Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utcsrgv.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsrgv!peterr
From: peterr@utcsrgv.UUCP (Peter Rowley)
Newsgroups: net.women,net.singles
Subject: Re: Pornography
Message-ID: <677@utcsrgv.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 18-Jan-85 03:08:38 EST
Article-I.D.: utcsrgv.677
Posted: Fri Jan 18 03:08:38 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 18-Jan-85 04:21:43 EST
References: <601@pyuxc.UUCP>
Organization: CSRI, University of Toronto
Lines: 96

> Yesterday, a female friend of mine confided that love had
> never been what she expected, that is, what it is in the movies,
> i.e., holding hands in a field, embracing in the moonlight, etc.
> It struck me that her feelings might hold the key to the
> debate over pornography.  
> 
> Is it possible that she's not alone, that many women grow
> up believing that love is like it is in the movies, and that
> they therefore resent pornography
> because it contradicts the movie version of love?
> That it is offensive because it shows sex without 
> showing love (particularly movie love) as a prerequisite?
> 
You know what this reminds me of?  the old question "what do women want?".
You know how one day some man decided that obviously women seemed not too
happy about their lot in life, so he started talking wondering about what
it is that women want.  Of course you'd think that it would have been very
easy to go up to a woman, and tell her "hey, you!  you're a woman, what do
you women want?", but NOOOOOOOOO, that's not the scientific way of looking at
things!!!! one must first get a theory, then find a set of axioms to base the
theory on, and a deductive system to use over those axioms, and presto!!  you've
got yourself a proof for your theory.  Pretty silly eh?  even if such renowned
people as Freud thought this was the way to approach such a problem, people
nowadays don't think that way anymore:  if they want to know how women feel
about something, they will ask them because there are some women around who
speak the same language as the theoritician, right?  so obviously, nobody
in their right minds would ever think about inventing STUPID theories
about a group of people without asking those people, right!!!

********  FLAME ON **********
OK, you jerk!  and other jerks like you, I have had it up to here (my throat)
with people like you who treat us women as though we are some strange tribal
people whose actions you make it your duty to "interpret".  Quit the antropology
stuff for a while and listen to other people.  We are people just like you
with a brain which work at least as well as yours, and probably better than
yours judging from the idiocies you are spitting out on this screen!!!
So my advice to you on this matter is very simple:  if you want to know how
women feel about a certain subject, if you actually CARE about how women
feel about a certain subject, may I suggest that you follow the most obvious
route, which is the simplest: ******** ASK A WOMAN **********
********  FLAME OFF **********

Ok, now I am assuming that you are interested in what women think about all
of this.  Well, I can't speak  for all women, but I will speak as a woman
now.

> In support of this hypothesis, I offer the following:
> 	1.  Pornography is often attacked for portraying
> 		women as "sex objects"  (presumably as opposed to
> 		being shown as people in love).
> 
> 	2.  I read an article recently that discussed pornography
> 		for women, i.e., literature whose intent was to
> 		arouse women's prurient interest.  This pornography
> 		consisted largely of scenes depicting tenderness,
> 		caring, etc., with far less explicit sex than is
> 		found in standard pornography.
> 
> If you add to the above the movie/television view that after love
> comes a marriage and a family situation similar to those in
> "Father Knows Best" and "It's a Wonderful Life," the objections
> to pornography become clearer.  Pornography does not concern
> itself with love, or families, or with preserving the species
> or the social order, but with plain old sex.  Exaggerated sex
> at that, when you consider the oversized body parts,
> insatiability, endless variation and stamina, etc.
> of the participants.  Not to say that this is bad, but it does not
> jibe with the movie/TV view, to say the least.
> 
> Could this be basis of much of the objection to pornography?

I like sex, but I don't like pornography.  The objections I have against
pornography are not that the people involved are not in love, but that
the women pictured there are shown in degrading poses: i.e submissive poses
where the implications are that women are pieces of meat just waiting to be
taken by any male!!!   I have the same objections against degradin male
pornography by the same token.  Pornography is not plain sex, pornography
is degradation.  There is another word for plain sex between consenting adults,
it is called erotica.  

> I think so.  The only thing I can't figure out is, if we're
> all subjected to the same movie/TV images, why do men enjoy
> pornography?  Why aren't they equally appalled by it?

Here's a clue:  (I don't want to give it away, you are obviously too enamoured
with puzzles, so I shouldn't spoil your fun).  Look at who is being depicted,
are they women or men?  women, right?

If that isn't enough to convince you, may I suggest that you go to an "adult"
bookstore and buy yourself a copy of a pictorially descriptive magasine for
"men who love other men", buy one for "men who are real men" and check out
what they do to other men who are obviously not as "real".  See if you still
enjoy pronography.....   

Sophie Quigley
{decvax, ihnp4, allegra}!watmath!saquigley