Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!usc!orion.oac.uci.edu!ucivax!gateway From: gazit@cs.duke.EDU (Hillel Gazit) Newsgroups: soc.feminism Subject: Re: Pornography AGAIN Message-ID: <659355194@lear.cs.duke.edu> Date: 26 Nov 90 17:39:23 GMT References: o.EDU> <658887835@lear.cs.duke.edu> <47331@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> Organization: The Piranha Club Lines: 142 Approved: tittle@ics.uci.edu Nntp-Posting-Host: zola.ics.uci.edu In article <47331@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> (Elissa Feit) writes: >Dworkin's basic assumption is that pornography teaches us how women >"like" to be treated: that we like to be objectified, we like to be >raped, called derogatory names, and so on. Dworkin has not bothered herself to compare the way women are actually treated in states/counties/cities with more porno. The idea that porno "teaches" people to rape is about as founded as the idea that murder mysteries "teaches" people to kill. Censoring speech because of the influence it might have is *very* dangerous. It will let the government to shut up everyone it does not like. Besides, her laws also out-lawed all-men gay porno. Since gay men are raped more often than straight men, one could expect gay organizations to support such laws. They were *against* it. Try to fit that fact into your picture. >Suppose that this is true and a man learns these attitudes and harms a >woman because of these attitudes. Then, the law would allow her to sue >the pornographers for damages. And if a woman shot an artist because of some feminist literature she read, should he be able to sue the people who wrote/distributed/recommended this literature? Do you (feminists) really want to be treated in the way you treat us? >A response to this may be: gee, we learn all kinds of things which can >be misued. Does that mean we should be able sue indiscriminately, just >because some fool misinterprets a piece of information? Dworkin's >response would be: it is not that *A* fool misinterprets *A* piece of >information. The case is that a whole sector of the population, MEN, >are misconstruing the information and hurting not just *A* woman, but >a whole class of people: WOMEN. Gay men are not treated too nicely in this society. Dworkin's ideas about them, their sexuality, and why they enjoy porno don't help them too much. Should they be able to sue Dworkin for the junk she wrote? Seeing your ideas I start to be happy that there are so many conservatives in the Supreme Court. I'm pretty sure that they will defend the freedom of speech of *all* of us better than the feminists. :-( >This is not comparable to Sereno's "Piss Christ" in that the class of >objects, RELIGIOUS ICONS in this case, are not being hurt in the same >way that people are hurt. If this work will inspire some crazy people to desecrate a church, should the church be able to sue Sereno for damages? Dworkin defined, in the law, pornography as "discrimination". Have you ever question *her* claim? >>>Premise 1: People's fantasies tend to be tied to distresses they >>>suffered. If someone is abused as a child, that abuse (even if not >>>conciously retrievable) finds its way into "what turns them on" >>How do you *know* that they like S&M because they were abused as >>children? >(So you're saying that S&M is "abuse"? No. I asked about their childhood, not their current lives. [Try asking: "What proof do you have that people pursue S&M as adults because of abuse during childhood? Why do you think that's the only reason people enjoy S&M?" --CLT] >I think people LEARN many parts of their sexuality. I DON'T think >things such as hurting people in order to be aroused is inherent. Forty years ago most psychologists claimed that homosexualism is not inherent. Only after the gay community stood up and *fought*, the psychologists changed their mind. [Actually, we still don't know. The psychologists took homosexuality off their list of mental disorders, but said nothing about whether it was inherent or learned. --CLT] All these facts don't prevent you from believing in what the psychologists say about S&M... >it (and I don't know percentages). I do know several people whose >fantasies ARE tied to early abuse - and they found out after years of >struggling with the fantasy, not knowing where it came from. Read sometime all the shit that psychologists wrote about homosexuals 30 years ago; *maybe* you will learn something. >>>just a way of acting out the hurt so that it can be healed, though >>>it's as ineffective as marrying a drunk because your dad was a drunk. >>Assuming that you are right, how dare you >>criticise the way they *choose* to work on their pains? >Again, Hillel, why do you assume that they ARE "working" on their pain? They do what they damn like with their pains, and as long as they don't ask for your help then please stay *out*. They have (like everyone else) the right to love/fuck as *they* like. >>Feminist Cow-shit. >"Bullshit" is a generic enough term. But I wanted a specific term. >>You can always use the usual definition: >>what turns you on is erotica, while what turns me on is porno. :-( >Say! Now THAT'S an idea! ...ummm, you sure you don't mind, Hillel? As long as you have no intention to pass laws that will limit the freedom of speech you can define what you like (including that 2+2=5). >No, all kidding aside. I do NOT agree with much of what Dworkin says. >*I* think the problem is as stated above: "porn" teaches men and women >how they are to be sexually, and those ways happen to degrade people. ^^^^^^ Dworkin's law said, very explicitly, *women*. [She did say she disagreed with Dworkin. --CLT] >sexuality outside of oppressive ways of being. One way to do this is >to stop producing material that teaches oppression. Likewise, I think >that TV should be less violent. I am NOT proposing that we outlaw TV >either.... Yet... Hillel gazit@cs.duke.edu