Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!aero-c!nadel
From: turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: feminism; leather (politics)
Summary: Response the second: politics.
Message-ID: <20102@cs.utexas.edu>
Date: 21 May 91 23:31:02 GMT
References: <11332@xenna.Xylogics.COM>
Sender: news@aero.org
Organization: U Texas Dept of Computer Sciences, Austin TX
Lines: 109
Approved: nadel@aerospace.aero.org
Status: R
Originator: nadel@aerospace.aero.org


-----
In article <2550@m1.cs.man.ac.uk> dente@ecad-lead-site.electrical-engineering.manchester.ac.uk (Colin Dente) writes:
> I have recently started to get interested in the feminist
> anti-pornography movement, and it seems to me that what Dworkin,
> MacKinnon et. al. are saying in such things as the Minneapolis
> Anti-Pornography Ordinance is not that there is anything wrong with
> sexually explicit material (I hesitate to say pornography, because
> of the confusion of definitions that might result) per se, but what
> is wrong is the adverse effect that *some* sexually explicit material
> *can* have on the lives of women. ...

Why does this have a greater claim to compensation than the
"adverse effect that *some* [non-]sexually explicit material
might have on the lives of women [or men, or Jews, or ...]"?
Ideas have consequences.  Any book (or movie) that is guaranteed
to be harmless to all who read (or view) it, and through them, to
be harmless to others, is also guaranteed to be boring, vapid,
and worthless.  Every substantive work of fiction has potential
for abuse.  This is true whether or not it is sexually explicit.
Allowing suits from harm "because of" a work if it is sexually
explicit basically censors explicit sexual expression.  The
judges were right to strike down this law. 

> ... The Minneapolis Anti-Pornography Ordinance (as I read it)
> does not seem in any way to ban sexually explicit material, rather
> it provides a means whereby a person ... can obtain compensation
> for harm done to them because of pornography, where pornography is
> defined as (something like) sexually explicit material which 
> depicts women as subordinate, as objects, or being raped/brutalised. 
> I.e. material which by it's content re-inforces the supposedly
> acceptable norms of the male-supremacist society in which we live. ...

While rape and brutalization is ugly, it is not clear to me that
it should be banned from works of fiction.  Many feminist works
would risk exposure under this kind of law.  Of course, implicit
in this law is the understanding that politically correct works
do not cause injury, even if someone who commits rape got their
ideas from the work.  Consider, for example, a man who reads "The
Woman's Room", which certainly depicts the subordination of women
(and if I remember correctly, has one or two sex scenes), and who
then begins to abuse his wife because he objects to the ideas in
the book.  Should Marilyn French then be sued, because her book
led to this harm?  (Dworkin and MacKinnon would quickly fly down
to testify that the harm was not "because of" the book, in the
sense that they meant in writing the ordinance.)  The problem is 
that the "because of" is not clearly defined and is open to great
political latitude in its interpretation.  Similarly, whether a
work "depicts women as subordinate, as objects" depends on one's
political views, and also in what light one interprets the work
in question.  This subjectivity is well expressed in Mr Dente's
next sentence. 

> ... This does not apply (IN MY OPINION [emphasis added]) to
> pictures of nudes, or of couples (or indeed, groups) having sex
> *provided* that these pictures are not showing women ... being 
> raped, or tied up (which really seems to suggest the likelihood
> of rape in many peoples' minds) ...

In some feminists' minds, the nude depiction of women for sexual
excitement *is* subordination, whether or not the subject is tied
up, or depicted in a rape scene, or "in the classic
`spread-labia-come-fuck-me' pose".  In some people's minds, some
pictures of bound women do NOT suggest "the likelihood of rape".
In essence, the Dworkin legislation puts at risk any sexually 
graphic work if it *might* stimulate a dangerous thought in *some* 
person's mind.  The requirement that the work must depict
"subordination" is virtually meaningless, because it is open to
so much interpretation.  It becomes but a loophole that permits 
escape for works that are politically correct.

> ... Until we do live in a perfect world, I think that the
> right of half the population to live as freely as the other 
> half comes way ahead of the right of some parts of that other
> half of the population to be able to jack off to whatever
> pictures they want to. ...

Or "way ahead of of the right of some of some ... to be able to"
express unpopular views on sex or politics?  What if the pictures
one artist produces to express certain views on sex or politics
are used by others as masturbatory material?  Consider that *any* 
picture used by *some* people as masturbatory material is 
potentially dangerous in the way Mr Dente defines, and that a very
broad range of material is used by someone in this way.  

There are no natural lines here.  The issue is being used by
certain groups to draw religious, political, and moral lines
under the guise of "safety" and fighting "oppression". 

> This isn't a religious-moralistic issue - it's a humane libertarian
> one, and the `libertarians' who try to defend the pornographers' right
> to `free speech' whilst ignoring the fact that women are getting
> raped ... are way off the mark in my view.

It *is* an issue of moralism, of what erotica is politically
correct, and also one of religion.  It is a libertarian issue,
and on this, I will issue a mild flame.  Mr Dente may take
whatever side he pleases, but the word libertarian still has a
good meaning, and I would ask him to not abuse it by applying it
to its opposite.  Yes, allowing people to own guns increases the
risk to some of being shot.  Yes, allowing people to write, draw,
and film what they want increases the risk of dangerous ideas.
Yes, allowing people to associate freely increases the risk that
they will gang together for nefarious purpose.  But yes,
libertarianism is (in part) the belief that such freedoms are
right, despite -- not ignoring, but knowing and despite knowing
-- the risks they carry.  Mr Dente may disagree with libertarians
on all or any of these freedoms.  But to label the opposite
stance libertarian is simply doublespeak.

Russell