Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!ucbvax!bloom-beacon!ora!ambar From: ford@titan.tsd.arlut.utexas.edu (Carolyn Ford) Newsgroups: soc.feminism Subject: If you misunderstood the question regarding erotica... Message-ID: <3041@titan.tsd.arlut.utexas.edu> Date: 28 Mar 91 03:24:33 GMT Sender: ambar@ora.com (Jean Marie Diaz) Organization: Applied Research Labs, University of Texas at Austin Lines: 109 Approved: ambar@ora.com In article Jim Showalter writes: >Carolyn Ford writes: >>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. OK fine, let's not get into semantics. I'll rephrase it: "...harmlessness of media (in this case, magazines), which show exclusively the nude bodies of women." Can we go on with the intended discussion now? >>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. Ahhhh, but see, I believe there are much deeper things going on than just looking at beautiful bodies. But that's not what I want to discuss -- that could go on forever, and it's not my job to try to change your opinion. >>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 ^^^^^^^^ How the hell do you know? I don't recall telling you any such thing. You don't even know what my reasons are for feeling the way I do, and they have nothing to do with being "dirty" or "morally wrong," or "different from missionary position." >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. I find your attitude annoying, too. There is a difference between interesting and different sex and the representation of it being forced on someone (I would say the same thing if it were being forced on men). I'm sorry I did not make that clear that I was referring to that. If such *mutual* things turn us on, then that would qualify as an answer to the original question. >>be willing to trade him "erotica" involving both sexes which >>promotes postive feelings about both sexes, in exchange for him >>giving up his subscripton 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 >exclusively with some Correct(tm) stuff to make up for it? Sounds >like thought control to me. Sounds to me like you've never been in a relationship where both people's feelings need to be taken into consideration. I thought it would be a good compromise if he could still get his enjoyment while including me and my feelings at the same time. Do you understand compromise? My partner is in no way a "dumb old ox of a brute" and we keep a great relationship by being sensitive to what hurts the other person. How can you make assumptions like that? Since there appears to be no argument difinitively answering the damage of Playboy, etc. doesn't it make sense, if one person has their very good reasons for being upset by it, and it's not that important to the other person, that a compromise be reached? Jeez Louise! >>Does anybody know if such things exist? >Actually, yes--there is a very nice book called "Erotic by Nature" >you might check out. THANK YOU!!! THIS IS WHAT I WANTED TO KNOW. >>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. Bully for them! They don't concern me. >Is that wrong? Or do you think you know better for them how to act >than they do? Nope, I have no idea. My objection would arise if it were NOT done by consent, or to the satisfacton of only one engager (female OR male). If both my partner and I agree that the portrayal of women being forced into this is dangerous, what business is it of yours? It wasn't part of the question. >P.S. Dworkin is full of shit. Fine, I didn't ask. But I thought I'd mention it to avoid a lot of people suggesting that I read it. By the way, I think she's right about the dangers, so I guess I don't think she's full of shit. Just a differing opinion. And here again, I'm not being a prude, it was very clever of you to put in the "consensually," and "mutual satisfaction" above. You know that wasn't Dworkin's point. *Sigh* Ask a simple question......