Porn
Jean-Daniel Gousenberg
In article <#8YvypQ2...@upnetnews02.moswest.msn.net>, "Psychogamer64"
<psych...@juno.com> wrote:
>(...)
>
>I always wondered how extreme feminists would react seeing a magazine full
>of naked men.
Taking scissors and "bobbit"ing said naked men?
--
------------------------------------------+----------------------------
Jean-Daniel Gousenberg |Snail-mail: EPFL
Ecole polytechnique federale de Lausanne | SIC
Service informatique central | CH-1015 Lausanne
Lausanne, Switzerland |Phone: +41 21 693 45 85
|Fax: +41 21 693 55 00
Internet: jean-daniel...@epfl.ch |
------------------------------------------+----------------------------
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <jean-daniel.gousenb...@emmac1.epfl.ch>
jean-daniel...@epfl.ch (Jean-Daniel Gousenberg) writes:
>
>In article <#8YvypQ2...@upnetnews02.moswest.msn.net>,
"Psychogamer64"
><psych...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>>(...)
>>
>>I always wondered how extreme feminists would react seeing a magazine
full>>of naked men.
>
>Taking scissors and "bobbit"ing said naked men?
-----------
Most feminists know wouldn't want to objectify
men in the same fashion, however, my daughter
used a picture from Playgirl to pin up next to
a sexist poster placed on the black board by
a sexist teacher. When he told her to take
it down or go to the office, both teacher and
student had to remove their sexism...the
desired objective.
Lefty
>
>
>--
>------------------------------------------+---------------------------
David J. Loftus
.com>:
Organization: Netcom On-Line Services
Distribution:
Carol Ann Hemingway (lef...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: Most feminists know wouldn't want to objectify
: men in the same fashion, however, my daughter
: used a picture from Playgirl to pin up next to
: a sexist poster placed on the black board by
: a sexist teacher. When he told her to take
: it down or go to the office, both teacher and
: student had to remove their sexism...the
: desired objective.
I don't see your point, here.
It seems to me your daughter's teacher was indulging in inappropriate
behavior within a public, educational context -- like drinking -- but which
was not inappropriate in all contexts.
Objectification theory doesn't necessarily apply here. Unless you
daughter would have objected just as strongly to the posting of a fashion
photo or poster of Harrison Ford.
David Loftus
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <dloftEI...@netcom.com> dl...@netcom.com (David J. Loftus)
writes:
>.com>:
>Organization: Netcom On-Line Services
>Distribution:
>
>Carol Ann Hemingway (lef...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>
>: Most feminists know wouldn't want to objectify
>: men in the same fashion, however, my daughter
>: used a picture from Playgirl to pin up next to
>: a sexist poster placed on the black board by
>: a sexist teacher. When he told her to take
>: it down or go to the office, both teacher and
>: student had to remove their sexism...the
>: desired objective.
>
>I don't see your point, here.
---------
My point is that sometimes it takes sexism to fight
sexism; the same thing worked for me at the office.
----------
>
>It seems to me your daughter's teacher was indulging in inappropriate
>behavior within a public, educational context -- like drinking -- but
which >was not inappropriate in all contexts.
-------
He was indeed!
>
>Objectification theory doesn't necessarily apply here. Unless you
>daughter would have objected just as strongly to the posting of a
fashion >photo or poster of Harrison Ford.
-----------
The photo he presented was ABOUT objectification; she
just wanted to show that a male could also be objectified,
so she put up a similar picture, but with a man as object.
It certainly was not the same as another photo. The
original photo was being used to SELL ARTICHOKES. So was
hers.
Lefty
David J. Loftus
Carol Ann Hemingway (lef...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: >Carol Ann Hemingway (lef...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: >
: >: Most feminists know wouldn't want to objectify
: >: men in the same fashion, however, my daughter
: >: used a picture from Playgirl to pin up next to
: >: a sexist poster placed on the black board by
: >: a sexist teacher. When he told her to take
: >: it down or go to the office, both teacher and
: >: student had to remove their sexism...the
: >: desired objective.
: >
: >I don't see your point, here.
: ---------
: My point is that sometimes it takes sexism to fight
: sexism; the same thing worked for me at the office.
: ----------
But I don't see that any substantive point was made here ... only that
your teacher was not in a position to bully his students.
: >It seems to me your daughter's teacher was indulging in inappropriate
: >behavior within a public, educational context -- like drinking -- but
: which >was not inappropriate in all contexts.
: -------
: He was indeed!
: >
: >Objectification theory doesn't necessarily apply here. Unless you
: >daughter would have objected just as strongly to the posting of a
: fashion >photo or poster of Harrison Ford.
: -----------
: The photo he presented was ABOUT objectification; she
: just wanted to show that a male could also be objectified,
: so she put up a similar picture, but with a man as object.
: It certainly was not the same as another photo. The
: original photo was being used to SELL ARTICHOKES. So was
: hers.
Excuse me? Both parties found models posed with artichokes?
So what was the problem?
David Loftus
Carol Ann Hemingway
>: No. Only the woman was used to sell artichokes...as
>: usual. My daughter found a Playgirl centerfold and
>: then a picture of an artichoke. Which gender do YOU
>: think is used to have their SEXUAL APPEAL sell product
>: more often?
>
>Women, obviously.
>
>But that's because -- so far -- women have had greater appeal on the
>basis of their physical appearance to everyone (that is to say,
>potential consumers of BOTH sexes). That's why there are so many
female >models used to sell products in Vogue, Mademoiselle, Glamour,
Seventeen, >etc., etc., as well as GQ and Sports Illustrated.
--------
It is also because both men and women know that women
are there as consumables; buy the car, the girl is
free mentality. Her teacher's reaction to using a male
to sell artichokes...was off the wall. He didn't like
it. He found it sexist; the principle decided to take
both pictures down and avoid potential conflict.
---------------------------------
>
>You haven't said what's wrong with using a woman to sell an artichoke.
>
>
>David Loftus
-----------
If we are going to objectify, let's put all the cards on
the table so nude men in fields of artichokes can be used
when the little woman does the shopping :]
Lefty
David J. Loftus
<dloftEI...@netcom.com> <628djn$8...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>
Organization: Netcom On-Line Services
Distribution:
Carol Ann Hemingway (lef...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: >: then a picture of an artichoke. Which gender do YOU
: >: think is used to have their SEXUAL APPEAL sell product
: >: more often?
: >
: >Women, obviously.
: >
: >But that's because -- so far -- women have had greater appeal on the
: >basis of their physical appearance to everyone (that is to say,
: >potential consumers of BOTH sexes). That's why there are so many
: female >models used to sell products in Vogue, Mademoiselle, Glamour,
: Seventeen, >etc., etc., as well as GQ and Sports Illustrated.
: --------
: It is also because both men and women know that women
: are there as consumables; buy the car, the girl is
: free mentality.
Where did you get THAT interpretation?
I don't think anyone's dumb enough to believe they'll actually possess
(or, if they are female, become) the woman in the ad if they purchase
this vehicle, that blouse, this or that brand of toothpaste or chewing
gum.
The model may simply have a talismanic quality for the buyer: Somehow,
when I purchase this good, I connect in some tenuous, mysterious way with
a woman like the one in the ad. It's like thinking you are honoring the
earth when you use shopping bags with an eco-slogan or recycle symbol
printed on them: You can't really prove that what you do makes a
difference, but it makes you FEEL good.
: Her teacher's reaction to using a male
: to sell artichokes...was off the wall. He didn't like
: it. He found it sexist; the principle decided to take
: both pictures down and avoid potential conflict.
: ---------------------------------
: >
: >You haven't said what's wrong with using a woman to sell an artichoke.
: -----------
: If we are going to objectify, let's put all the cards on
: the table so nude men in fields of artichokes can be used
: when the little woman does the shopping :]
I have no objection to this. After all, religions from ancient Greece to
Christianity have employed nude and semi-nude males as well as females to
sell faith.
You didn't respond to my point. You merely reiterated your own on the basis
of the assumption -- objectification is a bad thing -- I was questioning.
David Loftus
David J. Loftus
Marg Petersen (god...@kira.peak.org) wrote:
: >You haven't said what's wrong with using a woman to sell an artichoke.
: >David Loftus
: Nothing really, IMO, BUT I would prefer to see some kind of
: *balance* in such ads. Now, put Patrick Stewart's picture with
: *anything* and I'll buy it. :-)
I have no objections, obviously, but you can do little more than wish.
Private companies can use whatever images they like to push their
products. It's not our fault -- or the government's responsibility --
that they're so unimaginative.
David Loftus
: --
: Marg Petersen Member PSEB: Official Sonneteer JLP-SOL
: god...@peak.org http://www.peak.org/~goddess
: "At ease Ensign, before you sprain something." - Capt. Janeway
David J. Loftus
Carol Ann Hemingway (lef...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: >You didn't respond to my point. You merely reiterated your own on the
: basis >of the assumption -- objectification is a bad thing -- I was
: questioning.
: --------
: Objectification of either gender takes time, effort,
: money, etc away from viewing humans as whole; the
: more time money, etc. we spend in objectification,
: the less we will have to view people as whole. It's
: a matter of choice.
But we objectify people all the time, when we accord automatic respect to
people in white coats (though they could in fact be escapees from mental
asylums or actors playing a role), or edge away from scruffy street
people (though they could in fact be a Howard Hughes or messiah), and we
objectify ourselves (by dressing for success or to seduce, or by
encapsulating ourselves in a resume).
The question is not WHETHER we engage in objectification -- the question
is, what do we engage in it FOR?
The sin is not in objectifying someone with the eye and the mind, but how
we TREAT him or her if there is interaction.
David Loftus
Carol Ann Hemingway
>
>: >You didn't respond to my point. You merely reiterated your own on
the
>: basis >of the assumption -- objectification is a bad thing -- I was
>: questioning.
>
>: --------
>: Objectification of either gender takes time, effort,
>: money, etc away from viewing humans as whole; the
>: more time money, etc. we spend in objectification,
>: the less we will have to view people as whole. It's
>: a matter of choice.
>
>But we objectify people all the time, when we accord automatic respect
to >people in white coats (though they could in fact be escapees from
mental >asylums or actors playing a role), or edge away from scruffy
street >people (though they could in fact be a Howard Hughes or
messiah), and we >objectify ourselves (by dressing for success or to
seduce, or by >encapsulating ourselves in a resume).
>
>The question is not WHETHER we engage in objectification -- the
question >is, what do we engage in it FOR?
----------
When we strip humanity down to the basic core we learn
more about the human being inside. Whenever we look at
only the "surface" we are more shallow than those who
look deeper. Yes, if we choose to objectify women because
we see them as consummables, or chattel, that might be
considered a worse form of objectification, but it doesn't
tell the whole story.
Lefty
Carol Ann Hemingway
>
>: >You haven't said what's wrong with using a woman to sell an
artichoke.
>: >David Loftus
>
>: Nothing really, IMO, BUT I would prefer to see some kind of
>: *balance* in such ads. Now, put Patrick Stewart's picture with
>: *anything* and I'll buy it. :-)
>
>I have no objections, obviously, but you can do little more than wish.
>
>Private companies can use whatever images they like to push their
>products. It's not our fault -- or the government's responsibility --
>that they're so unimaginative.
>
>
>David Loftus
--------
Those who support one-way sexism support the same
system that encourages it, but it's changing; there's
some wine commercial out there with a girl laughing
with wild abandon at seeing a naked man wrapped up
in a bow. :] :] Now that's what I call balance.
Lefty
Kirk Job Sluder
lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway) writes:
> --------
> Objectification of either gender takes time, effort,
> money, etc away from viewing humans as whole; the
> more time money, etc. we spend in objectification,
> the less we will have to view people as whole. It's
> a matter of choice.
Of course there is one problem with this. Why is a person portrayed
in the nude or in a sexual context an "object" rather than the "subject"
of a performance? I mean, we don't say that an actor or actress is
an object when giving a non-sexual performance, why does this apply
to an erotic performance?
>
> Lefty
>
--
Kirk Job Sluder (csl...@indiana.edu)
Personal Home Page (http://php.ucs.indiana.edu/~csluder/home.html)
"Al Pacino is the Robert DeNiro of acting." -Charlie the Australopithecene
janet
In article <626719$5...@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com>, Carol Ann Hemingway
<lef...@ix.netcom.com> writes>>.com>:
>>Organization: Netcom On-Line Services
>>Distribution:
>>
>>: men in the same fashion, however, my daughter
>>: used a picture from Playgirl to pin up next to
>>: a sexist poster placed on the black board by
>>: a sexist teacher. When he told her to take
>>: it down or go to the office, both teacher and
>>: student had to remove their sexism...the
>>: desired objective.
>>
>>I don't see your point, here.
>
> ---------
> My point is that sometimes it takes sexism to fight
> sexism; the same thing worked for me at the office.
> ----------
How can perpetuating injustice lead to justice?
If it was wrong, ethically, for one picture to be put up, how can it be
right, ethically, for TWO?
--
janet
"Our trouble is not our womanhood, but the artificial trammels of custom under
false conditions" E. C. Stanton, 1890
Carol Ann Hemingway
>
>: >Carol Ann Hemingway (lef...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: >
>: >: Most feminists know wouldn't want to objectify
>: >: men in the same fashion, however, my daughter
>: >: used a picture from Playgirl to pin up next to
>: >: a sexist poster placed on the black board by
>: >: a sexist teacher. When he told her to take
>: >: it down or go to the office, both teacher and
>: >: student had to remove their sexism...the
>: >: desired objective.
>: >
>: >I don't see your point, here.
>
>: ---------
>: My point is that sometimes it takes sexism to fight
>: sexism; the same thing worked for me at the office.
>: ----------
>
>your teacher was not in a position to bully his students.
>
>: >It seems to me your daughter's teacher was indulging in
inappropriate >: >behavior within a public, educational context -- like
drinking -- but: which >was not inappropriate in all contexts.
>
>: -------
>: He was indeed!
>: >
>: >Objectification theory doesn't necessarily apply here. Unless you
>: >daughter would have objected just as strongly to the posting of a
>: fashion >photo or poster of Harrison Ford.
>
>: -----------
>: The photo he presented was ABOUT objectification; she
>: just wanted to show that a male could also be objectified,
>: so she put up a similar picture, but with a man as object.
>: It certainly was not the same as another photo. The
>: original photo was being used to SELL ARTICHOKES. So was
>: hers.
>
>Excuse me? Both parties found models posed with artichokes?
---------
No. Only the woman was used to sell artichokes...as
usual. My daughter found a Playgirl centerfold and
then a picture of an artichoke. Which gender do YOU
think is used to have their SEXUAL APPEAL sell product
more often?
Lefty
David J. Loftus
Carol Ann Hemingway (lef...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In <dloftEI...@netcom.com> dl...@netcom.com (David J. Loftus)
: writes:
: >
: >Carol Ann Hemingway (lef...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: >
: >: --------
: >: Objectification of either gender takes time, effort,
: >: money, etc away from viewing humans as whole; the
: >: more time money, etc. we spend in objectification,
: >: the less we will have to view people as whole. It's
: >: a matter of choice.
: >
: >But we objectify people all the time, when we accord automatic respect
: to >people in white coats (though they could in fact be escapees from
: mental >asylums or actors playing a role), or edge away from scruffy
: street >people (though they could in fact be a Howard Hughes or
: messiah), and we >objectify ourselves (by dressing for success or to
: seduce, or by >encapsulating ourselves in a resume).
: >
: >The question is not WHETHER we engage in objectification -- the
: question >is, what do we engage in it FOR?
: ----------
: When we strip humanity down to the basic core we learn
: more about the human being inside.
Yes, but how often do you do that, really? You don't do it with the vast
majority of people you meet every day IN THE FLESH, so what's the big
deal about enjoying a representation of someone who isn't even there to
be dissed or mistreated?
