Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site pur-phy.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!CS-Mordred!Pucc-H:pur-phy!act
From: act@pur-phy.UUCP (Tselis)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Feminism, Pornography & Prudery (A Further Elaboration)
Message-ID: <1624@pur-phy.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 6-Feb-85 22:05:46 EST
Article-I.D.: pur-phy.1624
Posted: Wed Feb  6 22:05:46 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 8-Feb-85 02:09:57 EST
References: <1612@pur-phy.UUCP> <4716@cbscc.UUCP> <455@pyuxd.UUCP>
Organization: Purdue Univ. Physics Dept., IN
Lines: 148

This is posted for C.E. Jackson by A.C. Tselis:
> [Paul Dubuc]
>Excellent article from C.E. Jackson.  Though long it's well worth
>reading.
>It has occurred to me throughout this discussion that government regulation
>probably the least desirable way to deal with the problem of pornography
>(although it may be effective).  Jackson (Ms. or Mr?  I do not know.) made
>the point that his/her argument is not for government censorship, but
>many pro-porn people insist on making any opposition to porn a censorship
>issue.

>My question is, for those who recognize the problem and would like to
>do something about it, what are some effective ways?  It seems that anyone
>who is opposed to porn can't help but be labeled a censor when they express
>their views.  If people express their desire that a porn shop should leave
>their neighborhood by picketing they are called censors.  If they try to
>invoke community standards the same charge is levelled.  So what is a proper
>and effective way to oppose porn besides just talking about it?  If
>not government censorship, what then?
Paul, old buddy, don't you remember me? It's C. Elizabeth
Jackson, a terrifying advocate of women's rights from over there in
net.abortionland! You remember me--I'm the one your articulate & loving
anti-abortion pals wanted to sterilize!

Given our past disagreements, I want to make very clear what I
dislike about pornography because I suspect that we don't have
same objections to it & therefore don't have the same goals in
mind. (I'm not saying that I don't appreciate your support; I
just want all of us to be clear about what you are seeming to
support. If, after reading this, you wish to withdraw your
support, I understand.) I am not objecting to pornography
because it offends traditional Christian views of proper sexual 
behavior. And I have no wish to *eliminate* pornography; I wish 
to render it impotent. (Okay, pun intended.) I personally think
the idea of pornography is stupid--men tend to use it as a
substitute either for real women or for talking to their
lovers about their mutual fantasies, but I don't see the point
to glorifying misogynic pornography by repressing it
(elimination is impossible). After all (as someone pointed out earlier), the 
last time there were really strict anti-porn laws, some number of 
"Christian" groups used those laws to outlaw the publication
of birth control information. I don't wish to see that
happen again. Also, freedom of speech laws are designed to
protect the *expression* of ideas & since what I object to most
about pornography are *the ideas expressed in
it*, I have no wish to work against the sense of the Bill of
Rights. I think that, once clearly examined, the ideas
contained in pornography will be shown to be as false, as
cruel & as hate-filled as those that supported American
slavery. Virtually no Americans now condone the idea of
slavery; with time, effort & perseverance perhaps as few
Americans will buy the ideas currently expressed in
pornography.
The ideas that I do not like in pornography are those ideas
that lie to men about women. I do not like the idea that men
are told that women like to be raped. I do not like the idea
that men are told that women like to be bound & gagged. I
especially do not like the idea that men are told that to
entertain ideas such as these is somehow an acceptable way for men
to show affection for women. If men want to acknowledge that
sexuality is a very complex thing & that sometimes you can
really be angry at your female lover & want to do things to
her that may hurt her, that is one thing. That is honest; that
is real. If people were honest about their feelings, they
might not need to act them out or disguise them in cruel
fantasies. But that's *not* the way pornography presents it.
In pornography, the way to express love is often to behave cruelly.

