Lefty Defends Dworkin - Like thats a big surprise
Stephen R. Figgins
Meaghan Walker (har...@bcsupernet.com) wrote:
: Dworkin is the bitch that advocates that ALL heterosexual sex is RAPE
I take it you have read Intercourse then? This is kind of a
reductionist view of what the book says, but does sort of sum it up.
Andrea was basically making the case that within our existing society,
the pressures placed upon women, and the conditioning they receive,
pervert male/female sexual relationships. She is basically saying it
is impossible to have sex outside of this society conditioning, so all
sex between men and women is, at its core, rape.
I think she has gone overboard, but her arguments do present an
interesting way of looking at things. They cause some people to pause
and think, and I think that is more important than the conclusions
that Andrea draws. Her conclusion is generally rejected or overcome
by the many heterosexual women who read her book.
--
Stephen R. Figgins
f...@ora.com
http://tech.ora.com/fig/
"A man can learn more from wearing a dress for one day than wearing
pants for a lifetime."
-RFD
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <553bsi$e...@amber.ora.com> f...@rock.west.ora.com (Stephen R.
Figgins) writes:
>
>Meaghan Walker (har...@bcsupernet.com) wrote:
>: Dworkin is the bitch that advocates that ALL heterosexual sex is
RAPE
>
>I take it you have read Intercourse then? This is kind of a
>reductionist view of what the book says, but does sort of sum it up.
>Andrea was basically making the case that within our existing society,
>the pressures placed upon women, and the conditioning they receive,
>pervert male/female sexual relationships. She is basically saying it
>is impossible to have sex outside of this society conditioning, so all
>sex between men and women is, at its core, rape.
>
>I think she has gone overboard, but her arguments do present an
>interesting way of looking at things. They cause some people to pause
>and think, and I think that is more important than the conclusions
>that Andrea draws. Her conclusion is generally rejected or overcome
>by the many heterosexual women who read her book.
>
-----
I totally agree with your analysis. As a "het" woman, I find her
conclusions offensive here, but the thought process behind them,
provocative. I think that Dworkin is so offended by the porno-
graphic images of sex, that she doesn't understand het sex without
subjugation. Like Ayn Rand's contributions, I find her own rather
short-sighted, but also like Rand's work, I have not read enough of
either to get a feel for the entire "body" of their work. Also,
Dworkin seems to have no understanding of women who enjoy porn; I
have a friend that has quite a collection, but she is bisexual and
likes mutual (taking turns) kinds of dominance/submission.
Lefty
Steven Malcolm Anderson
In <553bsi$e...@amber.ora.com> f...@rock.west.ora.com (Stephen R.
Figgins) writes:
>
>Meaghan Walker (har...@bcsupernet.com) wrote:
>: Dworkin is the bitch that advocates that ALL heterosexual sex is
RAPE
>I take it you have read Intercourse then? This is kind of a
>reductionist view of what the book says, but does sort of sum it up.
>Andrea was basically making the case that within our existing society,
>the pressures placed upon women, and the conditioning they receive,
>pervert male/female sexual relationships. She is basically saying it
>is impossible to have sex outside of this society conditioning, so all
>sex between men and women is, at its core, rape.
That's pure b.s.. Ever heard of woman on top, etc.?
>I think she has gone overboard, but her arguments do present an
>interesting way of looking at things.
So do flat-earth arguments.
They cause some people to pause
>and think,
Or pause and puke. (If I were a woman, I would! Dworkin and her ilk
perpetuate all the _worst_ stereotypes about women.)
and I think that is more important than the conclusions
>that Andrea draws. Her conclusion is generally rejected or overcome
>by the many heterosexual women who read her book.
Lesbian feminists also think she's full of it (e.g., Pat Califia,
Susie Bright, etc.). See "Coming To Power" (1987, Alyson Publications,
P.O. Box 4371, Los Angeles, CA 90078). Also see "The Second Coming"
(1996).
For an alternative feminist view and damning refutation of Dworkin,
MacKinnon, etc., see "Caught Looking: Feminism, Pornography, &
Censorship" (1992, Inland Book Co., 140 Commerce St., East Haven, CT.
06512).
>--
>Stephen R. Figgins
>f...@ora.com
>http://tech.ora.com/fig/
>
>"A man can learn more from wearing a dress for one day than wearing
>pants for a lifetime."
> -RFD
--
sm...@ix.netcom.com
"The concept of 'greatness' entails being noble,
wanting to be by oneself,
being capable of being different, standing alone..." -Friedrich Nietzsche
"Identity is shaped through confict and opposition." -Camille Paglia
Meaghan Walker
In article <553bsi$e...@amber.ora.com>, f...@rock.west.ora.com says...
> Meaghan Walker (har...@bcsupernet.com) wrote:
> : Dworkin is the bitch that advocates that ALL heterosexual sex is RAPE
>
> I take it you have read Intercourse then? This is kind of a
> reductionist view of what the book says, but does sort of sum it up.
> Andrea was basically making the case that within our existing society,
> the pressures placed upon women, and the conditioning they receive,
> pervert male/female sexual relationships. She is basically saying it
> is impossible to have sex outside of this society conditioning, so all
> sex between men and women is, at its core, rape.
>
> and think, and I think that is more important than the conclusions
> that Andrea draws. Her conclusion is generally rejected or overcome
> by the many heterosexual women who read her book.
>
Well I am actually a bisexual woman who thinks it is all HOGWASH - it has
been used by a number of idiot femiwhiners to make sex out to be a *bad*
thing if it involves men - and an OK thing if it involves only women.
I find her reductio reasoning suspicious and deeply flawed.
Meaghan Walker
Stephen R. Figgins
In article <sheafferE...@netcom.com> you wrote:
: In article <553bsi$e...@amber.ora.com>,
: Stephen R. Figgins <f...@rock.west.ora.com> wrote:
: >I take it you have read Intercourse then? This is kind of a
: >reductionist view of what the book says, but does sort of sum it up.
: >Andrea was basically making the case that within our existing society,
: >the pressures placed upon women, and the conditioning they receive,
: >pervert male/female sexual relationships. She is basically saying it
: >is impossible to have sex outside of this society conditioning, so all
: >sex between men and women is, at its core, rape.
: Does she name any *other* society where this is not the case?
Hi Robert. No, I don't remember her mentioning any. I think such an
assertion would be more typical of Riane Eisler who believes there was
a pre-androcratic society in neolithic Old Europe that was more
egalitarian in nature.
Hillel
In article <558bso$b...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>,
Zenoink <zen...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Well, Hillel, just where is Dworkin being "nasty" here? Isn't there something
>almost funny about your saying she is being nasty because she points out the
>content of the pornography?
Kay, like quite a few feminists, needs some detailed explanations.
I'm not going to point every lie, just some of the big ones:
#The council finds that pornography is central in creating and
#maintaining the civil inequality of the sexes.
Some countries with no porno have much more serious problems of sexism
(e.g. Iran) but Dworkin just ignores that.
Or the claim that porno:
#undermine women's equal exercise of rights to speech and action
#guaranteed to all citizens under the constitutions and laws of
#the United States and the State of Minnesota.
The US Constitution guarantees the freedom of speech but it does not
forces anybody to listen.
Or let's pick on her grand definition of porno:
#(vi) women's body part - including but not limited to vaginas,
#breasts, and buttocks - are exhibited, such that women are
#reduced to those parts;
Every picture that shows just a part of a woman body so she is "reduced"
(What ever that word means in the feminist newspeech) is porno.
Or let's pick on the way that Dworkin treats gay porno:
#(2) The use of men, children, or transsexuals in the place of
#women...is pornography for the purposes of...this statue.
Dworkin claims that in all-men gay porno the men are used in the place
of women. Gay men have a different opinion about gay porno, but they
can't change Dworkin's mind. She *knows* so much better than the gay
men what really turns them on.
But the most interesting part is the way that a woman's words and
contracts should be treated.
#(2) Proof of one or more of the following facts or conditions shall not,
#without more, negate the finding of coercion:
#(hh) that the person actually consented to a use of the performance
#that is changes into pornography; or
#(ii) that the person knew that the purpose of the acts or events
#in question was to make pornography; or
#(jj) that the person that the person showed no resistance or appeared
#to cooperate actively in the photographic sessions or in the sexual
#events that produced the pornography; or
#(kk) that the person signed a contract, or made statements affirming
#a willingness to cooperate; or
#(ll) that no physical force, threats, or weapons were used in the
#making of the pornography; or
#(mm) that the person was paid or otherwise compensated.
So under this feminist wonder law a woman can always change her mind and sue.
If the defendant will say something like:
1) She knew that I produced porno with her pictures and consented.
2) She agreed, cooperated, and showed no resistance.
3) She signed a written contract giving an explicit consent.
4) No threats were used against her.
5) She was paid as agreed in the written contract.
Then the judge will have to say something like:
"I'm sorry, all of that is not enough, see the law."
In the feminist wonderland a woman's word is treated like a child's word.
A woman can't give an informed consent, she needs special protection like
a child.
In that sense, Dworkin is in the same place as the "no choice for men"
feminists. They are all *sure* that women are pretty mindless who just
can't be held to contracts they signed. They need protection like kids.
Hillel ga...@cs.duke.edu
"In the highest of ironies, he presents an allegedly feminist theory that
women, incapable of deciding to ourselves, need men like John Stoltenberg
to tell us how we should comfort ourselves sexually. Men have so
oppressed women that we need men to tell us what to do."
-- ("nudes, prudes and attitudes", Avedon Carol)
Steven Malcolm Anderson
In <MPG.ce0f19b3...@news.bcsupernet.com>
har...@bcsupernet.com (Meaghan Walker) writes:
>
>In article <553bsi$e...@amber.ora.com>, f...@rock.west.ora.com says...
>> Meaghan Walker (har...@bcsupernet.com) wrote:
>> : Dworkin is the bitch that advocates that ALL heterosexual sex is
RAPE
>>
>> reductionist view of what the book says, but does sort of sum it up.
>> Andrea was basically making the case that within our existing
society,
>> the pressures placed upon women, and the conditioning they receive,
>> pervert male/female sexual relationships. She is basically saying
it
>> is impossible to have sex outside of this society conditioning, so
all
>> sex between men and women is, at its core, rape.
>>
>> interesting way of looking at things. They cause some people to
pause
>> and think, and I think that is more important than the conclusions
>> that Andrea draws. Her conclusion is generally rejected or overcome
>> by the many heterosexual women who read her book.
>>
>
>Well I am actually a bisexual woman who thinks it is all HOGWASH - it
has
>been used by a number of idiot femiwhiners to make sex out to be a
*bad*
>thing if it involves men - and an OK thing if it involves only women.
Only if the women don't do anything kinky. Idiot femiwhiners hate
lesbian S/M as much as they do hetero-sex. Even more.
>I find her reductio reasoning suspicious and deeply flawed.
I think it's garbage.
>Meaghan Walker
Zenoink
In <5566hr$6...@hal.cs.duke.edu> ga...@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
>
>##Dworkin is the bitch that advocates that ALL heterosexual sex is
RAPE
>##
>##Duh!
>##
>##Read up on your hero's agenda Lefty - I have... and I know that you
>##have,... You just dont want to admit to the *NASTY* stuff that she
>##spews
>
>In article <55641e$m...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>,
>Zenoink <zen...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>The only one "spewing" anything nasty around here is you. Give it a
>>rest, Meaghan, or Michael, or whatever your real name might be.
>
>>Kay
>
>Kay, this is the ordinance that Dworkin *pushed* in Minneaplois:
>#####################################################################
>
>The key provisions of the original Minneapolis ordinance are reprinted
below:
>
>(1) Special Findings on Pornography: The council finds that
>pornography is central in creating and maintaining the civil
>inequality of the sexes. Pornography is a systematic practice
>of exploitation and subordination based on sex which differentially
>harms women. The bigotry and contempt it promotes, with the acts of
>aggression it fosters, harm women's opportunities for equalities of
>rights in employment, education, property rights, public
>accommodations and public service; create public harassment
>and private denigration; promote injury and degradation such as rape,
>battery and prostitution and inhibit just enforcement of laws
>against these acts; contribute significantly to restricting women
>from full exercise of citizenship and participation in public life,
>including in neighborhoods; damage relations between the sexes; and
>undermine women's equal exercise of rights to speech and action
>
>discrimination on the basis of sex.
>
>(1) Pornography is the sexually explicit subordination of women,
>graphically depicted, whether in pictures or in words, that also
>includes one or more of the following:
>
>(i) women are presented as dehumanized sexual objects,
>things or commodities; or
>(ii) women are presented as sexual objects who enjoy pain or
>humiliation; or
>(iii) women are presented as dehumanized sexual objects, who
>experience sexual pleasure in being raped; or
>(iv) women are presented as sexual objects tied up or cut up
>or mutilated or bruised or physically hurt; or
>(v) women are presented in postures of sexual submission; or
>(vi) women's body part - including but not limited to vaginas,
>(vii) women are presented as whores by nature; or
>(viii) women are presented being penetrated by objects or animals; or
>(ix) women are presented in scenarios of degradation, injury,
>abasement, torture, shown as filthy, bleeding, bruised,
>or hurt in a context that makes this conditions sexual.
>(2) The use of men, children, or transsexuals in the place of
italics>:
>The production, sales, exhibition or distribution of pornography is
>discrimination against women by means of trafficking in pornography.
>(1) City, state, and federally funded public libraries or private and
>public university and college libraries in which pornography is
available
>for study, including on open shelves shall not be construed to be
>trafficking in pornography but special display [presentations of
>pornography in said places is sex discrimination.
>(2) The formation of private clubs or associations for the purposes of
>trafficking in pornography is illegal and shall be considered a
>conspiracy to violate the civil rights of women.
>(3) Any woman has a cause of action here-under as a woman acting
>against the subordination of women. Any man or transsexual who
alleges
>injury by pornography in the way women are injured by it shall also
>have a cause of action.
>(m) <italics>Coercion into pornographic performance.<end italics>
>Any person, including transsexual, who is coerced, intimidated, or
>fraudulently induced (hereafter "coerced") into performing for
pornography
>shall have a cause of action against the maker(s), seller(s),
>exhibitor(s) or distributor(s) of said pornography for damages and for
>elimination of the products of the performance(s) from public view.
>(1) <italics>Limitation of action.<end italics> This claim shall not
>expire before five years have elapsed from the date of the coerced
>performance(s) or from the last appearance or sale of any product of
>the performance(s); whichever date is later;
>(2) Proof of one or more of the following facts or conditions shall not,
>(bb) that the person is or has been a prostitute; or
>(cc) that the person has attained the age of majority; or
>(dd) that the person is connected by blood or marriage to anyone involved
>in or related to the making of the pornography; or
>(ee) that the person has previously had, or been thought to have had,
>sexual relations with anyone including anyone involved in or
>related to the making of pornography; or
>(ff) that the person has previously posed for sexually explicit pictures
>for or with anyone, including involved in or related to the making
>of the pornography at issue; or
>(gg) that anyone else, including a spouse or other relative, has
>given permission on the person's behalf; or
>(ll) that no physical force, threats, or weapons were used in the
>(mm) that the person was paid or otherwise compensated.
>Any woman, man, child, or transsexual who has pornography forced on them
>in any place of employment, in education, in a home, or in any public
>place has a cause of action against the perpetrator and/or institution.
Well, Hillel, just where is Dworkin being "nasty" here? Isn't there something
almost funny about your saying she is being nasty because she points out the
content of the pornography?
Reminds of the German movie "The Nasty Girl", where the main character
is in trouble because she is too curious about the roles her neighbors
played in the Nazi era. They respond by labelling her a menace.
So, Hillel, just what are YOU doing to stop this type of abuse instead
of just sitting around typing away about Dworkin being so BAD, BAD,
BAD, because she objects to it?
Hiding behind "freedom of speech" or "freedom of contract" really won't
do it. What you want is for Dworkin to not have the same freedom of
speech plus you seem to want the actual conditions surrounding the
"contract" defense ignored.
When Dworkin criticizes the content of pornography and its implications
for real live women, your whining that it's only pretend and not "real"
sex won't get you off the hook, either. You do not particularly want
the pictures OR the business OR the everyday reality criticized.
I'm not really a big fan of Dworkin's particular solution. So say
Dworkin's preferred legal approach is defeated, just what then are YOU
doing to do to make sure women (in and out of the actual business) are
NOT treated with contempt or discriminated against? For that matter,
what are you doing now?
I think I can predict your answer. Nothing, because the way women are
treated is just fine by you. They're just whiners and you wish they'd
all shut up.
Kay
Robert Sheaffer
>reductionist view of what the book says, but does sort of sum it up.
>Andrea was basically making the case that within our existing society,
>the pressures placed upon women, and the conditioning they receive,
>pervert male/female sexual relationships. She is basically saying it
>is impossible to have sex outside of this society conditioning, so all
>sex between men and women is, at its core, rape.
Does she name any *other* society where this is not the case?
--
Robert Sheaffer - rob...@patriarchy.com - Skeptical to the Max!
Visit my new Home Page - http://www.patriarchy.com/~sheaffer
Skeptical Resources Debunking All Manner of Bogus Claims
Also: Opera / Astronomy / Mens Issues / more
Steven Malcolm Anderson
In <558m21$q...@hal.cs.duke.edu> ga...@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
One excellent post! You said it all! (My comments follow.)
>In article <558bso$b...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>,
>Zenoink <zen...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>Well, Hillel, just where is Dworkin being "nasty" here? Isn't there
something
>>almost funny about your saying she is being nasty because she points
out the
>>content of the pornography?
>
>Kay, like quite a few feminists, needs some detailed explanations.
>I'm not going to point every lie, just some of the big ones:
>
>#The council finds that pornography is central in creating and
>#maintaining the civil inequality of the sexes.
>
>Some countries with no porno have much more serious problems of sexism
>(e.g. Iran) but Dworkin just ignores that.
Quite true. And our own "women's-place-is-in-the-home" ayatollahs
would also ban porn.
>Or the claim that porno:
>#undermine women's equal exercise of rights to speech and action
>#guaranteed to all citizens under the constitutions and laws of
>#the United States and the State of Minnesota.
What about those women who equally exercise their rights to speech and
action by enjoying and creating porn?
>The US Constitution guarantees the freedom of speech but it does not
>forces anybody to listen.
>
>Or let's pick on her grand definition of porno:
>
>#(vi) women's body part - including but not limited to vaginas,
>#breasts, and buttocks - are exhibited, such that women are
>#reduced to those parts;
>
>Every picture that shows just a part of a woman body so she is
"reduced"
>(What ever that word means in the feminist newspeech) is porno.
>
>Or let's pick on the way that Dworkin treats gay porno:
>#(2) The use of men, children, or transsexuals in the place of
>#women...is pornography for the purposes of...this statue.
>
>Dworkin claims that in all-men gay porno the men are used in the place
>of women. Gay men have a different opinion about gay porno, but they
>can't change Dworkin's mind. She *knows* so much better than the gay
>men what really turns them on.
Exactly. And what about lesbian and female-dominant porn? Or are
Dworkin and others like her unable to conceive of women as dominant or
initiating or other than as passive victims?
>But the most interesting part is the way that a woman's words and
>contracts should be treated.
>
>#(2) Proof of one or more of the following facts or conditions shall
not,
Exactly what feminists originally rebelled against!
>In that sense, Dworkin is in the same place as the "no choice for men"
>feminists. They are all *sure* that women are pretty mindless who
just
>can't be held to contracts they signed. They need protection like
kids.
That kind of patronizing garbage is infinitely more demeaning to women
than any porn ever could be!
>Hillel ga...@cs.duke.edu
>
>"In the highest of ironies, he presents an allegedly feminist theory
that
>women, incapable of deciding to ourselves, need men like John
Stoltenberg
>to tell us how we should comfort ourselves sexually. Men have so
>oppressed women that we need men to tell us what to do."
> -- ("nudes, prudes and attitudes", Avedon Carol)
Precisely.
Hillel
In article <MPG.ce0f19b3...@news.bcsupernet.com>,
Meaghan Walker <har...@bcsupernet.com> wrote:
>Well I am actually a bisexual woman who thinks it is all HOGWASH - it has
>been used by a number of idiot femiwhiners to make sex out to be a *bad*
>thing if it involves men - and an OK thing if it involves only women.
Only *some* kinds of lesbian sex are OK.
The two big "no"s are:
1) SM. See "Coming to Power" for a good description of the debate.
2) Using dildos. It is too much like "het sex." (I'm not sure what's
the politically correct view of fisting; I'll check it sometime.)
Hillel ga...@cs.duke.edu
"She suggested we try dildo. I didn't know any other dykes
who used them and had heard they were "no-no" since they were
men's ideas of what lesbians did."
