Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 (Tek) 9/26/83; site tekecs.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!mcnc!akgua!clyde!burl!hou3c!hocda!houxm!hogpc!houti!ariel!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!orca!tekecs!jeffw From: jeffw@tekecs.UUCP Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Controlled women (remember that?) and "pornography degrades women". Message-ID: <3506@tekecs.UUCP> Date: Thu, 16-Feb-84 12:12:08 EST Article-I.D.: tekecs.3506 Posted: Thu Feb 16 12:12:08 1984 Date-Received: Sun, 19-Feb-84 05:37:52 EST Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville OR Lines: 24 All I want to say about the first subject is: No, Sophie, I have been waiting, but your article giving examples must have been swallowed by the net before it got here. Maybe you should just mail it - one piece of mail, at least, from you did get through to me. As to the second - I can understand that statement IF one makes a distinction between erotica and pornography. Otherwise, I cannot. Does Andrea Dworkin make that distinction? Then perhaps she would ban Hustler while allowing Playboy? I doubt it. Can anyone explain to me how it is that a picture of a naked woman lying on a bed (for example) "degrades" (What *does* that mean, anyway?) a fully clothed woman buying eggs in a supermarket? If I were Ms. Dworkin, I think my attitude would be, "if that silly woman wants to do that for pay, that's her problem". If she thinks that I think less of *her* because of those pictures, she's crazier than a pondful of loons. But then, radical feminists aren't known for their deep understanding of masculine behavior. It should be obvious that the men who seek out sadistic pornography do so because of their attitudes toward women, rather than those attitudes being caused by the pornography. So what good will banning the porn do? the "ignorant", Jeff Winslow