Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site pur-phy.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!CS-Mordred!Pucc-H:pur-phy!act
From: act@pur-phy.UUCP (Alex C. Tselis)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Feminism, Pornography & Prudery
Message-ID: <1612@pur-phy.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 28-Jan-85 02:50:25 EST
Article-I.D.: pur-phy.1612
Posted: Mon Jan 28 02:50:25 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 30-Jan-85 05:45:48 EST
Distribution: net
Organization: Purdue Univ. Physics Dept., IN
Lines: 255

I am posting this article for C.E. Jackson
				
				A.C.Tselis


---------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Feminism, Pornography & Prudery
(Before I begin, I wish to make one thing clear. I am NOT advocating 
censorship. I am against the social acceptability of pornography, 
but I am NOT arguing that the government should be allowed to 
control what people read or don't read.)

I disagree with many of the articles on the net have
argued that pornography does not degrade women. Those who
favor pornography seem to have four basic arguments. The
first is that people who think pornography is degrading are
prudes, and are against freedom of speech and/or open explorations of human
sexuality. The second is that not all pornography is alike and therefore
not all of it degrades women. The third argument is that it is
irrelevant that some amount of pornography seems to degrade
women because it's all just harmless fantasies and not what men
really do. Some of the proponents of the third argument even claim 
that pornography actually *helps* women because it
provides men with a "harmless" outlet to degrade "fantasy" women
so that men don't actually *have to* degrade real women. 
The fourth argument is that if pornography really degraded
women, some women (including women on the net) wouldn't defend it.

Let us examine the second argument first. I must agree, on a
literal level, at least, with the pro-pornography people here.
It is undoubtedly true that not ALL pornography degrades women. 
It is equally true that not all Ku Klux Klan publications denigrate 
blacks. Some of the KKK's publications *do* attack
whites--especially if those whites are Catholic, Jewish and/or
liberal. But would any of pro-pornographers claim that because
not *all* KKK publications denigrate blacks, blacks should not
be the first people to question the veracity and social
acceptability of KKK publications? Of course not *all*
pornography degrades women--the definition of the word is too
loose for anyone to know what the content of *all* pornography
is. But once one concedes that not *all* pornography degrades
women, one is left with the fact that the bulk of what most
people would call pornography *does* degrade women.

"Ah," crow the pro-pornographers, "if you think that, you're a
prude and worse yet, you're interfering with freedom of speech."
Good old "freedom of speech." Everyone's favorite expression. And it
seems to mean something a little different to everyone. To me,
when I am having a conversation with someone, especially with
someone who *initiated* the conversation, I think an integral
part of my freedom of speech is that the person actually
listen to what I say and not try to argue against me by arguing
against things I *haven't said.* And yet, invariably, when I
argue with people about pornography, they start talking about
how I want to abrogate their freedom of speech even when I
have explicitly stated (as I did above) that I am AGAINST
GOVERNMENT CENSORSHIP. There are definitely times when I feel
that Women Against Pornography (and their pro-censorship
position) are a weight around my neck. But, on the
other hand, I have observed that whenever women talk against
pornography, it doesn't really matter whether they advocate
censorship or not. Men don't *want* to talk about pornography
with women; they *want* to talk about censorship, and they don't
care what they have to do to a *woman's* freedom of speech to
try to keep her on *their* turf. Once (or if) one succeeds in 
persuading an advocate of pornography that one doesn't 
wish to interfere with his freedom of speech, the next "truism" that
these people trot out is that one is a "prude."

Now "prude" is a funny word for these people to choose. It
comes from a French word meaning "virtuous woman" and its
definition (according to THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY) is
"a person who is excessively concerned with being or seeming
to be proper, modest or righteous." Let me share with you one
of the times that this word has been used against me. I
suggested to someone (of whom I am nonetheless fond) that I did
not like the fact that he always referred to sexual intercourse
as "pounding it into [the woman]." I said that I thought the
phrase was stupid and offensive, because it implied that the woman was
boardlike--that she was not at all involved, that she was passive,
and that he was hurting her. I suggested that even if he were
fond of that particular expression, he might augment it with a
few others that implied a wider range of sexual responses on
*both* their parts. He said that I was a prude. Was I? In a
male-oriented society is it an "*excessive concern" with
*propriety* that makes women question men describing them as
passive, boardlike and uninvolved in sexual intercourse?
(Do "virtuous women" who are "excessively concerned with being
or seeming to be proper, modest or righteous" question men *at
all*?) Is not the image of women as wholly uninterested in sexual
intercourse precisely what was promulgated by those quintessential 
prudes, the Victorians? 