-- ("How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love My Dildo", Sophie Schmuckler)
Steven Malcolm Anderson
In <55as48$f...@hal.cs.duke.edu> ga...@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
Another _excellent_ post. Thanks again!
--
Hillel
In article <55b37i$6...@amanda.dorsai.org>,
Alan Madsen <ama...@dorsai.org> wrote:
>so, in other words, a female involved in the making
>of a pornography film cannot be raped... consent at
>one time does not mean that consent is given at an-
>other time - say, after the film is in the can or
>between shots...
That is not what Ron said.
What Dworkin's law said, loud and clear, is that:
#(2) Proof of one or more of the following facts or conditions shall not,
#without more, negate the finding of coercion:
#
#(jj) that the person that the person showed no resistance or appeared
#to cooperate actively in the photographic sessions or in the sexual
#events that produced the pornography; or
#
#(ll) that no physical force, threats, or weapons were used in the
#making of the pornography; or
Ron, and I, think that if a woman cooperated actively in sex and no
physical force, threats, or weapons were used against her then she
was not raped. Dworkin, and her feminist friends, reject this idea.
>seems they found a four year old or so girl dead in a ice
>cooler... in another state they found a snap shot of a girl
>near the same age ingageing in oral sex with a male (who's
>head had been removed from the snapshot) who might have be-
>en the girl in the cooler... they have not yet found the
>male, they probably will not...
As usual, good feminists view adult women as helpless
as a four years old girl. My opinion is different.
Hillel ga...@cs.duke.edu
"It's the basic principle of feminist logic. Whatever a woman feels is
right. Any argument that supports a woman's feeling is therefore
correct. There is no need for logical consistency; that's a patriarchal
institution that oppresses women." -- Eric Pepke
Carol Ann Hemingway
(edit)
>In that sense, Dworkin is in the same place as the "no choice for men"
>feminists. They are all *sure* that women are pretty mindless who
just>can't be held to contracts they signed. They need protection like
kids.
----
hehehe! ....and what contract is it that you think the children
of these feckless men signed? Even if you don't agree with the
implied notions of staid contract law and/or tort law, and or
family law, you still can't come up with anything that protects
the child's right to support from those who co-create her/him.
Lefty
Larry Kabo
>undermine women's equal exercise of rights to speech and action
>guaranteed to all citizens under the constitutions and laws of
>the United States and the State of Minnesota.
>
>(gg) <italics> Pornography <end italics> Pornography is a form of
>discrimination on the basis of sex.
>
>(1) Pornography is the sexually explicit subordination of women,
>graphically depicted, whether in pictures or in words, that also
>includes one or more of the following:
>
>(i) women are presented as dehumanized sexual objects,
>things or commodities; or
>(ii) women are presented as sexual objects who enjoy pain or
>humiliation; or
>(iii) women are presented as dehumanized sexual objects, who
>experience sexual pleasure in being raped; or
>(iv) women are presented as sexual objects tied up or cut up
>or mutilated or bruised or physically hurt; or
>(v) women are presented in postures of sexual submission; or
>(vi) women's body part - including but not limited to vaginas,
>breasts, and buttocks - are exhibited, such that women are
>reduced to those parts; or
>(vii) women are presented as whores by nature; or
>(viii) women are presented being penetrated by objects or animals; or
>(ix) women are presented in scenarios of degradation, injury,
>abasement, torture, shown as filthy, bleeding, bruised,
>or hurt in a context that makes this conditions sexual.
>(2) The use of men, children, or transsexuals in the place of
>women...is pornography for the purposes of...this statue.
>(2) Proof of one or more of the following facts or conditions shall not,
>without more, negate the finding of coercion:
>(aa) that the person is a woman; or
>(bb) that the person is or has been a prostitute; or
>(cc) that the person has attained the age of majority; or
>(dd) that the person is connected by blood or marriage to anyone involved
>in or related to the making of the pornography; or
>(ee) that the person has previously had, or been thought to have had,
>sexual relations with anyone including anyone involved in or
>related to the making of pornography; or
>(ff) that the person has previously posed for sexually explicit pictures
>for or with anyone, including involved in or related to the making
>of the pornography at issue; or
>(gg) that anyone else, including a spouse or other relative, has
>given permission on the person's behalf; or
>(hh) that the person actually consented to a use of the performance
>that is changes into pornography; or
>(ii) that the person knew that the purpose of the acts or events
>in question was to make pornography; or
>(jj) that the person that the person showed no resistance or appeared
>to cooperate actively in the photographic sessions or in the sexual
>events that produced the pornography; or
>(kk) that the person signed a contract, or made statements affirming
>a willingness to cooperate; or
>(ll) that no physical force, threats, or weapons were used in the
>making of the pornography; or
>(mm) that the person was paid or otherwise compensated.
>(n) <italics>Forcing pornography on a person<end italics>
>Any woman, man, child, or transsexual who has pornography forced on them
>in any place of employment, in education, in a home, or in any public
>place has a cause of action against the perpetrator and/or institution.
>
>#####################################################################
>
>Hillel ga...@cs.duke.edu
>
>"The three tenets of MacDworkinite Newspeak:
> Sex is hate.
> Images are actions.
> Censorship is freedom."
ooooo ra! how bout those clubs women go to? do these men feel
exploited? choices and ease of employment vs education, choices made
based on immediate needs among at least a hudred other things! how
would the dancers (both sexes) feel if you eliminated all these
employment positions? they would be happy to be unemployed. where
have you been, this stuff has been going on for 6 thousand years, oh
sure we can stop it right now! get real, supply and demand, sex,
figure it when there ain't no supply and one person can service the
many, it will happen, there ain't no going around it. not that i think
this is cool, but there are many who do, come out of your glass house!
phyr...@usa.net
ejo...@seanet.com wrote:
>In <553bsi$e...@amber.ora.com>, f...@rock.west.ora.com (Stephen R. Figgins) writes:
>>
>>"A man can learn more from wearing a dress for one day than wearing
>>pants for a lifetime."
>> -RFD
>How does wearing a dress make a man wiser? Unless perhaps it motivates him
>to start reading National Enquirer, the Star, Harlequin Romances, and watching
>tv shows like Jenny Jones, Oprah, as well as all the soaps. These are all
>highly edifying and educational experiences. Not to mention philosophically
>inspiring.
What does the reading of such questionable materials and television
shock shows ahve to do with a man going a mile in women's wear?
Steven Malcolm Anderson
In <55ba5f$j...@hal.cs.duke.edu> ga...@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
>
>In article <55b37i$6...@amanda.dorsai.org>,
>Alan Madsen <ama...@dorsai.org> wrote:
>
>>so, in other words, a female involved in the making
>>of a pornography film cannot be raped... consent at
>>one time does not mean that consent is given at an-
>>other time - say, after the film is in the can or
>>between shots...
>
>That is not what Ron said.
>
>What Dworkin's law said, loud and clear, is that:
not,
>#without more, negate the finding of coercion:
>#
>#(jj) that the person that the person showed no resistance or appeared
>#to cooperate actively in the photographic sessions or in the sexual
>#events that produced the pornography; or
>#
>#(ll) that no physical force, threats, or weapons were used in the
>#making of the pornography; or
>
>Ron, and I, think that if a woman cooperated actively in sex and no
>physical force, threats, or weapons were used against her then she
>was not raped. Dworkin, and her feminist friends, reject this idea.
They think they know better than she does what she enjoys, huh? What
rot!
>>seems they found a four year old or so girl dead in a ice
>>cooler... in another state they found a snap shot of a girl
>>near the same age ingageing in oral sex with a male (who's
>>head had been removed from the snapshot) who might have be-
>>en the girl in the cooler... they have not yet found the
>>male, they probably will not...
>
>As usual, good feminists view adult women as helpless
>as a four years old girl. My opinion is different.
Precisely! I say throw out all that patronizing, sexist garbage! Women
are _not_ children!
>Hillel ga...@cs.duke.edu
Ennead
Zenoink (zen...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In <5566hr$6...@hal.cs.duke.edu> ga...@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
[re: the MacKinnon/Dworkin antipornography ordinance.]
: Well, Hillel, just where is Dworkin being "nasty" here? Isn't there
: something almost funny about your saying she is being nasty because she
: points out the content of the pornography? [...]
I'm not at all convinced that this ordinance does point out the content of
porn with any accuracy. For instance, the vast, vast majority of
pornography contains none of the violence the ordinance spends such a lot
of time describing. On the contrary, studies show that pornography is
=less= violent than other media. (For instance, see "A longitudinal
content analysis of sexual violence in best-selling erotic magazines,"
in THE JOURNAL OF SEX RESEARCH v3 p226-237)
For another thing, many, many sorts of media - for instance, advertisments
for hand lotion - use photography to visually isolate one part of a
woman's body.
Finally, the evidence, while not entirely unmixed, is on the whole pretty
clear that pornography does not cause violence against women (or anyone
else). Since the theory underlying this ordinance is that pornography
causes violence, the entire ordinance is undermined.
Furthermore, if laws like this were passed nationwide, it would tend to
drive the pornography industry underground, where the workers would have
even less access to legal protection than they do now. This ordinance
would encourage abuse, not prevent it.
: So, Hillel, just what are YOU doing to stop this type of abuse instead
: of just sitting around typing away about Dworkin being so BAD, BAD,
: BAD, because she objects to it?
: Hiding behind "freedom of speech" or "freedom of contract" really won't
: do it. What you want is for Dworkin to not have the same freedom of
: speech plus you seem to want the actual conditions surrounding the
: "contract" defense ignored. [...]
I'm not sure I entirely follow your arguement here. I do disagree with
one point - Hillel has no obligation to provide an alternate solution to
Dworkin's. Dworkin's ordinance attacks his free speech rights (and mine,
and yours); Hillel has not only the right but the responsibility of
fighting back (and so do I, and so do you).
I wouldn't presume to speak for Hillel; but for myself, I'd say the best
rape-and-sexual-violence prevention measures are to work for sexual
equality, to try and reduce poverty (areas with more extreme poverty tend
to have more of all sorts of violent crime, including rape), and to try
(as many men's rights advocates, such as Warren Farrel, have been trying)
to alter the social view of what "masculinity" is and what it requires
(and ditto for "femininity," as well). It's also necessary to try and
create more community-level social organizations, which tend to lower the
incidence of violent crime. These points are argued at length in the book
FOUR THEORIES OF RAPE IN AMERICAN SOCIETY by Murray Straus and Larry
Baron.
As far as the sex industry goes, prostitution ought to be legalized, and
the government should do everything it can to encourage sex workers to
unionize. No society has ever succeeded in eliminating the sex industry;
the only solution is to do everything possible to see that sex industry
workers are protected.
None of these are easy or immediate solutions, but I think they can have a
strong effect, as some Scandinavian countries have shown (look at Sweden).
In the meantime, I think rape crisis centers and shelters for battered
spouses, as well as education programs, are the best stopgap solutions
available.
Yours,
--Ampersand
ejo...@seanet.com
Steven Malcolm Anderson
>In <558m21$q...@hal.cs.duke.edu> ga...@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
>
>(edit)
>
>>In that sense, Dworkin is in the same place as the "no choice for
men"
>>feminists. They are all *sure* that women are pretty mindless who
>just>can't be held to contracts they signed. They need protection
like
>kids.
Precisely.
>>Hillel ga...@cs.duke.edu
>>
>>"In the highest of ironies, he presents an allegedly feminist theory
>that
>>women, incapable of deciding to ourselves, need men like John
>Stoltenberg
>>to tell us how we should comfort ourselves sexually. Men have so
>>oppressed women that we need men to tell us what to do."
>> -- ("nudes, prudes and attitudes", Avedon Carol)
Exactly. THAT kind of patronizing garbage is _far_ more demeaning to
women than any porn ever could be! If I was a woman, I'd kill these
paternalist busybodies.
Alan Madsen
Steven Malcolm Anderson (sm...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: >In <558m21$q...@hal.cs.duke.edu> ga...@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
: >> In that sense, Dworkin is in the same place as the "no choice
: >> for men" feminists. They are all *sure* that women are pretty
: >> mindless who just can't be held to contracts they signed. They
: >> need protection like kids.
: Precisely.
if that "choice for males' contract refered to is one that
i've seen regarding intent in the event of pregnancy, both
hillel and anderson are off base (surprise)...
the flaw is not that females cannot contract, but that the
elements of contract are not valid (as both have heard it
said)...
so, why present it as denial of majority status to women if
not misrepresentation...?
: >>Hillel ga...@cs.duke.edu
: >>"In the highest of ironies, he presents an allegedly feminist
: >>theory that women, incapable of deciding to ourselves, need men
: >>like John Stoltenberg to tell us how we should comfort ourselves
: >>sexually. Men have so oppressed women that we need men to tell
: >>us what to do."
: >> -- ("nudes, prudes and attitudes", Avedon Carol)
: Exactly. THAT kind of patronizing garbage is _far_ more demeaning to
: women than any porn ever could be! If I was a woman, I'd kill these
: paternalist busybodies.
absurd... treating someone as a child is not as demeaning as
treating someone as an object...
--
alan madsen - new york, n.y.
Stephanie Smith
In article <55eeu4$e...@dorsai.dorsai.org>, ama...@dorsai.org says...
>
>Steven Malcolm Anderson (sm...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: >In <558m21$q...@hal.cs.duke.edu> ga...@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
>
>: >> In that sense, Dworkin is in the same place as the "no choice
>: >> for men" feminists. They are all *sure* that women are pretty
>: >> mindless who just can't be held to contracts they signed. They
>: >> need protection like kids.
>
>: Precisely.
>
>if that "choice for males' contract refered to is one that
>i've seen regarding intent in the event of pregnancy, both
>hillel and anderson are off base (surprise)...
>
>the flaw is not that females cannot contract, but that the
>elements of contract are not valid (as both have heard it
>said)...
Really? Please share. The proper answer (for your side) is that the
elements of contract can be overruled by state statute or that this
should be considered a strict liability tort issue. The proper response
for my side would then be: justify the statute, state laws should not be
based on morality, or why strict liability.
But really, I'm interested. In *your* opinion, what are the elements of
contract, and why aren't they valid?
>
>so, why present it as denial of majority status to women if
>not misrepresentation...?
Well, I have suggested that we treat this as sperm donorship -- allow a
contract prior to the sex which would determine rights (either a signoff
for the man or the women, no big deal to me which way you prefer), and
people have said that that is unfair to the woman. Which leads to the
conclusion that people are arguing that women cannot make rational
decisions in this area. As a woman, I find that rather offensive. I
would *never* hold a man responsible for my decisions, including that to
have and raise a child, and I think it is demeaning that people argue
that women should be able to do so, and completely irresponsible to do
so. But I'm sure you differ.
>: >>Hillel
ga...@cs.duke.edu
>: >>"In the highest of ironies, he presents an allegedly feminist
>: >>theory that women, incapable of deciding to ourselves, need men
>: >>like John Stoltenberg to tell us how we should comfort ourselves
>: >>sexually. Men have so oppressed women that we need men to tell
>: >>us what to do."
>: >> -- ("nudes, prudes and attitudes", Avedon Carol)
>
>: Exactly. THAT kind of patronizing garbage is _far_ more demeaning to
>: women than any porn ever could be! If I was a woman, I'd kill these
>: paternalist busybodies.
>
>absurd... treating someone as a child is not as demeaning as
>treating someone as an object...
Both are demeaning. That's the point. I am not impressed by John
Stoltenberg (and I have both met him and edited an article by him). Why
should he have the authority to tell me that any sex I have is not
consentual. Any woman with self-respect is perfectly capable of having
consentual sex and refusing non-consensual sex (in the absence of real
rape). Pornography does not change that.
And as far as porn goes, I see no evidence that it *causes* violence
against women, and even so, the First Amendment still exists.
Personally, I feel that Rush Limbaugh is dangerous, yet he has the
freedom to spew his trash. The proper response is a rebuttal. If you
start trying to enforce personal morality through the law, you are
leading to trouble, since I hardly trust the majority of Americans to
share my beliefs on every issue, and would like to retain personal
freedom. Do you disagree?
Stephanie
Steven Malcolm Anderson
In <55eeu4$e...@dorsai.dorsai.org> ama...@dorsai.org (Alan Madsen)
writes:
>Steven Malcolm Anderson (sm...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: >In <558m21$q...@hal.cs.duke.edu> ga...@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
<snippage>
>: >>Hillel
ga...@cs.duke.edu
>: >>"In the highest of ironies, he presents an allegedly feminist
>: >>theory that women, incapable of deciding to ourselves, need men
>: >>like John Stoltenberg to tell us how we should comfort ourselves
>: >>sexually. Men have so oppressed women that we need men to tell
>: >>us what to do."
>: >> -- ("nudes, prudes and attitudes", Avedon
Carol)
>
>: Exactly. THAT kind of patronizing garbage is _far_ more demeaning
to
>: women than any porn ever could be! If I was a woman, I'd kill these
>: paternalist busybodies.
>
>absurd... treating someone as a child is not as demeaning as
>treating someone as an object...
Totally wrong. There's absolutely nothing whatever demeaning about
lust.
>--
>alan madsen - new york, n.y.
--
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <55ba5f$j...@hal.cs.duke.edu> ga...@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
>
>In article <55b37i$6...@amanda.dorsai.org>,
>Alan Madsen <ama...@dorsai.org> wrote:
>
>>so, in other words, a female involved in the making
>>of a pornography film cannot be raped... consent at
>>one time does not mean that consent is given at an-
>>other time - say, after the film is in the can or
>>between shots...
>
>That is not what Ron said.
>
>What Dworkin's law said, loud and clear, is that:
>#(2) Proof of one or more of the following facts or conditions shall
not,>#without more, negate the finding of coercion:
>#
>#(jj) that the person that the person showed no resistance or appeared
>#to cooperate actively in the photographic sessions or in the sexual
>#events that produced the pornography; or
>#
>#(ll) that no physical force, threats, or weapons were used in the
>#making of the pornography; or
>
>Ron, and I, think that if a woman cooperated actively in sex and no
>physical force, threats, or weapons were used against her then she
>was not raped. Dworkin, and her feminist friends, reject this idea.
>
>>cooler... in another state they found a snap shot of a girl
>>near the same age ingageing in oral sex with a male (who's
>>head had been removed from the snapshot) who might have be-
>>en the girl in the cooler... they have not yet found the
>>male, they probably will not...
>
>As usual, good feminists view adult women as helpless
>as a four years old girl. My opinion is different.
>
>
It's very interesting that a homeless man or woman is very much
like a four year old girl in several ways. When one is mentally
impaired, or induced by incredible poverty to do what most of us
might not do, it changes us. A system that allows or encourages
that sort of "abuse" cannot be tolerated. I have spoken before
about my view on porn. I am a first amendment kinda gal. How-
ever, I am not at all timid about traversing that "slippery slope"
when it comes to "actions" rather than speech. Consent to be
filmed sans clothing in a wide array of poses is not contrary to
the law; "consent" is an important word here. Also, I have
some disputes with the court in their inability to discriminate
between "speech", "symbolic speech" and "actions". In the "Tinker"
case it was ok to wear an armband protesting the war; in another
similar case, it was NOT ok to burn ones draft card as symbolic
speech. The slope may not be quite so slippery as one thinks;
besides I've always enjoyed moguls!
:]
Lefty
CatharinaK
>##Read up on your hero's agenda Lefty - I have... and I know that you
>##have,... You just dont want to admit to the *NASTY* stuff that she
>##spews
>
>Kay, this is the ordinance that Dworkin *pushed* in Minneaplois:
>##################################################################
I'd be fascinated to hear a point-by-point response to some of the
specifics of this ordinance from those who push the rhetoric that Dworkin
is a bitch. (Hardly great debating technique, incidently. Attack the
idea, not the person; otherwise, you're walking, talking evidence of what
Dworkin contends, that women are objects of bigotry and contempt for
trying to avail themselves of the rights to free speech and equal
protection under law.)
Some specifics I'd like to see addressed, quoted from the ordinance,
including some of my comments or questions:
> <italics> Pornography <end italics> Pornography is a form of
>discrimination on the basis of sex.
This is Dworkin establishing the definition of pornography _for the
purposes of this ordinance_, not pornography in general, anywhere,
anytime. Therefore, people who wish to produce pornography which doesn't
break this law need to not to discriminate on the basis of sex, as spelled
out quite specifically in the following:
>(1) Pornography is the sexually explicit subordination of women,
>graphically depicted, whether in pictures or in words, that also
>includes one or more of the following:
Is the sexually explicit subordination of women necessary for good
erotica?
>(i) women are presented as dehumanized sexual objects,
>things or commodities; or
Again, is dehumanization, or the treatment of women as commodities,
necessary for good erotica? Is there some reason a filmmaker can't
present women as people, not just snatches on legs?
