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