: Whenever we look at
: only the "surface" we are more shallow than those who
: look deeper.
So what? That's common, only human, and usually perfectly harmless.
: Yes, if we choose to objectify women because
: we see them as consummables, or chattel, that might be
: considered a worse form of objectification, but it doesn't
: tell the whole story.
You're darn right, it doesn't. In the first place, you say because "we"
see them as consumables or chattel, but obviously you don't. And you
have no evidence that that is what happens in most men's minds when they
look at a nude photograph or video.
So all you're doing is spinning terrific theories in a vacuum.
David Loftus
David J. Loftus
Kirk Job Sluder (csl...@indiana.edu) wrote:
: lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway) writes:
: > --------
: > Objectification of either gender takes time, effort,
: > money, etc away from viewing humans as whole; the
: > more time money, etc. we spend in objectification,
: > the less we will have to view people as whole. It's
: > a matter of choice.
: Of course there is one problem with this. Why is a person portrayed
: in the nude or in a sexual context an "object" rather than the "subject"
: of a performance? I mean, we don't say that an actor or actress is
: an object when giving a non-sexual performance, why does this apply
: to an erotic performance?
Bingo.
David Loftus
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <m3sotzd...@localhost.localdomain> Kirk Job Sluder
---------
I don't think it DOES only apply to erotic performance.
In fact, erotic performance purely for the sake of art
might indeed be less objectifying than a gal in a tight
shirt selling a car. I think objectification is much
like pornography in that it may be hard to define,
but we know it when we see it. In that regard, if my
"new possibility" had a collection of "nudes" hanging on
his wall, I probably would not likely be offended;
if he had a picture of him in Hooters, I probably wouldn't
stick around to find out what was in the other rooms. :]
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <dloftEI...@netcom.com> dl...@netcom.com (David J. Loftus)
writes:
>
>Carol Ann Hemingway (lef...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>
>: In <dloftEI...@netcom.com> dl...@netcom.com (David J. Loftus)
>: writes:
>: >
>: >Carol Ann Hemingway (lef...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: >
>: >: Objectification of either gender takes time, effort,
>: >: money, etc away from viewing humans as whole; the
>: >: more time money, etc. we spend in objectification,
>: >: the less we will have to view people as whole. It's
>: >: a matter of choice.
----------
If a man rent's a copy of Debbie Does Dallas, I could
probably guess. :]
>
>So all you're doing is spinning terrific theories in a vacuum.
>
>
>David Loftus
--------
Well, since I support your right to purchase and
objectify women ...I'm not quite sure I understand
the nature of your argument. My argument is that
I don't date, befriend or would be willing to
marry a man who did so. I think the two arguments
are quite different.
Lefty
Charlie Kester
On 17 Oct 1997 12:30:50 -0700, god...@kira.peak.org (Marg Petersen)
wrote:
>Nothing really, IMO, BUT I would prefer to see some kind of
>*balance* in such ads. Now, put Patrick Stewart's picture with
>*anything* and I'll buy it. :-)
Even if it's the "patriarchy"?
"Hey Baldy, c'mere. I need a shot of you for the cover of the next
Promise Keepers brochure..." <grin>
charlie
Oscar The Grouch
--------
Well, since I support your right to purchase and
objectify women ...I'm not quite sure I understand
the nature of your argument. My argument is that
I don't date, befriend or would be willing to
marry a man who did so. I think the two arguments
are quite different.
Lefty
Well this is of course your choice. I am curious about
one thing Lefty. Why do women want some men to find them
sexually appealing and other men not to notice them as
anything other than "just a friend"?
Just a question for you to ponder.
--
Mark
-----------
http://www.whew.com
http://www.whew.com/reviews/
--------------------------------
Unsolicited Commercial E-MAIL is not you practicing FREE SPEECH.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsolicited Commercial E-MAIL is an infringement into my solitude.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <344caa9c...@news.nwlink.com> cke...@NOSPAM.nwlink.com
---------
Maybe we could get a shot of this all-male group ....
the full Monty..... Now THAT'S what I call male bonding!
Lefty
Avedon Carol
On 18 Oct 1997 06:27:15 GMT, lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann
Hemingway) wrote:
>>You're darn right, it doesn't. In the first place, you say because
>"we" >see them as consumables or chattel, but obviously you don't. And
>you >have no evidence that that is what happens in most men's minds
>when they >look at a nude photograph or video.
>
> ----------
> If a man rent's a copy of Debbie Does Dallas, I could
> probably guess. :]
Based on what? ESP? I've never heard of any man who says he looks at
pornography because he sees women as consumables or chattel. Neither
have I heard of a single study that supports that view. Where did you
get it? Are you actually reading their minds?
>>So all you're doing is spinning terrific theories in a vacuum.
>>
>>David Loftus
>
> --------
> Well, since I support your right to purchase and
> objectify women
You support his right to _purchase_ women? Really?
Uh, where is this going on, by the way? I wasn't aware that you could
purchase women in the United States. The best you get is rental of
services - same as with other forms of employment.
> ...I'm not quite sure I understand
> the nature of your argument. My argument is that
> I don't date, befriend or would be willing to
> marry a man who did so.
Purchased women, or enjoyed pornography? They are two entirely
different things.
And are you really saying that if you meet a really terrific guy who
makes you feel so good that you can't _wait_ to return the favor,
you'd dump him the minute you found out he had a porn collection?
That's pitiful.
> I think the two arguments
> are quite different.
I don't think "I don't date, befriend or would be willing to marry a
man who did so" is an argument; it's just a poorly-phrased declarative
statement. I don't suppose I'd want to hang out with anyone who
purchased women, but I have never met a man who did that, so it's not
a problem.
Hint: Buying a photograph of a woman is in no way similar to buying an
actual woman. Becoming sexually aroused by an image of a woman is in
no way similar to turning the woman pictured into an object.
Photography is not voodoo; the camera does not steal your soul.
--
A. Carol Feminists Against Censorship
ave...@cix.co.uk http://www.fiawol.demon.co.uk/FAC/
"Homophobia isn't there to keep homosexuals in line. It's
there to keep everyone else in line." - Joanna Russ
Note: The reply field lies.
Marg Petersen
In article <dloftEI...@netcom.com>,
David J. Loftus <dl...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Marg Petersen (god...@kira.peak.org) wrote:
>
>: >You haven't said what's wrong with using a woman to sell an artichoke.
>: >David Loftus
>
>: *balance* in such ads. Now, put Patrick Stewart's picture with
>: *anything* and I'll buy it. :-)
>
>Private companies can use whatever images they like to push their
>products. It's not our fault -- or the government's responsibility --
>that they're so unimaginative.
Agreed. I wasn't suggesting that the *government* should have
anything to do with changing that aspect of advertising. I believe
that it is up to women (in particular), to let advertisers know
that they too are interested in certain aspects of the human male
form and would be amenable to buying their products based on the
use of same in their ads.
I believe that many women HAVE attempted to get advertisers to
note this. However, the advertisers themselves seem to be a bit
slow in realizing both the untapped potential (economically) in
women's resources as well as the untapped potential of using males
in their ads. I consider it my duty to continue to let them know
what *I'd* like to see. :-)
>David Loftus
>
Marg
Marcel
Avedon Carol wrote in message <344f6f2a...@news.demon.co.uk>...
>On 18 Oct 1997 06:27:15 GMT, lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann
>Hemingway) wrote:
>Based on what? ESP? I've never heard of any man who says he looks at
>pornography because he sees women as consumables or chattel. Neither
>have I heard of a single study that supports that view. Where did you
>get it? Are you actually reading their minds?
>
Then you haven't read the recent posting of El "something or other". Also,
just because someone doesn't say women are chattel doesn't mean that isn't
how they are viewing them. Surely you understand this. MInd reading isn't
required.
Kirk Job Sluder
"Marcel" <mh...@idt.net> writes:
> Le Mur wrote in message <344af24b...@snews.zippo.com>...
> >Why are women depicted in sexual activites considered "objectified",
> >but women depicted in other activities are not? Puritanism?
> >
>
> Who says women depicted in other activities are not "objectified?" A woman
> pictured behind a vacuum cleaner or in the kitchen is just as "objectified."
Of course then we get into the question of what is "objectification?" If
it can be applied to such a diverse scope of situations from the sexual
to the necessary then how can we use the concept?
This is one reason why I don't like the concept. Basically it comes
down to that a person is objectified if he or she is photographed
doing an activity you don't approve of, or if the image is used in
a way you don't approve of.
Of course many sex-positive feminists have pointed out crying out
"objectification" in regards to pornography in fact devalues the
expression of the women (and men) who choose to make pornography.
The performer is not an "object" but a participant in a dialogue
between performer and viewer.
I suspect this also applies to performers such as Martha Stewart
and other cooks who perform in kitchens.
> >->
> >It all comes down to "sex is bad".
> >
> >->
> >->David Loftus
> >
>
> No it doesn't.
Kirk Job Sluder
"Marcel" <mh...@idt.net> writes:
Certainly, there are men who view women as chattel, and there are men who
do not. I believe the objection is that you can't tell how a person
feels about women from his or her use or non-use of erotic/pornographic
material.
Marcel
John Reinhagen wrote in message ...
>Also sprach Marcel:
>So you believe El Chamuco when he says he believes this, buit you don't
>believe others when they say they don't.
>
>Great thinking. Brilliant.
>
Yes I believe him. Also, Avedon never commented on whether or not she
believed him. What she did write was she never heard of any man who looks
at pornography because he views her as chattel. I drew her attention to
someone who boldly made that very statement. This isn't an isolated case
either.
>>Surely you understand this. MInd reading isn't required.
>
>When you have some proof for any of this, do feel free to post it. Until
>then, go sit at the back of the class.
>
>JCR
Ah, now there's a real mature statement. Whether I sit in the front or back
of the class isn't germane to this discussion. Also, when someone makes a
statement it isn't up to me to prove the opposite.
Marcel
Kirk Job Sluder wrote in message ...
>Certainly, there are men who view women as chattel, and there are men who
>do not. I believe the objection is that you can't tell how a person
>feels about women from his or her use or non-use of erotic/pornographic
>material.
>
>-
You should bring this to the attention of one John Reinhagen. <g>
Well what Avedon wrote is that she never heard of a man who uses pornography
because he views women as chattel.
John Reinhagen
Also sprach Marcel:
>John Reinhagen wrote in message ...
>>believe others when they say they don't.
>>Great thinking. Brilliant.
>Yes I believe him.
WHY?
Are you incapable of answering that simple question?
>Also, Avedon never commented on whether or not she believed him.
Possibly she figured that his post was an advertisement for a website rather
than a statement of personal belief. It certainly looked like that to me.
Do you also think that those ads for "$$$ MAKE $50,000 IN SIX WEEKS! $$$"
that get spammed all over creation are genuine and honest? Do you think the
author is actually making as much as he claims?
Here's a free hit with the Clue Bat: Don't believe everything a huckster
says. You'd be amazed at the things they'll promise but won't deliver.
>This isn't an isolated case either.
Prove it.
>>>Surely you understand this. MInd reading isn't required.
>>When you have some proof for any of this, do feel free to post it. Until
>>then, go sit at the back of the class.
>Ah, now there's a real mature statement.
It's quite fitting given your snotty comment about mind reading being
unrequired. You deserve nothing better.
>Also, when someone makes a statement it isn't up to me to prove the opposite.
When you snidely assert certainties, yeah, it is.
Proof or silence, bucko.
JCR
--
"I love liberty, I hate equality."
-- John Randolph of Roanoke
de...@lehigh.edu
In article <jean-daniel.gousenb...@emmac1.epfl.ch>, jean-daniel
.gouse...@epfl.ch (Jean-Daniel Gousenberg) writes:
>In article <#8YvypQ2...@upnetnews02.moswest.msn.net>, "Psychogamer64"
><psych...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>>(...)
>>
>>I always wondered how extreme feminists would react seeing a magazine full
>>of naked men.
>
>Taking scissors and "bobbit"ing said naked men?
Oh, just looking at them.
>
>
>--
>------------------------------------------+----------------------------
>Jean-Daniel Gousenberg |Snail-mail: EPFL
>Ecole polytechnique federale de Lausanne | SIC
>Service informatique central | CH-1015 Lausanne
>Lausanne, Switzerland |Phone: +41 21 693 45 85
> |Fax: +41 21 693 55 00
>Internet: jean-daniel...@epfl.ch |
>------------------------------------------+----------------------------
>
_*The Navigator*_
Marcel wrote:
>
> John Reinhagen wrote in message ...
>
> >So you believe El Chamuco when he says he believes this, buit you don't
> >believe others when they say they don't.
> >
> >Great thinking. Brilliant.
> >
>
> believed him. What she did write was she never heard of any man who looks
> at pornography because he views her as chattel. I drew her attention to
> either.
>
> >
> >When you have some proof for any of this, do feel free to post it. Until
> >then, go sit at the back of the class.
> >
>
> Ah, now there's a real mature statement. Whether I sit in the front or back
> statement it isn't up to me to prove the opposite.
Right on man...
You have to prove nothing
but to yourself be true.
john.
****************************************************
porn is based on greed
greed feeds the machine
Mark Evans
: > Objectification of either gender takes time, effort,
: > money, etc away from viewing humans as whole; the
: > more time money, etc. we spend in objectification,
: > the less we will have to view people as whole. It's
: > a matter of choice.
:
: of a performance? I mean, we don't say that an actor or actress is
: an object when giving a non-sexual performance, why does this apply
: to an erotic performance?
Double standards about sex and sexuality...
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <62d9ub$l...@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> "Marcel" <mh...@idt.net> writes:
>
>
>Le Mur wrote in message <344af24b...@snews.zippo.com>...
>>Why are women depicted in sexual activites considered "objectified",
>>but women depicted in other activities are not? Puritanism?
>>
>
>Who says women depicted in other activities are not "objectified?" A
woman>pictured behind a vacuum cleaner or in the kitchen is just as
"objectified."
>
>
>>It all comes down to "sex is bad".
>>
>>->
>>->David Loftus
---------
Of course it doesn't. If you portray ONLY women as
running a vacum cleaner you are indeed portraying the
message that men shouldn't or don't do housework. It
is a matter of objectifying the role of women. If you
have her there without clothing, you may also be por-
traying another idea. :] (not that sex is "bad",
but that it is about consuming...women) If you have
a naked man and woman doing housework together, you're
halucinating.
Lefty
>>
>
>No it doesn't.
>
>
David J. Loftus
Carol Ann Hemingway (lef...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In <dloftEI...@netcom.com> dl...@netcom.com (David J. Loftus)
: writes:
: >
: >Carol Ann Hemingway (lef...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: >
: >: ---------
: >: I don't think it DOES only apply to erotic performance.
: >: In fact, erotic performance purely for the sake of art
: >: might indeed be less objectifying than a gal in a tight
: >: shirt selling a car. I think objectification is much
: >: like pornography in that it may be hard to define,
: >: but we know it when we see it.
: >
: >"We" know it when "we" see it.
: >
: >In other words, simple gut prejudice is more valid than rational
: >discussion and learning.
: >
: >Simple gut prejudice has supported an awful lot of other untenable
: human >beliefs in the past, I'm afraid. And there are a lot of women
: as well as >women who DON'T "know" what you "see" when THEY see it.
: =========
: That's why, I support your right to see it. I also support
: the right of folks to draft it....it's a little thing
: called freedom of speech. That doesn't mean I have to date,
: befriend or marry you if your perceptions and mine differ.
: Therein lies the rub.
But you're conflating a pseudo-objective judgment -- objectification exists
and is bad, and "we know it when we see it" -- with your personal,
subjective tastes. That's why your "innocent" remarks about what you
like and do not like have elicited objections from various people.