>(ii) women are presented as sexual objects who enjoy pain or
>humiliation; or
This should be modified, perhaps. But unless a film is specifically about
S&M, and the treatment of all subjects is equal (i.e., men are also shown
enjoying pain and humiliation), what is the objection to this part of the
definition of unlawful pornography?
>(iii) women are presented as dehumanized sexual objects, who
>experience sexual pleasure in being raped; or
I can't think of a decent argument against this. You have a right to
enjoy watching women be raped? If so, why? Or is speech (sic) more
important than people?
>(iv) women are presented as sexual objects tied up or cut up
>or mutilated or bruised or physically hurt; or
Ok, some people _like_ being tied up. As for the rest, I'm trying to
fathom the logic behind the idea that someone's right to watch women being
cut up, mutilated, bruised or otherwise physically hurt for purposes of
sexual excitation is more compelling than women's right not to have those
things done to them, period, nor depicted as "entertainment".
>(v) women are presented in postures of sexual submission; or
>(vi) women's body part - including but not limited to vaginas,
>breasts, and buttocks - are exhibited, such that women are
>reduced to those parts; or
I suppose this one could be dropped without harm... but I can't help but
wonder how men would feel faced with an hour's worth of porn in which
nothing of men is ever shown but their penises, only while erect, at
that... so guys, what do you think? Is that what you think your partners
would like to see in their erotica, a constant parade of penises and
testicles attached to noone in particular?
>(vii) women are presented as whores by nature; or
Or do people really think this?
>(viii) women are presented being penetrated by objects or animals; or
Self-explanatory, I should think. Unless it's the woman herself doing the
penetration with the object. Animals should be left out of it entirely on
the grounds of cruelty to animals. (Bet I have an easier time getting
consensus for that than any argument that pornography based on cruelty to
women should be illegal... such is the way things are...)
>(ix) women are presented in scenarios of degradation, injury,
>abasement, torture, shown as filthy, bleeding, bruised,
>or hurt in a context that makes this conditions sexual.
Again, can't think of a decent argument against this provision.
>(2) The use of men, children, or transsexuals in the place of
>women...is pornography for the purposes of...this statue.
Good for Dworkin... she is saying that expecting to be treated according
to a basic, humane standard is a right which belongs to everyone, not just
woman prostitutes making a fast buck in a skin flick. (But they _really_
enjoy it...)
Again, please note: "for the purproses of this statue". Not as applied
against every sexual explicit or erotic film anyone might make. This is a
point everyone who calls Dworkin a bitch and a nazi never seems to
address...
Cathy
~ "The male sex still constitutes in many ways the most obstinate vested
interest one can find." Lord Longford ~
Alan Madsen
: >Steven Malcolm Anderson (sm...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: >: >In <558m21$q...@hal.cs.duke.edu> ga...@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
: >: >>"In the highest of ironies, he presents an allegedly feminist
: >: >>theory that women, incapable of deciding to ourselves, need men
: >: >>like John Stoltenberg to tell us how we should comfort ourselves
: >: >>sexually. Men have so oppressed women that we need men to tell
: >: >>us what to do."
: >: >> -- ("nudes, prudes and attitudes", Avedon
: >
: >: Exactly. THAT kind of patronizing garbage is _far_ more demeaning
: >: women than any porn ever could be! If I was a woman, I'd kill these
: >: paternalist busybodies.
: >
: >absurd... treating someone as a child is not as demeaning as
: >treating someone as an object...
: Totally wrong. There's absolutely nothing whatever demeaning about
: lust.
learn the difference between lust and treating someone
as an object...
--
Zenoink
In <327a96aa...@netnews.worldnet.att.net> ka...@worldnet.att.net
(Larry Kabo) writes:
Lots of stuff criticizing Dworkin's suggetions snipped:
>
>ooooo ra! how bout those clubs women go to? do these men feel
>exploited? choices and ease of employment vs education, choices made
>based on immediate needs among at least a hudred other things! how
>would the dancers (both sexes) feel if you eliminated all these
>employment positions? they would be happy to be unemployed. where
>have you been, this stuff has been going on for 6 thousand years, oh
>sure we can stop it right now! get real, supply and demand, sex,
>figure it when there ain't no supply and one person can service the
>many, it will happen, there ain't no going around it. not that i think
>this is cool, but there are many who do, come out of your glass house!
>
Well, Larry, I would say the answer to your question "do these men feel
exploited?" is yes. And no doubt some days, some customers, some
circumstances make them feel more exploited than others. Just like
women doing the same type of job.
Is this type of thing is going to go away anytime soon? I would say
the answer is no.
As for "6 thousand years", you greatly exaggerate. Unless you mean sex
in general, in which case it isn't just 6 thousand.
Kay
Stephanie Smith
In article <55g2eq$9...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, catha...@aol.com says...
>
>In <5566hr$6...@hal.cs.duke.edu> ga...@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
>
>>##Read up on your hero's agenda Lefty - I have... and I know that you
>>##have,... You just dont want to admit to the *NASTY* stuff that she
>>##spews
>>
>>Kay, this is the ordinance that Dworkin *pushed* in Minneaplois:
>>##################################################################
>
>I'd be fascinated to hear a point-by-point response to some of the
>specifics of this ordinance from those who push the rhetoric that
Dworkin
>is a bitch. (Hardly great debating technique, incidently. Attack the
>idea, not the person; otherwise, you're walking, talking evidence of
what
>Dworkin contends, that women are objects of bigotry and contempt for
>trying to avail themselves of the rights to free speech and equal
>protection under law.)
I hardly think that Dworkin is the object of contempt from many who
despise her for those reasons. Rather, people are threatened by someone
who advocates limiting free speech, and has tried to stifle the ability
of non-anti-porn feminists to present a rebuttal -- insisting that they
aren't really feminists and refusing to debate them or speak at
conferences which represent both views. Dworkin as gone to efforts to
present this as an anti-feminist (man) v. feminist issue. Look at
Nadine Strossen's discussions of her attempts to publicly debate Dworkin
and other anti-porn feminists.
>Some specifics I'd like to see addressed, quoted from the ordinance,
>including some of my comments or questions:
>
>> <italics> Pornography <end italics> Pornography is a form of
>>discrimination on the basis of sex.
>
>This is Dworkin establishing the definition of pornography _for the
>purposes of this ordinance_, not pornography in general, anywhere,
>anytime. Therefore, people who wish to produce pornography which
doesn't
>break this law need to not to discriminate on the basis of sex, as
spelled
>out quite specifically in the following:
Okay, but please define how you determine that a mode of expression is
discrimination on the basis of sex. Also please give some assurance that
this won't endanger non-"discriminatory" porn, through suits and
prosecution through those who just don't like porn, for example.
>>(1) Pornography is the sexually explicit subordination of women,
>>graphically depicted, whether in pictures or in words, that also
>>includes one or more of the following:
>
>Is the sexually explicit subordination of women necessary for good
>erotica?
Not IMO, but that's not the issue. Isn't this obviously the targeting of
certain materials for the point of view they represent. That makes the
ordinance a clear violation of the First Amendment.
>>(i) women are presented as dehumanized sexual objects,
>>things or commodities; or
>
>Again, is dehumanization, or the treatment of women as commodities,
>necessary for good erotica? Is there some reason a filmmaker can't
>present women as people, not just snatches on legs?
See above. The issue is not whether the filmmaker could do something
else, but whether you should be able to censor his work since you don't
like his message.
>>(ii) women are presented as sexual objects who enjoy pain or
>>humiliation; or
>
>This should be modified, perhaps. But unless a film is specifically
about
>S&M, and the treatment of all subjects is equal (i.e., men are also
shown
>enjoying pain and humiliation), what is the objection to this part of
the
>definition of unlawful pornography?
Think about how this could be expanded -- no films unless an equality of
message is shown. No lazy blacks or weak women or violent men or greedy
Jews or Italian criminals or middle-eastern terrorists unless there is
equal representation among other groups. After all, there is no need for
any of these stereotypes to be presented, and people who don't know any
better will get the wrong idea causing prejudice.
>>(iii) women are presented as dehumanized sexual objects, who
>>experience sexual pleasure in being raped; or
>
>I can't think of a decent argument against this. You have a right to
>enjoy watching women be raped? If so, why? Or is speech (sic) more
>important than people?
If the woman is really being raped, that is already a crime. However,
that does not appear to be the point of the statute. It says depicted as
being raped.
>>(iv) women are presented as sexual objects tied up or cut up
>>or mutilated or bruised or physically hurt; or
>
>Ok, some people _like_ being tied up. As for the rest, I'm trying to
>fathom the logic behind the idea that someone's right to watch women
being
>cut up, mutilated, bruised or otherwise physically hurt for purposes of
>sexual excitation is more compelling than women's right not to have
those
>things done to them, period, nor depicted as "entertainment".
Women have the right not to have those things done to them. It is
illegal. Women also have the right not to watch the films. Think about
it in terms of books -- do you want to start censoring books because you
don't like the message?
[snip rest since just continuation of the same]
The problem with your argument, IMO, is that it relies on whether
something is *needed* for good porn in determining whether it is worthy
of protection. Do you really think the government should get into making
the decision about whether something is *needed* or apply a test to see
whether its social value outweighs the harm of its message? Consider all
the messages that people might consider harmful.
Stephanie
Zenoink
In <327BE6...@ix.netcom.com> Jubal Harshaw <phi...@ix.netcom.com>
writes:
>Hillel wrote:
>>
>> ##Dworkin is the bitch that advocates that ALL heterosexual sex is RAPE
>> ##
>> ##Duh!
>> ##
>> ##have,... You just dont want to admit to the *NASTY* stuff that she
>> ##spews
>>
>> Zenoink <zen...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> >The only one "spewing" anything nasty around here is you. Give it a
>> >rest, Meaghan, or Michael, or whatever your real name might be.
>>
>> >Kay
>>
>
>She probably would have pushed for impeachment hearings for Jimmy
Carter
>because he admitted he lusted in his heart. And we all know what kind
>of a "bad" person Jimmy Carter is.
>
Jubal
Hmmm....then why didn't she? Jimmy was trying to get elected and he
still needed the votes of certain men's magazine readers, poor weepy
politician.
What was little Jimmy the tight-rope walker supposed to say? Yep, be
sure to vote fer me, fellahs. Ah swear Ah cheat on Rosemary ever'
chance Ah get!?
Why hasn't Dworkin gone for the jugular on Clinton if she's all that
you claim she is?
Kay
CatharinaK
I wrote:
>>... of what Dworkin contends, that women are objects of bigotry and
contempt >>for trying to avail themselves of the rights to free speech and
equal
>>protection under law.)
and us01...@interramp.com (Stephanie Smith) replied:
>I hardly think that Dworkin is the object of contempt from many who
>despise her for those reasons. Rather, people are threatened by someone
>who advocates limiting free speech,
There are any number of limitations on free speech, having to do with
protecting people from harm. This is not a threatening concept, in and of
itself, but a rational one.
It is certainly clear that people are threatened by Dworkin's invocation
of it, however.
>and has tried to stifle the ability of non-anti-porn feminists to present
a rebuttal -- >insisting that they aren't really feminists and refusing to
debate them or speak at
>conferences which represent both views. Dworkin as gone to efforts to
>present this as an anti-feminist (man) v. feminist issue. Look at Nadine
>Strossen's discussions of her attempts to publicly debate Dworkin and
other >anti-porn feminists.
Where can I find Strossen's discussions (titles, magazines, etc)? In what
way have debates been stifled by Ms Dworkin?
Perhaps she's spooked. I've listened to Dworkin and the verbal abuse
heaped on her was vicious and frequently sexist in content. The majority
of people calling into the particular radio show I heard were men, with
some feminist women. Many of both type of caller's attacks amounted to
attempts to intimidate her into being quiet... in other words, people were
trying to curtail _her_ freedom to speak.
BTW, I am not anti-porn, nor do I belive Dworkin is. Labelling her ideas
as simply "anti-porn" and nothing more sophisticated is disengenuous. The
issue of the treatment of women and their sexuality in this society
deserves to be addressed.
>Okay, but please define how you determine that a mode of expression is
>discrimination on the basis of sex.
Well, I'm not a lawyer. For me it was akin to getting on a bus in the
South in the 50s and finally, really noticing all the black people were
sitting in the back, and saying to myself "something's not right here"...
Some people may see that as inflammatory, but it's honestly how it hit me.
I've determined much current pornography/erotica is discrimination on the
basis of sex by looking at and into sex magazines and seeing them
overwhlemingly aimed at male audiences, not mixed gender audiences.
Meanwhile the number of publications aimed at women audiences is not only
paltry in quantity, but quality and availability.
I've determined it by finding that the mostly male theater owners and film
producers make considerably more money than the mostly female workers in
the strip/peep shows and movies (not to mention prostitution). I've
determined it by opening up the local big city paper and looking at the
ads for explicit sex shows, which in 90-100% of the cases feature young,
huge-busted, and in fact usually white, women, all panting to have sex all
the time - which, as a woman, I know is a misrepresentation of female
sexuality. Same story when I've wandered into the "Adult" video section
in any video store, with the exception of "Good Vibrations". Even there,
there are precious few videos aimed at someone other than hetereosexual
males.
I'm not turned on by any of this, and often times am actively offended by
it, to the point of being sickened and depressed. Therefore I perceive I
am being discriminated against. If you live somewhere that pornography
has become more egalitarian, I'd love to hear about it.
>>Also please give some assurance that this won't endanger
non-"discriminatory" >>porn, through suits and prosecution through those
who just don't like porn, for >>example.
Dworkin's proposed ordinance lists many ways to assure just that, so I'll
simply move on.
>>(1) Pornography is the sexually explicit subordination of women,
>>graphically depicted, whether in pictures or in words, that also
>>includes one or more of the following:
>>
>>Is the sexually explicit subordination of women necessary for good
>>erotica?
>Not IMO, but that's not the issue. Isn't this obviously the targeting of
>certain materials for the point of view they represent. That makes the
>ordinance a clear violation of the First Amendment.
The point of view singled out here is often harmful to women, unless you
believe widespread and continiual depictions of the sexual subordination
of women is chiefly harmless; I would be interested in your arguments.
More to the point, I think you stopped reading after the second comma,
where the sentence continues: "that also includes one or more of the
following:"
Anyway, I'm glad to hear your opinion is that pornography need not be
based on the graphic subordination of women... lots of pornographers would
be heaving sighs of relief that their good works don't fall under the very
first provision of this sort of law, particularly in you
non-discriminatory neck of the woods, no?
[snip]
> The issue is not whether the filmmaker could do something
>else, but whether you should be able to censor his work since you don't
>like his message.
You're right. I don't like the message that me, my mother, my aunt, my
niece, or my female friends are commodities on account of our gender. I
don't like the message that African natives were commodities, or Jews in
the Warsaw ghetto were commodities, or children in Bangkok are sexual
commodities. I think an enlightened society *should* be able to combat
that message, because it is historically a vastly harmful one. It's a
message that directly leads to human suffering and death - worse suffering
than not getting to watch or read your personal favorite brand of sexually
stimulating material.
>>(ii)
>>
>>This should be modified, perhaps. But unless a film is specifically
>>about S&M, and the treatment of all subjects is equal (i.e., men are
also
>>shown enjoying pain and humiliation), what is the objection to this part
of
>>the definition of unlawful pornography?
>Think about how this could be expanded -- no films unless an equality of
>message is shown.
In this case, the message specifically being defined is (1) the sexually
explicit subordination of women, graphically depicted, *and* (2) women ...
presented as sexual objects who enjoy pain or humiliation. I might add
something to the effect that the purpose of the work was clearly to
sexually excite the watcher, with no other redeeming quality. (I can hear
the howls now...)
This is quite specific - it's very specificity is it's strength and your
protection against what you fear.
>>; or No lazy blacks or weak women or violent men or greedy
>>Jews or Italian criminals or middle-eastern terrorists
Let us amend your list to read "no sexually explicit subordination of lazy
blacks, violent men, greedy Jews, Italian criminals or middle-eastern
terrorists being graphically presented as sexual objects [who] enjoy pain
or humiliation", and have you address that instead.
Or put it another way, no films specifically designed to excite the racial
prejudices of white supremecists, explicitly depicting the subordination
of greedy Jews who enjoy pain and humiliation. One could call such films
speech, even protected speech, but one could also make a pretty good case
that such speech is not healthy for Jewish people, who have rights, too.
>>(iii) women are presented as dehumanized sexual objects, who
>>experience sexual pleasure in being raped; or
>>
>>I can't think of a decent argument against this. You have a right to
>>enjoy watching women be raped? If so, why? Or is speech (sic) more
>>important than people?
> If the woman is really being raped, that is already a crime.
Quite right. Think the prosecution will ask what she was wearing?
>>women are presented as sexual objects who enjoy pain or
>>humiliation; or
Article Unavailable
CatharinaK
enn...@teleport.com (Ennead) writes:
> You're right that it's lousy technique. I've never called Dworkin a
> bitch, but I'm replying to this post anyway - hope you don't mind. =)
Not at all... :)
> But if I don't discriminate against sex - if, for instance, I publish a
> porn mag that very carefully balances depictions of penises with an
equal
> number of depictions of vaginas, in all cases visually cut off from the
> rest of the model - I'd still be liable to get sued under this
ordinance.
Why? What you describe doesn't fall under the first definition, that of
"sexually explicit subordination of women, graphically depicted".
> Just because it =says= that's what the ordinance is about doesn't make
it
> so in practice.
This is the best argument against such laws, to my mind: who gets to
enforce them. But that doesn't negate the need to address the issue of
sexual discrimination against women. What it does is call for very
carefully, specifically crafted laws.
> Note that "whether in pictures or words." It'll come up again later.
Ok.
> What if a filmmaker (or photographer, or painter, or poet...) wants to
> write about women (or men, children or transgenders) as commodities?
> For instance, feminist Anne Rice wrote about people as sexualized
> commodities in her novel EAST OF EDEN. It was a pretty bad novel,
> actually, but I don't see why she shouldn't have the right to write it.
Maybe it's not an artist, maybe it's Adolf Hitler wanting to write about
Jews and Gypsies as commodities; maybe it's not art, it's propaganda aimed
at dehumanizing a certain population in order to make harming that
population acceptable.
Anyway, you are forgetting that simply writing about people as sexual
commodities isn't the only criteria: writing about the "sexually explicit
subordination of women, men, children, or transgenders, graphically
depicted" as "dehumanized sexual objects, things or commodities" is.
Please address the statute as written.
> Maybe the artist wants to do it because it turns her on; maybe she wants
> to do it as part of a ironic anti-sexist performance art piece.
I do believe another criteria that needs to be established is that the
purpose of the peice - the main thrust if you will - is *only* to sexually
stimulate the watcher.
I confess I am less comfortable with the inclusion of written, painted or
drawn work in this... no real people are involved in such works. Films
and photographs use real people, which is far more troublesome. I know
people belive all prostitutes, porn stars and Playmates of the Month just
love what they're doing and are never exploited, yatta yatta yatta, but I
don't. Many works of porn are little more than primers on how to exploit
young people who've been abused all their lives.
> When you talk about what's necessary for "good erotica," you're implying
a
> distinction which is nowhere in the ordinance, which makes no
distinction
> according to whether the publication in question is a stroke mag or an
> academic journal describing unusual sexual practices. They're both
> "pornography," according to the definition given in the ordinance.
No, they're not. I doubt an academic journal would present as their
subject (repeat after me) the: "sexually explicit subordination of women,
graphically depicted" *and* (add any other provision from the ordinance),
and nothing more.
I agree that the lack of distinction between a stroke mag and some other
work is an oversight in this ordinance, though.
> : >(ii) women are presented as sexual objects who enjoy pain or
> : >humiliation; or
> : This should be modified, perhaps. But unless a film is specifically
about
> : S&M, and the treatment of all subjects is equal (i.e., men are also
shown
> : enjoying pain and humiliation), what is the objection to this part of
the
> : definition of unlawful pornography?
> So in your opinion, if someone is turned on only by men as subs, it
should
> be illegal for that person to publish a magazine of his writing about
> this, unless he sticks in a token women sub as well?
I keep stumbling over the idea that what turns any one individual on
should deserve protection under law even if that means an entire class of
people, in this case women, shall be subjected to the cumulative effects
of always seeing themselves depicted as sexually subordinate, etc etc etc.
I don't think someone publishing a mag featuring only men as subs should
be illegal, no. I think if you walk into a porn store and see 998 such
mags, and one or two depicting women as subs, then we have a problem.
> Furthermore, you've seemingly forgotten the theory behind this
ordinance,
> which is that pronography causes rape. If a woman is raped by a man who
> was inspired by an S&M mag, why (under the imo faulty rape-prevention
> logic that fuels this ordinance) should that mag be less prosecutable if
> it showed humiliated people of both sexes? Surely the rape victim has
> been just as victimized regardless of how much the magazine practices
> "submissive equity."
