Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ucla-cs!ucivax!gateway From: mjm@ahimsa.intel.COM (Marjorie Panditji) Newsgroups: soc.feminism Subject: violent porn Message-ID: Date: 26 Apr 91 14:43:56 GMT Lines: 33 Approved: tittle@ics.uci.edu Nntp-Posting-Host: zola.ics.uci.edu Let's try to pare this down to my original point. I should not have inserted the violence analogy when I was really talking about depictions of violence. Point taken and agreed to. Please ignore the violence analogy. The part I objected to was that Russell commented that one should read some violent porn before prejudging violent porn. My point is that a person can know that he/she does not like depictions of violence of any kind. It is useless to suggest that one just hasn't tried them or one doesn't have enough knowledge of this specific type. This has nothing to do with morals. It has to do with not liking it. I apologize if I came across the wrong way. In fact, it was Russell who came across (in my opinion) as being on some moral higher ground ("Well, you are prejudging, you just haven't read enough, so go over to a.s.b.") If all Russell had said was "Hey, I like it, and I want to read it, leave me alone" I would have not even responded, because I don't disagree with that point. It was his blanket suggestion that one must read violent porn (perhaps a certain amount of it?) before making a judgement about it (for example, my comment that I do not like it, no matter what type it is). To diffuse the potential flames (and past ones), here is are some disclaimers (which I believe are not related to my point). I am not judging people who read violent porn. I did not advocate banning violent porn. That is not the topic of discussion. If I leave out these statements, people assume that I am ready to take away their violent porn, when I never stated that (and I didn't think it was implied). -- Marjorie Panditji mjm@ahimsa.intel.com -or- uunet!intelhf!ahimsa!mjm