Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!aero-c!nadel From: uunet!igor!rutabaga!jls@ncar.UCAR.EDU (Jim Showalter) Newsgroups: soc.feminism Subject: Re: does healthy, mutual erotica exist? Message-ID: Date: 17 Mar 91 02:10:10 GMT References: <2995@titan.tsd.arlut.utexas.edu> Sender: uunet!igor!news@ncar.UCAR.EDU Distribution: usa Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA Lines: 53 Approved: nadel@aerospace.aero.org Status: R Originator: nadel@aerospace.aero.org >My partner and I are having an ongoing debate on the harmfulness or >harmlesness of "light" pornography, specifically "Playboy." You've already polarized the issue as far as I'm concerned by using the word "pornography". The word "pornography" is deliberately calculated to convey the idea that there is something smutty, dirty, etc going on here. >normally open-minded and understanding partner insists that it is >completely innocuous, and he sees nothing wrong with looking at >these women because they're beautiful, and there is nothing wrong >with the human body. Shame on him. >I believe the human body is beautiful, and that there is nothing >wrong with human sexuality, Not true. You agree that certain Correct(tm) forms of sexual behavior are okay. On the other hand, as you indicate below (when the talk turns to things like bondage), you believe that OTHER forms of human sexuality are sick. As a person who happens to enjoy more than vanilla sex, I find your attitude annoying and discriminatory. >be willing to trade him "erotica" involving both sexes which >promotes positive feelings about both sexes, in exchange for him >giving up his subscription to Playboy. So in other words, if he stops acting like some dumb old ox of a brute and comes around to your way of thinking, you'll reward him with some Correct(tm) stuff to make up for it? Sounds like thought control to me. >Does anybody know if >such things exist? Actually, yes--there is a very nice book called "Erotic by Nature" you might check out. >I am reading Andrea Dworkin's _Pornography_ >at the moment, but I think it's not going to help me out much in >my argument because Playboy doesn't show bondage, abuse, etc. If Playboy DID show bondage, by what right would you call it pornographic? Many people consensually engage in bondage to their mutual satisfaction. Is that wrong? Or do you think you know better for them how to act than they do? P.S. Dworkin is full of shit. -- ***** DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed herein are my own. Duh. Like you'd ever be able to find a company (or, for that matter, very many people) with opinions like mine. -- "When I want your opinion, I'll read it in your entrails."