Quite right. (Please direct me to a magazine rack filled with works
practicing "submissive equity", BTW. They don't seem to exist in my neck
of the woods.)
Yes, rape is already illegal. Now if we could just get to the stage where
it also isn't looked at with a nod and wink by the male dominated law
enforcement and judicial systems, we'd be getting somewhere. This IMO is
made very difficult when the filmed or written "sexually explicit
subordination of women, graphically depicted" presentation of women "as
dehumanized sexual objects, who experience sexual pleasure in being raped"
are protected as works of art, and men's right to jack off over such works
is protected as "freedom of speech".
> I have no right to watch anyone being raped; but that's not what this is
> talking about. A =depiction= of someone being raped is what this
> ordinance is talking about.
Incorrect. The ordinance goes to great pains to say (repeat after me):
the "sexually explicit subordination of women, graphically depicted"
*including* "women ...presented as dehumanized sexual objects, _who
experience sexual pleasure in being raped_".
Also, this issue of "acting" vs. "real". Noone is going to argue that a
film of a real rape is protected speech. But would you address the
"depiction" of a rape in which the actress is explicitly shown being
penetrated? She is acting like she doesn't want it (it's a rape, after
all); in real life she doesn't actually "want it" either, since she's just
acting; isn't rape the penetration of someone against their will? What,
pay them enough and it's ok?
> John Irving's novel THE WORLD ACCORDING TO GARP depicts a rape
> graphically,
Indeed it does. I recall that the victim didn't particularly enjoy it,
nor was every stroke of the rapist's penis graphically described.
> Some people like being bruised, mutilated (haven't you ever heard of
> branding or piercing?) and physically hurt, as well.
Bully for them. Go for it. Nothing saying you can't be bruised,
mutilated, tattooed, pierced, beaten, peed or shat upon to your heart's
content in this ordinance, is there?
Take pictures of people enjoying it, even. Just don't take pictures of
"the sexually explicit subordination of women" *also* being "presented as
sexual objects tied up or cut up or mutilated or bruised or physically
hurt".
There is a difference here which you consistently fail to address.
> To repeat a couple of points: "for purposes of sexual excitation" is
> something you've projected on to this paragraph, not something that this
> paragraph says.
I believe that is what is meant by the first provision about the sexually
explicit subordination of women graphically displayed, but I agree it's a
point that must be make very clear.
> And no one is claiming that anyone has the right to watch a real person
> being really abused in illegal ways. Again, this ordinance would forbid
> actors =pretending= to be cut up and bruised.
So you do agree that if an actor in a porn movie came forward presenting
real cuts and bruises, such a film would be illegal?
> First of all, I doubt that much (if any) porn aimed at a straight male
> audience is nothing but a constant parade of vaginas and breasts
attached
> to no one in particular. All the porn I've seen (lesbian, straight or
> gay) has included lots of full-body shots and lots of shots showing the
> face.
Guess you've never seen one of those artistic compilations of come shots.
I think the meaningful part of this section is "such that women are
reduced to those parts". If you've never seen a porn movie that reduces
women to their sexual parts, furthermore always devoted to the sexual
fulfillment of the men in the piece, you're a luckier person than I am.
> Secondly, I doubt any partner I've had would be into that, but so
> what? I don't see the harm in an hour film of erect penises, if someone
> wants to make such a film.
Funnily enough, people don't seem to. They do seem to want to make many,
many films featuring an hour's worth of erect penises shooting semen into
women's mouths, onto their faces, onto thier butts, and onto their
breasts, though.
> But in fact the ordinance makes no distinction between a hundred photos
of
> a penis and a single photo of a penis among other pictures. They're all
> pornography, under this definition, whether it's the hour-long film you
> hypothisized or a Robert Mapplethorpe coffee table book.
You are completely mistaken. Please read the ordinance more carefully. I
have never seen a Mapplethorpe book that depicted women in anything like
what is defined in this statute.
> You could argue that Woody Allen's movie SHADOWS AND FOG - in which the
> sole non-slutty woman character eventually agrees to sleep with a rich
> man, which he finally offers a high enough sum of money so that she
can't
> resist - would qualify as pornography under this ordinance.
No, you couldn't. Under the ordinance you think it is, yes. Under the
ordinance it actually is, no.
Or has Woody Allen taken to graphically showing explicit sex acts in his
movies?
> Why? Some couples like using dildos or whatever; some people like
having
> their partner handle the object.
You're right. And so long as works showing this don't also inherently
include (repeat after me) the "sexually explicit subordination of women,
graphically depicted" there's nothing preventing you from having lovely
films of couples enjoying the use of dildos.
In fact, such films would fall under the defintion of protected speech,
unprotected speech having been clearly defined.
> ...which is already illegal. But this ordinance would make even a
> =drawing= of such a thing illegal, even though no actual animals are
> mistreated.
I believe this ordinance is flawed in that respect, as I have already
stated. Doesn't negate the idea that not all pornographic materials fall
under the defintion of protected speech.
> This ordinance argues that =depictions= of cruelty should be illegal,
not
> cruely itself.
You have a very sunny idea of the content of alot of porn, don't you?
Anyway, to repeat myself ad nauseum, it is not simply depictions of
cruelty that would be illegal.
> More importantly, there's no reason to believe that pornography causes
> rape (there's a large body of research refuting that theory); so
violence
> would NOT be reduced by the passage of this ordinance. So why should we
> not allow people to mastrubate to whatever =depictions= they want to,
> since it harms no one?
If I believed pornography, or at least much of it in it's current form,
harmed noone, I wouldn't be arguing this side of it, would I? That is
simply the "don't let the prudes tell us what to do" argument, and it's
insulting.
I appreciate your passion on the side of erotica, but I fail to see much
that is erotic that would fit the descriptions of this ordinance.
Furthermore, I do believe that we can harmlessly curtail the rights of
people to masturbate to some things for the purposes of protecting vastly
more people from a lifetime of fear and sorrow.
Article Unavailable
Hillel
In article <55j95g$d...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>,
Zenoink <zen...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Why hasn't Dworkin gone for the jugular on Clinton if she's all that
>you claim she is?
Like Dworkin, Carter believed in special protection for women.
E.g. he supported affirmative action and started men only
registration for draft.
Hillel
@@@seems they found a four year old or so girl dead in a ice
@@@cooler... in another state they found a snap shot of a girl
@@@near the same age ingageing in oral sex with a male (who's
@@@head had been removed from the snapshot) who might have be-
@@@en the girl in the cooler... they have not yet found the
@@@male, they probably will not...
##As usual, good feminists view adult women as helpless
##as a four years old girl. My opinion is different.
In article <55fi50$q...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>,
Carol Ann Hemingway <lef...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> It's very interesting that a homeless man or woman is very much
> like a four year old girl in several ways. When one is mentally
> impaired, or induced by incredible poverty to do what most of us
> might not do, it changes us.
If the goal of the Ordinance was to protect the "mentally impaired"
(fat chance...) then it should have uses "mentally impaired" instead
of "women." IMO the issue of homeless people has nothing to do
with the Ordinance, it is just an attempt to change the subject.
Stephanie Smith
In article <55qg0m$a...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, catha...@aol.com says...
>>>... of what Dworkin contends, that women are objects of bigotry and
>contempt >>for trying to avail themselves of the rights to free speech
and
>equal
>>>protection under law.)
>
>and us01...@interramp.com (Stephanie Smith) replied:
>
>>I hardly think that Dworkin is the object of contempt from many who
>>despise her for those reasons. Rather, people are threatened by
someone
>>who advocates limiting free speech,
>
>There are any number of limitations on free speech, having to do with
>protecting people from harm. This is not a threatening concept, in and
of
>itself, but a rational one.
Protecting people from immediate physical harm, yes (children being the
exception, since they are "protected" from everything). But first the
burden is one the person advocating the restriction to prove the harm.
And this is pretty stringent, especially to the extent that the speech
being restricted based on its political viewpoint (which could include
the subordination of women). The fact that Skokie couldn't ban a Nazi
march, despite the fact that many former concentration camp inmates lived
there and would witness/hear it (talk about extreme emotional harm) and
that it certainly threatened to result in violence given clashes between
marchers and onlookers, etc. is an example, though a bit overused. But
I'll admit that I am pretty much an absolutist on the First Amendment,
since I think once we start drawing lines, especially based on ideas we
don't like, it could easily get out of control.
>It is certainly clear that people are threatened by Dworkin's invocation
>of it, however.
I am, yes.
>>and has tried to stifle the ability of non-anti-porn feminists to
present
>a rebuttal -- >insisting that they aren't really feminists and refusing
to
>debate them or speak at
>>conferences which represent both views. Dworkin as gone to efforts to
>>present this as an anti-feminist (man) v. feminist issue. Look at
Nadine
>>Strossen's discussions of her attempts to publicly debate Dworkin and
>other >anti-porn feminists.
>
>Where can I find Strossen's discussions (titles, magazines, etc)? In
what
>way have debates been stifled by Ms Dworkin?
Read (or look at) Defending Pornography. She goes into it in great
detail. I've witnessed it myself -- in a conference I was part of
planning, the Dworkin/MacKinnon types refused to come if others were
included, and went out of their way to censor the one opposing viewpoint
that had been included. This is similar to the strategy (among others)
that Strossen discusses -- the anti-porn feminists refuse to debate
anti-censorship feminists, but require that their opponents be
non-feminists, and the news media obliges. This helps in their efforts
to claim that all "real" feminists are against pornography.
>Perhaps she's spooked. I've listened to Dworkin and the verbal abuse
>heaped on her was vicious and frequently sexist in content. The
majority
>of people calling into the particular radio show I heard were men, with
>some feminist women. Many of both type of caller's attacks amounted to
>attempts to intimidate her into being quiet... in other words, people
were
>trying to curtail _her_ freedom to speak.
I saw her (at the conference I mentioned) and she was treated very well.
The amusing thing was after her speech, the father of a friend of mine (a
very conservative judge from a small town in northern Michigan) said, "I
never knew I was a radical feminist." It is interesting how the
Dworkin/MacKinnon arguments curtail somewhat with very traditionalist
views of women and men. But I don't think the liberal feminist
contingent (like Strossen) would threaten Dworkin.
>BTW, I am not anti-porn, nor do I belive Dworkin is. Labelling her
ideas
>as simply "anti-porn" and nothing more sophisticated is disengenuous.
The
I am really just using it for the sake of convenience (and because it
seems less insulting than pro-censorship).
>issue of the treatment of women and their sexuality in this society
>deserves to be addressed.
I agree. I just don't think it merits infringment of the First Amendment
(or rewriting the 1st Amendement) especially when our basic rights are in
such danger from the Religious Right already (my opinion). Doesn't it
bother you to see Dworkin or other feminists who support her on these
issues arguing with an ACLU person, perhaps, along with a Christian
Coalition type? I would hardly trust those so-called supporters with
censoring my reading material.
A related point: in the 7th circuit decision striking down the
Indianapolis statute (the Hudnut case), the judge who wrote the dissent
supporting the statute (and even adopting much of MacKinnon's reasoning)
was Judge Coffey, by far the most right wing and anti-women's equality
and pro-traditionalist of the 7th Circuit. This would bother me if I
supported these laws.
>>Okay, but please define how you determine that a mode of expression is
>>discrimination on the basis of sex.
>
>Well, I'm not a lawyer. For me it was akin to getting on a bus in the
>South in the 50s and finally, really noticing all the black people were
>sitting in the back, and saying to myself "something's not right
here"...
>Some people may see that as inflammatory, but it's honestly how it hit
me.
>
>I've determined much current pornography/erotica is discrimination on
the
>basis of sex by looking at and into sex magazines and seeing them
>overwhlemingly aimed at male audiences, not mixed gender audiences.
I live in a largely gay neighborhood. The most explicit materials I've
seen recently are in the neighborhood 7-11 and video stores and contain
sexual depictions of men aimed at men. Hardly discrimination. Also, you
(and all women) don't have to look at this stuff. In fact, it takes some
effort to do so.
Now, I agree that some of it encourages ideas that are harmful to women,
but I don't see a rational way to distinguish that from books, etc.
expressing extremely harmful ideas about blacks, Jews, etc. (the Nazi
example again). There must be a better way to work against the effect of
the materials (if it is indeed that extensive) other than censorship.
[snip discussion of pornography seen in course of daily life]
>I'm not turned on by any of this, and often times am actively offended
by
>it, to the point of being sickened and depressed. Therefore I perceive
I
>am being discriminated against. If you live somewhere that pornography
>has become more egalitarian, I'd love to hear about it.
Not at all. I rarely see explicit pornography that I'm turned on by,
certainly not of the type we are talking about (though it's certainly
easy to find books, etc. which are aimed toward women, you hear more
lately about porn aimed toward women, most women I know have gone to a
male strip bar at least once, etc.) I just don't see why the lack of
explicit porn aimed toward me means I am discriminated against. As I
said, the majority of pornography I see (due to where I live) is aimed at
gay men, anyway.
>>>Also please give some assurance that this won't endanger
>non-"discriminatory" >>porn, through suits and prosecution through those
>who just don't like porn, for >>example.
>
>Dworkin's proposed ordinance lists many ways to assure just that, so
I'll
>simply move on.
But if it is okay to pass an ordinance like hers, what guarantee do we
have that people won't expand it to other "offensive" areas? This is one
arena in which I actually agree with the slippery slope argument.
>>>(1) Pornography is the sexually explicit subordination of women,
>>>graphically depicted, whether in pictures or in words, that also
>>>includes one or more of the following:
>>>
>>>Is the sexually explicit subordination of women necessary for good
>>>erotica?
>
>>Not IMO, but that's not the issue. Isn't this obviously the targeting
of
>
>>certain materials for the point of view they represent. That makes the
>>ordinance a clear violation of the First Amendment.
>
>The point of view singled out here is often harmful to women, unless you
>believe widespread and continiual depictions of the sexual subordination
>of women is chiefly harmless; I would be interested in your arguments.
Doesn't matter, many points of view are harmful. The protection of even
objectionable or unpopular or offensive points of view from censorship is
one of the strongest reasons behind the First Amendment. Many people
would think that any depiction of gay sex (or even writing supporting the
idea that gays should be treated as people) is offensive and serves no
purpose.
But also the burden is on the person advocating censorship to show the
distinct harm from the material to be censored, which I don't think has
been done yet (not convincingly -- the Meese report doesn't count).
>More to the point, I think you stopped reading after the second comma,
>where the sentence continues: "that also includes one or more of the
>following:"
Well, I was trying to make a point beyond the specific statute, since
it's not self-limiting. The principle is the issue, IMO.
>Anyway, I'm glad to hear your opinion is that pornography need not be
>based on the graphic subordination of women... lots of pornographers
would
>be heaving sighs of relief that their good works don't fall under the
very
>first provision of this sort of law, particularly in you
>non-discriminatory neck of the woods, no?
Like I said, the vast majority of porn I see on a daily basis (videos in
video stores, magazines, etc.) don't involve women at all. The only
stuff I see involving women are rather softcore ads for strip bars, which
(in the ads at least) don't include any of the particularly graphic
elements (or the subordination part that I can see).
>[snip]
>
>> The issue is not whether the filmmaker could do something
>>else, but whether you should be able to censor his work since you don't
>>like his message.
>
>You're right. I don't like the message that me, my mother, my aunt, my
>niece, or my female friends are commodities on account of our gender. I
>don't like the message that African natives were commodities, or Jews in
>the Warsaw ghetto were commodities, or children in Bangkok are sexual
>commodities. I think an enlightened society *should* be able to combat
>that message, because it is historically a vastly harmful one. It's a
>message that directly leads to human suffering and death - worse
suffering
>than not getting to watch or read your personal favorite brand of
sexually
>stimulating material.
But the problem is if it is okay to censor based on message, who is to
decide what message is appropriate? I think the good old "marketplace of
ideas" is the safest way to go -- since we agree that the message can be
powerful, the government should certainly not have control over what it
is. If you don't like those ideas (and I certainly agree with that
opinion) work to counteract it by expressing other ideas.
>>>(ii)
>>>
>>>This should be modified, perhaps. But unless a film is specifically
>>>about S&M, and the treatment of all subjects is equal (i.e., men are
>also
>>>shown enjoying pain and humiliation), what is the objection to this
part
>of
>>>the definition of unlawful pornography?
>
>>Think about how this could be expanded -- no films unless an equality
of
>>message is shown.
>
>In this case, the message specifically being defined is (1) the sexually
>explicit subordination of women, graphically depicted, *and* (2) women
...
>presented as sexual objects who enjoy pain or humiliation. I might add
>something to the effect that the purpose of the work was clearly to
>sexually excite the watcher, with no other redeeming quality. (I can
hear
>the howls now...)
>
>This is quite specific - it's very specificity is it's strength and your
>protection against what you fear.
But it's not, since if this law is okay, the principle against censorship
based on ideas has been violated, so what is to prevent an expansion?
>>>; or No lazy blacks or weak women or violent men or greedy
>>>Jews or Italian criminals or middle-eastern terrorists
>
>Let us amend your list to read "no sexually explicit subordination of
lazy
>blacks, violent men, greedy Jews, Italian criminals or middle-eastern
>terrorists being graphically presented as sexual objects [who] enjoy
pain
>or humiliation", and have you address that instead.
But why is it necessarily limited to sexually explicit materials? I
think materials which have nothing to do with sex can be just as harmful.
>Or put it another way, no films specifically designed to excite the
racial
>prejudices of white supremecists, explicitly depicting the subordination
>of greedy Jews who enjoy pain and humiliation. One could call such
films
>speech, even protected speech, but one could also make a pretty good
case
>that such speech is not healthy for Jewish people, who have rights, too.
Precisely what I am talking about. And this means we are now allowing
the government to censor any ideas/depictions based on the majorities'
view of the message. Do you have faith in the government to back the
same messages as you all the time?
Also, how do you determine whether it was "specifically designed to
excite racial prejudices" or can just be read or viewed that way?
Messages are often ambiguous. I think this just gives far to much leeway
to a jury (or judge) to punish people for what they just don't like.
This would also likely lead to a chilling effect, whereby people will
avoid anything that can even remotely be considered within the statute
for fear of punishment.
>>>(iii) women are presented as dehumanized sexual objects, who
>>>experience sexual pleasure in being raped; or
>>>
>>>I can't think of a decent argument against this. You have a right to
>>>enjoy watching women be raped? If so, why? Or is speech (sic) more
>>>important than people?
>
>> If the woman is really being raped, that is already a crime.
>
>Quite right. Think the prosecution will ask what she was wearing?
There are better ways to address perceived problems in prosecuting rape
cases then by censorship. Address those issues specifically.
>>>women are presented as sexual objects who enjoy pain or
>>>humiliation; or
>
>> However, that does not appear to be the point of the statute. It says
>depicted
>> as being raped.
>
>In point of fact, it says "presented... experienc[ing] sexual pleasure
in
>being raped".
Something that has since been lost or snipped said "depicted". At any
rate, I read "presented" similarly. If you think this only refers to
actual rape, then it is written badly, since it can easily be read to
include depictions of rape.
>Please address the statute as it is written, not as what you would like
to
>reduce it to.
I was. It can certainly be read as I read it, and I still believe that
that is the meaning intended, since rape is already illegal.
>Do you get off on being raped? Do you think anyone experiences pleasure
>in being raped? Do you know men who like watching women get raped for
>entertainment, and do you wish to protect their right to do so? If so,
>why - specifically.
I don't like anti-semitism either. That doesn't give me the right to
censor such ideas.
>>>humiliation; or
>>>(iv) women are presented as sexual objects tied up or cut up
>>>or mutilated or bruised or physically hurt; or
>>>
>>>Ok, some people _like_ being tied up. As for the rest, I'm trying to
>>>fathom the logic behind the idea that someone's right to watch women
>>>being cut up, mutilated, bruised or otherwise physically hurt for
>purposes of
>>>sexual excitation is more compelling than women's right not to have
>>>those things done to them, period, nor depicted as "entertainment".
>
>> Women have the right not to have those things done to them. It is
>> illegal. Women also have the right not to watch the films.
>
>Boy, that's a hell of a leap you make there. It's illegal. So don't
>watch it if it offends you?
How hard is it not to watch the stuff? The illegal point was something
different -- if it is actually being done, it is already illegal. The
other was to refer to what I read the statute as referring to --
depictions, which are not illegal. I admit that the way I wrote it comes
across differently, but it wasn't meant that way.
>Gee, that'll show them! Meanwhile, the police can keep on eating donuts
>and sippin' coffee, I guess.
Nothing about this prevents the police from enforcing laws against crimes
which already exist. I think enforcement of laws against rape should be
encouraged.
>> it in terms of books -- do you want to start censoring books because
you
>
>>don't like the message?
