Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!linac!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!mintaka!bloom-beacon!ora!daemon
From: feit@acsu.buffalo.edu (Elissa Feit)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Pornography AGAIN
Message-ID: <47818@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU>
Date: 29 Nov 90 21:01:28 GMT
References: <78710@grad17.cs.duke.edu> > <46878@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> <658887835@lear.cs.duke.edu> <47331@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU>
Sender: ambar@ora.com (Jean Marie Diaz)
Organization: State University of New York at Buffalo/Comp Sci
Lines: 118
Approved: ambar@ora.com

Hillel says:
...
>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.

Gay men are raised the same as straight men.  Some gay men, John
Stoltenburg for (a very vocal) example, are Dworkin supporters.

Actually, Stoltenburg is more of a supporter than I am.  So from now
on, I will no longer speak for Dworkin since (as I have said in BOTH
of my earlier articles) I do not agree with her on some basic issues
(her tactics, for one).

And just to set the record straight, where I DO agree, is that porn
teaches men and women how they are to be, sexually, in a way that
oppresses men and women.
          ^^^^^^^
(In fact, Hillel pointed out that Dworkin sez "women". Ok, but *I*
don't say "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.

Can you be more specific? I think that MEN in this society are raised
to not feel, to not love, and to hurt others. It sucks. It hurts. And
as soon as a boy/man rebels he is ostracized, and is a "sissy" or a
"girl"... In other words, no longer a boy/man.  Gay men are hurt by
this in the same way that straight men are.  I, for one, appreciate
the gay men's movement for challenging these attitudes and reclaiming
feeling/love/affection as something that IS perfectly male.

>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.
>:-(

You have me confused with someone else. I never claimed to support the
laws - simply the motivation behind them.

>>>>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]

You both misundrstood the logical implication. I said:
If someone is abused as a child (P), that abuse finds its way etc.. (Q).
            If P then Q.
Well, now we have a class of Q. Does this imply for every  x, x in Q, that
x in P?  No.

(Furthermore, I said "TEND", so it's not even that case that for every x,
x in ~Q ->  x in ~P. But that's a different argument.)
(Also, "finds its way into what turns them on" is not very specific.
This could mean that in one case, if a kid was abused in a bathtub,
perhaps he/she won;t get off without wter being present...)

But again, I;ve away from my original intent. What I mean to say is :
(what I said originally:)

>>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...

You're commiting the "genetic fallacy" (that's TWO logic errors in ONE
post! gee whiz! ;-) : (paraphrase:) `the Psychiatric Community says X,
but they also said Y, and Y is wrong. Therefore X is wrong.'

Besides, I am not getting this from the psych. lit. IT is intuitive
(IT = that arousal from hurting people is LEARNT, not inherent) on my
part, AND some friends who HAPPEN to be involved with Psych. happen to
agree with me.

>>>>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.

I am NOT interfering with anyone's life. I happen to be involved in a
discussion. period. Furthermore, why do you omit parts of my argument
in your reply? In order to make it look weaker?

Elissa  Feit    (feit@cs.buffalo.edu // {rutgers,uunet}!cs.buffalo.edu!feit)
            We're on the road and we're gunning for the Buddha.
            We know his name and he mustn't get away -- Shriekback