: >: In that regard, if my
: >: "new possibility" had a collection of "nudes" hanging on
: >: his wall, I probably would not likely be offended;
: >: if he had a picture of him in Hooters, I probably wouldn't
: >: stick around to find out what was in the other rooms.
: >
: >Such closemindedness!
: -----------
: That's the great thing about America; we all get
: to choose those with whom we associate. If I am
: too closedminded for you, YOU don't have to assciate
: with me.
But again, you try to pretend your "mere" personal opinion and taste has
some sort of objective analysis underlying it. None of us is attacking
or questioning your personal taste; we are objecting to your rationale,
which evinces not only faulty reasoning and a lack of research, but IMO a
superiority complex -- a contempt for those who do not share your tastes
and interests.
THAT's the problem her, as I see it.
: >Have you never been pleasantly surprised by a person who struck you on
: first impression as being less than likable?
: -----------
: Not often enough to make it worth the trip. I'm very
: perceptive.
Or perhaps you don't give many people enough of a chance.
: -----------
: >
: >Have you never learned wonderful things about a person you previously
: >judged unworthy of note?
: -----------
: I think that many people can be many things. For example
: Mr. Shindler used women in terrible ways; he also saved
: many, many Jews. I admire his actions in one arena and
: not in the other; I would not recruit him as a friend,
: lover or husband, yet I would honor is action in saving
: so many Jews from Hitler's ovens.
: ----------------------------
You didn't answer the question.
: >The fact of the matter is, a lot of women who today regard pornography
: as >largely harmless learned as much because they were exposed to it
: through >men they liked or loved FIRST, so that they knew before the
: subject of >pornography came up that this was a good man.
: ---------------
: Anything we are exposed to over a period of time can
: appear "harmless"; that doesn't make it so. Women who
: accept porn are free to do just that. A good man, IMO,
: doesn't subjugate. I once had a friend who's husband had
: been involved in numerous affairs; he tried to explain
: to her why he was "a good man"; his reasoning was that
: he "never beat her".
: ------------------------
Again, you are totally overlooking the fact that your a priori judgment
that looking at pornography inherently involves "subjugation" is unproved
and highly questionable.
: >See, for example, Lisa Palac's essay, "How Dirty Pictures Changed My
: >Life," in _Debating Sexual Correctness: pornography, sexual
: harassment, >date rape, and the politics of sexual equality, ed. by
: Adele M. Stan.
: >
: >Palac was in Minneapolis when Dworkin and MacKinnon taught there and
: >first tried to foist their civil rights ordinance on the good people
: of >the city. At the time, Palac heartily approved. Her essay opens:
: >
: " 'Burn it,' I said. The words clinked together like ice cubes. 'Burn
: >every last bit of it. Or it's over.' "
: -----------
: Well, I would never want to burn porn; it serves a useful
: purpose, and I'm a free speech kinda gal. There's another
: book that supports the right to read and right porn, which
: I greatly admire, i.e. "Girls Lean Back Everywhere",....
: ...sorry the author's name escapes me.
Edward DeGrazia.
But he doesn't talk much about pornography, just the history of
obscenity law, which encompassed the right to look at pornography. Much
of his book is about works by Edmund Wilson, D.H. Lawrence and James
Joyce, as well as what more people would regard as pornography.
: The idea behind the
: title of this great book was that there was an essay
: written by that title, that talked about a young girl
: watching a fireworks display with a man....for the first
: time. She hikes up her skirt so that a bit of her ankle
: and pantalette is in the man's view. The thoughts are
: from the young girl.....who is thinking more of roman
: candles as the man looks at her....This was banned in
: Boston, not because the good folks of Boston wanted to
: protect women from men, but rather from their own thoughts
: of sex.
Better brush up your research. The title of DeGrazia's book is NOT from
an essay by the same title; it comes merely from a woman's remarks (was
it a book review) about Joyce's _Ulysses_. The incident with the
fireworks is from the "Nausicaa" chapter of the novel; the "young girl"
is a young woman who is, as we used to say, "handicapped" -- as I recall,
she walks with a pronounced limp -- and the watching man is our hero,
Leopold Bloom, who has conveniently arranged to be away from his home
while his wife Molly, whom he loves very much, is meeting her singing
teacher (and lover), Blazes Boylan.
You can tell the woman knows Bloom is admiring her; she likes the
attention.
The quote "Girls Lean Back Everywhere" is from a woman's remark that such
events happen all the time and the republic does not topple.
: We seem to agree that porn is free speech. Where we don't
: agree is on a more personal level. I can encourage the
: erotic without ever subjugating a man; I expect the same
: kind of treatment from a man, if he wishes to associate with
: me.
What you can't seem to get past is your notion that looking at
pornography necessarily "subjugates" ANYBODY. And that appears to be
partly because you presume to know what goes on in men's heads ...
without showing any evidence that you have talked to ay of them about it.
: We make all kinds of judgements about personal re-
: lationships; that's all we have to go on.
And such judgments are often wrong, we find, after talking to the other
person about the matter.
: If you walk
: into a woman's house after a first date, and see raw ham-
: burger left out on her kitchen counter (with maggots in
: it), she may be a very nice person, but you may choose
: never to see her again. :]
And um ... just what were you trying to suggest with this wholly
inappropriate metaphor ... as well as what looks like a rather snide
emoticon?
David Loftus
David J. Loftus
Marcel (mh...@idt.net) wrote:
: Le Mur wrote in message <344af24b...@snews.zippo.com>...
: >Why are women depicted in sexual activites considered "objectified",
: >but women depicted in other activities are not? Puritanism?
: >
: Who says women depicted in other activities are not "objectified?" A
: woman pictured behind a vacuum cleaner or in the kitchen is just as
: "objectified."
Correct. But we don't see women composing panegyrics, committing civil
disobedience, and vandalizing property because of images of women behind
a vacuum cleaner or in the kitchen.
: >->
: >It all comes down to "sex is bad".
: >
: >->
: >->David Loftus
: >
: No it doesn't.
Please be careful with your attributions. My name should not be attached
to the passage above it.
That being said, you might consider offering a responding argument to
buttress your position. Who cares if you think "No it doesn't"? What
we'd like to consider is whether your opinion is justifiable.
David Loftus
David J. Loftus
Avedon Carol (ave...@thirdworld.uk) wrote:
: Hint: Buying a photograph of a woman is in no way similar to buying an
: actual woman. Becoming sexually aroused by an image of a woman is in
: no way similar to turning the woman pictured into an object.
: Photography is not voodoo; the camera does not steal your soul.
Isn't that odd? No matter how often I look at pictures of food, my
hunger is not slaked, either.
David Loftus
David J. Loftus
Marcel (mh...@idt.net) wrote:
: Avedon Carol wrote in message <344f6f2a...@news.demon.co.uk>...
: >On 18 Oct 1997 06:27:15 GMT, lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann
: >Hemingway) wrote:
: >Based on what? ESP? I've never heard of any man who says he looks at
: >pornography because he sees women as consumables or chattel. Neither
: >have I heard of a single study that supports that view. Where did you
: >get it? Are you actually reading their minds?
: Then you haven't read the recent posting of El "something or other".
Oh, we read it all right.
We know spams -- or deliberate attempts to outrage the easily baited --
when we see them.
: Also, just because someone doesn't say women are chattel doesn't mean
: that isn't how they are viewing them. Surely you understand this.
: MInd reading isn't required.
What we understand is that for millenia, men dictated what women thought
and valued without inviting any input from women.
Therefore, Avedon Carol and I believe it's a mistake for women to do the
same thing to men.
What Carol Ann Hemingway says about what men think and believe says far
more about Carol Ann Hemingway than it has said about men, so far.
David Loftus
averti
I never have either. Nor have I encountered a _woman_ who
uses pornography because she views men as chattel. I haven't
even encountered a woman who uses pornography because she
views _women_ as a chattel. And if anybody in the social
spectrum would be likely to do a little chattel-izing, it
would be a hardcore leather dyke 8).
Face it. For some people, porn is instead of sexual relations,
for others, it is influential, for still others, parallel.
averti
Kirk Job Sluder wrote:
[...]
> > Who says women depicted in other activities are not "objectified?" A woman
> > pictured behind a vacuum cleaner or in the kitchen is just as "objectified."
>
> Of course then we get into the question of what is "objectification?" If
> it can be applied to such a diverse scope of situations from the sexual
> to the necessary then how can we use the concept?
We can't 8). Heck, Greek Theater was full of objectified
archetypes; likewise Javanese Shadow puppet plays. If a character
is presented in a summary sort of way, to emphasize one or two
main features--that's how humans communicate many ideas, not just ideas
like ''women are good for sex.'' A runway fashion model is
objectified to beat hell; the message is something like ''A
woman is an expensive work of art, and if you buy these
clothes and accessories, you will become as beautiful an
object as the model.''
If you'll recall the end of Altman's ''Pret a Porter,'' where
the models marched down the runway totally nude, there was
a subtle, funny point being made: the gowns are not really
what makes the ''object'' special. These tall, skinny young
women projected the same sort of air and specialness with
no clothes on as they did in any of the fashions.
>
> This is one reason why I don't like the concept. Basically it comes
> down to that a person is objectified if he or she is photographed
> doing an activity you don't approve of, or if the image is used in
> a way you don't approve of.
So it seems. I have reading a lot of French magazines
lately, and one of the things I have noticed about advertising
symbology in that culture is that both men and women are
''objectifed'' and used as very obvious come-ons, for
all manner of products. Where in the US would we would see
''Buy this Yamaha bike and fly over the plains'' the
French campaign, like as not, is ''Buy this Yamaha bike
and bag this total naked gorgeous redhead standing right
next to it.''
Yet, unlike porn, they're not ''selling'' the woman--they're
selling the bike and kind of promising the woman as a premium 8).
>
> Of course many sex-positive feminists have pointed out crying out
> "objectification" in regards to pornography in fact devalues the
> expression of the women (and men) who choose to make pornography.
> The performer is not an "object" but a participant in a dialogue
> between performer and viewer.
>
As a more or less out-of-the-closet pornographer (semi-
retired but available on a consulting basis) I have to agree
with the assertion. Just because an art form is about sex,
and sex makes people nervous, doesn't cancel out that
dialogue.
I write or draw sexually explicit art for the same general
reasons as I would still lifes: To evoke some emotional
response in the viewer, to make something new, and to show
the world what a clever and talented fellow I am 8).
> I suspect this also applies to performers such as Martha Stewart
> and other cooks who perform in kitchens.
>
Certainly Julia Child, who as an icon is both more entertaining
and more impressive than Martha 8).
averti
David J. Loftus wrote:
>
> Avedon Carol (ave...@thirdworld.uk) wrote:
>
> : Hint: Buying a photograph of a woman is in no way similar to buying an
> : actual woman.
Er, well, in both cases you're not supposed to touch them
until they are fully developed.
>Becoming sexually aroused by an image of a woman is in
> : no way similar to turning the woman pictured into an object.
> : Photography is not voodoo; the camera does not steal your soul.
>
> Isn't that odd? No matter how often I look at pictures of food, my
> hunger is not slaked, either.
If food DID work like porn, you would have to grab a bunch of
food, lock yourself in the bathroom, and gobble it all down
while your mother banged on the door asking what you were
_doing_ in there.
Kirk Job Sluder
Jean Coyle <jean...@earthlink.net> writes:
> I disagree, when measured over the lifetime usage of the tool,
> industrial or commercial stuff is often the better buy even for
> home use.I don't constantly want to be replacing the same stuff.
The problem is of course, why should I spend between %25-%100 extra
for disposable items like gloves and sponges that I don't wish to
keep around, or for items like vacum cleaners that I can't afoard?
In many cases I do bite the bullet and get professional quality mops
and brooms. On the other hand, I think I should have a choice.
>
> Jean
recook77
I personally find a lot of porn to be hysterically funny. The pictures of
"lusty-eyed" women and "studly" men; the dorky shots of women giving
blowjobs; the hilariously awful pornographic writing.
I have a friend who once had a collection of pornographic novels. I
browsed through a couple and giggled at the prose; it was that bad.
And don't get me started on Henry Miller. "I watched as her cunt crawled
around in the dark." (This, I recall, is from one of those Tropic Of
books.)
So when I hear people throw a hissy fit over porn I can only shake my head.
IMO, this stuff isn't offensive; it's *stupid*.
--
"Green is the color of my true love's exoskeleton. She only has a thousand
eyes for me."
Zorak, "Cartoon Planet"
David J. Loftus
averti (ave...@hotmail.com) wrote:
: David J. Loftus wrote:
: >
: > Avedon Carol (ave...@thirdworld.uk) wrote:
: >
: > : Becoming sexually aroused by an image of a woman is in
: > : no way similar to turning the woman pictured into an object.
: > : Photography is not voodoo; the camera does not steal your soul.
: >
: > Isn't that odd? No matter how often I look at pictures of food, my
: > hunger is not slaked, either.
: If food DID work like porn, you would have to grab a bunch of
: food, lock yourself in the bathroom, and gobble it all down
: while your mother banged on the door asking what you were
: _doing_ in there.
However, in the case of food, my mother was constantly shoving it at me.
In the case of Playboy magazine, she merely kept her peace.
David Loftus
David J. Loftus
<dloftEI...@netcom.com> <629ks3$8...@sjx-ixn8.ix.netcom.com> <344f6f2a...@news.demon.co.uk> <62daug$m...@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <slrn64kebp...@savageoasis.fq> <62dj12$d...@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <dloftEI...@netcom.com> <01bcddaf$7e2069c0$36a
6bacd@default>:
Organization: Netcom On-Line Services
Distribution:
recook77 (reco...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: So when I hear people throw a hissy fit over porn I can only shake my
: head. IMO, this stuff isn't offensive; it's *stupid*.
Quite.
You have to wonder what it could be in that stupid stuff that would make
people so uncomfortable.
It's a little like having a cow over all the violence in Tom 'n' Jerry or
Bugs Bunny cartoons.
David Loftus
r.so...@worldnet.att.net
>... Snap-On tools.
Snap-On tools used to have the greatest calendars back in the days when
one
could walk into a plumbing supply house and see one of their calendars.
Does
Snap-On still publish this calendars?
Rich Soyack
janet
In article <01bcddaf$7e2069c0$36a6bacd@default>, recook77
<reco...@ix.netcom.com> writes
>
>I personally find a lot of porn to be hysterically funny. The pictures of
>"lusty-eyed" women and "studly" men; the dorky shots of women giving
>blowjobs; the hilariously awful pornographic writing.
>
>I have a friend who once had a collection of pornographic novels. I
>browsed through a couple and giggled at the prose; it was that bad.
>
>And don't get me started on Henry Miller. "I watched as her cunt crawled
>around in the dark." (This, I recall, is from one of those Tropic Of
>books.)
It was a scene where a woman was walking around in stockings and nothing
else that got me: this was LONG before the days of "hold-ups": gravity,
one assumes, had the day off...? :)
>
>So when I hear people throw a hissy fit over porn I can only shake my head.
> IMO, this stuff isn't offensive; it's *stupid*.
>
--
janet
"Our trouble is not our womanhood, but the artificial trammels of custom under
false conditions" E. C. Stanton, 1890
John Mack
On 19 Oct 1997 14:53:50 GMT, lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann
Hemingway) wrote:
[...]
> Sure I have. What you must understand is that we are
> all (each of us) free to associate with those with whom
> we share common bonds. I don't subjugate men, and I don't
> associate with men who subjugate women. The "subjugation"
> in the eye of the beholder....is a subjective choice that
> each of us determines in our selection of friends, asso-
> ciates, lovers and mates. In other words, it's a per-
> sonal decision.
[...]
> Oh balderdash! In choosing my own associates, I define
> my own reality. I'm not trying to take away your right
> to view porn; don't try to tell me with whom I must
> associate.
[...]
> What is it you think I can' distinguish between,
> my support of your right to view porn, or my
> unwillingness to befriend you because you do?
