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: uunet!infmx!robert@ncar.UCAR.EDU (robert coleman) Newsgroups: soc.feminism Subject: Re: does healthy, mutual erotica exist? Message-ID: Date: 12 Apr 91 21:15:29 GMT References: <2995@titan.tsd.arlut.utexas.edu> <1991Mar20.050507.24027@informix.com> Sender: ambar@ora.com (Jean Marie Diaz) Organization: Informix Software, Inc. Lines: 81 Approved: ambar@ora.com jeanne@mica.berkeley.edu (Jeanne Dusseault) writes: >In article <1991Mar20.050507.24027@informix.com> uunet!infmx!robert@ncar.ucar.EDU (robert coleman) writes: >>In fact, this is the single most insulting thing about the >>anti-pornography movements; they assume, (without any real evidence, >>mind you) that men are completely incapable of separating fantasy from >>reality, even when bluntly faced with the reality most of the time. >The role of various representations, i.e. photographs, films, >advertisements, is constructing what we know as reality. Since >reality can be known only through the forms that articulate it, there >can be no reality outside of representation. With its synonyms, truth >and meaning, it is a fiction produced by its cultural representations, >a construction solidified through repetition. Representation, hardly >neutral, acts to regulate and define the subject it addresses, >positioning them by class or by sex, in active or passive relations to >meaning. Over time and constant repetitions these positions become >fixed and acquire the status of identities and of categories. Hence >the forms of representations are at once forms of definition, means of >limitation, modes of power. Absolutely, with exceptions for your second sentence. Representations represent ideas, and ideas, given the appropriate environment, change the world. Control of ideas is control of power. This is one of the reasons why freedom of speech is so fundamentally important. However, my exception for your second sentence is important. The construct we call reality is known through our *senses*, and only a part of the input to the senses comes vicariously through representations. Our preferred method for constructing reality is through our personal experiences; for that which we cannot personally experience, we accept the poor substitute of other's representations. Thus, an abused husband believes he's been attacked even though nearly all media representations of family life ignore the possibility (as once they did for abused wives). It's important to recognize that our personal experiences provide a filter through which we view other's representations. The power of all representations is not equal, particularly on a person-by-person basis; if I trust magazine X and you do not, representations in magazine X will have impact for me, but not for you. If a message violates my personal experience, but not yours, said message is likely to have a greater effect on you. Another factor in the power of representations is the plurality of messages. If all representations contain one message, that message is more likely to have an impact on a given individual than if conflicting messages are represented. In terms of Playboy, the impact of its representations is dependent on the filter of the viewer (for example, the degree to which the viewer is willing to believe the magazine represents "reality", or the message the viewer gets from one representation that another viewer might not), the viewer's personal experiences, and the number of conflicting messages the viewer receives. My thesis has been that personal experience teaches men quickly that most women do not look like Playboy women, and most women do not act like Playboy women. The pictorials in Playboy represent fantasy women, and are intended to represent fantasy women. Given that, I restate that the most insulting thing about the anti-pornography movements is that they assume that men are completely incapable of separating fantasy from reality, even when bluntly faced with the reality most of the time. >I'm not labeling "Playboy" pornographic, however, its representation >of women does not further a feminist objective. Thank you. This is debatable in a very minor way, as I have met one very famous X-rated actress who is a feminist and believes that freedom for women is compromised if women are forbidden from this form of personal expression. However, I would agree that, on the whole, Playboy could not be considered to further a feminist objective. Robert C. -- ---------------------------------------------- Disclaimer: My company has not yet seen fit to elect me as spokesperson. Hmmpf.