Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!ucbvax!apteryx
From: apteryx@ucbvax.ARPA (Brian Peterson)
Newsgroups: net.women,net.politics
Subject: Re: A suggestion for a ground rule in any pornography debate
Message-ID: <10314@ucbvax.ARPA>
Date: Sun, 8-Sep-85 22:56:42 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.10314
Posted: Sun Sep  8 22:56:42 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 10-Sep-85 03:28:37 EDT
References: <5660@tekecs.UUCP> <1873@reed.UUCP> <30636@lanl.ARPA>
Distribution: net
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Lines: 58
Xref: watmath net.women:7358 net.politics:10877
Summary: Misinterpretations of Playboy, etc

> > 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.
> 
> I must admit that I don't read '"Playboy" regularly' but I've read a
> few over the years and I must say that I have *never* received this
> message.

I agree.

I believe that Ellen Eades etc. are improperly concluding that porn dehumanizes
and degrades women.  They seem to be concluding that because a man sees
some pictures of some women being sexy, the man will assume that all women
all of the time will want sex with him.  I think concluding that is wrong.
I think that readers of pornography (normal stuff like Playboy/girl) 
>fantasize<, not "think" that some women some time will want sex with him.
I think most people know the difference between pictures and the actual
things pictured; they build a >fantasy< partner in their mind, >based< on the
sexual characteristics of the person in the picture.
Besides, magazines such as Playboy, in their interview questions and
biographies give info (such as hobbies, favourite literature, career
and school goals, favourite foods, moral and social values)
which have nothing to do with sex at all, and imply that the women
being pictured are real human people.  (BTW, they also talk about husbands,
boyfriends, children, etc. implying that the real people behind the
photographs are not only real humans, but unavailable :-)

(and on a tangent...)
Ellen Eades etc. seem to equate
"being >photographed< to satisfy others' sexual desires" with
"being thought of as >existing< >only< for sexual desires".
The purpose of pornography is to satisfy sexual interest.
It would be nifty if it were possible to photograph "a sex" without, in
the process, photographing women (or men, children, animals, or whatever).
However, sex implies/requires (pictures of) women.  This does not mean
the inverse (women imply sex), which certain people are wrongly concluding.
If someone saw a knitting magazine (for example) which pictured women knitting
things, should they then conclude that all women knit, and that women only
exist for knitting?  (I hope not :-)  But Ellen Eades seems to be
claiming that readers of Playboy are stupid enough to make a similar
conclusion.
That is where I think Ellen Eades is wrong.


> > Pornography never presents an image of a woman saying 'no' and
> > meaning it.  Thus the idea that women never do mean 'no' is
> > encouraged.

If it did present such an image, it would be defeating the purpose!
The above conclusion does not follow.  And anyway, if that kind of
thinking were applied to other realms, we would have to ban all
fiction (and any communications dealing with only one aspect of a topic)
because someone reading it might make horrible overgeneralizations.


Brian Peterson