You mean, all it takes to alienate you, is to own pictures of naked
women? ^_^
Well, how about that! Because, now that you mention it, I've got
collection of porno mags around here somewhere. I've got 200 issues of
Playboy ... no, make that 500 ... no, 1000 issues of Playboy right
here. Yep. Stacked right next to my modem. Not to mention Hustler, and
the other one (what's it called? Help me out here, guys ...). Honest.
In fact, I'm betting most of the guys here have collections as bad or
worse than mine (back me up here, guys ...)
What a shame, huh? I guess you won't want to hang out on soc.men with
us any more, right?
'Bye. ^_^
John Mack
South-East Queensland Men's Issues Homepage:
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~tarim/men/menspage.htm
Last Major Update: April 30, 1997
Last Tinkered With: 7 September, 1997
"You are women. Cunning ... deceit ... treachery ... manipulation ... guile ... these are your stock-in-trade. But, they make a poor shield against a hard blade and a murderous impulse." - Dave Sim, Reads.
"Oh, XEEE-NAAAA??? C'mere a minute, there's someone here you need to meet!" - Cici in Texas, on soc.men
David J. Loftus
recook77 (reco...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: Problem is, erotica/porn is often so badly executed. Well-written erotica
: can be very arousing--note Michelle Slung's collection of women's erotica,
: "Slow Hand."
What's REALLY irritating (especially to anti-porn feminists who once in a
blue moon will let a little of their own arousal show) is that even the
really bad stuff can turn you on occasionally.
: It's telling that sexual expression is often considered to be
: lowest-common-denominator stuff a la "Basic Instinct" (another
: giggle-inducer destined for MST3K status).
I found "Basic Instinct" a very immoral movie, much worse than most
garden-variety pornography.
David Loftus
averti
recook77 wrote:
>
> I personally find a lot of porn to be hysterically funny. The pictures of
> "lusty-eyed" women and "studly" men; the dorky shots of women giving
> blowjobs; the hilariously awful pornographic writing.
Yeah. Visually, depictions of real sex miss as much as
photographs of real warfare. And some procedures are just plain
sillier-looking than others 8).
>
> I have a friend who once had a collection of pornographic novels. I
> browsed through a couple and giggled at the prose; it was that bad.
>
> And don't get me started on Henry Miller. "I watched as her cunt crawled
> around in the dark." (This, I recall, is from one of those Tropic Of
> books.)
Well, whaddya want from the early 1930's? 8) Millers' work--
some of which can be quite charming--was not designed to arouse;
only to portray the fact that some people's lives are centered
around fucking 8).
>
> So when I hear people throw a hissy fit over porn I can only shake my head.
> IMO, this stuff isn't offensive; it's *stupid*.
>
Live and let live 8).
Eric Conrad
In article <dloftEI...@netcom.com>,>: Hint: Buying a photograph of a woman is in no way similar to buying an
>: actual woman. Becoming sexually aroused by an image of a woman is in
>: no way similar to turning the woman pictured into an object.
>: Photography is not voodoo; the camera does not steal your soul.
>
>
>Isn't that odd? No matter how often I look at pictures of food, my
>hunger is not slaked, either.
That's because you aren't properly objectifying the food.
Incidentally, unlike people who pose for pornography, food is not paid
for its use in pictures of mastication. I hereby call on all readers
to boycott all pictures of food until such time as food is paid a decent
modelling fee. It is high time we ended this crass exploitation of
food.
Eric
--
Eric Conrad (eco...@math.ohio-state.edu)
http://www.math.ohio-state.edu/~econrad/
Department of Mathematics
The Ohio State University
Avedon Carol
On Sun, 19 Oct 1997 11:57:35 -0400, "Marcel" <mh...@idt.net> wrote:
>
>Avedon Carol wrote in message <344f6f2a...@news.demon.co.uk>...
>>On 18 Oct 1997 06:27:15 GMT, lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann
>>Hemingway) wrote:
>>Based on what? ESP? I've never heard of any man who says he looks at
>>pornography because he sees women as consumables or chattel. Neither
>>have I heard of a single study that supports that view. Where did you
>>get it? Are you actually reading their minds?
>>
>
>Then you haven't read the recent posting of El "something or other". Also,
>just because someone doesn't say women are chattel doesn't mean that isn't
>how they are viewing them. Surely you understand this. MInd reading isn't
>required.
It is if you are going to assert it as fact.
--
A. Carol Feminists Against Censorship
ave...@cix.co.uk http://www.fiawol.demon.co.uk/FAC/
"Homophobia isn't there to keep homosexuals in line. It's
there to keep everyone else in line." - Joanna Russ
Note: The reply field lies.
David J. Loftus
Eric Conrad (eco...@math.ohio-state.edu) wrote:
: In article <dloftEI...@netcom.com>,
: David J. Loftus <dl...@netcom.com> wrote:
: >Isn't that odd? No matter how often I look at pictures of food, my
: >hunger is not slaked, either.
: That's because you aren't properly objectifying the food.
Oh, is that it?
How does one do that? Reduce it mentally to fats, sugars, and ... oboy,
I'm getting hungry.
: Incidentally, unlike people who pose for pornography, food is not paid
: for its use in pictures of mastication. I hereby call on all readers
: to boycott all pictures of food until such time as food is paid a decent
: modelling fee. It is high time we ended this crass exploitation of
: food.
Not only that, but I've heard that some of the food that models for such
representations is thereafter consumed. Without consent.
Scandalous.
David Loftus
Eric Pepke
> On Sun, 19 Oct 1997 11:57:35 -0400, "Marcel" <mh...@idt.net> wrote:
> >Then you haven't read the recent posting of El "something or other". Also,
> >just because someone doesn't say women are chattel doesn't mean that isn't
> >how they are viewing them. Surely you understand this. MInd reading isn't
> >required.
>
> It is if you are going to assert it as fact.
It's simpler than that.
Pro-censorship types do not care at all what men think when they look at
porn, as evinced by the fact that they don't ask, don't listen, and argue
shrilly when told otherwise.
All they care about is that they get to believe that men think something
or other bad, and that this produces festivals of mouth froth from people
who believe as they do.
The purpose of the anti-porn rally is exactly the same as the Orwellian
two-minute hate, and the centers of the brain that it rewards are a hell
of a lot closer to the notions of chattel and sexualized violence than
anything they criticize. As is usual, it turns out to be a projection
onto reality of something inside the twists of their own brains.
Eric Pepke | Everyone's dream
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute | Is to unstep
Florida State University | The butterfly.
pe...@scri.fsu.edu | -EP
recook77
David J. Loftus <dl...@netcom.com> wrote in article
<dloftEI...@netcom.com>...
> recook77 (reco...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>
> : Problem is, erotica/porn is often so badly executed. Well-written
erotica
> : can be very arousing--note Michelle Slung's collection of women's
erotica,
> : "Slow Hand."
>
> What's REALLY irritating (especially to anti-porn feminists who once in a
> blue moon will let a little of their own arousal show) is that even the
> really bad stuff can turn you on occasionally.
Can you give examples of this?
recook77
averti <ave...@hotmail.com> wrote in article <344D24...@hotmail.com>...
> David J. Loftus wrote:
> >
> > recook77 (reco...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
> >
>
> > : It's telling that sexual expression is often considered to be
> > : lowest-common-denominator stuff a la "Basic Instinct" (another
> > : giggle-inducer destined for MST3K status).
> >
> > I found "Basic Instinct" a very immoral movie, much worse than most
> > garden-variety pornography.
>
> Oddly enough, there was a huge round of demonstrations and
> protests against that movie when it opened in San Francisco.
> (One thing I found odd is that I had no idea there were that
> many bisexuals to be found 8): I think some of them were
> ringers from the Save the Spotted Owl organizations.)
>
> Nevertheless, take out the murders and you have a rather
> closely observed documentary of a certain kind of multiple-way
> relationship soap opera that plays out every day around
> these parts 8). Immoral to a great degree, in that everybody
> is gaming everybody else, murder or no.
>
(snip)
I cannot even take the film seriously; I find it to be little more than a
piece of Hollywood screen trash, created by hacks to appeal to the lowest
common denominator. That, IMO, was the most loathsome thing about it.
You had Joe Ezsterhas, who is shaping up to be the John Norman of the
1990s, with his open contempt of women. You had Sharon Stone, who rode
that pussy shot for all it was worth...until people realized that she
wasn't much of an actress. You had Michael Douglas, who appears to be
typecast as the poor opressed white male.
All the same, I laughed hysterically at the awful acting and lame dialogue.
This movie belongs alongside "Mommy Dearest" as an unintentional camp
classic.
ua...@cr47c.staffs.ac.uk
In article <dloftEI...@netcom.com>,
dl...@netcom.com (David J. Loftus) wrote:
>
> recook77 (reco...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>
> : Problem is, erotica/porn is often so badly executed. Well-written erotica
> : can be very arousing--note Michelle Slung's collection of women's erotica,
> : "Slow Hand."
I am writing some porn myself, largely so that I
could call myself a pornographer. It is surprisingly difficult, although
this may be due to lack of talent on my part. Even immensely skilled
people such as myself can't be perfect in every area 8-)
If anyone is interested, it is some mild het D/s and s&m stuff. Almost
vanilla compared to the porn I have read online. I hadn't realised
just how perverted some people were. I feel almost (aarggh, horror!)
normal. But don't you ever call me that! 8-)
> What's REALLY irritating (especially to anti-porn feminists who once in a
> blue moon will let a little of their own arousal show) is that even the
> really bad stuff can turn you on occasionally.
Well, it's still about sex, isn't it? If you can ignore the
ridiculousness of it, it can work.
My favourite line from a porn film was spoken by a character to a man
she had supposedly never seen before, at a bus stop. After
checking the timetable and discovering a change to the bus times, she
exclaimed "Fuck! It's already gone!". Hearing this, the man looked
at the timetable and agreed. Her first words to him were the
marvellously realistic line "Now that we've missed the bus, why don't
we fuck?". Did I laugh....I mean, how often does that happen?
> : It's telling that sexual expression is often considered to be
> : lowest-common-denominator stuff a la "Basic Instinct" (another
> : giggle-inducer destined for MST3K status).
>
> I found "Basic Instinct" a very immoral movie, much worse than most
> garden-variety pornography.
As did I.
It also raised a couple of questions with me;
Is there a mainstream film with a fake snuff scene in it with
a male killer and a female victim? (BI opens with a fake
snuff scene with a female killer and a male victim, faked with
the skill and resources of the mainstream film industry).
Would a 1/10th second glimpse of a man's pubes be considered
more offensive than such a scene, if it existed? (The fake
snuff scene in BI aroused no comment, presumably because
the victim was male, but there was a lot of fuss over the
fact that you could see a woman's pubes for about 1/10th
second).
Angilion
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <344BC5...@hotmail.com> averti <ave...@hotmail.com> writes:
>David J. Loftus wrote:
>>
>> Avedon Carol (ave...@thirdworld.uk) wrote:
>>
>> : Hint: Buying a photograph of a woman is in no way similar to
buying an> : actual woman.
>
>until they are fully developed.
----------
Hehehe....I like that. :]
-----------
>
>
>>Becoming sexually aroused by an image of a woman is in
>> : no way similar to turning the woman pictured into an object.
>> : Photography is not voodoo; the camera does not steal your soul.
-----------
I suppose that would depend upon how the photos
were acquired, as to whether or not they are
soul-stealing. For example, cameras have been
placed (unknown) in places where girls/women
change their clothing, i.e. school gymnasiums.
That picture may very well be soul-stealing.
----------------------
>>
> Lefty
Jason Stokes
In article <8774851...@dejanews.com>, ua...@cr47c.staffs.ac.uk
<ua...@cr47c.staffs.ac.uk> wrote:
>Is there a mainstream film with a fake snuff scene in it with
>a male killer and a female victim?
Snuff?
No, you want mainstream. Ok, "Strange Days."
--
Jason Stokes: j.stokes (at) bohm.anu.edu.au
I use a spam block. Replace (at) with @ to discover my email address.
janet
In article <344D01...@hotmail.com>, averti <ave...@hotmail.com>
writes
snippage...
>
>If it were the case that the majority of women were stimulated
>to spend money by the sight of a nude man, we would be up to
>our eyebrows in nude men 8).
Sounds good to me... Do we get to pick the men???
> Look, advertising IS objectification
>and manipulation, whether it is peddling totally useless
>goods or promoting AIDS research. ON THE AVERAGE men like to
>look at women and are uncomfortable looking at men (at least
>in a come-hither type context). Women like to look at other
>(usually sexually non-threatening) women and are indifferent
>to looking at men.
>
Argh! ALL men? ALL women??? C'mon, I know any number of men who would
MUCH prefer to look at nude men than nude women, and vice versa!
>First rule of fishing; if you caught fish doing what you did
>last time, do it again this time.
--
janet
Sic friatur crustum dulce
John Reinhagen
Also sprach Carol Ann Hemingway:
<attribution for fourth-generation quote was snipped>
>>> : Photography is not voodoo; the camera does not steal your soul.
> were acquired, as to whether or not they are
> soul-stealing. For example, cameras have been
> placed (unknown) in places where girls/women
> change their clothing, i.e. school gymnasiums.
> That picture may very well be soul-stealing.
PHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
So the victimns of this crime are now soulless, robbed of their humanity and
their spiritual immortality?
I know you're addicted to stupid histrionics, but even for you this is going
a bit far.
"Barbed wire and emery
Bitty gritty sand
Broken glass -- your sorry arse
HAND HAND HAND"
-- wally
JCR
--
"I love liberty, I hate equality."
-- John Randolph of Roanoke
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <344ca173...@news.ozemail.com.au>
tarim.SP...@ozemail.com.au (John Mack) writes:
>
>On 19 Oct 1997 14:53:50 GMT, lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann
>Hemingway) wrote:
>
>[...]
>> Sure I have. What you must understand is that we are
>> all (each of us) free to associate with those with whom
>> we share common bonds. I don't subjugate men, and I
don't
>> associate with men who subjugate women. The
"subjugation"
>> in the eye of the beholder....is a subjective choice that
>> each of us determines in our selection of friends, asso-
>> ciates, lovers and mates. In other words, it's a per-
>> sonal decision.
>[...]
>> Oh balderdash! In choosing my own associates, I define
>> my own reality. I'm not trying to take away your right
>> to view porn; don't try to tell me with whom I must
>> associate.
>[...]
>> What is it you think I can' distinguish between,
>> my support of your right to view porn, or my
>> unwillingness to befriend you because you do?
>
>You mean, all it takes to alienate you, is to own pictures of naked
>women? ^_^
-----------
No. It takes my decision that your owning pictures
of naked women involves subjugation, which it may, or
may not, depending upon the circumstances. Personal
relationships are just that....personal. My subjective
analysis of your intent is more than enough to alienate
me, and correctly so.
-----------------------
>
>Well, how about that! Because, now that you mention it, I've got
>collection of porno mags around here somewhere. I've got 200 issues of
>Playboy ... no, make that 500 ... no, 1000 issues of Playboy right
>here. Yep. Stacked right next to my modem. Not to mention Hustler, and
>the other one (what's it called? Help me out here, guys ...). Honest.
>In fact, I'm betting most of the guys here have collections as bad or
>worse than mine (back me up here, guys ...)
>
>What a shame, huh? I guess you won't want to hang out on soc.men with
>us any more, right?
----------
I don't write here because you are my associate; I'm
only communicating for reasons of my own. In other words,
I don't consider you a friend. Is that clear enough?
------------
>
>'Bye. ^_^
>
>John Mack
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <344D01...@hotmail.com> averti <ave...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
>>
>> In <dloftEI...@netcom.com> dl...@netcom.com (David J. Loftus)
>> writes:
>> >
>> >Carol Ann Hemingway (lef...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>> >
>> >: ---------
>> >: No. Only the woman was used to sell artichokes...as
>> >: usual. My daughter found a Playgirl centerfold and
>> >: then a picture of an artichoke. Which gender do YOU
>> >: think is used to have their SEXUAL APPEAL sell product
>> >: more often?