>Do people like Jackson think the problem is going to be solved by
>trying to convince everyone not to buy porn?  Will arguments convince
>the people who are most influenced by the hard core stuff?  What are the
>alternatives?
I don't want to "convince" men, especially, that pornography is
wrong because I don't think that's possible as a first
step. Men, as a group, have historically not listened to women as a group when
women "just" asked for something. The sheer reasonableness of
an idea has never, in the history of this country at least,
sufficed to convince men that it was "right". Look how long it
took for women to be allowed to own their own property, to get
the vote, to be allowed to divorce their husbands, or to get
the right to birth control! And we *still* don't have anything
like equal rights.

What I want to do is show *women* (many of whom don't
think of or don't *like* to think of the content of pornography)
how pornography hurts them. When a *woman* understands that
pictures of a woman going through a meatgrinder turns her
lover on, she may not want him as her lover. Or she may want
to ask him what he has against women to be so aroused at
seeing them mutilated. When women learn how many of the
phrases that men use to describe sexuality come from so-called
harmless magazines such as PENTHOUSE & PLAYBOY (& manifest all the
reality & imaginative variation of laundry detergent
commercials) they may want to select men who aren't Guccione
parrots over those who are. When women look at the rape rate &
then look at men who claim films glorifying rape are just
"harmless fantasies," I want women to tell men what they think
of that idea. Rape isn't an expression of affection; it's a
violent crime & pretending otherwise is a vicious lie. 
Misogyny exists throughout our culture--I am not at all trying
to pretend that pornography is the only manifestation of
misogyny in our culture. I AM saying that it is an obvious &
extreme one. And I want to make the people who "enjoy" it
social pariahs. If they are not enjoying misogynist
pornography, fine. They can explain to me (or any other woman
whose opinions matter to them) why it's *not*. (And if they're explaining 
it to ME, they'd better have a pretty cogent explanation as to why it's not
misogynic.) I want to put men who like pornography on the
defensive. I want to know how they reconcile their supposed
belief in sexual "freedom" with orgasms over victimized, bound, gagged and/or
mutilated women. 
For centuries, women who have questioned male prerogatives have
been labeled "man haters" & have been mocked as women who
"couldn't get" men & resorted to feminism as a kind of
revenge. Fine. If men want to say that people like me are vengeful,
I'll show them vengeance. I say that it's time to turn this around. "Woman
hater" should become a term of abuse--not an unused term
because that state is the social norm. And men who like pornography 
should be laughed at for their "obvious" inability to convince (non-violently) 
any woman that they're worth having. As the campaign to get the vote (&
other non-violent, non-cooperation movements) showed, men 
as a group have historically tolerated any injustice so long
as they weren't laughed at. Make them look like hypocritical fools,
imply that their behavior is evidence of weakness and
stupidity, & they'll do whatever is necessary to regain their
"masculine" self-respect.
A second way to combat misogynic pornography is to offer men
an alternative. Messrs. Guccione, Hefner & Flynt have
been the major voices deciding what "free" sexuality is.
The monolithic misogyny of their supposedly varied messages has 
permeated the sexual psychology of American men for far
too long. Let's just think about one member of this unholy trinity   
for a moment--Bob Guccione. How many women would REALLY want
to go out with *him*--a man who wears enough gold chains to get a
Volkswagen out of the snow [this line was stolen from PEOPLE],
a man who finds his own chest hair endlessly fascinating,
a man whose aggressive insistence on his own virility smacks
of a confession of impotence, a man whose idea of a serious historical 
documentary is CALIGULA, a man whose idea of warm-heartedness is to ruin
Vanessa Williams' career & then offer her a job, a man who has
suggested that raping feminists would "straighten" them out,
etc. etc. Why on earth should *HE* (& the people he employs)
be perceived as the *final* arbitrator of sexuality? What does
*HE* know about what women like or think? (I'm not sure he
even acknowledges that women *do* think.) Women can come up
with far better ideas about heterosexual sexuality than *he*
can & I thinks it's time we did, & offered them to men as an
alternative.