Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ora!daemon
From: turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Posting re. Andrea Dworkin
Summary: This is the funniest thing I've read all week.
Message-ID: <14707@cs.utexas.edu>
Date: 23 Nov 90 07:54:26 GMT
References: <272090CA.26470@ics.uci.edu> <1741@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> <45691@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU>
Sender: ambar@ora.com (Jean Marie Diaz)
Organization: U. Texas CS Dept., Austin, Texas
Lines: 24
Approved: ambar@ora.com

-----
In article <45691@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU>, feit@acsu.buffalo.edu (Elissa Feit) writes:
> "The law's definition of pornography is concrete, not abstract.
> Pornography is defined as the graphic, sexually explicit subordination
> of women in pictures and/or words that also includes women presented
> dehumanized as sexual objects, things, or commodities ..."

"Concrete"?  Hah!  Just how does one concretely define a concept as
abstract and subjective as "subordination ... in pictures and/or
words"?  Is a depiction of a woman going down on a man an instance of
woman's subordination?  (Why?)  What about a man going down on a
woman?  (Why?)  What about a couple kissing?  (Why not?)  What about a
couple engaged in mutual oral sex?  (Why is this different from
kissing?)

What if the depiction of something that is clearly subordination is
necessary to a substantive theme?  Is such expression itself
subordination or not?  (If it is, Dworkin would be subject to penalty
under her own laws.)

Anyone who thinks "concrete" a definition that requires such
interpretation is passing bullsh*t of the first order.

Russell