meeting (including two new members) who felt this was a
    desirable thing.  Instead it was seen as an attempt to push off a
    societal problem on these publishers.  Of course, from what little
    I saw in their monthly newsletter was pretty gross (IMO)...  

    re -2 and -3 ...
    
    Gee, was SOAPBOX down today or something ?    8^)
    
    
    
    				Jerry

    ENOUGH with the interpersonal attacks.  Take it off-line if you're
    going to argue with one another this way you two.  This notesfile is
    NOT the place for your argument.  
    
    -Jody
    

          re: .0

          > Who in this file is *for* "censorship" of pornography (leaving
          > out things that are *already* illegal such as child
          > pornography, things that are nonconsensual, etc.)?

          I would not be for censorship of pornography as described above.


          re: 820.210  (D!)

          > As for whether no one in this notesfile has advocated
          > censorship, I must have misread Nancy's note a few back.

          > I said, basically, "Is 'violent' porn okay?", and she said
          > "In this world, no." Which I took to mean she would vote *for*
          > a law banning such pornography.
          > Nancy, did I misread you?

          When I wrote the note re: "Not In this world..." (820.179), I
          meant that I don't think distributing violent porn is "right".
          It was not a reply that "advocated censorship", but since I was
          pointed to your questions above (you asked them when I was in FL
          for Christmas vacation), I've thought about it some more.

          D!, haven't you said something like (in 820 I believe): "So maybe
          you wouldn't vote to censor it, but you wouldn't sign a petition
          to pass a law which would repeal the illegality of violent porn."
          That's probably where I am w.r.t. violent porn and its
          distribution.

          Moreover, if enough petition signatures had been obtained for a
          referendum where voters in the greater Boston area had to vote on
          whether violent porn should be made legal, I'm not sure what I
          would do.  It's a dilemma.  I think I would identify too much
          with the female objects of the violence in the porn to make an
          objective, rational, decision about the vote.  I recognize that I
          can't separate myself emotionally from this issue, and,
          therefore, the best thing for me to do would be to abstain from
          voting.  So I would probably stand there for a minute or so in
          the voting booth in anguish over the right thing to do, and walk
          out frustrated *not* having pulled a lever.

          Perhaps I feel this way because of a really nasty nastygram I
          wrote Senator Kennedy after he assaulted my mailbox with anti-gun
          propaganda advocating disarming everyone but the state and
          police.  I told him, "Senator Kennedy, you should be ashamed.",
          since he was obviously blinded by his emotions (stemming from
          John F. being killed) on the gun issue and ignoring all facts,
          statistics, and reason.  I told him if he couldn't separate
          himself from an issue emotionally, he owes it to the public as a
          responsible politician to back off and let the people/politicians
          who can think clearly on the matter form the public policy.

          But, then again, I've been told that if I had never been raped, I
          would not have such strong feminist viewpoints... as though,
          because my most ardent opinions probably result from a fluke
          experience, they are somehow less valid, less right.   [sigh]

                                                       nancy b.

    In re: Note 907.70 by SYSENG::BITTLE 
    
    Let's see. KENNEDY's experience of violence has left him "blinded by
    his emotions," and unable to "think clearly." BITTLE's experience of
    violence, in contrast, has only made her views "ardent," not "less
    valid, less right."
    
    Nancy, can you not see that in asserting that gun control advocates are
    "ignoring all facts, statistics, and reason" you are insulting a lot of
    people, indeed, a majority of the population Yet such statements and
    evident judgements are so obviously off the wall, that most people will
    not take personal offense, but dismiss you as a flyweight (whether
    deservedly or not). It seems to me that you are effectively entering
    this rhetorical battle by (to choose a random metaphor) shooting
    yourself in the foot. Just as Kennedy should be excluded from public
    policy determination, so should the rest of us kooks on this issue, and
    doubtless many other issues, since we are blind to your insights. How
    many will be left to participate in this nicely simplified democracy?
    
    There has been considerable argument about angry entries in several note
    strings recently. A prime defense of expressions of outrage has been
    their thereputic effects, and the assertion that if women can't express
    anger in womannotes, where CAN they do it. I have no quarrel with this
    view. But accepting some angry tirades as legitimate and thereputic
    does not convert them into reasoned discourse or effective
    argumentation. Those who confuse their therepy sessions with the rest
    of their life are likely headed for trouble. And those who know that
    THEIR anger is legitimate reaction to objective facts, while the OTHER
    side's anger is emotional blindness to reason and reality, are
    suffering from an extreme and quite obvious form of solipsism.
    