>> >
>> >Women, obviously.
>> >
>> >But that's because -- so far -- women have had greater appeal on
the>> >basis of their physical appearance to everyone (that is to say,
>> >potential consumers of BOTH sexes). That's why there are so many
>> female >models used to sell products in Vogue, Mademoiselle,
Glamour,>> Seventeen, >etc., etc., as well as GQ and Sports
Illustrated.
>>
>> --------
>> It is also because both men and women know that women
>> are there as consumables; buy the car, the girl is
>> free mentality.
>
>Do you seriously derive the message ''Buy the lipstick, the
>man is free'' from ads in women's mags? You're rather alone
>in your interpretation, then. The successful companies that
>sell ''women'' stuff all figured out in the 1940's that
>women buy internal image, men buy external image. The lipstick
>ad promise is not that the buyer will bag a free man; it is
>that SHE will look better to HERSELF.
>
>
>
>>Her teacher's reaction to using a male
>> to sell artichokes...was off the wall. He didn't like
>> it. He found it sexist; the principle decided to take
>> both pictures down and avoid potential conflict.
>> ---------------------------------
>> >
>> >You haven't said what's wrong with using a woman to sell an
artichoke.
>> >
>> >
>> >David Loftus
>>
>> -----------
>> If we are going to objectify, let's put all the cards on
>> the table so nude men in fields of artichokes can be used
>> when the little woman does the shopping :]
>>
>
>If it were the case that the majority of women were stimulated
>to spend money by the sight of a nude man, we would be up to
>and manipulation, whether it is peddling totally useless
>goods or promoting AIDS research. ON THE AVERAGE men like to
>look at women and are uncomfortable looking at men (at least
>in a come-hither type context). Women like to look at other
>(usually sexually non-threatening) women and are indifferent
>to looking at men.
---------
I don't agree. Women have been taught to subvert their
sexuality....that is changing. As it changes you will
see more and more women objectifying men.
-------------------------
>
>First rule of fishing; if you caught fish doing what you did
>last time, do it again this time.
-----------
That's why I caught the fish of sexism by having my
daughter do in school what I did at the office; both
pictures were removed, which was my goal.
Lefty
David J. Loftus
<dloftEI...@netcom.com> <01bcddc5$85ec8f60$f729b7c7@default>
<dloftEI...@netcom.com> <01bcde76$ce3ad2c0$f0d823c7@default>:
Organization: Netcom On-Line Services
Distribution:
recook77 (reco...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: > What's REALLY irritating (especially to anti-porn feminists who once
: > in a blue moon will let a little of their own arousal show) is that
: > even the really bad stuff can turn you on occasionally.
: Can you give examples of this?
I've seen both Robin Morgan and Susan Cole admit, in the most indirect
manner, without getting into specifics, that, even if we might get turned
on now and then by a depiction of male domination of females, that
doesn't make it right. This weakness can be overcome, etc., etc.
If you want specific cites, let me know, and give me a week to hunt 'em
up. Don't be afraid to remind me later.
David Loftus
David J. Loftus
<dloftEI...@netcom.com> <629ks3$8...@sjx-ixn8.ix.netcom.com> <344f6f2a...@news.demon.co.uk> <62daug$m...@nnrp4.farm.idt.net> <slrn64kebp...@savageoasis.fq> <62dj12$d...@nnrp3.farm.idt.net> <dloftEI...@netcom.com> <01bcddaf$7e2069c0$36a
6bacd@default> <62jh24$s...@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>:
Organization: Netcom On-Line Services
Distribution:
Carol Ann Hemingway (lef...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: >So when I hear people throw a hissy fit over porn I can only shake my
: head. IMO, this stuff isn't offensive; it's *stupid*.
: ----------
: I agree with you. I don't care about it...unless it
: effects my personal life, which it doesn't. I'll tell
: you what I find most amusing about it is the amount of
: money men spend to see naked women....talk about your
: redistribution of wealth. :] :] :]
Well, it would be if more of the women got more of the money that's
involved. Too often, men still own the distribution system and take the
biggest cut.
Free-lance call girls and free-lance trophy wives such as Marla Maples
are among the relative few who seem to do all right for themselves on
this basis.
David Loftus
David J. Loftus
Carol Ann Hemingway (lef...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: >>Becoming sexually aroused by an image of a woman is in
: >> : no way similar to turning the woman pictured into an object.
: >> : Photography is not voodoo; the camera does not steal your soul.
: -----------
: I suppose that would depend upon how the photos
: were acquired, as to whether or not they are
: soul-stealing. For example, cameras have been
: placed (unknown) in places where girls/women
: change their clothing, i.e. school gymnasiums.
: That picture may very well be soul-stealing.
Please define your terms.
While I think just about anyone here would agree that such an act is an
unwarranted invasion of privacy and should be (in fact, IS) illegal, I
don't see how it could be shown to be "soul-stealing," which strikes me
as a highly subjective, even sentimental, evaluation of the matter.
David Loftus
David J. Loftus
Carol Ann Hemingway (lef...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: >You mean, all it takes to alienate you, is to own pictures of naked
: >women? ^_^
: -----------
: No. It takes my decision that your owning pictures
: of naked women involves subjugation, which it may, or
: may not, depending upon the circumstances.
That's not how you put it originally. Your position was: If a man owns
any of this material, he is beyond the pale as far as I am concerned, period.
: Personal
: relationships are just that....personal. My subjective
: analysis of your intent is more than enough to alienate
: me, and correctly so.
: -----------------------
As I've said before, you're quite welcome to your own tastes and
choices. What some of us question is the quasi-objective judgments in
which you cloak them.
David Loftus
David J. Loftus
averti (ave...@hotmail.com) wrote:
: Yay for you! I am always encouraged when somebody attempts erotic
: writing who clearly is skilled at REGULAR writing 8). (40 or so
: years ago, Gore Vidal wrote a bunch of homoerotic stories under
: various pen names, and his friends said that they were so well
: written and so polished that they tended to put the reader to
: sleep 8)).
Anais Nin had something of the same problem when she took over from
Henry Miller writing pornography at a dollar a page for a wealthy collector.
: And then there's Harvey Keitel 8). Whose A pictures play in
: chain theaters and art houses, and whose wedding tackle has been
: front and center (Bad Lieutenant, The Piano) so much and so often
: that many fans could probly draw it from memory 8).
The one I remember was the one that the woman saws off the body of her
strangled lover, on screen, with a knife, in Nagisa Oshima's "In the
Realm of the Senses."
: _erect_ male members seem to be the last frontier.
Yep. Western Civilization would undoubtedly topple if those were allowed
on mainstream movie screens.
David Loftus
janet
><dloftEI...@netcom.com> <01bcddc5$85ec8f60$f729b7c7@default>
><dloftEI...@netcom.com> <01bcde76$ce3ad2c0$f0d823c7@default>:
>Organization: Netcom On-Line Services
>Distribution:
>
>
>: > What's REALLY irritating (especially to anti-porn feminists who once
>: > in a blue moon will let a little of their own arousal show) is that
>: > even the really bad stuff can turn you on occasionally.
>
>: Can you give examples of this?
>
>
>I've seen both Robin Morgan and Susan Cole admit, in the most indirect
>manner, without getting into specifics, that, even if we might get turned
>on now and then by a depiction of male domination of females, that
>doesn't make it right. This weakness can be overcome, etc., etc.
>
>If you want specific cites, let me know, and give me a week to hunt 'em
>up. Don't be afraid to remind me later.
>
>
I think it might be fair to say, though, that just because something
turns person X on, that does not mean that person X LIKES to be turned
on in that way... Someone once said to me that they really resented
being turned on by certain things when they had no desire to feel that
way at that time, in that place: they felt manipulated.
I'm not sure I would agree with that, but I can understand it.
What I don't think I could understand would be the attempt to see being
turned on (aroused, if you like) as a weakness, whatever the cause.
>David Loftus
willy
Mainstream? YES.....
Hardcore (1979) Rated-R 108 min. Directed By: Paul Schrader
Starring: George C. Scott, Peter Boyle.
Willy
recook77
David J. Loftus <dl...@netcom.com> wrote in article
<dloftEI...@netcom.com>...
> averti (ave...@hotmail.com) wrote:
(snip)
>
> : _erect_ male members seem to be the last frontier.
>
> Yep. Western Civilization would undoubtedly topple if those were allowed
> on mainstream movie screens.
"Boogie Nights", a film about the 1970s porn industry, does show a man's
erect male member. (Okay, it's a prothesthetic device worn by Mark
Wahlberg. Close enough, no?)
It's the end of civilization as we know it and I feel fine. :D
>
>
> David Loftus
>
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <slrn64qplj...@savageoasis.fq> wr...@savageoasis.fc.net (John
Reinhagen) writes:
>
>Also sprach Carol Ann Hemingway:
><attribution for fourth-generation quote was snipped>
>> I suppose that would depend upon how the photos
>> were acquired, as to whether or not they are
>> soul-stealing. For example, cameras have been
>> placed (unknown) in places where girls/women
>> change their clothing, i.e. school gymnasiums.
>> That picture may very well be soul-stealing.
>
>PHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
>
>So the victimns of this crime are now soulless, robbed of their
humanity andtheir spiritual immortality?
-----------
If you were a 13 year old girl, and your naked picture
was placed on the internet without your permission
how might you feel?
------------
>
>I know you're addicted to stupid histrionics, but even for you this is
going>a bit far.
I can't remember the news story, but a coach was
relieved of his duties by filming in the girls
gym dressing room.
Lefty
David J. Loftus
janet (ja...@allestree.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: >I've seen both Robin Morgan and Susan Cole admit, in the most indirect
: >manner, without getting into specifics, that, even if we might get turned
: >on now and then by a depiction of male domination of females, that
: >doesn't make it right. This weakness can be overcome, etc., etc.
: >
: >If you want specific cites, let me know, and give me a week to hunt 'em
: >up. Don't be afraid to remind me later.
: I think it might be fair to say, though, that just because something
: turns person X on, that does not mean that person X LIKES to be turned
: on in that way... Someone once said to me that they really resented
: being turned on by certain things when they had no desire to feel that
: way at that time, in that place: they felt manipulated.
Certainly. But that puts the matter firmly in the realm of taste, rather
than morality, political correctness, etc. These feminists resemble
fundamentalist Christians and censorious parents who say to themselves
and others, "No! Bad girl! Must cleanse your mind of such thoughts."
: I'm not sure I would agree with that, but I can understand it.
: What I don't think I could understand would be the attempt to see being
: turned on (aroused, if you like) as a weakness, whatever the cause.
It's a weakness because it is immoral, or uncalled for, or contrary to
the goals and values of the great feminist cause.
David Loftus
Carol Ann Hemingway
>
>>
>> ----------
>> I agree with you. I don't care about it...unless it
>> effects my personal life, which it doesn't. I'll tell
>> you what I find most amusing about it is the amount of
>> money men spend to see naked women....talk about your
>> redistribution of wealth. :] :] :]
>
>hands of other men 8).
-----------
Well, you would have to consider a few things; i.e.
would the woman involved be making more or less
money at McDonalds, and whatever makes you think
that women don't pimp? When hookers get too old
to hook, they sometimes go into management. :]
Also, many girls run their own show.
----------
>
>I am of course heavily biased, but I don't see money spent
>on depections of naked women as any less respectable than
>money spent on box seats at the hockey game. Or money
>spent collecting Lone Ranger lunch boxes. At least with porn
>you can DO something with it 8).
>
>>
>> ----------
I called a local paper about two years ago to complain
about a sexist advertisement in the sports section. In
fact, I was able to speak to their marketing folks. I
explained to them that I didn't object to the sexist
ad, but I objected to it being placed in the SPORTS
section. They told me the folks who bought the space
wanted it there. The folks in charge of marketing both
had pre-teen and teen daughters. I asked them if they
wanted their girls to look up their sports teams and
see that kind of ad directed at selling women as sport.
They moved the ad to another section; the sellers pulled
the advertising. The reason I mention this is to show
that the nature of "women as consumables" depends upon
where it is shown, as much as THAT it is shown, or maybe
more.
-------------------------
>
>How much money do you think men should spend to see naked women?
As much as possible. :]
>Is there a reasonable amount, beyond which it becomes
>hazardous to character or bank account? I would spend ten or twenty
>bucks to see a naked picture of YOU, sight unseen, and you,
>unlike the professional models, could keep all the money 8).
---------
Hahahaha! I'm afraid you'd be bitterly dissapointed; of
course, you could recoup your profits by the market plan
of selling my picture to those here who would enjoy using
it as pornographic target practice.
Lefty
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <344E29...@hotmail.com> averti <ave...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
(edit)
>And then there's Harvey Keitel 8). Whose A pictures play in
>chain theaters and art houses, and whose wedding tackle has been
>front and center (Bad Lieutenant, The Piano) so much and so often
>that many fans could probly draw it from memory 8).
--------
Of course, there is nudity, and then there is gratuitous
nudity for the benefit of bringing teen-aged boys and
developmentally delayed men to the theatre. :] I think
the American viewing audience, even teen boys, are starting
to demand more.
-------------------------
>
>_erect_ male members seem to be the last frontier.
From what I understand, the movie "Boogie Nights" was
supposed to end that tabboo, but it got an "R" rating,
so I guess we'll have to wait for someone more
creative.
Lefty
Searchlight
Gerard S. Harbison wrote:
> Marcel wrote:
> >
> > Le Mur wrote in message <344af24b...@snews.zippo.com>...
> > >Why are women depicted in sexual activites considered
> "objectified",
> > >but women depicted in other activities are not? Puritanism?
> > >
> >
> > Who says women depicted in other activities are not "objectified?"
> A woman
> > pictured behind a vacuum cleaner or in the kitchen is just as
> "objectified."
But not -- to the feminist mind -- women pictured behindriveting guns
or in corporate boardrooms. It's only the things
*feminists don't like* that qualify as "objectification."
> It seems we're rapidly converging on the Islamic belief that any
> depiction of the human form is evil.
>
> Moreover, since men have nasty little imaginations, letting them see
> the
> female form will result in mental objectification. So let's make sure
> they don't, by telling women to cover all exposed skin when they
> venture
> outside.
>
> Feminism or fundamentalism? Is there really that big a difference?
Mostly in the terminology:
Fundamentalism Feminism
-------------------------------------------------------
The Devil. The Patriarchy.
Sin. "Sexism."
Carnality, Exploitation,
lewdness, degradation,
smut, objectification,
filth. "lookism."
Persecuted Believers. Victims.
Heathen. Non-feminists.
God's Kingdom on Earth. The "gender-neutral
society."
et cetera.
The two groups use differing language to try and
convince themselves that they don't resemble
each other in any way. But at bottom, there's
far more uniting them than separating them. Once
you dig past the superficial details, one fanatical
ideology-bound mindset behaves much like another.
SL
ua...@cr47c.staffs.ac.uk
In article <629hi0$7...@sjx-ixn8.ix.netcom.com>,
lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway) wrote:
>In <m3sotzd...@localhost.localdomain> Kirk Job Sluder
><csl...@indiana.edu> writes:
>>
>>lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway) writes:
>>> Objectification of either gender takes time, effort,
>>> money, etc away from viewing humans as whole; the
>>> more time money, etc. we spend in objectification,
>>> the less we will have to view people as whole. It's
>>> a matter of choice.
I think the point of contention is whether viewing someone in a sexual
way is objectification. I don't think so. Surely objectification is
the perception and/or treatment of a person as an object?