>
>No, I do not. But this isn't a question of "like" and "dislike",
anymore
>than childbirth is a question of "convenience" and "inconvenience".
It's your burden to prove there is a clear difference and point out why
the line should be drawn in a certain place. I don't see explicit porn
as being necessarily more dangerous than these other things that you
wouldn't censor. Look at the effectiveness of Hitler's speech, for
example.
>Forget films and magazines in porn stores. If most of the books
available
>at libraries and bookstores contained explicit and graphic images of
>sexually subordinate women enjoying being raped, bruised, mutilated,
tied
>up, etc, I'd argue for my right not to be subjected to such hateful
>discrimination against the writer's and publisher's rights of free
speech,
>too.
How is it discrimination when you need not even read the stuff? I think
you need to establish this part of your argument more if you want to be
convincing.
>>The problem with your argument, IMO, is that it relies on whether
>>something is *needed* for good porn in determining whether it is worthy
>>of protection.
>
>I presented my argument poorly then. The point I am trying to make is
>that it isn't pornography per se that is at risk under these sorts of
>laws, but pornography that is discriminatory, degrading and dehumanzing.
>If as you say good pornography is perfectly possible without those
>qualities, then you have little to be afraid of. Such pornography
would
>remain available and even protected under law, the harmful stuff having
-
>finally -been specifically identified and defined. Everyone wins,
rather
>than having misogynist pornographers granted the most protection under
>law, by default.
But I am not bothered because I am fearful for the existence of
pornography (personally I'm not even into pornography and rarely see the
stuff). I'm fearful because you are opening the door for censorship
based on ideas. I think many films, books, photographs, etc. could be
considered degrading and dehumanizing, etc. It's still protected, since
people have the right to advocate even harmful, dangerous, and offensive
viewpoints.
Article Unavailable
Ennead
CatharinaK (catha...@aol.com, quoting my reply to her) wrote:
: > But if I don't discriminate against sex - if, for instance, I publish
: > a porn mag that very carefully balances depictions of penises with an
: > equal number of depictions of vaginas, in all cases visually cut off
: > from the rest of the model - I'd still be liable to get sued under
: > this ordinance.
: Why? What you describe doesn't fall under the first definition, that of
: "sexually explicit subordination of women, graphically depicted". [...]
Yes it does, as this ordinance defines subordination.
A magazine of photos of penises and vaginas would to be considered
"sexually explicit" by most courts in Oregon, where I live. (Not that it
matters, since despite recent efforts by right-wing christians our state
consitution has stronger protections of sexual speech than the US
constitution - or any other state, for that matter - but my point is that
my hypothetical porn mag would certainly be "sexually explicit.")
So, is it "subordination?" Well, that term is incredibly vauge - how
is a vagina, pictured wiht no context, subordinated? Fortunately, the
ordinance includes some examples of what could be considered to meet the
statute's definition of pornography; one such is "women's body parts -
including but not limited to vaginas... - are exhibited such that women
are reduced to those parts..." The law also explicitly states that
treating men in such a manner also counts as pornography.
I can't imagine what is meant by "reduced to those parts" if a magazine
full of photos of EXCLUSIVELY those parts, with the rest of the bodies cut
off by the edges of the photos, doesn't qualify.
: > What if a filmmaker (or photographer, or painter, or poet...) wants to
: > write about women (or men, children or transgenders) as commodities?
: > For instance, feminist Anne Rice wrote about people as sexualized
: > commodities in her novel EAST OF EDEN. It was a pretty bad novel,
: > actually, but I don't see why she shouldn't have the right to write it.
: Maybe it's not an artist, maybe it's Adolf Hitler wanting to write about
: Jews and Gypsies as commodities; maybe it's not art, it's propaganda aimed
: at dehumanizing a certain population in order to make harming that
: population acceptable.
This may be a fundimental difference in our views, since I think that if
Adolf Hitler (or anyone else) wishes to argue that Jews and Roma ought to
be enslaved and sold as commodities, he has that right, until he actually
tries to put his views into practice. I have to trust in the power of
counterspeech to fight him, not censorship. Consider: if "harmful,
disgusting views" could be censored, chances are there'd be no gay rights
movement, because it never could have gotten started.
: Anyway, you are forgetting that simply writing about people as sexual
: commodities isn't the only criteria: writing about the "sexually explicit
: subordination of women, men, children, or transgenders, graphically
: depicted" as "dehumanized sexual objects, things or commodities" is.
: Please address the statute as written. ^^
Anne Rice writes a sexually explicit novel in which women & men are
explicitly treated as sexual commodities, who are sexually subordinate (as
well as subordinate in most other ways. Why on earth would EAST OF EDEN
not qualify, in your opinion? (You could argue that they have to be
"dehumanized," but that's a completely subjective term that is never
defined in the ordinance. If I argue that showing people enjoying being
sold as sexual slaves dehumanizes people, could you prove me wrong?)
: > Maybe the artist wants to do it because it turns her on; maybe she wants
: > to do it as part of a ironic anti-sexist performance art piece.
: I do believe another criteria that needs to be established is that the
: purpose of the peice - the main thrust if you will - is *only* to sexually
: stimulate the watcher.
I'm not sure what you mean here. If you mean that such is a requirement
of MacKinnon's model law, then you're simply wrong; no such requirement is
anywhere in the ordinance.
If you're saying that such a thing should be =added= to MacKinnon's
language, then I'd have to question the practicality of proving in a court
of law that a creator had ONLY one purpose in mind. What about a porn
magazine that also included a one-page recipe for onion soup - would that
establish that the publisher intended the magazine to be used for more
than only one purpose? (If you want a more realistic example, consider
the articles in PLAYBOY.)
MacKinnon specifically wanted to =avoid= the "serves a dual purpose"
loophole, which is why she wrote her model law to be able to consider the
"sexually subordination" bits outside their context (she writes about this
in FEMINISM UNMODIFIED, iirc).
: I confess I am less comfortable with the inclusion of written, painted or
: drawn work in this... no real people are involved in such works.
If the purpose of the law is to prevent men from being turned into sexual
abusers - and both MacKinnon and Dworkin have stated that that IS the
purpose, time and time again (in ONLY WORDS, MacKinnon says that showing
porn to men is "like saying 'kill' to a trained guard dog") - then there's
no logical reason to exclude written and painted works.
: Films
: and photographs use real people, which is far more troublesome. I know
: people belive all prostitutes, porn stars and Playmates of the Month just
: love what they're doing and are never exploited, yatta yatta yatta, but I
: don't.
There's simply no evidence that porn actresses and Playmates are any more
sexually harassed than (say) cocktail waitresses (feminist journalist Lynn
Snowden, after trying out life as a waitress and as a stripper, reported
that she encountered MUCH more sexual harassment in the former job - see
her book NINE LIVES). Feminist Wendy McElroy, interviewing all the porn
actresses who would talk to her (see her book XXX), couldn't find one who
complained of being exploited in the fashion you seem to be worried about.
There is no evidence. I don't know how to put it any plainer than that.
After years of searching for evidence of widespread abuse in those
industries, the results have been, so far as I know, nil. If you have
evidence, cite it and I'll be glad to look at it; but without evidence,
you have no case.
There is evidence of widespread abuse in prostitution - which, to me,
implies that prostitution ought to be legalized, since the legal sex
industries seem to be less abusive than the illegal ones.
: Many works of porn are little more than primers on how to exploit
: young people who've been abused all their lives.
Evidence?
: > When you talk about what's necessary for "good erotica," you're implying
: a
: > distinction which is nowhere in the ordinance, which makes no
: distinction
: > according to whether the publication in question is a stroke mag or an
: > academic journal describing unusual sexual practices. They're both
: > "pornography," according to the definition given in the ordinance.
: No, they're not. I doubt an academic journal would present as their
: subject (repeat after me) the: "sexually explicit subordination of women,
: graphically depicted" *and* (add any other provision from the ordinance),
: and nothing more.
Where do you get "and nothing more" from? It is =not= in the ordinance;
it has been very specifically and carefully left out of the ordinance.
An academic magazine reprinting examples of the materials found in a study
of S&M sex magazines would qualify under this ordinance.
: I agree that the lack of distinction between a stroke mag and some other
: work is an oversight in this ordinance, though. [...]
It was on purpose, not an oversight, according to MacKinnon.
: Yes, rape is already illegal. Now if we could just get to the stage where
: it also isn't looked at with a nod and wink by the male dominated law
: enforcement and judicial systems, we'd be getting somewhere.[...]
I think that, in the past 15 years, feminists have made =enourmous=
improvements in these areas without needing to censor porn; the fact is,
things are improving, but improvements don't happen instantaniously. Rape
awareness programs, lobbying to alter sexist laws, and fighting against
sexist concepts of "masculine" and "feminine" have all been reasonably
shown to help in these areas; restricting porn has not. If you want to
fight rape, I'm with you, but I'd prefer to concentrate on areas that have
been proven effective.
: > I have no right to watch anyone being raped; but that's not what this is
: > talking about. A =depiction= of someone being raped is what this
: > ordinance is talking about.
: Incorrect. The ordinance goes to great pains to say (repeat after me):
: the "sexually explicit subordination of women, graphically depicted"
: *including* "women ...presented as dehumanized sexual objects, _who
: experience sexual pleasure in being raped_".
(nit-pick; in two copies of the ordinance I've checked, the paragraph
about rape does not have the word "dehumanized" in it.) I don't know why
you say I'm incorrect; the ordinance is perfectly clear that it is women
"depicted" and "presented" as enjoying rape that is targeted, regardless
of whether or not a real woman was really raped.
: Also, this issue of "acting" vs. "real". Noone is going to argue that
: a film of a real rape is protected speech. But would you address the
: "depiction" of a rape in which the actress is explicitly shown being
: penetrated? She is acting like she doesn't want it (it's a rape, after
: all); in real life she doesn't actually "want it" either, since she's just
: acting; isn't rape the penetration of someone against their will? What,
: pay them enough and it's ok?
In the case of a porn actress, she's consented to sex; she does "want it."
That her consent or "wanting it" was related to money, not lust, does not
make it any less consent; and whether she pretends to be not "want it," or
pretends to be overcome with lust, does not effect the basic fact that she
is having sex consentually.
It is not against her will if her will is to be paid for being filmed
having sex.
: > John Irving's novel THE WORLD ACCORDING TO GARP depicts a rape
: > graphically,
: Indeed it does. I recall that the victim didn't particularly enjoy it,
: nor was every stroke of the rapist's penis graphically described. [...]
It was graphic enough to qualify in any of the less liberal states as
"explicitly sexual." You're right that it wouldn't qualify under the rape
paragraph, since that paragraph specifies that the woman must be presented
as enjoying it; instead, it would qualify under the paragraph that says
"women are presented as sexual objects tied up or cut up or mutilated or
bruised or physically hurt," which does not require the victim enjoying
the experience.
: Take pictures of people enjoying it, even. Just don't take pictures of
: "the sexually explicit subordination of women" *also* being "presented as
: sexual objects tied up or cut up or mutilated or bruised or physically
: hurt".
: There is a difference here which you consistently fail to address.
But if a woman (Madonna, say) =wants= to publish pictures =presenting= her
as a sex object being subordinate, tied up, etcetra, why shouldn't she be
allowed to? Whether she's doing it because she wants the money or because
she thinks it's a legitimate art statement (or both), it seems to me that
as long as in reality she's consenting then it's okay, regardless of what
she's pretending for the audience or camera.
: > To repeat a couple of points: "for purposes of sexual excitation" is
: > something you've projected on to this paragraph, not something that this
: > paragraph says.
: I believe that is what is meant by the first provision about the sexually
: explicit subordination of women graphically displayed, but I agree it's a
: point that must be make very clear.
I don't believe that you could support that claim as to what is "meant"
with what MacKinnon has written about the design of the ordinance. She
specifically wanted to design a law that was based (supposidly) on the
=effects= of sexually explicit media, rather than on the =intent= of the
producers. "For purposes of sexual excitation" speaks to intent, which
MacKinnon specifically wanted to avoid.
: > And no one is claiming that anyone has the right to watch a real person
: > being really abused in illegal ways. Again, this ordinance would forbid
: > actors =pretending= to be cut up and bruised. [...]
: So you do agree that if an actor in a porn movie came forward presenting
: real cuts and bruises, such a film would be illegal?
You can get cut and bruised legally; just ask any boxer. If an actor came
foward claiming that the abuse was an illegal, nonconsentual assault and
rape, under current law she could sue for damages and for suppression of
the film, as well as try to have the assailants brought up on criminal
charges.
: > Secondly, I doubt any partner I've had would be into that, but so
: > what? I don't see the harm in an hour film of erect penises, if someone
: > wants to make such a film.
: Funnily enough, people don't seem to. They do seem to want to make many,
: many films featuring an hour's worth of erect penises shooting semen into
: women's mouths, onto their faces, onto thier butts, and onto their
: breasts, though.
I'll take your word for it. Again - assuming all the actors consented -
where's the harm?
: > But in fact the ordinance makes no distinction between a hundred photos
: > of a penis and a single photo of a penis among other pictures.
: > They're all pornography, under this definition, whether it's the
: > hour-long film you hypothisized or a Robert Mapplethorpe coffee table
: > book.
: You are completely mistaken. Please read the ordinance more carefully. I
: have never seen a Mapplethorpe book that depicted women in anything like
: what is defined in this statute.
You read it more carefully - the ordinance applies to depictions of men as
well. Several Mapplethrope photos of men might easily qualify under the
ordinance.
[Snip. I should admit that one of the things I'm snipping is the
discussion of SHADOWS AND FOG, in which you are right and my point was
incorrect. I've also snipped a couple of points in which I think I'm
right, but it's essentially repeating arguments already gone over
several times above.]
: > This ordinance argues that =depictions= of cruelty should be illegal,
: > no cruely itself.
: You have a very sunny idea of the content of alot of porn, don't you?
I know for a fact that porn is, on average, less violent than other media,
according to studies. See, for instance, "A Longitudinal Content Analysis
of Sexual Violence in Best-Selling Erotic Magazines," in JOURNAL OF SEX
RESEARCH v3 p226-237, or "A Content Analysis of Erotic Videos," in
JOUNRAL OF PSYCHOLOGY AND HUMAN SEXUALITY, v3 p95-103.
: Anyway, to repeat myself ad nauseum, it is not simply depictions of
: cruelty that would be illegal.
True. I guess I should be sticking in "in the context of graphic sexually
explicit subordination of women through pictures or words, as defined in
the ordinance" to every sentence I write, but I was hoping by this point
that oculd be taken as read.
: > More importantly, there's no reason to believe that pornography causes
: > rape (there's a large body of research refuting that theory); so
: > violence would NOT be reduced by the passage of this ordinance. So
: > why should we not allow people to mastrubate to whatever =depictions=
: > they want to, since it harms no one?
: If I believed pornography, or at least much of it in it's current form,
: harmed no one, I wouldn't be arguing this side of it, would I? That is
: simply the "don't let the prudes tell us what to do" argument, and it's
: insulting.
It's not enough to "beleive" that pornography harms people; there are
people who "believe" that homosexuality and feminism harms people, but I
presume you don't think that homosexuality and feminism ought therefore be
banned. Can you provide any evidence to substantiate your belief, and if
not, why should we set public policy based on your unsubstantiated belief?
: I appreciate your passion on the side of erotica, but I fail to see much
: that is erotic that would fit the descriptions of this ordinance.
I'm passionate to protect any speech; that includes porn as well as
erotica (not that I can tell the difference, to be honest), things I think
are stupid, sexist and offensive as well as those I think are cool. The
right to be sexually as we want in the way we want is something that many
femininsts and queers have spent years fighting for, and to my mind that
includes the right to mastrubate to whatever we want (within the bounds of
rape, child protection, animal protection and assault laws), and the right
to create whatever media we want (within those same bounds).
: Furthermore, I do believe that we can harmlessly curtail the rights of
: people to masturbate to some things for the purposes of protecting vastly
: more people from a lifetime of fear and sorrow.
Can you cite proof of any of the premises of this sentence?
: BTW, nowhere in this ordianance does it mention that the purpose of the
: ordinance is to prevent rape.
MacKinnon has made it very clear - in her writing, in her testimony before
court in defense of her ordinance, and most recently in her testimony
before Congress in support of the PVCA - that the purpose of the law is to
reduce rape and sexual violence.
: But what if it did? Wouldn't that be an interesting
: outcome? So far laws against rape haven't done so, maybe it's
: time to look into other approaches?
What if banning cats reduced rape? How about banning the color puce? The
way to try and reduce rape isn't to simply try things and see if they
work, but to suggest solutions based on existing evidence. And (to repeat
myself) there is no evidence that pornography causes rape, and there is
TONS of evidence to suggest it does not.
: > No one has a free speech right to illegally assault another person, but
: > that's not what this ordinance is about.
: Yes it is. I consider it an assault on myself as a woman to see women
: continually depicted as sexually subordinate and enjoying degradition and
: humiliation, being fucked but never coming, being come on but never in.
: Please address that, at least once.
Well, strictly speaking, that's not an "illegal" assault.
You have every right to feel assaulted; you have every right to find much
pornography offensive or assaulted; and you have every right ot object to
this percieved assault, as loudly and as often as you want. "The cure
for every excess of freedom of speech is more freedom of speech" -- Molly
Ivans. I haven't found most of the porn I've seen to be as offensive as
what you're describing, but perhaps we've seen different porn.
Do you have any evidence to suggest that porn "continually" depicts women
as "enjoying degradition and humiliation," btw? The few porn films I've
seen in my life - perhaps a dozen - all showed men and women (or
occasionally men and men, or women and women) in mutual and voluntary sex,
in which the female actor always pretends to come. The female actors did
not depict being humiliated by the experience in any of the films I saw.
Also note that even pornography made by and for women, such as ON OUR
BACKS, wouldn't be exempt under this law - as the experience of BUTLER in
Canada has proven - so to describe this law as exclusively fighting the
sort of porn you're describing is inaccurate. (In a letter to the NEW
YORK TIMES, MacKinnon suggested that the censoring of lesbian porn in
Canada under her BUTLER law was okay because such publications "do harm on
the basis of sex." Dworkin, writing about the prosecution of the owners
of a Canadian feminist bookstore for selling lesbian porn, wrote "lesbian
porn is an expression of self-hatred.")
This ordinance would consider "the sexually explicit subordination of
women, graphically depicted in words or pictures," that includes women
"presented in postures of sexual submission, servility or display," to be
prosecutable. All of these terms are incredibly vauge; plenty of radical
feminists would consider a naked women, posed to display her genitals and
smling invitingly, to qualify under this ordinance. That would include
virutally all porn that concentrates on women.
And the issue isn't just what would be found to be porn under this
ordinance, but what could be sued. The potential chilling effect is huge;
how many bookstores would dare to stock such items if they knew they could
end up stuck in an expensive lawsuit, even if they thought they could
eventually win such a lawsuit? I see enourmous potential harms from this
law - supported by real-world experiences in Canada as well as comments
from bookstore owners and publishers - versus some incredibly vauge,
unspecific and unsubstantiated gains.
Yours,
--Ampersand
Carol Ann Hemingway
------
I am not particularly fond of "sexist" language in any ordinance;
if those who drafted the bill discovered that hatred of women was
that much more representative of reality in crimes, than hatred of
men by women, I suppose we must give them some allowance for naming
the bill as they did. I just heard on the news that, in a recent
study, (I have no idea who did the study or if it is valid) that
male drivers are many times more violent than female drivers; that
men seem to lose their temper more while driving. Wow, that really
comes as a huge surprise to me :] It's hard to look at the truth.
Lefty
Ennead
Carol Ann Hemingway (lef...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: >If the goal of the Ordinance was to protect the "mentally impaired"
: >(fat chance...) then it should have uses "mentally impaired" instead
: >of "women." IMO the issue of homeless people has nothing to do
: >with the Ordinance, it is just an attempt to change the subject.
I agree.
: I am not particularly fond of "sexist" language in any ordinance;
: if those who drafted the bill discovered that hatred of women was
: that much more representative of reality in crimes, than hatred of
: men by women, I suppose we must give them some allowance for naming
: the bill as they did.
Are we talking about the same ordinance? We're discussing the
MacKinnon/Dworkin anti-pornography legislation, which in its most recent
incarnation was named the "Pornography Victims Compensation Act." What's
sexist is the =content= of the act, and the ideas behind it - particularly
the idea that women can no more consent to a contract than children or the
mentally disabled.
The relevance of violent car drivers and mentally disabled people to this
ordinance is nil, as far as I can tell; if you do see a connection there,
then you need to make an arguement establishing the connection, if you
want anyone here to understand you. =)
Yours,
--Ampersand
Alan Madsen
Ennead (enn...@teleport.com) wrote:
: Carol Ann Hemingway (lef...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: : >If the goal of the Ordinance was to protect the "mentally impaired"
: : >(fat chance...) then it should have uses "mentally impaired" instead
: : >of "women." IMO the issue of homeless people has nothing to do
: : >with the Ordinance, it is just an attempt to change the subject.