    There is, to be sure, some emotion behind this present entry itself. It
    was certainly NOT all inspired by Nancy's entry, and I do not mean to
    be dumping on her as an individual. Indeed, I don't mean to dump on any
    individual, but only on the kind of solipsism I tried to describe, to
    which we all are subject from time to time.
    
    	- Bruce

    	RE: .71  Bruce Collier
    
    	> Let's see. KENNEDY's experience of violence has left him "blinded by
    	> his emotions," and unable to "think clearly." BITTLE's experience of
    	> violence, in contrast, has only made her views "ardent," not "less
    	> valid, less right."
    
    	You left out some key passages of Nancy's that put a significantly
    	different slant on what you quoted, Bruce.  In .70, Nancy wrote:
    
    	   "...where voters in the greater Boston area had to vote on
           whether violent porn should be made legal, I'm not sure what I
           would do.  It's a dilemma.  I think I would identify too much
           with the female objects of the violence in the porn to make an
           objective, rational, decision about the vote.  I recognize that I
           can't separate myself emotionally from this issue, and,
           therefore, the best thing for me to do would be to abstain from
           voting."
    
    	With regard to Kennedy, she wrote:
    
    	   "I told him if he couldn't separate himself from an issue 
    	   emotionally, he owes it to the public as a responsible politician 
    	   to back off and let the people/politicians who can think clearly 
    	   on the matter form the public policy."
    
    	Now, give me a break here, Bruce.  What sort of problem do you have
    	with someone asking a politician to back off from "forming public
    	policy" on matters for the *same reasons* that she is backing off on
    	voting???  Forming public policy has a great deal more potential 
    	effect involved than pulling one individual lever to vote.
    
    	Later, Nancy writes:
    
    	   "But, then again, I've been told that if I had never been raped, 
           I would not have such strong feminist viewpoints...as though,
    	   because my most ardent opinions probably result from a fluke
    	   experience, they are somehow less valid, less right."
    
    	Are we supposed to hold someone's personal viewpoints up to the
    	same scrutiny with which we examine those held by the politicians
    	who help form public policy?  
    
    	If Ted Kennedy were a noter, and not a politician, would you have
    	the insensitivity to ridicule him for advocating gun control after
    	he explained that two of his brothers happened to have been murdered 
    	by being shot?  Would you throw him into the middle of questions
    	about whether the expressions of his anger have theraputic value or 
    	not, and would you state that most people would regard him as a 
    	flyweight for having the nerve to express his opinions in ways that
    	some would find a bit too strongly worded?
    
    	> But accepting some angry tirades as legitimate and thereputic
    	> does not convert them into reasoned discourse or effective
    	> argumentation. 
    
    	Whether or not anyone's contribution to a discussion is an
    	effective argument is purely subjective, so why not let others
    	make up their own minds when they read such notes?
    
    	> Those who confuse their therepy sessions with the rest of their 
    	> life are likely headed for trouble. 
    
    	Those who try to practice medicine without a license are headed
    	for trouble, as well.  Where do you get off characterizing anyone's
    	argument as a therapy session?  Please state your qualifications for
    	making such a determination.
    
    	> And those who know that THEIR anger is legitimate reaction to 
    	> objective facts, while the OTHER side's anger is emotional 
    	> blindness to reason and reality, are suffering from an extreme 
    	> and quite obvious form of solipsism.
    
    	> There is, to be sure, some emotion behind this present entry
    	> itself.
    
    	Well, I don't suppose you'd describe this "emotion" as anger,
    	would you?  And I suppose we should accept that your emotion is
    	the legitimate reaction to objective facts?
    
    	> Indeed, I don't mean to dump on any individual, but only on the 
    	> kind of solipsism I tried to describe, to which we all are subject 
    	> from time to time.
    
    	Bruce, you had to alter Nancy's position to demonstrate this idea,
    	so your argument is seriously flawed.  Perhaps you were blinded by
    	your own zeal to make this point.

>    Let's see. KENNEDY's experience of violence has left him "blinded by
>    his emotions," and unable to "think clearly." BITTLE's experience of
>    violence, in contrast, has only made her views "ardent," not "less
>    valid, less right."

 I disagree that this statement accurately charactizes Nancy's position or 
carries with it the gist of what she wrote.

>    Nancy, can you not see that in asserting that gun control advocates are
>    "ignoring all facts, statistics, and reason" you are insulting a lot of
>    people, indeed, a majority of the population 

 Whether the assertion is an insult or not is hardly germane. If the statement
is accurate, the fact that it speaks poorly of gun control advocates is a
secondary issue (and one that only they can change.) You also make the 
assumption that gun control advocates are a majority of the population. That may
or may not be so, but, frankly it doesn't matter. If everybody said that it
was ok to discriminate against <insert_minority_of_choice_here> except one 
person, that person would have every right to say that the "majority" was wrong.
And that person would indeed be right.