>>Of course there is one problem with this. Why is a person portrayed
>>in the nude or in a sexual context an "object" rather than the
>"subject">of a performance? I mean, we don't say that an actor or
>actress is >an object when giving a non-sexual performance, why does
>this apply >to an erotic performance?
> I don't think it DOES only apply to erotic performance.
> In fact, erotic performance purely for the sake of art
> might indeed be less objectifying than a gal in a tight
> shirt selling a car. I think objectification is much
> like pornography in that it may be hard to define,
> but we know it when we see it. In that regard, if my
> "new possibility" had a collection of "nudes" hanging on
> his wall, I probably would not likely be offended;
Yet a collection of nude pictures is almost certain to be porn. I
thought you wouldn't associate with a man who had porn?
Is this another case of differing interpretations of "porn"?
What about an erotic performance purely for the sake of
eroticism? Little or no artistic merit, just a sexual display
by the performer to be enjoyed by the audience (and possibly
the performer). For example, my local gay club has a regular
stripshow. Actually, they have two regular stripshows (women
for women, men for men). Art it is not.
What about erotic performance for the sake of promoting sexual
freedom and openness? Annie Sprinkle comes to mind.
> if he had a picture of him in Hooters, I probably wouldn't
> stick around to find out what was in the other rooms. :]
Obviously a library of literary classics and philosophical treatises 8-)
lea...@northernnet.com
In article <01bcdf50$00a19b20$c7ccb7c7@default>,
I don't think I've ever seen a penis, period, in a mainstream movie
except for "The Fisher King."
I was watching the movie on video in my house and Robin Williams and Jeff
Bridges were cavorting in the park, and all of a sudden I went, whoa,
that's Robin Williams' _penis_! The scene was dark, and I got close to
the screen to verify this, and I was just, like, wow, a penis in the
movies. A legitimately famous person's penis, even.
I mean, tons of guys show their _butts_, but they hardly ever turn
around. :)
And Robin Williams seems to like his, too. He refers to it and grabs it
enough in his stand-up acts. :P
I just thought it was kinda neat. It wasn't a sexual thing, that scene;
it just kinda had a free feeling to it.
Laurie, whose favorite dramatic actor is Robin Williams (well, him and
Peter O'Toole)
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <01bcdf4f$904e6b00$c7ccb7c7@default> "recook77"
<reco...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
>
>
>Carol Ann Hemingway <lef...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
><62jh24$s...@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>...
>> In <01bcddaf$7e2069c0$36a6bacd@default> "recook77"
>> <reco...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>> >
>> >
>> >I personally find a lot of porn to be hysterically funny. The
>> pictures of
>> >"lusty-eyed" women and "studly" men; the dorky shots of women
giving
>> >blowjobs; the hilariously awful pornographic writing.
>> >
>> >I have a friend who once had a collection of pornographic novels.
I
>> >browsed through a couple and giggled at the prose; it was that bad.
>> >
>> >And don't get me started on Henry Miller. "I watched as her cunt
>> crawledaround in the dark." (This, I recall, is from one of those
>> Tropic Of>books.)
>> >
>> >So when I hear people throw a hissy fit over porn I can only shake
my>> head. IMO, this stuff isn't offensive; it's *stupid*.
>>
>> I agree with you. I don't care about it...unless it
>> effects my personal life, which it doesn't. I'll tell
>> you what I find most amusing about it is the amount of
>> money men spend to see naked women....talk about your
>> redistribution of wealth. :] :] :]
>>
>
then>do a striptease for him. ;D
----------
As long as he's willing to reciprocate, I'm there. :]
Lefty
averti
> : humanity andtheir spiritual immortality?
>
> : -----------
> : If you were a 13 year old girl, and your naked picture
> : was placed on the internet without your permission
> : how might you feel?
> : ------------
Is this one of those ''If a tree falls in the forest...''
propositions?
If I found out, I would likely be _upset_. Upset is not the
same as partial soul theft.
Actuall, I believe I know of such a case, and both the girl and
her parents were angry, but did not consider it to be the
worst and most evil thing that had ever happened.
>
> Ah. The worst case scenario validates your case against pornography as a
> whole? How often does the above happen?
On the net, practically never, I would think, in that there is
a gazillion googlebytes of amateur porn pictures _voluntarily_
plastered all over cyberspace.
David J. Loftus
ua...@cr47c.staffs.ac.uk wrote:
: I think the point of contention is whether viewing someone in a sexual
: way is objectification. I don't think so. Surely objectification is
: the perception and/or treatment of a person as an object?
And there is a WORLD of difference between the former and latter parts of
your quasi-definition. It's the difference between thinking to oneself
that somebody is a fool or an asshole, and and informing the person
of your opinion and treating him or her that way.
Being able to separate the two and choose the first but not the second is
what makes a good receptionist, for example.
David Loftus
David J. Loftus
<dloftEI...@netcom.com> <01bcddc5$85ec8f60$f729b7c7@default>
<dloftEI...@netcom.com> <8774851...@dejanews.com> <344E29...@hotmail.com> <dloftEI...@netcom.com> <01bcdf50$00a19b20$c7ccb7c7@default> <8776600...@dejanews.com>:
Organization: Netcom On-Line Services
Distribution:
lea...@northernnet.com wrote:
: I don't think I've ever seen a penis, period, in a mainstream movie
: except for "The Fisher King."
Ah, heck, there've been others. Even going back -- gasp -- almost 30
years!
Fetch yourself a video copy of Ken Russell's adaptation of D.H.
Lawrence's "Women in Love," with British heavyweight actors Glenda
Jackson, Alan Bates, and Oliver Reed. (Can't remember the name of the
cute young thing who played Ursula; she wasn't in a league with the
other three but she was easy on the eye ... even if she looked like a
circa 1968 British "bird" rather than a character from Lawrence.)
Anyway, in the nude male wrestling scene, straight from the novel, you
can see Bates and Reed dangling their dinguses on screen. Not
particularly erotic, I would think, but interesting.
David Loftus
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <8776522...@dejanews.com> ua...@cr47c.staffs.ac.uk writes:
>
>In article <629hi0$7...@sjx-ixn8.ix.netcom.com>,
> lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway) wrote:
>
>>In <m3sotzd...@localhost.localdomain> Kirk Job Sluder
>><csl...@indiana.edu> writes:
>>>
>>>lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway) writes:
>
>>>> Objectification of either gender takes time, effort,
>>>> money, etc away from viewing humans as whole; the
>>>> more time money, etc. we spend in objectification,
>>>> the less we will have to view people as whole. It's
>>>> a matter of choice.
>
>way is objectification. I don't think so. Surely objectification is
>the perception and/or treatment of a person as an object?
----------
When one purchases a magazine to view women's bodies,
those bodies can only represent objectification; there
is simply no other way to explain it. :] One can
either VIEW a person as an object or TREAT a person
as an object. It's not an either/or situation.
--------------------------------------------
>
>>>Of course there is one problem with this. Why is a person portrayed
>>>in the nude or in a sexual context an "object" rather than the
>>"subject">of a performance? I mean, we don't say that an actor or
>>actress is >an object when giving a non-sexual performance, why does
>>this apply >to an erotic performance?
>
>> I don't think it DOES only apply to erotic performance.
>> In fact, erotic performance purely for the sake of art
>> might indeed be less objectifying than a gal in a tight
>> shirt selling a car. I think objectification is much
>> like pornography in that it may be hard to define,
>> but we know it when we see it. In that regard, if my
>> "new possibility" had a collection of "nudes" hanging on
>> his wall, I probably would not likely be offended;
>
>Yet a collection of nude pictures is almost certain to be porn. I
>thought you wouldn't associate with a man who had porn?
-----------
I disagree. A collection of nudes need not be pornographic
at all; many Italian frescos, mostly nudes, have nothing to do
with sex at all. Micaelangelos David???? Also, Mr.
Maplethorpe created quite a stir with his collection...not
only of nudes, but other statements made by his art,
sometimes depicting homosexual acts, and other less than
common sexual activities. I wouldn't confuse the reasons
for his art with OBJECTIFICATION, would you?
-------------------------------------------
>
>Is this another case of differing interpretations of "porn"?
---------
Sure. While I defend your right to determine what
it is on your own...you may not tell ME how to determine
what it is ....in my own life. That's why I'm a free
speech kinda gal.
-----------------
>
>What about an erotic performance purely for the sake of
>eroticism? Little or no artistic merit, just a sexual display
>by the performer to be enjoyed by the audience (and possibly
>the performer). For example, my local gay club has a regular
>stripshow. Actually, they have two regular stripshows (women
>for women, men for men). Art it is not.
---------
I think you should be free to pursue that which
you enjoy, as long as it's legal. However, don't
expect me to support such a place in my neighborhood.
:] Time, place and manner restrictions apply, but
I would support your right to free speech....If
stripping is viewed as symbolic speech, I would
support the legality of such a club. Of course,
where symbolic speech is altered from speech to
action, there is still a question of definition.
--------------------------------------
>
>What about erotic performance for the sake of promoting sexual
>freedom and openness? Annie Sprinkle comes to mind.
-----------
I would find both performances similar...legally.
----------------
>
>> if he had a picture of him in Hooters, I probably wouldn't
>> stick around to find out what was in the other rooms. :]
>
>Obviously a library of literary classics and philosophical treatises
8-)
>
>Angilion
>
-----------
I guess that would be.....my loss. :] I'm willing
to risk it.
Lefty
Allan Cybulskie
Carol Ann Hemingway <lef...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<62qi83$3...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>...
> In <8776522...@dejanews.com> ua...@cr47c.staffs.ac.uk writes:
> >
> >In article <629hi0$7...@sjx-ixn8.ix.netcom.com>,
> > lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway) wrote:
> >
> >>In <m3sotzd...@localhost.localdomain> Kirk Job Sluder
> >><csl...@indiana.edu> writes:
> >>>
> >>>lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway) writes:
> >
> >>>> Objectification of either gender takes time, effort,
> >>>> money, etc away from viewing humans as whole; the
> >>>> more time money, etc. we spend in objectification,
> >>>> the less we will have to view people as whole. It's
> >>>> a matter of choice.
> >
> >I think the point of contention is whether viewing someone in a sexual
> >way is objectification. I don't think so. Surely objectification is
> >the perception and/or treatment of a person as an object?
>
> ----------
> When one purchases a magazine to view women's bodies,
> those bodies can only represent objectification; there
> is simply no other way to explain it. :] One can
> either VIEW a person as an object or TREAT a person
> as an object. It's not an either/or situation.
> --------------------------------------------
But if I go and buy a magazine to read an article by a woman, or a book by
her, thus buying it only to view her mind, is that "objectification", and
is it equally as bad? If I have sex with someone, is that objectification?
What exactly does it mean to be "objectified"? Is it simply to focus only
on one trait? Is it to use someone as a means to an end?
BTW, I find it interesting that you say that someone can "either VIEW a
person as an object or TREAT a person as an object", and then you say "It's
not an either/or situation". Then why is it outlined as an either/or in
the statement? Care to clarify <grin>?
Why not? Are you certain of his reasons? And are the reasons it's made
more important than the reasons it is viewed?
--
Allan Cybulskie
" 'Do you ever feel lonely?' ' Every time I awake'
'Does your heart ever break? ' 'Every time I awake'
'Do you ever feel lonely?' 'Every time I awake'
'Do you think it's a mistake?' 'Every time I awake' "
-- from "Promises" by Frozen Ghost
Kirk Job Sluder
lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway) writes:
> ----------
> When one purchases a magazine to view women's bodies,
> those bodies can only represent objectification; there
> is simply no other way to explain it. :] One can
> either VIEW a person as an object or TREAT a person
> as an object. It's not an either/or situation.
> --------------------------------------------
Ahh, so objectification is in the eye of the viewer and not in the
content of the work?
Again, the fundamental difference of opinion is if viewing a work of
art or liturature that is intended to give a person a stiffy or a slippy
(if one is a woman) counts as reducing the people who posed for the
artwork as objects. Many would claim that pornographic liturature
is no more objectification than a movie such as Thelma and Louise
intended to produce a different response.
> -----------
> I disagree. A collection of nudes need not be pornographic
> at all; many Italian frescos, mostly nudes, have nothing to do
> with sex at all. Micaelangelos David???? Also, Mr.
> Maplethorpe created quite a stir with his collection...not
> only of nudes, but other statements made by his art,
> sometimes depicting homosexual acts, and other less than
> common sexual activities. I wouldn't confuse the reasons
> for his art with OBJECTIFICATION, would you?
> -------------------------------------------
Ahh, but many people have objected to Mapplethorpe's art because in their
eyes it is objectification. (Indeed much of it falls under the Dworkin/
Mackinnon legal definition of actionable pornography.) But why is
Mapplethorpe treated with a higher standard than say Tiffany Million
or Candida Royale who make statements with the movies they produce?
I do think there is a bit of sexism involved here. When Mapplethorpe
prints a photograph of two men fucking it is art. When Annie Sprinkle
prints a photograph of two women fucking it is pornography.
> Lefty
--
Kirk Job Sluder (csl...@indiana.edu)
Personal Home Page (http://php.ucs.indiana.edu/~csluder/home.html)
"Al Pacino is the Robert DeNiro of acting." -Charlie the Australopithecene
David J. Loftus
Carol Ann Hemingway (lef...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: >I think the point of contention is whether viewing someone in a sexual
: >way is objectification. I don't think so. Surely objectification is
: >the perception and/or treatment of a person as an object?
: ----------
: When one purchases a magazine to view women's bodies,
: those bodies can only represent objectification; there
: is simply no other way to explain it. :]
How can you prove or justify this?
If a single other person views it differently, then you are already wrong.
What if, for instance, the magazine consists of reproductions of nudes by
Goya, Picasso, and Gauguin?
: One can
: either VIEW a person as an object or TREAT a person
: as an object. It's not an either/or situation.
: --------------------------------------------
Now I KNOW you don't know what you're talking about. First you offer an
"either one of the other choice, then you immediately assert that it's
"not" an either/or situation.
Care to rephrase the above in more coherent terms?
: >Yet a collection of nude pictures is almost certain to be porn. I
: >thought you wouldn't associate with a man who had porn?
: -----------
: I disagree. A collection of nudes need not be pornographic
: at all; many Italian frescos, mostly nudes, have nothing to do
: with sex at all. Micaelangelos David????
But surely an individual might look upon them lasciviously. Which would
make them pornographic, would it not?
: Also, Mr.
: Maplethorpe created quite a stir with his collection...not
: only of nudes, but other statements made by his art,
: sometimes depicting homosexual acts, and other less than
: common sexual activities. I wouldn't confuse the reasons
: for his art with OBJECTIFICATION, would you?
: -------------------------------------------
Of course I would.
He presented images of people, in moments of time, engaged in specific
activities (or in highly unlikely positions -- think of the cheap leisure
suit, no head or face, with a black penis hanging out of the fly), and
not in their "wholeness." I'd say it was quite objectifying. Was it
wrong? No. Was it art? Usually.
I sense that you regard "objectification" has a highly negative term. I
see it as value neutral.
: >Is this another case of differing interpretations of "porn"?
: ---------
: Sure. While I defend your right to determine what
: it is on your own...you may not tell ME how to determine
: what it is ....in my own life. That's why I'm a free
: speech kinda gal.
: -----------------
Except that you promiscuously insist on asserting what men who use
pornography are feeling and thinking, and that it is inherently bad --
all of which is based on a subjective judgment of yours with no little or
no evidence of outside input save for feminist ideology divorced from the
real world as men experience it.
David Loftus
John Mack
On 22 Oct 1997 15:13:23 GMT, lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann
Hemingway) wrote:
>>You mean, all it takes to alienate you, is to own pictures of naked
>>women? ^_^
>
> -----------
> No. It takes my decision that your owning pictures
> of naked women involves subjugation, which it may, or
> may not, depending upon the circumstances.