Of course, most pornography does not show women being quite so passive. 
Women are more commonly shown exuding masochistic ecstasy throughout 
whatever degrading or violent activity the men have decided to
subject them. And most pro-pornographers claim that it is
because of "prudery" that feminists cannot stand to see a woman
enjoying sex. They frequently claim that pornography portrays reality
(unless of course they're claiming that pornography has
nothing to do with rape, in which case it's all just a
harmless fantasy--see below), and that we feminists simply
don't have enough experience with the range of sexual
responses to acknowledge the validity of this one. "It's just
not to your taste," a man told me once, "All you're really
objecting to is bad art, and you don't have the right to impose
your taste on everyone." Ignoring the colossal condescension of a
man claiming to know what I'm objecting to better than I do,
let's look at *this* argument. More than any other kind of entertainment
(national TV, non-X-rated movies, sports events, etc.),
American pornography is written by, produced by, directed by
and created for men *only*. And there is a certain monotonous
sameness to the productions of this homogeneous environment.
There may be numerous variations on the actors' and actresses' 
positions, numbers of partners and situations, etc., but most
American pornography nonetheless presents a monolithic,
male-oriented view of human sexuality. How *could* pornography
be to a woman's taste (except by accident) when women are so
purposely excluded from the process of creating it in the
first place? Just who is "imposing" whose taste on whom?

Most men whom I have met have gotten some ideas
about human sexuality from pornography. And many of those ideas
have greater validity for those men than the ideas that come
from their own sexual experiences. The man who referred to
sexual intercourse as "pounding it into [the woman]" had never
slept with a passive partner nor did he enjoy inflicting pain
on women. He, like most American men, did read PLAYBOY and
PENTHOUSE with some regularity, and it was from those supposedly
harmless magazines that he developed such a false metaphor for
describing his activities. Does this man (or men like him)
really have sexual freedom when his ideas about sexuality are
controlled not by *his* experience but by cultural misogyny? Is he
really going to be free to explore *all* or many or even some
avenues of sexual expression when he has been brainwashed into
believing that all sexual expression is male-oriented? And is
it really "prudery" or "excessive concern with seeming proper
or modest" that makes women protest this propaganda for a
monolithic view of human sexuality? The status quo and what is
defined as the "proper" (although perhaps not "modest") and even
the "righteous" view of human sexuality is the androcentric 
one presented by pornographers. It is *they* who
are the "prudes;" not the feminists. It is *they* who wish to
limit the expression of human sexuality; not the feminists.

Feminists want choice. We don't want to *have* to sleep with men
whose ideas about human sexuality were originally defined for
them by from such shining intellectual lights as Hugh Hefner 
or Bob Guccione. We don't want to have to compete with a
monolithic media campaign to get men to consider their *own*
experiences (not to mention ours) when thinking about
sexuality. It is to the "taste" of at least some of us that
heterosexuality stop being defined in strictly androcentric
terms. If some men are really so set on sex being male-oriented, why
don't they sleep with each other and stop trying to impose this
male-oriented model on everyone else? How much of the most
virulent misogynist pornography is some kind of subliminated
homosexuality? I know that according to male logic I must be
some kind of prude to say this, but wouldn't it be healthier
for those men who really hate women to just admit it? And stop
pretending that raping/degrading woman is showing them
affection?