: I agree.
: : I am not particularly fond of "sexist" language in any ordinance;
: : if those who drafted the bill discovered that hatred of women was
: : that much more representative of reality in crimes, than hatred of
: : men by women, I suppose we must give them some allowance for naming
: : the bill as they did.
: Are we talking about the same ordinance? We're discussing the
: MacKinnon/Dworkin anti-pornography legislation, which in its most recent
: incarnation was named the "Pornography Victims Compensation Act." What's
: sexist is the =content= of the act, and the ideas behind it - particularly
: the idea that women can no more consent to a contract than children or the
: mentally disabled.
<snip>
ampersand don't understand it either...
women can contract silly...
you got a contract that says this women
will produce a poro film...?
she don't want to...? sue, for if you
coerce her, its rape...
you got a problem with that...?
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <562dso$s...@nadine.teleport.com> enn...@teleport.com (Ennead)
writes:
>Carol Ann Hemingway (lef...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>
>: >If the goal of the Ordinance was to protect the "mentally impaired"
>: >(fat chance...) then it should have uses "mentally impaired"
instead of "women." IMO the issue of homeless people has nothing
to do>with the Ordinance, it is just an attempt to change the
subject.
>
>I agree.
>
>: I am not particularly fond of "sexist" language in any
ordinance; if those who drafted the bill discovered that hatred
of women was that much more representative of reality in crimes,
than hatred of men by women, I suppose we must give them some
allowance for naming the bill as they did.
>
>Are we talking about the same ordinance? We're discussing the
>MacKinnon/Dworkin anti-pornography legislation, which in its most
recent>incarnation was named the "Pornography Victims Compensation
Act." What's>sexist is the =content= of the act, and the ideas behind
it - particularly>the idea that women can no more consent to a contract
than children or the>mentally disabled.
>
this>ordinance is nil, as far as I can tell; if you do see a connection
there,>then you need to make an arguement establishing the connection,
if you>want anyone here to understand you. =)
>
>Yours,
>--Ampersand
------
Lefty says, sorry!
I was not talking of the Dworkin ord.....I was refering to the
Violence Against Women legislation. I should have been more
clear. The Dworkin stuff, regarding porn is not something I'd
likely agree with, but I haven't read it. I rather enjoy free
speech. Of course, slippery slopes don't frighten me either;
I'm also fond of moguls. hehehe...I keep telling "youse guys"
I haven't much of a clue about Dworkin, but maybe now you'll
believe me.
Lefty
Ennead
[Followups restricted to soc.men and alt.feminism]
Alan Madson, quoting my reply to Lefty, wrote:
: :[...] What's sexist is the =content= of the act, and the ideas behind
: : it - particularly the idea that women can no more consent to a
: : contract than children or the mentally disabled. [...]
: women can contract silly...
: you got a contract that says this women
: will produce a poro film...?
: she don't want to...? sue, for if you
: coerce her, its rape... [...]
Alan, have you even READ the MacKinnon/Dworkin ordiance? The bit about
consent refers not to a woman's right to not be physically forced to
fufill her contract (a right she has under current law, btw), but to the
right for a woman who was NOT forced to sue after-the-fact for coercion.
None of the following will be taken as proof of lack of coercion: actual
concent, knowlege that the purpose of her acts was to create pornography,
active cooperation in the creation of the pornography, a signed contract,
a lack of physical force or threats...
MacKinnon and Dworkin explicitly say that women can know more give consent
to make porn than children, even if there is no apparent coercion. As
their proposed Minneapolis antipornography ordinance said, "Children are
incapable of consenting to engage in pornographic conduct, even absent
physical coercion, and therefore require special protection. By the same
token, the physical and psychological well-being of women ought to be
afforded comparable protection."
And (at the risk of repeating myself) actually raping or asaulting a
person in order to make porn - even if that person has consented to have
sex on film - is illegal under current law.
Yours,
--Ampersand
Angilion
In article <55h1u6$k...@usenet4.interramp.com>,
us01...@interramp.com (Stephanie Smith) writes:
>In article <55g2eq$9...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, catha...@aol.com says...
[Cuts]
##I'd be fascinated to hear a point-by-point response to some of the
##specifics of this ordinance from those who push the rhetoric that
#Dworkin
##is a bitch. (Hardly great debating technique, incidently. Attack the
##idea, not the person; otherwise, you're walking, talking evidence of
#what
##Dworkin contends, that women are objects of bigotry and contempt for
##trying to avail themselves of the rights to free speech and equal
##protection under law.)
Are we reading the same Dworkin? That doesn't seem to be at all what
Dworkin is contending at all.
Dworkin is the object of contempt for her views. She may well
be arrogant enough to believe that she is all women, but that
doesn't make it so.
As to the free speech and equal protection under law, that is a
contemptible lie. Dworkin is deliberately seeking the exact
opposite.
#I hardly think that Dworkin is the object of contempt from many who
#despise her for those reasons. Rather, people are threatened by someone
#who advocates limiting free speech, and has tried to stifle the ability
#of non-anti-porn feminists to present a rebuttal -- insisting that they
#aren't really feminists and refusing to debate them or speak at
#conferences which represent both views. Dworkin as gone to efforts to
#present this as an anti-feminist (man) v. feminist issue. Look at
#Nadine Strossen's discussions of her attempts to publicly debate Dworkin
#and other anti-porn feminists.
I don't know Dworkin. I have to go on her position, which is bigoted,
divisive and offensive. *That's* why I hold her in contempt.
##Some specifics I'd like to see addressed, quoted from the ordinance,
##including some of my comments or questions:
##
### <italics# Pornography <end italics> Pornography is a form of
###discrimination on the basis of sex.
##
##This is Dworkin establishing the definition of pornography _for the
##purposes of this ordinance_, not pornography in general, anywhere,
##anytime. Therefore, people who wish to produce pornography which
#doesn't
##break this law need to not to discriminate on the basis of sex, as
#spelled
##out quite specifically in the following:
This is quite ridiculous. If I redefine "action films" as a form of
discrimination on the basis of skin colour which causes violence
against blacks, does that make it so? What gives Dworkin the right
to redefine a word in common usage? Doubleplusbad! (read 1984
by George Orwell if you don't get the reference).
The basis for such a redefinition of "action films" is as valid as
Dworkin's redefinition of "pornography". In some action films some
blacks are portrayed in an unpleasant manner. Ditto for porn and
women.
#Okay, but please define how you determine that a mode of expression is
#discrimination on the basis of sex. Also please give some assurance that
#this won't endanger non-"discriminatory" porn, through suits and
#prosecution through those who just don't like porn, for example.
You make a good point IMO. ANY porn could fit Dworkin's
definition of discrimination against women (note that Dworkin
doesn't give a shit about discrimination against men, of course)
if you really want it to. No wonder the Religious Right like
it so much. The only porn that might escape is porn without
any women in it, but I'm sure that would get brought in one way
or another.
MacDworkinite legislation is about taking a small subset and using
that to forbid the entire thing. It's directly analagous to declaring
all sex illegal because rape exists.
###(1) Pornography is the sexually explicit subordination of women,
###graphically depicted, whether in pictures or in words, that also
###includes one or more of the following:
##
##Is the sexually explicit subordination of women necessary for good
##erotica?
#
#Not IMO, but that's not the issue. Isn't this obviously the targeting of
#certain materials for the point of view they represent. That makes the
#ordinance a clear violation of the First Amendment.
It also depends on how you define "sexually explicit subordination
of women". Note that, again, Dworkin couldn't give a shit about the
sexually explicit subordination of men. She's a sexist hypocrite, plain
and simple. I have seen some people who think that the "wrong"
sexual positions constitute the subordination of women. Do they get
to set the definition?
###(i) women are presented as dehumanized sexual objects,
###things or commodities; or
##
##Again, is dehumanization, or the treatment of women as commodities,
##necessary for good erotica? Is there some reason a filmmaker can't
##present women as people, not just snatches on legs?
And what about dicks on legs? Hell, that's what men are generally
portrayed as in life in general, let alone in pornography. But I forget;
we're talking about Dworkin, not sexual equality.
Again, how do you define "presented as, etc"? More to the point, how
does Dworkin define it, how does the Christian Coalition et al define
it, how would it be implemented, etc.
#See above. The issue is not whether the filmmaker could do something
#else, but whether you should be able to censor his work since you don't
#like his message.
#
###(ii) women are presented as sexual objects who enjoy pain or
###humiliation; or
##
##This should be modified, perhaps. But unless a film is specifically
#about
##S&M, and the treatment of all subjects is equal (i.e., men are also
#shown
##enjoying pain and humiliation), what is the objection to this part of
#the
##definition of unlawful pornography?
#
#Think about how this could be expanded -- no films unless an equality of
#message is shown. No lazy blacks or weak women or violent men or greedy
#Jews or Italian criminals or middle-eastern terrorists unless there is
#equal representation among other groups. After all, there is no need for
#any of these stereotypes to be presented, and people who don't know any
#better will get the wrong idea causing prejudice.
Nah, you've missed the point. This is Dworkin we're discussing. It's
nothing to do with equality. That is part of the objection. Sub men
is okay, sub women is not. The usual sexist hypocrisy applies.
Barbara Dority (NW FACT) makes the expansion point well in
"Feminism, Censorship and Morality", a speech that has been transcribed
to the net. A websearch for FACT should get a link to it. If not, I
can dredge through my archives and post the relevant chunk.
###(iii) women are presented as dehumanized sexual objects, who
###experience sexual pleasure in being raped; or
##
##I can't think of a decent argument against this. You have a right to
##enjoy watching women be raped? If so, why? Or is speech (sic) more
##important than people?
#
#If the woman is really being raped, that is already a crime. However,
#that does not appear to be the point of the statute. It says depicted as
#being raped.
Well this is where I'm closest to favouring censorship. But guess what?
I think that people should be treated the same, regardless of their sex.
Dworkin doesn't. This proposal doesn't. As usual, sexist hypocrisy
abounds.
###(iv) women are presented as sexual objects tied up or cut up
###or mutilated or bruised or physically hurt; or
##
##Ok, some people _like_ being tied up. As for the rest, I'm trying to
##fathom the logic behind the idea that someone's right to watch women
#being
##cut up, mutilated, bruised or otherwise physically hurt for purposes of
##sexual excitation is more compelling than women's right not to have
#those
##things done to them, period, nor depicted as "entertainment".
Ah right, so you want to ban Basic Instinct because it depicted a
man being murdered for sexual excitement? I bet you didn't even
know it did. Society in general was more concerned about seeing
a woman's pubes for 1/10 second. Now what does that say about
relative worth?
<sarcasm on>
Oh my, I heard Dworkin protesting about this abuse and degradation
of men all the way to the UK.
<sarcasm off>
#Women have the right not to have those things done to them. It is
#illegal. Women also have the right not to watch the films. Think about
#it in terms of books -- do you want to start censoring books because you
#don't like the message?
Doubleplusbad!
#[snip rest since just continuation of the same]
#
#The problem with your argument, IMO, is that it relies on whether
#something is *needed* for good porn in determining whether it is worthy
#of protection. Do you really think the government should get into making
#the decision about whether something is *needed* or apply a test to see
#whether its social value outweighs the harm of its message? Consider all
#the messages that people might consider harmful.
The problem with the argument IMO is that it is playing on the
disapproval of the malign to ban the barely related benign. Note that
the push is *NOT* to ban abusive porn. It's to ban *ALL* porn.
Using the depiction of rape to ban the depiction of consensual sex
is dishonest and offensive. And that's not even mentioning the overt
sexism of Dworkin et al.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A WAR, | Prejudice can play no part in equality |
| IT'S NOT A CASE OF EITHER/OR! | |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Angilion (The Metaphorical Aardvark) email: ua...@cr47c.staffs.ac.uk |
| |
| I protest against the attempts to excessively censor the net |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Falk
In article <55vbpt$9...@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>,> ------
> I am not particularly fond of "sexist" language in any ordinance; ...
The Dworkin-MacKinnon draft ordinance contains a great deal of sexist
language. E.g. a man can sue for harm done to him by pornography but a
woman can sue for harm done to *any* woman by pornography. The very
definition of pornography in the ordinance is sexist, defining
pornography as the subjugation of women. Pornography containing images
of men is outlawed only because the men represent women. The first
paragraph of the ordinance states that pornography affects women
differently.
Text of the ordinance can be found at
www.best.com/~falconer/falk/dworkin-law.txt
I just took a quick look. The *majority* of paragraphs in the ordinance
reference women and exclude men.
--
-ed falk, sun microsystems -- fa...@sun.com
If there's ever a nuclear holocaust, the only things left
alive afterward will be cockroaches and spammers
-- Dan Gillmor, Mercury News
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <564u0i$3...@nadine.teleport.com> enn...@teleport.com (Ennead)
writes:
(edit)
>Alan, have you even READ the MacKinnon/Dworkin ordiance? The bit
about>consent refers not to a woman's right to not be physically forced
to>fufill her contract (a right she has under current law, btw), but to
the>right for a woman who was NOT forced to sue after-the-fact for
coercion.
------
I can't speak for the MacDworkin ordinance, but contracts that are
considered illegal or against public policy are already, on their
face, unenforceable. That, in reality, means that neither party
could sue the other viz a viz "unclean hands". However, there are,
in some jurisdictions special circumstances that will allow one of
those parties to sue. "Coercion", like "consent" may be perceived
in many forms, i.e. informed consent, etc. Naturally, any contract
that could be seen as against public policy would simply not be
enforceable, certainly a contract for engaging in "lewd" sex acts
might be seen as such a contract.
--------
>None of the following will be taken as proof of lack of coercion:
actual concent, knowlege that the purpose of her acts was to create
pornography,>active cooperation in the creation of the pornography, a
signed contract,>a lack of physical force or threats...
>
------
That sounds like the type of language that would be better phrased
as a presumption, i.e. that there would be a presumption of non-
consent absent some overt positive showing of willing participa-
tion. Certainly , if the contract were against social policy,
society would be able to create some presumptions. It may create
a variety of safety nets for those who work in the porn area.
------
>MacKinnon and Dworkin explicitly say that women can know more give
consentto make porn than children, even if there is no apparent
coercion.
-----
Not having read the ordinance, I can't say, but from what you've
told us here, it would appear that the language could be gender
neutral, thus, creating a safety net for males or females in the
porn industry; this does not seem sexist unless the language of
the ordinance is sexist; I cannot attest to that; I haven't read
it.
-----
As >their proposed Minneapolis antipornography ordinance said,
"Children are>incapable of consenting to engage in pornographic
conduct, even absent>physical coercion, and therefore require special
protection.
-----
Agreed!
------
By the sametoken, the physical and psychological well-being of women
ought to be>afforded comparable protection."
----
If this was the language, I would not agree with this; I prefer
my ordinances with a little salt, a little pepper, and a large
tablespoon of gender neutrality.
-----
>
>And (at the risk of repeating myself) actually raping or asaulting a
>person in order to make porn - even if that person has consented to
have>sex on film - is illegal under current law.
>
>Yours,
>--Ampersand
-----
The truth of the matter here has never really been ajudicated. We
have been somewhat reluctant to traverse the slippery slope between
speech, symbolic speech, and actions. The law can certainly reg-
ulate any actions that are not considered symbolic speech. The
right to dance topless (and other) in a club has met that criteria,
but I haven't seen any law handed down regarding the right to have
intercourse in order to sell vidios. A contractual agreement based
upon that "talent" would be unenforceable. Also, the court has
been reluctant to discuss the difference between material that is
indecent, but useful and material that is only "purient" in nature.
I don't blame them :} If I were lucky enough to sit on the bench
I'm not sure I'd be up for that one either.
Lefty
phyr...@usa.net
fa...@peregrine.eng.sun.com (Ed Falk) wrote:
>In article <55vbpt$9...@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>,
>Carol Ann Hemingway <lef...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> ------
>> I am not particularly fond of "sexist" language in any ordinance; ...
I found it interesting to read that in California a CP can have a
housemate of the same sex and that will not affect support orders,
however, if the CP has a housemate of the *opposite* sex, their income
will have a "rebuttable" affect on the numbers. This "opposite" sex
thing includes if I had my father share my home. If I shared with my
mother, there'd be no question and no changes. Odd, isn't it?
The NCP may do as they choose.
Steven Malcolm Anderson
<massive snippage>
>As their proposed Minneapolis antipornography ordinance said,
"Children are
>incapable of consenting to engage in pornographic conduct, even absent
>physical coercion, and therefore require special protection. By the
same
>token, the physical and psychological well-being of women ought to be
>afforded comparable protection."
That's EXACTLY the kind of attitude I'm totally _against_! I say
_abolish_ and _annihilate_ all that sexist, patronizing garbage! -- far
more demeaning to women than any porn ever could be! (If _I_ were a
woman, I think I'd kill Dworkin and MacKinnon for that!)
>Yours,
>--Ampersand
Carol Ann Hemingway
-----
That IS odd. Perhaps it needs to be changed. After all, it might
support homosexuality :]
Lefty
>
>
catha...@aol.com
Please forgive me for taking so long to reply to your thoughtful post.
I wrote:
> >There are any number of limitations on free speech, having to do with
> >protecting people from harm...
and us01...@interramp.com (Stephanie Smith) answered:
>Protecting people from immediate physical harm, yes (children being
>the exception, since they are "protected" from everything).
There are laws against assualt (verbal attack), as well as against
slander, neither of which threaten immediate physical harm.
>But first the burden is on the person advocating the restriction to prove
the
>harm.
I agree. Harm must be shown.
>And this is pretty stringent, especially to the extent that the speech
>being restricted based on its political viewpoint (which could include
>the subordination of women). The fact that Skokie couldn't ban a Nazi
>march, despite the fact that many former concentration camp inmates lived
>there and would witness/hear it (talk about extreme emotional harm) and
>that it certainly threatened to result in violence given clashes between
>marchers and onlookers, etc. is an example, though a bit overused. But
>I'll admit that I am pretty much an absolutist on the First Amendment,
>since I think once we start drawing lines, especially based on ideas we
>don't like, it could easily get out of control.
Where we disagree is, I don't think the graphic and sexually explicit
subordination of women - or of anyone - is political speech. My beliefs
concerning the march in Skokie have even changed, to be honest. Not that
the neo-Nazis have no right to march, just not in Skokie, precisely
because that can be shown to cause harm. Ideas are one thing, the history
of real people is another. (Though I certainly support the rights of
anyone who masturbates to march in the streets, even next to a nunnery, in
support of their right to do so...)
>Read (or look at) Defending Pornography. She goes into it in great
>detail. I've witnessed it myself -- in a conference I was part of
>planning, the Dworkin/MacKinnon types refused to come if others were
>included, and went out of their way to censor the one opposing viewpoint
>that had been included.
Censor how?
Thank you for the title, I will read it.
> This is similar to the strategy (among others)
>that Strossen discusses -- the anti-porn feminists refuse to debate
>anti-censorship feminists, but require that their opponents be
>non-feminists, and the news media obliges. This helps in their efforts
>to claim that all "real" feminists are against pornography.
This is truly an unfortunate division, of anti- and pro-porn feminists...
perhaps we can agree that all feminists are against pornography that
presents women being degraded and abused... but I'm starting to suspect,
in point of fact, we're not.
What I hear from alot of feminists is the opposite of what you describe...
the politcally correct view would seem to be pornography is the neatest
thing since sliced bread and never harmful to women, and anyone who
disagrees with that is beneath contempt. Perhaps there's a middle ground?
I wrote:
> >BTW, I am not anti-porn, nor do I belive Dworkin is. Labelling her
> >ideas as simply "anti-porn" and nothing more sophisticated is
> >disengenuous.
Stephanie wrote:
> I am really just using it for the sake of convenience (and because it
> seems less insulting than pro-censorship).
One of my problems with people who argue this issue is that they reduce
Dworkin's points "for the sake of convenience", and then argue against
their reduction, instead of what is actually being presented.
If you believe her to be pro-censorship, say so. It is a serious charge
that deserves to be levelled and discussed.
>Doesn't it bother you to see Dworkin or other feminists who support her
>on these issues arguing with an ACLU person, perhaps, along with a
>Christian Coalition type? I would hardly trust those so-called
supporters
>with censoring my reading material.
Who, the ACLU or the Xian Coalition type? :-)
It doesn't bother me, because I'm interested in the idea, not in who is
defending it. I understand that the Christian Coalition's motivations on
the subject are bound to be different than mine, and the ACLU's. Their
aims are quite different from mine; I suspect they would like to outlaw
all sexually explicit "speech" not just what could be shown to be harmful
to women.