You're weaseling again, Lefty. You previously made it clear that you
would not "befriend" anyone who viewed porn (and going from
"associate" to "befriend" is something of a weasel itself, I suspect).
Is stockpiling nudy magazines enough to cause you to choose not to
associate with a person, or not?
>Personal
> relationships are just that....personal. My subjective
> analysis of your intent is more than enough to alienate
> me, and correctly so.
> -----------------------
Oh, right; so merely describing putative piles of porn isn't enough to
make you flee soc.men in disgust, you have to decide that I buy the
stuff to subjugate women?
What if it was just to subjugate you personally, ie. it was my way of
thumbing my nose at your neo-puritanism? Would that count?
>>Well, how about that! Because, now that you mention it, I've got
>>collection of porno mags around here somewhere. I've got 200 issues of
>>Playboy ... no, make that 500 ... no, 1000 issues of Playboy right
>>here. Yep. Stacked right next to my modem. Not to mention Hustler, and
>>the other one (what's it called? Help me out here, guys ...). Honest.
>>In fact, I'm betting most of the guys here have collections as bad or
>>worse than mine (back me up here, guys ...)
>>
>>What a shame, huh? I guess you won't want to hang out on soc.men with
>>us any more, right?
>
> ----------
> I don't write here because you are my associate;
Ooh, another nice, weaselly segue, from associate (verb: join, unite;
combine for common purpose; have intercourse (with); connect in idea),
to associate (noun: partner; companion; subordinate member of an
association). No, I'm not your associate, but when you choose to
interact with me and others on soc.men, you are thereby associating
with us.
>I'm
> only communicating for reasons of my own.
Uh-huh. Nice to get all this attention, isn't it?
>In other words,
> I don't consider you a friend.
Aww ... <SNIFF>
>Is that clear enough?
Yeah, except for one thing; why are you still here?
John Mack
South-East Queensland Men's Issues Homepage:
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~tarim/men/menspage.htm
Last Major Update: April 30, 1997
Last Tinkered With: 7 September, 1997
"You are women. Cunning ... deceit ... treachery ... manipulation ... guile ... these are your stock-in-trade. But, they make a poor shield against a hard blade and a murderous impulse." - Dave Sim, Reads.
"Oh, XEEE-NAAAA??? C'mere a minute, there's someone here you need to meet!" - Cici in Texas, on soc.men
Carol Ann Hemingway
>
>Except that you promiscuously insist on asserting what men who use
>pornography are feeling and thinking, and that it is inherently bad --
>all of which is based on a subjective judgment of yours with no little
or >no evidence of outside input save for feminist ideology divorced
from the >real world as men experience it.
-----------
Not at all. I simply don't befriend men who "I think"
are objectifying women. That is a personal choice.
They have the right to buy skin rags; they simply
don't have the right to buy them if they also want
to date me. The choice is clear. When we choose
our friends, lovers, mates, etc. we have a criteria.
Some women might only date "tall" men; it's a personal
choice. If you want to fault me for my personal
choices, feel free, but it won't do much good. I also
prefer men with dark hair to blondes....and I tend to
bake chocolate chip cookies more than peanut butter,
even though it's discriminatory. :]
Lefty
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <34512B...@hotmail.com> averti <ave...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
Lefty:
>> ---------
>> Sure. While I defend your right to determine what
>> it is on your own...you may not tell ME how to determine
>> what it is ....in my own life. That's why I'm a free
>> speech kinda gal.
>
>Okay fine. But when you accuse somebody or something of
>perpetrating that which you call ''objectification,'' you're
>no longer IN your own life. You're in the life of others.
>
>> -----------------
If I am making a personal determination of what kinds
of friends I want in my personal life, I have every
right to determine what I think about... what they
think. After, all we choose friends and lovers for
the quality of their thoughts.
====================================
>> >
>> >What about an erotic performance purely for the sake of
>> >eroticism? Little or no artistic merit, just a sexual display
>> >by the performer to be enjoyed by the audience (and possibly
>> >the performer). For example, my local gay club has a regular
>> >stripshow. Actually, they have two regular stripshows (women
>> >for women, men for men). Art it is not.
>>
>
>I disagree but I spose this really is a parallel topic.
>
>> ---------
>> I think you should be free to pursue that which
>> you enjoy, as long as it's legal. However, don't
>> expect me to support such a place in my neighborhood.
>
>Really? I can see not wanting to have it take place in your
>living room, but who are you to ''not support'' something
>to which you yourself will never be exposed?
>
>> :] Time, place and manner restrictions apply, but
>> I would support your right to free speech....If
>> stripping is viewed as symbolic speech, I would
>> support the legality of such a club. Of course,
>> where symbolic speech is altered from speech to
>> action, there is still a question of definition.
>> --------------------------------------
>> >
>> >What about erotic performance for the sake of promoting sexual
>> >freedom and openness? Annie Sprinkle comes to mind.
>>
>
>Can't get any open-er than that without risk of injury 8).
>
>> -----------
>> I would find both performances similar...legally.
>> ----------------
>>
>
>What does that mean? That you would stick to a ''live and let
>live'' policy? Let the people who want to see up into a
>woman's cervix and have her boobs draped over their heads
>for snapshots do so in peace and freedom?
------------------
Sure, subject to time, place and manner restrictions.
and subject to whether the court finds that symbolic
speech, or "ACTION". I still wouldn't befriend
anyone who participated, however. I have, from
time to time used the example of a nude review...
....of only Jewish women, tatooed like camp sur-
vivors. If we only use anorexic women, that would
be a "plus". I'm wondering where the court would
find that "symbolic speech" had ventured into
"action".
-------------------
>> >
>> >> if he had a picture of him in Hooters, I probably wouldn't
>> >> stick around to find out what was in the other rooms. :]
>> >
>> >Obviously a library of literary classics and philosophical
treatises
>> 8-)
>> >
>> >Angilion
>> >
>> -----------
>> I guess that would be.....my loss. :] I'm willing
>> to risk it.
>>
>> Lefty
>
>You know, I think you are having us on. Being the kind of
>woman who would abruptly drop a man for one unwitting violation
>of your own Uniform Code of Decency just doesn't jibe with
>other character traits you have shown here.
----------
Which ones, i.e. my penchant for whips and chains,
or my vociferous disgust with fundamentalists?
:]
I am only partly "having you on". I do have my own code
of decency, but it may not be as clear as "I" wish it
were. :] (this is me poking fun at myself) Life is
certainly not black and white. I suppose the most
"fair" thing I could say about how I choose my friends,
is that if they don't have a very strong moral code of
their own, they won't BE my friends. That doesn't mean
they must adopt a "traditional" moral code, or my own.
It means they must live by the values they deem im-
portant in their own lives. I find that when people have
that type of morality, objectification is not an issue.
Lefty
lea...@northernnet.com
In article <dloftEI...@netcom.com>,
dl...@netcom.com (David J. Loftus) wrote:
>
> <dloftEI...@netcom.com> <01bcddc5$85ec8f60$f729b7c7@default>
> <dloftEI...@netcom.com> <8774851...@dejanews.com> <344E29...@hotmail.com> <dloftEI...@netcom.com> <01bcdf50$00a19b20$c7ccb7c7@default> <8776600...@dejanews.com>:
> Organization: Netcom On-Line Services
> Distribution:
>
> lea...@northernnet.com wrote:
>
> : I don't think I've ever seen a penis, period, in a mainstream movie
> : except for "The Fisher King."
>
> Ah, heck, there've been others. Even going back -- gasp -- almost 30
> years!
>
Oh, that doesn't surprise me or anything. I just meant that I hadn't seen
it before, so it kinda took me aback.
> Fetch yourself a video copy of Ken Russell's adaptation of D.H.
> Lawrence's "Women in Love," with British heavyweight actors Glenda
> Jackson, Alan Bates, and Oliver Reed. (Can't remember the name of the
> cute young thing who played Ursula; she wasn't in a league with the
> other three but she was easy on the eye ... even if she looked like a
> circa 1968 British "bird" rather than a character from Lawrence.)
>
> Anyway, in the nude male wrestling scene, straight from the novel, you
> can see Bates and Reed dangling their dinguses on screen. Not
> particularly erotic, I would think, but interesting.
>
> David Loftus
I guess I would agree with that, and it kind of makes me wonder why naked
male bodies in non-sexual situations don't seem to turn women on as much
as naked female bodies in non-sexual situations turn men on. I mean, as
far as the sexual parts of the body. Maybe it's somewhat because the
penises aren't erect, and maybe most women are used to seeing penises
erect right away in a sexual situation, especially if they're not used to
spending any major naked time alone with a man in non-sexual situations.
And women's bodies look roughly the same whether they're ready for sex or
ready for the shower.
I hope that made sense. I've been up for an hour and a half and I still
haven't cleared out my aching head.
Laurie
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <m3k9f29...@localhost.localdomain> Kirk Job Sluder
>> When one purchases a magazine to view women's bodies,
>> those bodies can only represent objectification; there
>> either VIEW a person as an object or TREAT a person
>> as an object.
>
>Ahh, so objectification is in the eye of the viewer and not in the
>content of the work?
---------
Objectification can be the INTENT of the viewer. Or
the viewer could be looking for information, i.e.
art, science, some purpose that is more than
objectification. I don't think I would say it's in
the "eye" of the viewer. That's why I used the
example of "Hooters".....there's not much erotic
going on there....yet we can pretty much determine
the intent of those who enter therein....i.e. to
support sexism. Sure, the chicken may be passable,
the service may be good :] but we all really know
why folks go there....."objectification".
>
>Again, the fundamental difference of opinion is if viewing a work of
>art or liturature that is intended to give a person a stiffy or a
slippy>(if one is a woman) counts as reducing the people who posed for
the >artwork as objects. Many would claim that pornographic liturature
>is no more objectification than a movie such as Thelma and Louise
>intended to produce a different response.
----------
Well, Thelma and Louise chose death, so they wouldn't
have to deal with men who went to Hooters :] The fact
remains that if there is some artistic merit....and
the speech (or symbolic speech) is not only INTENDED
for "purient interests", it is protected speech. I
totally support protected speech.
--------------------------------------
>
>> -----------
>> I disagree. A collection of nudes need not be pornographic
>> at all; many Italian frescos, mostly nudes, have nothing to do
>> with sex at all. Micaelangelos David???? Also, Mr.
>> Maplethorpe created quite a stir with his collection...not
>> only of nudes, but other statements made by his art,
>> sometimes depicting homosexual acts, and other less than
>> common sexual activities. I wouldn't confuse the reasons
>> for his art with OBJECTIFICATION, would you?
>> -------------------------------------------
>
>Ahh, but many people have objected to Mapplethorpe's art because in
their>eyes it is objectification. (Indeed much of it falls under the
Dworkin/Mackinnon legal definition of actionable pornography.) But why
is Mapplethorpe treated with a higher standard than say Tiffany Million
>or Candida Royale who make statements with the movies they produce?
----------
I would suggest that legally, there is no difference. We
have been looking at legal vs. moral principles; one is
applied to all of us (legal); the other is individual.
I have NO (ZERO, NADA) desire to limit the production or
restrict the circulation of porn; that isn't my objective.
I think Dworkin/Mac are wrong about that. However, I
do think there's a difference between the INTENT of viewing
art, and the INTENT to objectify, on a moral level. That
means that while I would limit my life (and choice of
friends) based upon my own moral ideas about
objectification, no one else has the obligation to do the
same, unless they agree with my moral position.
======================================
>
>I do think there is a bit of sexism involved here. When Mapplethorpe
>prints a photograph of two men fucking it is art. When Annie Sprinkle
>prints a photograph of two women fucking it is pornography.
>
----------
Well; I think they both could be art. That doesn't
mean I would support both of them on a personal level,
but ....I might. The intent of the viewer determines
the level of objectification; each of us are able to
select our own friends, lovers, etc. by the values they
support. If someone wanted to be a part of my life,
the values they supported would not include
objectification. I hope I answered your question.
======================
Lefty
_*The Navigator*_
Marg Petersen wrote:
>
> In article <34519cfe...@news.ozemail.com.au>,
> John Mack <tarim.SP...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >
> >Yeah, except for one thing; why are you still here?
> >John Mack
>
> job, but someone has to do it. :-)
>
> Marg
>
> --
> Marg Petersen Member PSEB: Official Sonneteer JLP-SOL
> god...@peak.org http://www.peak.org/~goddess
> "At ease Ensign, before you sprain something." - Capt. Janeway
******************************************
Aaaah my, that works. LOL
John.
******************************************
ua...@cr47c.staffs.ac.uk
In article <62qi83$3...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>,
lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway) wrote:
>
> In <8776522...@dejanews.com> ua...@cr47c.staffs.ac.uk writes:
> >
> >In article <629hi0$7...@sjx-ixn8.ix.netcom.com>,
> > lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway) wrote:
> >
> >>In <m3sotzd...@localhost.localdomain> Kirk Job Sluder
> >><csl...@indiana.edu> writes:
> >>>
> >>>lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway) writes:
> >
> >>>> Objectification of either gender takes time, effort,
> >>>> money, etc away from viewing humans as whole; the
> >>>> more time money, etc. we spend in objectification,
> >>>> the less we will have to view people as whole. It's
> >>>> a matter of choice.
> >
> >I think the point of contention is whether viewing someone in a sexual
> >way is objectification. I don't think so. Surely objectification is
> >the perception and/or treatment of a person as an object?
>
> those bodies can only represent objectification; there
> is simply no other way to explain it. :] One can
> either VIEW a person as an object or TREAT a person
> as an object. It's not an either/or situation.
If you treat a person as an object, surely you must also view them
as an object? It may not be an either/or situation, but I never
said it was.
*You* may objectify women who pose nude in mags/whatever. That's
you. It is not *necessarily* what other people do. Some people
see women, not objects. It's kinda the point of it all. Few
people find objects exciting.
What do you think about people sexually looking at men?
> >>>Of course there is one problem with this. Why is a person portrayed
> >>>in the nude or in a sexual context an "object" rather than the
> >>"subject">of a performance? I mean, we don't say that an actor or
> >>actress is >an object when giving a non-sexual performance, why does
> >>this apply >to an erotic performance?
> >
> >> I don't think it DOES only apply to erotic performance.
> >> In fact, erotic performance purely for the sake of art
> >> might indeed be less objectifying than a gal in a tight
> >> shirt selling a car. I think objectification is much
> >> like pornography in that it may be hard to define,
> >> but we know it when we see it. In that regard, if my
> >> "new possibility" had a collection of "nudes" hanging on
> >> his wall, I probably would not likely be offended;
> >
> >Yet a collection of nude pictures is almost certain to be porn. I
> >thought you wouldn't associate with a man who had porn?
>
> I disagree. A collection of nudes need not be pornographic
> at all; many Italian frescos, mostly nudes, have nothing to do
> with sex at all. Micaelangelos David???? Also, Mr.
> Maplethorpe created quite a stir with his collection...not
> only of nudes, but other statements made by his art,
> sometimes depicting homosexual acts, and other less than
> common sexual activities. I wouldn't confuse the reasons
> for his art with OBJECTIFICATION, would you?
No. Neither would I confuse sex or sexual display with objectification.
> >Is this another case of differing interpretations of "porn"?
> Sure. While I defend your right to determine what
> it is on your own...you may not tell ME how to determine
> what it is ....in my own life. That's why I'm a free
> speech kinda gal.
Comms error;
Perhaps I should have asked; Is this another case of differing
definitions of "porn"?
> >What about an erotic performance purely for the sake of
> >eroticism? Little or no artistic merit, just a sexual display
> >by the performer to be enjoyed by the audience (and possibly
> >the performer). For example, my local gay club has a regular
> >stripshow. Actually, they have two regular stripshows (women
> >for women, men for men). Art it is not.
> I think you should be free to pursue that which
> you enjoy, as long as it's legal. However, don't
> expect me to support such a place in my neighborhood.
