Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ora!daemon From: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) Newsgroups: soc.feminism Subject: Re: Pornography AGAIN Message-ID: <659933965@lear.cs.duke.edu> Date: 2 Jan 91 02:30:28 GMT References: edu> <47331@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> <47818@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> Sender: ambar@ora.com (Jean Marie Diaz) Organization: Nefolet shel nemushot (Fallout of Wimps) Lines: 136 Approved: ambar@ora.com In article <47818@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> (Elissa Feit) writes: >>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. And the first black who was accepted to the University of Mississippi (with the help of 10,000 army troops...) *supports* Jesse Helms... Try to look for the positions of the significant gay organizations,a and not just some specific example... >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. > ^^^^^^^ I don't remember that I've ever asked you to help me. >>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? Gay men claim that they enjoy gay porno because they like *men's* bodies, and women just don't turn them on. Dworkin claims that the men in gay porno are used "in place of the women". I see a contraction between the two claims. >I think that MEN in this society are raised >to not feel, to not love, and to hurt others. It sucks. I really appreciate your willingness to help me, but I don't remember that I've asked for your help. >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. OK, we agree. >You have me confused with someone else. I never claimed to support the >laws - simply the motivation behind them. And the pro-life movement has never claimed to support the bombings of the abortion clinics - 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" >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. You said that, but you did not explain why you are so sure that it is so. >Well, now we have a class of Q. Does this imply for every x, x in Q, that >x in P? No. >But again, I;ve away from my original intent. What I mean to say is : >(what I said originally:) What you said perfectly clear is that those who were abused will be more likely to like S&M. You did not present any argument to support it, and you shifted the debate to logic instead. >>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.' Therefore I don't believe them. It is not just that they were *wrong* about homosexuals, but that they changed their opinion *only* after the gays thought a lesson or two that the police will not forget. It is not a big deal to change the opinion of the psychologists' community, all you have to do is to use a four by two... 1/2 :-) >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 your intuition has nothing to do with the misconceptions of the culture around you. *I* call it that "everybody knows" proof... >AND some friends who HAPPEN to be involved with Psych. happen to >agree with me. ^^^^^^ That is obvious. >>>>>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. >>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. You just present their decision to practice S&M as similar (in its destructiveness) to marrying a drunk. *I* don't agree. >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? I leave the parts that seem important to me; feel free to bring back what's important to you. Hillel gazit@cs.duke.edu "There are worse things to be than a bigot. I'd rather keep company with a bigot who lets me go my own way than a well-intentioned man who presumes to know what is good for me." -- Wendy Thrash