Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 (Tek) 9/28/84 based on 9/17/84; site tekecs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!qantel!hplabs!tektronix!orca!tekecs!jeffw
From: jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow)
Newsgroups: net.women,net.politics
Subject: Re: A suggestion for a ground rule in any pornography debate
Message-ID: <5670@tekecs.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 5-Sep-85 12:29:49 EDT
Article-I.D.: tekecs.5670
Posted: Thu Sep  5 12:29:49 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 8-Sep-85 16:23:35 EDT
References: <5660@tekecs.UUCP> <1873@reed.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville OR
Lines: 86
Xref: watmath net.women:7337 net.politics:10844

> >...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 don't think you talked like a "castrating bitch" at all. I do
have a lot of reservations about what you did say, however, and I
hope no one minds if I break up your article into little pieces to
vioce them.

> 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."

I'm sure men have used this rationalization for thousands of years,
while "Playboy" has only existed for 30. So I very much doubt it.

> How can any man NOT get that impression when all the images he is
> exposed to have that message? 

Well, for one, by being mature enough to realize that what the
magazine presents is just fantasy. It's not so tough. If I can do it...

>                                 "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. 

Maybe that's because the misogynism is in the eye of the beholder in this case.

> 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.

I'm sorry that it upsets you, but I think you're being upset by a bogey.
For me, its encouragement of violence against women is so subtle
and insidious as to be non-existent. I can't believe I'm so unusual
in that respect.

>                                   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.

So it is, if she wants it, right?

                            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.
 
Oh come now. You must think men are awfully simple-minded. 

And anyway, we can get confused enough without reading "Playboy".

> [New paragraph]
> 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.
 
Well, I'm glad that "Playboy" only makes you nervous and not furious.
However, it seems to me that a common reaction to someone saying
"I can't see such-and-such" is "well, it's just too subtle for you".
Maybe so. But this argument can also hide a host of prejudices and
misunderstandings. It would seem to me safer, and more effective, to
concentrate on correcting the obvious before worrying about the subtle.

						Jeff Winslow