>A related point: in the 7th circuit decision striking down the
>Indianapolis statute (the Hudnut case), the judge who wrote the dissent
>supporting the statute (and even adopting much of MacKinnon's reasoning)
>was Judge Coffey, by far the most right wing and anti-women's equality
>and pro-traditionalist of the 7th Circuit. This would bother me if I
>supported these laws.
Yes, it bothers me too, though I do see that it's an intersection, not
that our views are one and the same. However, the defense of misogynist
pornography in a misogynist society bothers me, as well.
> I live in a largely gay neighborhood. The most explicit materials I've
> seen recently are in the neighborhood 7-11 and video stores and contain
> sexual depictions of men aimed at men. Hardly discrimination.
It isn't? Don't any women live in your neighborhood? No straight people?
> (and all women) don't have to look at this stuff. In fact, it takes
some
> effort to do so.
Not hardly. Any book or liquor store I walk into has the same set of
magazines displayed over and over again. Perhaps I should walk with my
eyes modestly downcast whenever I approach such magazine racks. To
protect the rights of others, of course.
It does take effort to find stores devoted to filmed or more hard-core
published pornography, 99.9% of which establishments I would not feel
either safe or welcome in as a straight woman. Do they need to put a sign
on the wall, "No Straight Women Allowed" before you would recognize
discrimination based on sex?
>Now, I agree that some of it encourages ideas that are harmful to women,
>but I don't see a rational way to distinguish that from books, etc.
>expressing extremely harmful ideas about blacks, Jews, etc. (the Nazi
>example again).
It seems to me Dworkin is attempting to define a rational way to
distinguish them, but you are rejecting her ideas out of hand. Where does
that leave us?
>There must be a better way to work against the effect of
>the materials (if it is indeed that extensive) other than censorship.
OK, please suggest it.
> >I'm not turned on by any of this, and often times am actively offended
> >by it, to the point of being sickened and depressed. Therefore I
perceive
> >I am being discriminated against. If you live somewhere that
> >pornography has become more egalitarian, I'd love to hear about it.
> Not at all. I rarely see explicit pornography that I'm turned on by,
> certainly not of the type we are talking about (though it's certainly
> easy to find books, etc. which are aimed toward women, you hear more
> lately about porn aimed toward women, most women I know have gone to a
> male strip bar at least once, etc.) I just don't see why the lack of
> explicit porn aimed toward me means I am discriminated against.
I hardly know how to respond to that without seeming offensive. Going
back to the African-American descendants of slaves at the back of the bus
example, maybe you are like any number of perfectly decent white people
who took the status quo for granted... anyway, it's not just that there is
a lack of it aimed at you, it's that the lack exists concurrently with no
such lack for men.
>But if it is okay to pass an ordinance like hers, what guarantee do we
>have that people won't expand it to other "offensive" areas? This is one
>arena in which I actually agree with the slippery slope argument.
What other offensive areas? As I argued, her very specificity is your
defense against such a slide down the slope. Also, "offensive" is not the
criteria, harm is.
> Doesn't matter, many points of view are harmful.
Yes it does matter. It's the basis for any law restricting freedom of
speech.
> The protection of even
>objectionable or unpopular or offensive points of view from censorship is
>one of the strongest reasons behind the First Amendment.
Completely agreed. I'm not talking about objectionable or unpopular or
offensive, I'm talking about harmful.
> Many people would think that any depiction of gay sex (or even writing
> supporting the idea that gays should be treated as people) is offensive
and
> serves no purpose.
But would gay people find such depictions actually harmful and
discriminatory?
Those are the standards, not offensiveness to Christians.
> But also the burden is on the person advocating censorship to show the
> distinct harm from the material to be censored, which I don't think has
> been done yet (not convincingly -- the Meese report doesn't count).
Research really does need to be done on this. I confess I am arguing from
my life's experience as a woman, not from any scientific studies I've seen
- though I do strongly defend my right to not have my real-life
experiences dismissed.
I would ask, though - have studies been done that convincingly show that
the kind of pornography defined in this ordinance is not harmful to women?
> Well, I was trying to make a point beyond the specific statute, since
> it's not self-limiting. The principle is the issue, IMO.
I begin to see why "anti-porn feminists" may not wish to engage in
debate... here you are ignoring the statute, attacking it on basis
outside of what it is trying to accomplish. Kind of hard to defend.
> Like I said, the vast majority of porn I see on a daily basis (videos in
> video stores, magazines, etc.) don't involve women at all. The only
> stuff I see involving women are rather softcore ads for strip bars,
which
> (in the ads at least) don't include any of the particularly graphic
> elements (or the subordination part that I can see).
Do the strip bars where you live only or primarily feature young women
stripping for men, or are the less discrimantory than that?
> But the problem is if it is okay to censor based on message, who is to
> decide what message is appropriate?
Victims of demonstrable harm?
> I think the good old "marketplace of ideas" is the safest way to go --
since
> we agree that the message can be powerful, the government should
>certainly not have control over what it is. If you don't like those
ideas (and
>I certainly agree with that opinion) work to counteract it by expressing
other
>ideas.
I'm sorry, but what you euphemistically call "the marketplace of ideas" is
often the marketplace of a small group profitting, economically and
politically, from the dehumanization of others. Wars have been waged
because of this very idea, that one class of people can harmlessly be
reduced to commodities for the profit of another class of people.
> >This is quite specific - it's very specificity is it's strength and
your
> >protection against what you fear.
> But it's not, since if this law is okay, the principle against
censorship
> based on ideas has been violated, so what is to prevent an expansion?
One has to show harm. And, such laws must be very narrowly defined
indeed.
> But why is it necessarily limited to sexually explicit materials?
Two reasons. First, when the materials are sexually explicit, then we are
no longer talking about "depictions" but about actual events. The actors
may be indeed be acting, but they are also indeed actually having sex.
Second, not to put too fine a point on it, the statute in question
concerns sexually explicit materials. It does not demand equality of
message in all filmed works of any kind because that is The Right Thing To
Do, which is indeed far too broad a standard.
> I think materials which have nothing to do with sex can be just as
harmful.
I agree. I believe there are laws against certain kinds of harmful speech
in Germany, for example, that have to do with racism rather than misogyny.
They learned the hard way during WWII, apparently.
> >Or put it another way, no films specifically designed to excite the
> >racial prejudices of white supremecists, explicitly depicting the
subordination
> >of greedy Jews who enjoy pain and humiliation. One could call such
> >films speech, even protected speech, but one could also make a pretty
good
> >case that such speech is not healthy for Jewish people, who have
rights, too.
> Precisely what I am talking about. And this means we are now allowing
> the government to censor any ideas/depictions based on the majorities'
> view of the message.
No it doesn't. It means we are allowing government to protect people
against harm, something we have always done.
> Do you have faith in the government to back the same messages as you all
> the time?
Nope. I also don't have faith in very many hard-core pornographers to back
the same messages as me. I don't have faith in the police to protect me
from rape, either. I think it's time to start addressing those issues,
however, instead of just singing "I was born a woman..."
> Also, how do you determine whether it was "specifically designed to
> excite racial prejudices" or can just be read or viewed that way?
You know what, I'm not entirely sure. In hindsight one can certainly look
at the progaganda of the Hutu government in Rwanda and the outcome it
helped bring about and be pretty clear about it having been specifically
designed to excite racial prejudices. At what point do we defend people
against such propaganda? After it's had its intended effect?
> Messages are often ambiguous.
And they are also often not ambiguous in the least. I've seen very little
ambiguous pornography, to be honest.
> I think this just gives far to much leeway to a jury (or judge) to
punish people
> for what they just don't like.
How does it give such leeway? The ordinance, I keep repeating ad nauseum,
is very specific.
BTW, I notice you long ago ceased addressing the individual provisions of
the ordinance.
> This would also likely lead to a chilling effect, whereby people will
> avoid anything that can even remotely be considered within the statute
> for fear of punishment.
The irony of you arguing about "a chilling effect" is quite astonishing,
concerning how most pornography makes me feel. What about my right not to
have had my sexuality chilled throughout my lifetime up to now?
Anyway, is your argument that it's a bad thing to create a climate chilly
to the graphic and sexually explicit subordination of women being
presented enjoying being raped and brutalized, to take one provision? I'd
say creating a chilly climate for that is precisely the effect being
sought.
> There are better ways to address perceived problems in prosecuting rape
> cases then by censorship. Address those issues specifically.
OK. One of the issues is how women are perceived by cops, judges, and
juries, specifically that "they asked for it" or didn't fight it hard
enough. Why are women percieved as guilty of inviting their own rapes by
cops, judges, and juries? Why do men continue to rape women with what
they apparently perceive to be impunity? I certainly wouldn't hang out in
city parks after dark by myself, for example.
What are your thoughts on what causes these problems with perception, and
how to address them?
> Something that has since been lost or snipped said "depicted". At any
> rate, I read "presented" similarly. If you think this only refers to
> actual rape, then it is written badly, since it can easily be read to
> include depictions of rape.
My point is that it doesn't refer simply to rape, but to acts in which the
victim is shown, presented, depicted (whatever) experiencing sexual
pleasure in being raped, in addition to being graphically subordinated
sexually (i.e., the woman has no power in the encounter in any way).
> ... It can certainly be read as I read it, and I still believe that
> that is the meaning intended, since rape is already illegal.
You reduced the statute to referring only to rape, not to the specific
context of rape being depicted as pleasurable to the victim.
> I don't like anti-semitism either. That doesn't give me the right to
> censor such ideas.
Why not? Perhaps if Jews had the right to censor such ideas in the 20s
and 30s in Germany, the Holocaust would not have taken place.
> >Boy, that's a hell of a leap you make there. It's illegal. So don't
> >watch it if it offends you?
> How hard is it not to watch the stuff?
Not very hard at all. In fact, I don't. My noble boycotting of this
brand of entertainment has yet to make an impact, however.
> The illegal point was something different -- if it is actually being
done, it is
> already illegal.
Ok. Guess I could boil my question down to, is the film itself illegal?
> The other was to refer to what I read the statute as referring to --
> depictions, which are not illegal.
In sexually graphic and explicit materials, you are no longer talking
about depictions but about acts.
They used to kill horses to make westerns. Depictions of horses dying are
still allowed, while laws against really killing them (even by accident)
just to make a movie have been put in place. That's the sort of
difference I'm rooting for.
> I admit that the way I wrote it comes across differently, but it wasn't
meant
> that way.
I do see what you meant, now.
> Nothing about this prevents the police from enforcing laws against
crimes
> which already exist.
Except the social climate of what is and isn't acceptable treatment of
women, particularly in a society dominated by men.
> I think enforcement of laws against rape should be encouraged.
So do I.
> I don't see explicit porn as being necessarily more dangerous than these
> other things that you wouldn't censor. Look at the effectiveness of
Hitler's
> speech, for example.
Hitler's speeches may actually fall under the criteria for speech that can
be censored under German law today, which I would be all for,
incidentally.
Speech that can be shown to lead to actual harm against people is a place
to draw the line.
> How is it discrimination when you need not even read the stuff? I think
> you need to establish this part of your argument more if you want to be
> convincing.
OK, as an example, how about if we just don't teach girls to read? Then
men can write whatever they like and it could never be said to be harmful
to women.
The point isn't that _I_ don't have to read what is available, the point
is, what if, as is currently true of pornography, that was pretty much all
that was available and it is harmful to people, even those who don't read
it?
> But I am not bothered because I am fearful for the existence of
> pornography (personally I'm not even into pornography and rarely see the
> stuff). I'm fearful because you are opening the door for censorship
> based on ideas.
No, I am not. I'm widening the door allowing curtailment of the right to
free speech based on harm to others, so that women as a class of people
are offerred at least similar protection under law as pornography as a
class of speech.
> I think many films, books, photographs, etc. could be considered
degrading and
> dehumanizing, etc. It's still protected, since people have the right to
advocate
> even harmful, dangerous, and offensive viewpoints.
Certain kinds of speech are actionable, such as incitement to riot,
conspiracy to commit murder, that hoary old example of yelling "Fire!" in
a crowded theater, slander, verbal assualt, etc... are you saying such
speech should also be protected?
> Again, the argument is not that it's not harmful, though I believe that
> your accessment of the harm is much different than mine. I think
> non-explicit mediums that communicate such messages about what
> women like/really want, etc. can be harmful too, but certainly should
> not be censored.
I agree with you, they should not be censored. I also think they'd lose a
great deal of their harmful power as images if we didn't have widespread
acceptance and even protection of the hard-core pornographic images
underlying them, nudge nudge wink wink...
> It is about having the government make determinations, since that is the
> case whenever the government can pass laws censoring works based on
> viewpoint.
*sigh* So, let's get down to brass tacks here. A movie showing a man
phsyically entering a woman in addition to calling her a bitch and a whore
and slapping her - not simply a depiction, but explicit showing of
penetration, etc - is nothing more than a "viewpoint"?
> And that is what is happening here -- the Indianapolis and
> Minneapolis laws banned certain types of pornography, just as previous
> laws have banned materials based on their ideas. Someone could argue
> that laws banning gay porn responded to a harm -- that of encouraging
> people to live immoral lifestyles. Now, I think that is laughable, but
> It wouldn't surprise me if a majority in many places would support it.
But such laws can be shown to discriminate against people on the basis of
their sexual orientation, so I don't think they'd stand up. The harm
being done in your example is not definiable as anything beyond someone
being offended.
> And again, I think you have to show how this harms women beyond the way
> in which advocating any other discriminatory idea harms women or other
> groups.
Why do I have to show it harming them in ways worse than other forms of
discrimination? Even harmful aspects of male sexuality deserve special
dispensation? Why do you think that should be?
Cathy
Vineeta Pal
i think catharinak's well thought out replies to stephanie smith in this
thread are a must-read, especially for pro-porn feminists.
sorry to be butting in (since i am an indian and not an american) but i
feel that a fundamentalist approach to anything, even if it is to
something which is essentially very good (like the first amendment) is
not the solution to society's problems. look where it got the muslims
with the quran.
vineeta.
Charles Hope
catha...@aol.com wrote:
: I wrote:
: > >There are any number of limitations on free speech, having to do with
: > >protecting people from harm...
: and us01...@interramp.com (Stephanie Smith) answered:
: >Protecting people from immediate physical harm, yes (children being
: >the exception, since they are "protected" from everything).
: There are laws against assualt (verbal attack), as well as against
: slander, neither of which threaten immediate physical harm.
: >But first the burden is on the person advocating the restriction to prove
: the
: >harm.
: I agree. Harm must be shown.
And harm can never be shown. Information cannot harm, by definition. It
can only inform. To credit information with the power of action removes
free will from humans. It says that people act upon what they hear like
robots, without any chance to think critically and make their own
judgements. This is a scary precedent.
Law that observes humans as incapable of free thought is evil law.
: > (and all women) don't have to look at this stuff. In fact, it takes
: some
: > effort to do so.
: Not hardly. Any book or liquor store I walk into has the same set of
: magazines displayed over and over again. Perhaps I should walk with my
: eyes modestly downcast whenever I approach such magazine racks. To
: protect the rights of others, of course.
: It does take effort to find stores devoted to filmed or more hard-core
: published pornography, 99.9% of which establishments I would not feel
: either safe or welcome in as a straight woman. Do they need to put a sign
: on the wall, "No Straight Women Allowed" before you would recognize
: discrimination based on sex?
Porno stores cater to straight women to the extent that they are a
market. Stores are run by people greedy for money -- anybody's money -- not
hardline ideologues.
: > I think the good old "marketplace of ideas" is the safest way to go --
: since
: > we agree that the message can be powerful, the government should
: >certainly not have control over what it is. If you don't like those
: ideas (and
: >I certainly agree with that opinion) work to counteract it by expressing
: other
: >ideas.
: I'm sorry, but what you euphemistically call "the marketplace of ideas" is
: often the marketplace of a small group profitting, economically and
: politically, from the dehumanization of others. Wars have been waged
: because of this very idea, that one class of people can harmlessly be
: reduced to commodities for the profit of another class of people.
This is complete rhetoric without substance. How does the size of the
group profitting relate to the topic, except to induce images of cabals
clustering under cigar smoke and plotting evil? What do you mean by
"dehumanization" -- pictures of women wearing pig noses? Are you aware that
a huge segment of porn is based on images of women beating, controlling,
and torturing men? This is a point that certain factions find it very
convenient to overlook.
: > It is about having the government make determinations, since that is the
: > case whenever the government can pass laws censoring works based on
: > viewpoint.
: *sigh* So, let's get down to brass tacks here. A movie showing a man
: phsyically entering a woman in addition to calling her a bitch and a whore
: and slapping her - not simply a depiction, but explicit showing of
: penetration, etc - is nothing more than a "viewpoint"?
Sure. There are plenty of people, males and females, who like force,
humiliation, bondage, etc -- and in every conceivable gender combination.
I'm assuming here that the film shows actors depicting a scene, and is
not actually footage of nonconsensual violence. I am not defending the
latter.
In a more general formulation: persons A and B have the right to create
art (in the broadest sense: expression) for persons C and D, without E (you)
having any say in the matter.
: Cathy
Charles, defending reason and freedom.
Stephanie Smith
In article <0mYcEi200...@andrew.cmu.edu>, vp...@andrew.cmu.edu
says...
>
>i think catharinak's well thought out replies to stephanie smith in this
>thread are a must-read, especially for pro-porn feminists.
Unfortunately, I probably won't have a chance to respond to her post
until this weekend.
>sorry to be butting in (since i am an indian and not an american)
That doesn't matter. We are talking about what the law should be,
mostly, rather than what it is. Join in!
>but i
>feel that a fundamentalist approach to anything, even if it is to
>something which is essentially very good (like the first amendment) is
>not the solution to society's problems. look where it got the muslims
>with the quran.
I'm not sure if you can call support for the 1st amendment
"fundamentalist", however, since that implies (to me anyway) a viewpoint
where you think you are right and want to suppress/censor those who
disagree with you, for good reasons or bad. First Amendment supporters
are generally very supportive of the right of their opponents to be
heard, even representing the most anti-speech or freedom groups in court,
including anti-porn feminists.
One of the people I respected most in the world was a man I used to work
with (who recently died) who was Jewish and had lived through the
Holocaust, but fought for the rights of the Nazi's to march in Skokie.
He believed that it was this respect for rights that would prevent the US
from ever becoming like Nazi Germany.
Also, as Judge Easterbrook quoted in the _Hudnut_ decision (the one
striking down Indianapolis' enactment of the MacKinnon law as
inconstitutional):
"If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is
that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in
politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force
citizens to confess by word or act there faith therein."
He continued: "Under the First Amendment the government must leave to the
people the evaluation of ideas. Bald or subtle, an idea is as powerful
as the audience allows it to be. A belief may be pernicious -- the
beliefs of the Nazis led to the death of millions, those of the Klan to
the repression of millions. A pernicious belief may prevail.
Totalitarian governments today rule much of the planet, practicing
suppression of billions and spreading dogma that may enslave others. One
of the things that separates our society from theirs is our absolute
right to propagate opinions that the government finds wrong or even
hateful."
And note that while I agree with caterinak that the viewpoint/material
that MacKinnon's statute aimed at censoring might be harmful in certain
cases -- as any well presented and persuasive idea that is wrong or
dangerous can be harmful, in that there are many people who are easily
swayed and often don't think for themselves, I don't think that
additional harm from this specific type of material (such that it leads
to rape or violence against women) has been persuasively shown.
It's interesting that Robert Bork makes a similar argument to MacKinnon's
(harm to society and structuring of it) in favor of much more wide
ranging censorship (and anyone who doesn't think that such censorship, if
allowed, would be enacted against gays and any other
"non-traditional" group ASAP is just naive, IMO). Bork claims (among
other things):
"Though it cannot begin to match rap, TV undermines authority in gentler
ways. Families are relatively egalitarian; at work, subordinates
ridicule their bosses and usually prevail over them. Businessmen are
depicted negatively.... Politicians fare no better."
Of course this causes grave social harms in Bork's opinion. For example:
"There are, no doubt, complex causes for violence and illegitimacy in
today's society, but it seems impossible to deny that one cause is the
messages popular culture insistently presses on us. Asked about how to
diminish illegitimacy, a woman who worked with unmarried teenage mothers
replied tersely: 'Shoot Madonna.'"
From Robert Bork, _Slouching Toward Gomorrah_ (1996), chapter 8 "The Case
For Censorship".
So, you see, this argument about social harm can be carried pretty far to
eliminate anything (even that merely "anti-authority", as Bork complains
about) if the government (majority) doesn't like it. I'm not comfortable
with that, though perhaps you disagree.
