From: utzoo!decvax!yale-com!donath
Newsgroups: net.singles
Title: Re: Violent Pawing Flame
Article-I.D.: yale-com.1397
Posted: Sat Apr 23 14:38:24 1983
Received: Sun Apr 24 08:11:00 1983
References: sdcattb.2588


I think you are deliberately missing the point of your critics.  I too found
your article appalling, disgusting, disgraceful, etc., etc., etc.,.

So you have worked for the ERA?  That's very nice of you.  However, political
attitudes aren't something you can prove via a good resume.  I for one consider
myself a feminist but I do not think the ERA issue is important to the women's
movement (I think it has done more harm than good).  However, that's not
the point.  To say that you are a "liberated" man (or whatever you chose to 
call yourself) because you have done work for ERA, and yet still speak of
women as you did in your (nasty) article about "pawing" is like working
for civil rights for all races but yanking your children out of public
school as soon as there were too many black children in the school.

I don't recall anyone calling your article "pornographic", but I may have
missed some letters.  Since you mention the word...  there was something
very pornographic about it.  No, it was not titillating (and your response
to someone who disagreed with you - saying that you thought the reader
of your article was disappointed because there was nothing in the letter
for him to get his jollies by - was ridiculous and immature) and neither
is most run-of-the-mill pornography.  But your portrayal of sexual activity
as 'pawing' some flesh had that same impersonal, let's get this momentarily-
pleasurable-but-basically-disgusting physical act over and done with aura
that porn has.  Nobody likes being drooled on by some horny slob.

					Judith (yale-comix)