There are, of course, some people who feel that it is healthy
for men to manifest hatred of women in pornography. They argue
that it is all just a fantasy and that there is no hard
evidence to show that men who watch pornography (especially
violent pornography) then go out and rape or otherwise abuse women.
It is true that there is no hard evidence. There is also no
hard evidence to show that the Nazi films (which compared Jews
to rats and which certainly were fantasies) "made" Germans
ignore the slaughter of, consent to or actually kill 6 million Jews.
But few people argue that those films are somehow a "healthy"
way for Gentiles to manifest their hatred for Jews. In fact,
many people would question just how healthy or natural or
inevitable anti-Semitism is. And in many of the social circles
in which purchasing and enjoying violent pornography is
seen as socially acceptable, buying a Nazi film is
not. If I were to buy such a film and claim that I enjoyed it, I
think many of my friends, especially those who are Jewish,
would write me off as a hate-filled bigot. They would have
good cause to wonder how I could claim to be friends with
people who were Jewish while enjoying an anti-Semitic
film. Yet manifestations of misogyny are seen as perfectly
acceptable. How many men are censured by women (or by other
men) for watching films that glorify rape? How many men
feel the *least* amount of social pressure against or internal
compunction about buying or enjoying violent pornography?

And what are some of the most commons epithets used against
women who protest men degrading them? One is "castrating
bitch." Many men immediately make a link (based on very little
evidence) between women's legitimate desire to end historical male
prerogatives (such as rape) that grossly impinge on women's
rights, and women's alleged desire to harm men's genitals physically.
Men are extremely protective of both their historical
prerogatives and their genitals, and they seem to think that when
the former are threatened, the latter are also in dire danger.
The phrase "castrating bitch" is not a joke in our society.
Neither sex sees too much humor in the phrase, especially since it is
frequently used to justify the physical abuse of women.
Yet the same men who literally cross their legs when
"uppity" females verbally question male supremacy cannot
understand why women object to pictures of themselves going through
meat grinders or lashed to trees with the ropes cutting into
their vaginas or being gang raped. We are somehow supposed to
believe that rape and other forms of physical abuse are all just
fantasies, but that castrating females are a common and very
real threat to society. It's a pity that crime statistics
don't bear this idea out--I *wish* that rape were only a
fantasy. And contrary to Bob Guccione's nightmares, feminist
covens don't fly through the night with knives bared. Women
simply do not get off on hurting men nearly as much as the
other way around. 

"Ah, but wait," the pro-pornographers smirk. "If pornography is
so bad to women, why do some women enjoy it?" The flip answer
to that question is that blacks have their "Uncle Toms;" women
have their "Linda Lovelaces." The sad irony is that Linda
Lovelace now says that she was virtually a slave when DEEP
THROAT was filmed. In a male-dominated, male-controlled
society, isn't it reasonable to expect that some number of women
will support (or claim to support) what men want? Male
approval is often the only ticket to security for many women.
Does anyone think it is *easy* to speak against the
accepted practices of society? Does anyone think that I (or any
other women) speak against pornography at no risk? Without
abuse? I don't find it pleasant to be told that I am a prude
or a castrator--I can't think why anyone else would. The
question is not why some members of an oppressed and vulnerable 
group DON'T speak out against their oppressors, but why so
many members of that group DO speak out. Yet another irony
behind this question, though, is what it says about the
hypocrisy of the pro-pornographers. On the one hand, they claim
that the female expressions of masochistic ecstasy that
permeate pornography are an accurate portrayal of women's
sexual response. On the other hand, to show how non-degrading
pornography is, they cite the approval of *some* women as
evidence that pornography really doesn't hurt *any* women.
How come these pro-pornography women aren't seen as being "true
to type" and enjoying something that hurts them? How come (when
it suits men's interests) all women are portrayed as
masochistic, and (when men's interest in how women are seen changes)
some women (those who agree with men) suddenly only want what
is good for women? I have been told that I minimize the
variety of the human sexual response by ignoring female
masochism as a legitimate response, and yet when I suggest that
the same women who *like* pornography may well be masochistic,
I am told not to be ridiculous; I'm just a "castrating prude!"
(Is it proper, modest or righteous to castrate men? I *never*
thought so, but men say the *darnedest* things.)


C.E. Jackson
ihnp4!lznv!cja