> :] Time, place and manner restrictions apply, but
> I would support your right to free speech....If
> stripping is viewed as symbolic speech, I would
> support the legality of such a club. Of course,
> where symbolic speech is altered from speech to
> action, there is still a question of definition.
Let me seek some clarification....
You seem to think that all sex and sexual display should be
kept private (hidden?), although your support for free speech
ensures that you do not want other people to have to behave
according to your opinions.
Right?
> >What about erotic performance for the sake of promoting sexual
> >freedom and openness? Annie Sprinkle comes to mind.
>
> I would find both performances similar...legally.
What about morally?
[..]
Angilion
ua...@cr47c.staffs.ac.uk
>
> : I think the point of contention is whether viewing someone in a sexual
> : way is objectification. I don't think so. Surely objectification is
> : the perception and/or treatment of a person as an object?
>
> your quasi-definition. It's the difference between thinking to oneself
> that somebody is a fool or an asshole, and and informing the person
> of your opinion and treating him or her that way.
I agree. They are both objectification, but there is certainly a
world of difference between them.
> Being able to separate the two and choose the first but not the second is
> what makes a good receptionist, for example.
And having a staff room to vent in afterwards is what makes a less
stressful environment for receptionists et al.
A radio mike was once left on in our staffroom. *Not* a good
idea.
janet
In article <34512B...@hotmail.com>, averti <ave...@hotmail.com>
writes
>> -----------
>> I disagree. A collection of nudes need not be pornographic
>> at all; many Italian frescos, mostly nudes, have nothing to do
>> with sex at all. Micaelangelos David????
>
>and boy-lover that he was, knew what he was saying and
>who he was saying it to. The strange combination of a
>heavily muscled man's body and a tiny, little boys' penis
>is a dead giveaway. That 90% of the viewers are not reminded
>of what fun it is to bugger young men is more a reflection
>of our times than his.
Y'know, I thought this.
And I don't think it just works for men who prefer younger men, either.
That statue is one sensual piece of sculpture, and Buonarotti knew
EXACTLY what he was doing when he made it.
--
janet
Sic friatur crustum dulce
Allan Cybulskie
Carol Ann Hemingway <lef...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<62t2a3$j...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>...
> In <01bce0c0$91e55600$0102...@test.carleton.ca> "Allan Cybulskie"
> <acyb...@chat.carleton.ca> writes:
> >> ----------
> >> When one purchases a magazine to view women's bodies,
> >> those bodies can only represent objectification; there
> >> is simply no other way to explain it. :] One can
> >> either VIEW a person as an object or TREAT a person
> >> as an object. It's not an either/or situation.
> >> --------------------------------------------
> >
> >But if I go and buy a magazine to read an article by a woman, or a
> book by>her, thus buying it only to view her mind, is that
> "objectification", and>is it equally as bad? If I have sex with
> someone, is that objectification?> What exactly does it mean to be
> "objectified"? Is it simply to focus only on one trait? Is it to use
> someone as a means to an end?
>
> -----------
> I'm not sure what you mean....there are any number of
> reasons for a person to purchase books; buying skin
> rags has a fairly obvious purpose. People have sex
> for a variety of reasons as well. I don't consider
> sex, per se, objectification, but it CAN be.
> -------------------------------
First, please tell me what "objectified" really means.
Second, if I buy a magazine to read a woman's opinion on something, I'm
only buying it to "view" her mind; in fact, I only want her mind on one
specific topic. Is this different from buying a skin rag? And if it is,
is it because in a skin rag it's only because it's a woman that I'm buying?
Why can someone use their mind to make a profit, but not their body?
> >
> >BTW, I find it interesting that you say that someone can "either VIEW
> a person as an object or TREAT a person as an object", and then you say
> "It's>not an either/or situation". Then why is it outlined as an
> either/or in the statement? Care to clarify <grin>?
>
> ============
> I didn't think it was....:]
Can you clarify what you meant by the "Not either/or"? Did you mean that
it wasn't an exclusive or?
> >Why not? Are you certain of his reasons? And are the reasons it's
> made>more important than the reasons it is viewed?
>
> ---------
> Art is meant for personal interpretation. If I took two
> men (different times) to the showing....and one man said
> "that's an interesting concept...the idea that urine could
> be seen as a baptism", and the other guy said, "wow, look
> at the tits on this one"....which guy do you think I'd
> want to see again? OTOH, they both have every right to
> make their comments. :]
>
That wasn't the issue. The issue was that you make a distinction of art
and porn based on what YOU think the motivations of the artist were. I
asked how you knew, and also asked if the reasons something was made were
more important than the reasons it is viewed. If it is viewed only because
it features a nude woman, then how can you call it art? To use your
example, does the guy who says "Look at the tits on this one" make that
"art" "porn" by his statement?
BTW, it doesn't matter which you'd like to see again, just what his
statement means to the definition.
Christine A. Owens
lea...@northernnet.com wrote:
>
> it kind of makes me wonder why naked
> male bodies in non-sexual situations don't seem to turn women on as much
> as naked female bodies in non-sexual situations turn men on.
Because women are far less likely to respond to visual stimulation than
men.
> I mean, as
> far as the sexual parts of the body. Maybe it's somewhat because the
> penises aren't erect, and maybe most women are used to seeing penises
> erect right away in a sexual situation,
I beg your pardon? PART of the fun of a sexual situation is to
turn the penis from flaccid to erect. Instant erections only
occur in one-night-stands.
Chris Owens
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <34519cfe...@news.ozemail.com.au>
tarim.SP...@ozemail.com.au (John Mack) writes:
>
>On 22 Oct 1997 15:13:23 GMT, lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann
>Hemingway) wrote:
>
>>In <344ca173...@news.ozemail.com.au>
>>tarim.SP...@ozemail.com.au (John Mack) writes:
>>>
>>>On 19 Oct 1997 14:53:50 GMT, lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann
>>>Hemingway) wrote:
>>>
>>>[...]
>>>> Sure I have. What you must understand is that we are
>>>> all (each of us) free to associate with those with whom
>>>> we share common bonds. I don't subjugate men, and I
> >don't associate with men who subjugate women. The
> >"subjugation" in the eye of the beholder....is a
subjective choice that each of us determines in our
other words, it's a personal decision.
>>>[...]
>>>> Oh balderdash! In choosing my own associates, I define
>>>> my own reality. I'm not trying to take away your right
>>>> to view porn; don't try to tell me with whom I must
>>>> associate.
>>>[...]
>>>> What is it you think I can' distinguish between,
>>>> my support of your right to view porn, or my
>>>> unwillingness to befriend you because you do?
>>>
>>>You mean, all it takes to alienate you, is to own pictures of naked
>>>women? ^_^
>>
>> -----------
>> No. It takes my decision that your owning pictures
>> of naked women involves subjugation, which it may, or
>> may not, depending upon the circumstances.
>
>You're weaseling again, Lefty. You previously made it clear that you
>would not "befriend" anyone who viewed porn (and going from
>"associate" to "befriend" is something of a weasel itself, I suspect).
------------
Where did I ever say I would not associate with someone
who "viewed porn"? Social scientists and judges view
porn all the time, yet I would be able to associate
with many of them. :] Perhaps you are insisting that
I have no right to discern, for myself, the reasons for
why they are viewing the porn. In personal relationships
,i.e. friendships, lovers, willing associations, we are
able (each of us) to make such determinations. As for
CHANGING my terminology to "associate"....you can fill
in your word of choice, i.e. "befriend", "date", "marry"
or "willingly assoiciate"; it won't make a tad of dif-
ference to my argument as, in my personal life, I choose
folks who choose not to subjugate, on many different
levels.
----------------------------
>Is stockpiling nudy magazines enough to cause you to choose not to
>associate with a person, or not?
-----------
It COULD be. It might or might not be, depending upon
other observations I've made about that person. If
this person subscribed to Hustler for other than scientific
interest :] I would have nothing to do with him. I hope
that is a better answer to your question, perhaps not
the one you wanted, but, nevertheless...there. OTOH, this
person might have a copy of a particularly sexist old
coca cola advertisment, and I migh find redeeming value in
its authenticity. :] In my livingroom, I have a glass
coffe table supported by a deliciously naked mermaid, yet
I don't think anyone would accuse men of being purient
by having her there.
>
> >Personal
>> relationships are just that....personal. My subjective
>> analysis of your intent is more than enough to alienate
>> me, and correctly so.
>> -----------------------
>
>Oh, right; so merely describing putative piles of porn isn't enough to
>make you flee soc.men in disgust, you have to decide that I buy the
>stuff to subjugate women?
-----------
In a personal relationship I may decide that your
hairstyle reminds me of my crazy uncle Gene, so much
so that I don't want to see you again. I know that
isn't "fair". Nevertheless, because it IS a personal
relationship, it's my choice, just like it's your
choice not to include me. You seem to have mistaken
the need of folks to apply free speech to the needs
of women to include men who objectify in their lives.
I choose NOT TO, yet I do, very much oppose things that
interfere with free speech.
-------------------
>
>What if it was just to subjugate you personally, ie. it was my way of
>thumbing my nose at your neo-puritanism? Would that count?
----------
No. :] Men who want to thumb their nose at me...for
my views, might (in fact) get my attention. :]
============
>
>>>Well, how about that! Because, now that you mention it, I've got
>>>collection of porno mags around here somewhere. I've got 200 issues
of>>Playboy ... no, make that 500 ... no, 1000 issues of Playboy right
>>>here. Yep. Stacked right next to my modem. Not to mention Hustler,
and>>the other one (what's it called? Help me out here, guys ...).
Honest.
---------
Why would the number matter?
Well, just to let you know where I stand. I needed a copy
of Playgirl to use a picture as an example, and I didn't
want to purchase one (so as to support what I perceive as
objectifiction), so I kept asking my girlfriends until one
of them gave me a copy.
>>>In fact, I'm betting most of the guys here have collections as bad
or>>>worse than mine (back me up here, guys ...)
>>>
>>>What a shame, huh? I guess you won't want to hang out on soc.men
with>>>us any more, right?
>>
>> ----------
>> I don't write here because you are my associate;
>
>Ooh, another nice, weaselly segue, from associate (verb: join, unite;
>combine for common purpose; have intercourse (with); connect in idea),
>to associate (noun: partner; companion; subordinate member of an
>association). No, I'm not your associate, but when you choose to
>interact with me and others on soc.men, you are thereby associating
>with us.
---------
Well, we each have our own purpose for writing here.
Mine is not to find a date. :] If it was, I might
not be writing the same kinds of material. That I
might choose not to "associate" with Hitler, doesn't
mean I wouldn't choose to have some "social intercourse"
with him. What if I wanted information? What if I
was a reporter?
---------------------------
>
>>I'm
>> only communicating for reasons of my own.
>
>Uh-huh. Nice to get all this attention, isn't it?
============
I'm not sure; I'd have to think about that.
There are times, I go thru cyber burn-out.
-------------
>
>>In other words,
>> I don't consider you a friend.
>
>Aww ... <SNIFF>
>
>>Is that clear enough?
>
>Yeah, except for one thing; why are you still here?
---------
For reasons of my own; isn't that why you're
here?
Lefty
Kirk Job Sluder
lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway) writes:
> ----------
> Well, Thelma and Louise chose death, so they wouldn't
> have to deal with men who went to Hooters :] The fact
> remains that if there is some artistic merit....and
> the speech (or symbolic speech) is not only INTENDED
> for "purient interests", it is protected speech. I
> totally support protected speech.
> --------------------------------------
Well, this is the question. What is wrong with speech (or symbolic
speech) that is intended just to sexually arouse the audience?
> ----------
> I would suggest that legally, there is no difference. We
> have been looking at legal vs. moral principles; one is
> applied to all of us (legal); the other is individual.
> I have NO (ZERO, NADA) desire to limit the production or
> restrict the circulation of porn; that isn't my objective.
> I think Dworkin/Mac are wrong about that. However, I
> do think there's a difference between the INTENT of viewing
> art, and the INTENT to objectify, on a moral level. That
> means that while I would limit my life (and choice of
> friends) based upon my own moral ideas about
> objectification, no one else has the obligation to do the
> same, unless they agree with my moral position.
> ======================================
What is this difference and how can you tell how a person views a
given work? I know people who look at "artistic" nudes and
don't thin much beyond "great ass." I know people who get a lot
of political and personal empowerment out of erotic/pornographic
empowerment. How in the world do you decide what is going on
in the minds of a person viewing something like that?
> ----------
> Well; I think they both could be art. That doesn't
> mean I would support both of them on a personal level,
> but ....I might. The intent of the viewer determines
> the level of objectification; each of us are able to
> select our own friends, lovers, etc. by the values they
> support. If someone wanted to be a part of my life,
> the values they supported would not include
> objectification. I hope I answered your question.
> ======================
But this was not your original claim which was that you can determine
the intent from the content of the material.
lea...@northernnet.com
In article <345341...@redsuspenders.com>,
"Christine A. Owens" <cao...@redsuspenders.com> wrote:
>
> lea...@northernnet.com wrote:
> >
> > it kind of makes me wonder why naked
> > male bodies in non-sexual situations don't seem to turn women on as much
> > as naked female bodies in non-sexual situations turn men on.
>
> Because women are far less likely to respond to visual stimulation than
> men.
>
I know that. That's basically what I was questioning. I just wonder
sometimes why that is.
> > I mean, as
> > far as the sexual parts of the body. Maybe it's somewhat because the
> > penises aren't erect, and maybe most women are used to seeing penises
> > erect right away in a sexual situation,
>
> I beg your pardon? PART of the fun of a sexual situation is to
> turn the penis from flaccid to erect. Instant erections only
> occur in one-night-stands.
>
> Chris Owens
Yeah, I suppose so, but I guess I was talking from a more narrow
perspective without giving clear thought to the wider view. For those of
us whose sex has largely been in the dark and under the covers and not
very adventurous, there isn't much sight or feel of flaccid penises.
Thank you for the reminder that there is a wider perspective.
Laurie
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <OdeItbAZ...@allestree.demon.co.uk> janet
<ja...@allestree.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>In article <34512B...@hotmail.com>, averti <ave...@hotmail.com>
>writes
>>> -----------
>>> I disagree. A collection of nudes need not be pornographic
>>> at all; many Italian frescos, mostly nudes, have nothing to do
>>> with sex at all. Micaelangelos David????
>>
>>Uh, bad one. Michelangelo, historically recorded bisexual
>>and boy-lover that he was, knew what he was saying and
>>who he was saying it to. The strange combination of a
>>heavily muscled man's body and a tiny, little boys' penis
>>is a dead giveaway. That 90% of the viewers are not reminded
>>of what fun it is to bugger young men is more a reflection
>>of our times than his.
----------
I don't know if that's true. Perhaps having sex
with children didn't have the same taboo then...does
anyone know? He had an interesting method of learning
about the human body...he would sneak into graveyards
and morgues and do his own autopsy of sorts, feeling
the muscles and sinew to understand how he wanted the
marble to be worked. He may have been completely
narcissistic.....artists sometimes are. Anyway, his
art was fairly all consumming; I'm not sure HE would
have considered it an OBJECTIFICATION, but I'm not
sure that he didn't think he was ABOVE common morality.
=========================================
>
>Y'know, I thought this.>And I don't think it just works for men who
prefer younger men, either.>That statue is one sensual piece of
sculpture, and Buonarotti knew>EXACTLY what he was doing when he made
it.
>
>
>--
>janet
----------
I don't think it matters whether or not Mic...was into
men or women....if you look at the beauty of the work...
I was very very lucky to have seen the work of Mary
holding the dead Christ....}the Pieta )I was
speechless...and you
all know that doesn't happen often. :] It was probably
the most beautiful work of art I've ever seen. I have
not seen (in person) any of his other work, but I'd sure
love to.
Lefty
>
>Sic friatur crustum dulce