>Yet such statements and
>    evident judgements are so obviously off the wall,

 That value judgement is not so obvious.
 
 The Doctah

 .72	> Bruce, you had to alter Nancy's position to demonstrate this idea,
    	> so your argument is seriously flawed.  Perhaps you were blinded by
    	> your own zeal to make this point.
    
    This has been known to happen, so I tried to review my entry with an
    open mind. By and large, I stand by it. I do not intend to get into
    line-by-line attack and defense. But I must point out that I EXPLICITLY
    STATED TWICE that I was largely reacting to entries other than Nancy's,
    and that the anger/therapy discussions were in other notes. I myself
    pointed out the emotional contribution to my own entry (but aren't I
    SUPPOSED to be getting in touch with my emotions? :-)). I don't believe
    I engaged in selective or distorting quotations; I only addressed
    Nancy's last two paragraphs; but readers must judge for themselves. I
    don't feel I ridiculed Nancy; I certainly didn't mean to, as I respect
    her contributions, even when I disagree with portions; I still feel SHE
    ridiculed Kennedy rather savagely. And I certainly didn't say she is a
    flyweight (go back and read it, please).
    
    HOWEVER, I wish I had reversed the two halves of my entry, so that it
    was less liable to misunderstanding. I was reacting, really, to the
    discussions (as I said, discussions ELSEWHERE) of anger, using Nancy's
    attack on Kennedy and gun control as an example of counter-productive
    use of anger, insult, and solipsistic logic. It still seems to me a
    good example, which I did not misrepresent. But clearly I riled people
    in an unintended way by launching into criticism of Nancy's paragraph
    at the start. I should have set the context better and given another
    example or two. { Let's see - I remember "advertising for women only
    works on their fears and insecurities, while MEN's advertisments only
    cater to their real, practical needs;" but that's for another time. }
    Had I done so, I would perhaps have avoided the need for THIS entry,
    and gotten my own intended point across more effectively. I'll try to
    be clearer next time.
    
    	- Bruce
    
    { Don't I get at least a little credit for calling myself a kook? }

	re: .71 (Bruce Collier)       -< Double Standard >-
  
	If this were freshman English, I would give you a D- in 
	reading comprehension.

	In .70 I first described why I would abstain from voting against
	the distribution of violent pornography with:

.70>  I think I would identify too much with the female objects of the 
.70>  violence in the porn to make an objective, rational, decision about 
.70>  the vote.  I recognize that I can't separate myself emotionally 
.70>  from this issue, and, therefore, the best thing for me to do would 
.70>  be to abstain from voting.       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^**^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

	Then, I described an _analogous_ situation where I previously
	implored Senator Kennedy to abstain from influencing public 
	policy on the gun control issue because:

.70>  if he couldn't separate himself from an issue emotionally, he owes 
.70>  it to the public as a responsible politician to back off and let 
.70>  the people/politicians who can think clearly on the matter form 
.70>  the public policy.

	How is that a double standard, Bruce?

	Also, please show me where the following applies to both my stance 
	with respect to violent pornography and my reaction to Senator
	Kennedy's stance on gun-control.

> And those who know that THEIR anger is legitimate reaction to objective 
> facts, while the OTHER side's anger is emotional blindness to reason and 
> reality, are suffering from an extreme and quite obvious form of solipsism.


>  Nancy, can you not see that in asserting that gun control advocates are
                                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
	Please show me where I generalized "Senator Kennedy is" to
	"gun control advocates are".

	Why did you grossly distort what I said, Bruce?

                     V           V
> But accepting some angry tirades as legitimate and thereputic does not 
> convert them into reasoned discourse or effective argumentation. 
                    ^                ^    ^                     ^

        In .70, I answered the basenote question, described why I would
	not take a stand on violent porn, described an analogous situation,
        and related another person's comments on the issue.
	.70 is not an "angry tirade", nor was it "argumentation", as I was
	*not* debating or persuading the pros and cons of violent porn
	and gun control.  

	Bruce, please illustrate why you felt .70 was an angry tirade.
	
	    						nancy b.

How do other oppressed groups in our society fight against degrading
depictions of them -- graphic and verbal -- without threatening the first
amendment? I'm thinking of the Anti-Defamation League mostly. Because of
the first amendment, everyone has the "right" to express anti-Semitism, BUT
it's become pretty much taboo to do so, for the most part. I mean, I know 
there are occasional neo-Nazi marches and the like reported in the 
newspaper, but around here anyway, when anti-Semitic graffiti, for example, 
are scrawled on walls, the media reflects a deep gut-level reaction of
horror and revulsion. 

