Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site pedsgd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!petsd!pedsgd!bob
From: bob@pedsgd.UUCP (Robert A. Weiler)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: erotica/pornography
Message-ID: <233@pedsgd.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 18-Aug-85 13:51:42 EDT
Article-I.D.: pedsgd.233
Posted: Sun Aug 18 13:51:42 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 20-Aug-85 20:53:08 EDT
References: <3700@decwrl.UUCP>
Reply-To: bob@pedsgd.UUCP (Robert A. Weiler)
Organization: Perkin-Elmer, Tinton Falls, NJ
Lines: 63
Summary: 

Organization : Perkin-Elmer DSG, Tinton Falls NJ
Keywords: 

In article <3700@decwrl.UUCP> munson@squirt.DEC writes:
>
>A couple of days ago I came across a mail that said that (some, all???) 
>feminists were opposed to erotica.  I, being a feminist, would like to 
>respond to this statement.
>
>I am not opposed to erotica, but I am opposed to pornography.  To my mind,
>the difference is in the way that gender roles are portrayed.  In erotica,
>both male and female are portrayed as consenting, equally involved adults.
>Pornograghy depicts females (and, in some cases, children) as being subject
>to the sexual desires of a male, whether he is in the picture or not.  

Why only females subject to desires of men and not the other way around.
Granted this may be the 'normal'  case, but why should we make an arbitrary
distinction?

{ miscelleanous deleted }

>sexual feelings.  When in doubt about whether a particular picture is erotica
>or pornography, the following exercise may be tried:  get into (or out of)
>clothing until you are as covered or uncovered as the person in the picture 
>(not the 'dominant' one, if there are two), get into the position s/he is in, 
>and see how you feel. If you feel vulnerable (as opposed to sexy), the picture 
>is probably pornographic.
>

A concrete definition at last!! But what happens when you only feel foolish,
which I suspect would be the overwhelming majority of the time? The thought
of this test being applied in the court room certainly strikes me as
amusing. Wouldnt it just be easier to have the models sign affidavits (sp?)
stating whether or not felt vulnerable during the shooting. Of course, they
would probably all lie to protect their livelyhood, but WE know better, dont
we?

>In short, I think that erotica is about sex, and pornography is about dominance,
>and that pornography goes a long way towards keeping people locked up in the
>stereotypic gender roles, roles which are as stultifying for males as they are 
>for females.  Further, I think any picture (including advertisements, but 
>that's another mail) which demeans or dehumanizes any person should be eschewed.
>

Well maybe so, but it seems to me that this just another tack to try to
get rid of stuff that you personally dont like. Thats not good enough.
You must PROVE harm before you pass laws prohibiting something.
Despite strenuous efforts to try to find harm in pornography,
that proof simply does not exist.

Incendentally, I tend to agree with you about advertisements which I believe
reinforce stereotypes far more effectively than 'pornography' could ever
hope to. And how often do we see ads which suggest that if we just use
this deodorent, or soap, or perfume, or clothes, or car, or fill_in_the_blank,
that we will be irresistable to the opposite sex? However, until someone
can prove the harm in these ads, I would be against banning them.

>
>					As always,
>					Joanne E. Munson
>

Bob Weiler.