Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site reed.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!reed!ellen From: ellen@reed.UUCP (Ellen Eades) Newsgroups: net.women,net.politics Subject: Re: A suggestion for a ground rule in any pornography debate Message-ID: <1873@reed.UUCP> Date: Wed, 4-Sep-85 21:23:33 EDT Article-I.D.: reed.1873 Posted: Wed Sep 4 21:23:33 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 5-Sep-85 10:07:16 EDT References: <5660@tekecs.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: Reed College, Portland, Oregon Lines: 69 Xref: watmath net.women:7304 net.politics:10815 >...Various suggestions on ground rules for porn debates...< > I'm moved to post this after reading Ellen Eades's article. I was wondering > how she could possibly believe as she does until I came to the last > paragraph, where it became apparent that she considers pornography to > be typefied by scenes with whips and burning. > > Personally, when I think "pornography", I think of "Playboy", which > I have enjoyed in the past, and which is hardly in the same league. > Ellen's pornography I call "gaak!". > Jeff Winslow Ahem! It seems I am going to have to clarify my position on/definition of porn. (Look out netters, Ellen's going to talk like a castrating bitch again...) I find it harmful to me when "Playboy" presents a view of women which, while lacking the physical whips and chains, is severely limited in scope. I don't like the image of women in "Playboy" any more than that of women in "Screw"; the "Playboy" women, gazing wetly at the camera in soft focus, seem to me to be the reason behind men's rationalization of "You know you really want it." How can any man NOT get that impression when all the images he is exposed to have that message? "Playboy"'s misogynism, while far subtler than that of "Hustler", is nonetheless far more widespread and is accepted by most of liberal America as all right. This I find upsetting, because it presents a subtler and more insidious encouragement of violence against women: the violence of date rape or forced seduction. With "Playboy"'s message that all women want sex all the time goes the idea that it is all right to give it to her. When a woman DOES NOT want sex, a man who reads "Playboy" regularly and intensively will probably get angry and confused and accuse her of being a tease. While images like the infamous "Penthouse" spread of last Thanksgiving which featured an Asian woman trussed up like a turkey fill me with outrage and fury, the "Playboy" images make me internally nervous. I don't want to be mis-seen as a "Playboy" nymphomaniac any more than I want to be mis-seen as a willing victim of sadomasochistic violence. It seems to me that the attitude that "Violence is uncool, but 'Playboy' isn't violence and is therefore justifiable entertainment" misses a great deal of the subtlety behind this form of pornography. Last year a woman was raped at Reed, and the subsequent Reed rape discussion group included a lot of men who indicated that they felt that it was necessary to strongly encourage (read that as you will) their dates to sleep with them because they really did want to give in but needed to feel that they were being overcome by a stronger force and therefore were not "at fault." At Reed, and in most places in this day and age (I hope), that's patently ridiculous. At the risk of getting off track, I want to quote a (male) friend: "If she says 'no,' you should stop. She'll let you know if she didn't mean it before you get to the door." Pornography never presents an image of a woman saying 'no' and meaning it. Thus the idea that women never do mean 'no' is encouraged. Hope this clears up my position. -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - "Who's been repeating all that hard stuff to you?" "I read it in a book," said Alice. - - - - - - - - - - - - - tektronix!reed!ellen OR tektronix!reed!motel6!ellen