Is the ADL responsible for any of this? If so, does the ADL do it? My
understanding is that, for one thing, they monitor the media, and when
anti-Semitism is expressed they let people know they're upset. But I don't
know any details of how they operate, or how powerful they are. 

Could women form an "ADWL" --  an Anti-Defamation of Women League -- that
would work similarly to the ADL to cut down on (for starters) images of 
women as victims in violent pornography, as airhead bimbos selling cars and 
everything else, etc. etc. ?

Or would that take more money than women have these days,

Or would we be risking our lives because of who stands to gain from leaving 
things the way they are,

Dorian

    <-- meant to say *how* does the ADL do it.

    Nancy -
    
    Let's try to avoid the temptation to descend into an exchange of
    personal insults. I didn't criticize you, and I nowhere referred to
    your views on pornography. I did criticize your paragraph on gun
    control, and react to entries in a number of different OTHER notes
    recently.
    
    I assume you had not read .74 before entering .75; at least you seem
    not to have understood it. I will not repeat what I said there, but
    answer your three specific questions.
    
    .75 > How is that a double standard, Bruce?
    
    The "double standard" I was refering to was the general tendency in
    life and in Notes to assume that MY anger is an affirmation of the
    validity and importance om my position, while the OPPONENT's anger is
    an emotional reaction that clouds and confuses their reasoning powers.
    The double standard in .70 relates to the two positions on gun control,
    not to your position on pornography. You feel that your position on gun
    control is correct, rational, and validated by your experience of
    violence. You assert that Kennedy's experience of violence has rendered
    him blinded, confused, and unfit to form a rational opinion. That's a
    double standard in my mind, and a solipsism.
    
    .70 > Please show me where I generalized "Senator Kennedy is" to 
    .70 > "gun control advocates are".
    
    I never suggested that you had written any generalization about gun
    control advocates. I said: "Nancy, can you not see that . . . you are
    insulting a lot of people." You DID assert that in favoring gun control
    Kennedy was "ignoring all facts, statistics, and reasons." This is
    insulting to anyone else sharing his position, whether or not you make
    the insult explicit. Double standard again: "_my_ position is founded
    in TRUTH, while YOU just IGNORE it." I wish the facts actually spoke to 
    us so clearly, on this issue or most others.
    
    .75 > Bruce, please illustrate why you felt .70 was an angry tirade.
    
    I don't think it was, and I didn't say it was. I spoke of "some angry
    tirades" in "several note strings recently." I think the gun control
    paragraph in .70 was "angry", but it wasn't long enough to be a
    "tirade." I said nothin at all about entry .70 as a whole.
    
    With respect to issuing grades on reading comprehension, let s/he who
    is without sin cast the first stone.
    
    I'm sorry about any ill feelings, regardless of "fault." Can we drop
    this now?
    
    Hopefully,
    		- Bruce
    

    It would be better if, before responding, everyone read more carefully
    the responses others write.  Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to have
    been universally true in this string.
    
    						=maggie

          re:.78   (Bruce Collier)

               Bruce, I apologize for saying what grade I would give you
          for reading comprehension if this were a freshman English course.
          It was the first thought that went through my mind after reading
          .71, since I interpreted it as distorting what I said to prove a
          point, and your statements about anger in =wn=, and how we
          shouldn't confuse our therapy sessions here with real life as you
          talking too much and listening too little.  Regardless, that was
          not an appropriate thing to say in =wn=, and I apologize to you
          and the community.

          > Can we drop this now?

          Please hear me out for 1 or 2 more replies, and then we can agree
          to disagree if we don't understand each other any better.  You've
          caused me to do some serious self-examination in doing this, and
          I'd like to share that with others here.

          I will continue discussion (i.e., refute :-) of what you call a 
	  double standard I have on the origins of my stance on gun control 
	  and Kennedy's stance in topic 210.  I am more comfortable explaining 
	  what I said in .70 here (in =wn=) instead of taking it to email as 
	  you suggested in email to me on Friday.

                                                            nancy b.

    In re: .80  > Please hear me out . . .
    
    Fine. By "Can we drop this now?", I meant only drop (or take off line)
    any ongoing exchange of ad hominem attacks (sorry, but my Latin is too
    lousy to render that in a gender-neutral form). Further discussion or
    constructive criticism is a different matter. Of course I will hear you
    out.
    
    	- Bruce