Stephanie
Steven Malcolm Anderson
In <570ukd$r...@usenet4.interramp.com> us01...@interramp.com (Stephanie
Say, if we're going to start censoring pernicious and loathsome ideas,
then let's start by banning the writings of Dworkin, Bork, etc.. har!
har! (I was being ironic. I'll defend the rights of even _those_
totalitarian jerks!)
Vineeta Pal
Excerpts from netnews.alt.feminism: 21-Nov-96 Re: Lefty Defends Dworkin
-.. by Stephanie Smith@interram
> I'm not sure if you can call support for the 1st amendment
> "fundamentalist", however, since that implies (to me anyway) a viewpoint
> where you think you are right and want to suppress/censor those who
> disagree with you, for good reasons or bad. First Amendment supporters
> are generally very supportive of the right of their opponents to be
> heard, even representing the most anti-speech or freedom groups in court,
> including anti-porn feminists.
ok. my definition was slightly different. according to the oxford
dictionary i have with me here, fundamentalism is "strict adherence to
traditional religious beliefs". if you replace "traditional religious
beliefs" with "first amendment ideology", then that's what i meant.
>
> One of the people I respected most in the world was a man I used to work
> with (who recently died) who was Jewish and had lived through the
> Holocaust, but fought for the rights of the Nazi's to march in Skokie.
> He believed that it was this respect for rights that would prevent the US
> from ever becoming like Nazi Germany.
>
> Also, as Judge Easterbrook quoted in the _Hudnut_ decision (the one
> striking down Indianapolis' enactment of the MacKinnon law as
> inconstitutional):
>
> "If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is
> that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in
> politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force
> citizens to confess by word or act there faith therein."
>
> He continued: "Under the First Amendment the government must leave to the
> people the evaluation of ideas. Bald or subtle, an idea is as powerful
> as the audience allows it to be. A belief may be pernicious -- the
> beliefs of the Nazis led to the death of millions, those of the Klan to
> the repression of millions. A pernicious belief may prevail.
> Totalitarian governments today rule much of the planet, practicing
> suppression of billions and spreading dogma that may enslave others. One
> of the things that separates our society from theirs is our absolute
> right to propagate opinions that the government finds wrong or even
> hateful."
>
here, which side is judge easterbrook arguing on? he uses the examples
of repression of millions by pernicious beliefs to oppose censorship of
those beliefs. then he goes on to say that something similar will not
happen in the U.S because the people have every right to propagate those
pernicious beliefs. do you think that if another hitler was born in your
country who favored the eradication of all, let's say, african
americans, then your first amendment would save you from the impending
holocaust? how? by allowing the african americans to make speeches as
well? what if the jews had freedom to make such speeches as well (i'm
not sure if they did'nt - legally) ? how many of them would have been
brave enough to do so, surrounded as they were by murderous hate from
all sides? could all the speeches they could have made saved them from
the hate?
not the first amendment, but the laws curtailing "freedom to murder" (if
followed) could save these african americans.
maybe it will be useful here to consider the impact of various freedoms
in terms of its potential benefits and potential harm. a certain freedom
could be -
1) potentially beneficial for everyone
2) potentially beneficial for some and potentially harmful for others.
in the latter case, we should look at (among other things) -
2a) how many people does it potentially benefit and how many does it
potentially harm?
2b) how much potential benefit is there for those whom it can benefit
and how much potential harm is there for those whom it can harm.
then we can look at "(2a * 2b) benefit" vs. "(2a * 2b) harm"
suppose we apply this to the subset of pornography which dworkin's
ordinance says should be censored. suppose there are a few million
people who benefit from this pornography. the benefit is sexual
pleasure. now, suppose there is one person who is raped by one or more
people under the influence of this pleasure (who would not have been
raped otherwise). (actually i think there would be more than one person.
but then, i choose to believe the studies done on this and the victims'
stories.) and the harm is rape and possible death. (violent porn is a
subset in the ordinance). do you think the sexual pleasure of those
millions is more valuable than the bodily integrity of that one person?
(here i have not even considered other harms such as to the people
working for the pornographers or to the people who are offended by
forcibly being shown some examples.)
perhaps your fear is that the haloed first amendment might be violated
by this one transgression on its grounds. this censorship might start
spreading to other areas where it will be more harmful than beneficial.
however, i don't know how founded those fears are. maybe you should have
more faith in your people to prevent that from happening.
first of all, there is already some censorship going on. obscenity laws,
child porn, publishers' bias, market demand, resources available to the
person/group making the "speech", etc etc.
secondly, maybe these fears are a result of a lot of propaganda and
paranoia surrounding this issue. i even read someplace on the net that
this ordinance would reduce the net to an equivalent of a children's
library. (the children are getting really advanced nowadays. nuclear
physics, corporate law, structural engineering, cognitive
psychology...what next?) when a person makes such a statement, one has
to question her/his motives. maybe he/she is so addicted to
degrading/violent pornography that she/he cannot live without it? :-)
>
> Stephanie
>
>
vineeta.
Ennead
Hi!
I'm very busy - I'm about to head off on vacation (and without online
access, alas) for a week - but I just wanted to address a couple of points
in this post. Forgive me for not covering everything, but I'm kinda short
on time.
Major snipping throughout.
catha...@aol.com wrote:
: Thank you for the title, I will read it. [...]
DEFENDING PORNOGRAPHY is great. Another good anticensorship feminist book
is SENSE AND SENSIBILITY, by Marcia Pally. If you'd like to read a good
feminist book that sums up the evidence on both sides without slamming
either side, with lots of citations, check out SEXUAL SALVATION by Naomi
McCormick, second half of chapter 6.
: It doesn't bother me, because I'm interested in the idea, not in who is
: defending it. I understand that the Christian Coalition's motivations on
: the subject are bound to be different than mine, and the ACLU's. Their
: aims are quite different from mine; I suspect they would like to outlaw
: all sexually explicit "speech" not just what could be shown to be harmful
: to women.
But, historically, whenever feminism has allied with the right wing
sucessfully it has turned out to be bad for women. For instance, the 19th
century feminists who allied with political reactionaries to try and
reduce the prostitution trade in women & children found that their
movement soon turned into a movement to punish prostitutes without helping
them out of poverty, which is not at all what they intended. Josephine
Butler left the antiprostitution movement in protest, but it was too late
to undo the damage. Similarly, the alignment of early 20th century
American feminists & traditional moralists to fight "red light districts"
didn't reduce prostitution at all - but it did make prostitution a more
dangerious trade for prostitutes, by driving it further "underground."
There's good historical reasons to worry about what the likely results of
such alliances are, regardless of what the intentions are.
: > But also the burden is on the person advocating censorship to show the
: > distinct harm from the material to be censored, which I don't think has
: > been done yet (not convincingly -- the Meese report doesn't count).
: Research really does need to be done on this.
Lots of research has been done. You can find a lot of it by following the
citations in SEXUAL SALVATION, SEX & SENSIBILITY, and an academic article
I cite below.
: I confess I am arguing from
: my life's experience as a woman, not from any scientific studies I've
: seen - though I do strongly defend my right to not have my real-life
: experiences dismissed.
Without wanting to dismiss your real-life experiences, I don't think your
experiences are enough to justify a censorial law. After all, many other
women have had life experiences which has led them to the =opposite=
conclusion from you. I think that it's impossible to come to any definite
conclusions about what women's real-life experiences say about pornography
except that 1) most of the porn that's currently available doesn't turn
most women on, and 2) there is no consensus among women about whether or
not pornography is harmful.
(BTW, even among women who think porn probably does harm women, there's no
consensus of what to do about it. Many women advocate the "fight bad
speech with counterspeech" approach - Molly Ivans, for instance, or the
segment of NOW that was trying to get together a national advertising
campaign criticising the messages they saw in porn. So even among people
who agree on the problem, what the solution is still questionable.)
: I would ask, though - have studies been done that convincingly show that
: the kind of pornography defined in this ordinance is not harmful to women?
I think so. I cited one before - two Canadian researchers tried getting
an woman to anger a male subject (by administering electric shocks to
him), then showed him violent pornography depicting a woman enjoying being
raped, and then gave him the opportunity to adminster electric shocks to
the woman (as part of grading a test she had taken), or he could choose to
merely discuss her grade with her verbally or just forget grading the test
and leave without talking to her or shocking her. Although in real life
the experiment was set up more subtly than that (there are various
misdirections in place to prevent the male subject from realizing what is
being tested is whether or not violent pro-rape pornography), that's the
essential parts of the experiment in a nutshell.
Only two of the men chose to use the electric shock apparatus (which was
actually fake, of course) - and these were the two men who, =before=
viewing the film, expressed eagerness to use the apparatus. =All= the
other men - despite having been administered electric shocks by the woman
and viewing violent, pro-rape porn - showed no inclination at all to be
aggressive towards the woman.
Note that this study is essentially identical to studies that have come to
the opposite conclusion about violent porn - except that those studies did
not give the male subjects the option of nonviolent reactions.
This study is detailed in THE JOURNAL OF SEX RESEARCH, v31(1) 1994 p23-38.
The article also includes refs to other research regarding the effects of
porn, and a decent review of the literature.
: > But the problem is if it is okay to censor based on message, who is to
: > decide what message is appropriate?
: Victims of demonstrable harm? [...]
What victims of demonstrable harm, who cannot already find protection
under the current laws, would be protected by the Dworkin/MacKinnon
legislation?
: I agree. I believe there are laws against certain kinds of harmful speech
: in Germany, for example, that have to do with racism rather than misogyny.
Do you really think that Germany now has less antisemitism than the US?
Is there any empirical evidence to support the idea that Germany's (and
Canada's) laws against such speech has reduced racism in those countries?
: Nope. I also don't have faith in very many hard-core pornographers to back
: the same messages as me. I don't have faith in the police to protect me
: from rape, either. I think it's time to start addressing those issues,
: however, instead of just singing "I was born a woman..."
I think there are many ways of fighting rape, which feminists - including
anticensorship feminists - are pursuing. I don't think that it's a matter
of "either we fight porn, or we are not addressing these issues at all."
: OK. One of the issues is how women are perceived by cops, judges, and
: juries, specifically that "they asked for it" or didn't fight it hard
: enough. Why are women percieved as guilty of inviting their own rapes by
: cops, judges, and juries? Why do men continue to rape women with what
: they apparently perceive to be impunity? I certainly wouldn't hang out in
: city parks after dark by myself, for example.
: What are your thoughts on what causes these problems with perception, and
: how to address them?
I think a lot of progress has been made in changing the standards used by
cops, judges and juries, to the extent that many things which used to
prevent rape convictions are now illegal in most states; for instance,
defenses using proof that a woman has voluntarily had sex in the past to
claim that she couldn't have been raped this time, or laws that said that
husbands could not be charged with raping wives. Proof of injry sustained
by the victim is no longer necessary, and neither is proof that the victim
resisted to "the utmost possible degree." I agree that we haven't
acheived perfection on these issues, but it would be hard to argue that
progress hasn't been made in improving the legal system, and the
improvements have led to an increase in the liklihood of rape convictions
and in the seriouslness with which the system takes rape. I'd say that
continuing the slow, unexciting process of reform is what's needed there.
Why do men rape women? Usually, an excess of macho. That is, studies
show that "ultramasculine" men are more likely to believe what researchers
call "rape myths" (such as "no means yes," "a woman who flirts a lot or
wears sexy clothes is asking to have sex," "if a woman allowed a man to
kiss and touch her body, he is jsutified in insisting that they have
intercourse too," etc), and to be self-reportably more aggressive in
trying to "get sex" from women and less concerned with what women want.
These men are likely to feel that having sex often is necessary in order
to maintain their masculinity. All these things are increased in
ultramasculine men whose primary friendships are groups of other
ultramasculine men (such as some frat houses).
(Note that acceptance of these rape myths - which is more likely among
"ultrafeminine" women than more "androgynous" women, too, btw - leads to
many of hte problems iwht juries you mentioned before. So working on this
aspect of the problem is simultaniously working on the problem of juries'
acceptance of rape myths.)
Attempts to change strict gender-role concepts of "masculine" and
"feminine" are therefore likely to reduce the rape rate, and there's some
evidence to show a connection between areas with more sexual equality and
areas with lower rape rates (see the book FOUR THEORIES OF RAPE IN
AMERICA).
At the risk of repeating myself, there is no empirical evidence that rape
will be reduced by censoring porn.
: > The illegal point was something different -- if it is actually being
: > done, it is already illegal.
: Ok. Guess I could boil my question down to, is the film itself illegal?
Yes. Someone who was forced or illegally coerced into having sex on film
has a privacy right not to have the film distributed. That's why it's now
illegal to sell, exhibit or distribute the pornographic films that Traci
Lords acted in when she was a minor, for instance. A woman in such a
situtioan additionally has the right to sue for damages, of course.
: No, I am not. I'm widening the door allowing curtailment of the right to
: free speech based on harm to others, so that women as a class of people
: are offerred at least similar protection under law as pornography as a
: class of speech.
But isn't this ignoring the life-experience of women who say they don't
want or need such protection, and of women who say they will be harmed by
such protection?
: Certain kinds of speech are actionable, such as incitement to riot,
: conspiracy to commit murder, that hoary old example of yelling "Fire!" in
: a crowded theater, slander, verbal assualt, etc... are you saying such
: speech should also be protected?
All of these examples can be shown to do actual harm (and in the case of
the latter two, the harm must not only be done but it must be intentional
and malicious). If pornography was convincingly shown to harm people, by
the same high standard as conspiracy to commit muder or incitement to
riot, then I'd be willing to reconsider the matter. But years of research
attempting to prove such harm hasn't proved the case.
Anyway, sorry again that I don't have time to answer all of your points.
Have a happy Thanksgiving.
Yours,
--Ampersand
Stephanie Smith
In article <0mZJodO00...@andrew.cmu.edu>, vp...@andrew.cmu.edu
(quoting me, quoting her) says...
>> I'm not sure if you can call support for the 1st amendment
>> "fundamentalist", however, since that implies (to me anyway) a
viewpoint
>> where you think you are right and want to suppress/censor those who
>> disagree with you, for good reasons or bad. First Amendment
supporters
>> are generally very supportive of the right of their opponents to be
>> heard, even representing the most anti-speech or freedom groups in
court,
>> including anti-porn feminists.
>ok. my definition was slightly different. according to the oxford
>dictionary i have with me here, fundamentalism is "strict adherence to
>traditional religious beliefs". if you replace "traditional religious
>beliefs" with "first amendment ideology", then that's what i meant.
Okay. I still think that "strict adherence to religious beliefs" often
(not always) goes along with the idea that you must cause the world to
conform to what you think is right -- which seems much more like what
MacKinnon wants to do -- but I'll accept your definition.
It still doesn't apply, if you also see in it (as I do) the implication
that this is strict adherence for no reason beyond tradition. People
support the first amendment -- and particularly the principle that the
government should not regulate ideas based on viewpoint (telling us what
we may and may not think or express) -- not simply because it is a
matter of traditional faith, but because we think there are important
reasons to do so. Easterbrook was trying to point out one of these
reasons -- that giving the government the power to stifle ideas it
doesn't like or considers harmful is not only anti-freedom, but anti-
democracy, since it in essence is the power to stifle opposition.
As for how this relates to pornography? Normally, it wouldn't. My
argument if we were talking about traditional obscenity laws would be
quite different. But these MacKinnon statutes attempt to censor speech
*based on viewpoint*. The same sexual or violent conduct is permitted
or not depending on the message it conveys about women (or about
another group).
And on that note, let's be honest about what we are talking about. The
dicussion of violent rape scenes is probably considered a good selling
point for MacKinnon, just as pro-lifers go on about late-term abortions.
However, I don't believe that is her real concern, since those types of
things are usually illegal under the traditional obscenity laws. They
often aren't enforced that well (for the same reasons that drug laws
aren't -- its nearly impossible), but MacKinnon is not calling for
stricter enforcement, but for a new and wider ranging law, which targets
any material -- redeeming artistic value or not -- which shows the
subordination of women (an extremely subjective standard). MacKinnon
herself has said that she considers _Playboy_ pornographic in this way.
catharinak indicated in our discussion that the standard strip bar (or
even ads for it) could be considered pornographic -- since after all
it features attractive women playihg up to men. This is the difference
between the new type of law and the old. So let's discuss this
accurately.
[snip comments about Skokie and first part of Easterbrook's _Hudnut_
decision]
>> He continued: "Under the First Amendment the government must leave to
the
>> people the evaluation of ideas. Bald or subtle, an idea is as
powerful
>> as the audience allows it to be. A belief may be pernicious -- the
>> beliefs of the Nazis led to the death of millions, those of the Klan
to
>> the repression of millions. A pernicious belief may prevail.
>> Totalitarian governments today rule much of the planet, practicing
>> suppression of billions and spreading dogma that may enslave others.
One
>> of the things that separates our society from theirs is our absolute
>> right to propagate opinions that the government finds wrong or even
>> hateful."
>here, which side is judge easterbrook arguing on? he uses the examples
>of repression of millions by pernicious beliefs to oppose censorship of
>those beliefs.
He is saying that many ideas, if believed by people, can lead to harmful
results. This is not a new idea or one that applies only to pornography.
However, the solution is not for the government to prevent expression
or thoughts that it believes are harmful or wrong -- especially since
that very thing could and has been done on behalf of ideas that are
clearly wrong themselves.
>then he goes on to say that something similar will not
>happen in the U.S because the people have every right to propagate those
>pernicious beliefs.
No. Because the government cannot tell people what to think. It cannot
monopolize the lines of communication and punish people for saying the
ideas it is supporting are wrong or evil.
>do you think that if another hitler was born in your
>country who favored the eradication of all, let's say, african
>americans, then your first amendment would save you from the impending
>holocaust? how? by allowing the african americans to make speeches as
>well?
By ensuring that even if this person was somehow elected, that he could
not prevent people who disagreed with him from publicizing what his
real ideas are and pointing out how wrong they were. By facilitating
opposition.
>what if the jews had freedom to make such speeches as well (i'm
>not sure if they did'nt - legally) ? how many of them would have been
>brave enough to do so, surrounded as they were by murderous hate from
>all sides? could all the speeches they could have made saved them from
>the hate?
An open discussion of what was actually happening to the Jews and others,
as well as the ability of the media to openly criticize may have helped.
In the US, the fact that the gov't was violating the law and
Constitution, as the media would have the power to investigate and
publish, would likely cause public outrage as well.
However, obviously the US has other precautions against this sort of
abuse of government power, all founded on the same principle -- that
giving the government too much arbitrary power over people's lives is
dangerous.
I don't think Easterbrook is trying to say that the first amendment alone
could have prevented Nazi Germany, but that the ability to express ideas
the government opposes is an important way in which we can protect
freedom. Do you disagree with that? Obviously if the government and
majority of public agrees (which is likely the case, of course), the
minority is out of luck, unless it can convince the majority that it is
wrong (or enough to have political power) or unless there are other
safeguards in place (as in the US). The first of these is only possible
if we protect free speech, and while you may think its unlikely, I think
history proves you wrong. And in any case, your approach is less likely
to help the minority, since the government power you want to exercise
will tend to reflect the view of the majority.
Thus, if you think a majority has pernicious ideas (whether
against blacks or, as MacKinnon seems to think, about women), it hardly
makes sense to allow the government to make laws restricting speech
based on viewpoint. At any rate, it requires you to have more faith
in the government that the people, which makes no sense, since the
government is elected by the people. Otherwise, what you are talking
about is censoring the ideas of the minority.
Take the US. Pernicious beliefs about blacks have obviously prevailed
here at times. If the South could have legally censored all speech
criticizing it established social order in the 1950s, for example, on
the grounds that it would have been dangerous to order (though they
certainly tried to oppress protestors), do you think the progress that
was made would have been? Also, a popular movement led up to the
Civil War and ultimate banning of slavery. The fact that we disagree
with the message of many protest groups is hardly a reason to take
away speech -- then you have to bet on the gov't making the right
decision in all cases, something I am unwilling to do.
Besides, the response to the Neo-Nazis has tended to be what you suggest
the response to blacks would be -- they've been met with hate and
disgust (and rightfully so). Isn't it better to let people battle
out these ideas than have the government decide which are right and
wrong? Especially since they are likely to continue to exist anyway
since communication from parents, community, etc. are more likely to
influence ideas like this, IMO. Better we know the arguments and are
able to address them.
>not the first amendment, but the laws curtailing "freedom to murder" (if
>followed) could save these african americans.
Not at all, since in your example you could change the laws quite easily,
and a gov't which was elected on this platform would certainly do so.
It is the Bill of Rights and 14th amendment, requiring due process and
equal protection, which would prevent this. Also, however, the attention
and condemnation by the media (not controlled by the gov't) and by
people who opposed the action (first amendment).
How do you consider a freedom could be harmful? Ideas can be harmful in
the sense that someone who acts on pernicious ideas causes harm, but the
freedom to express unpopular ideas is not harmful. You are worried that
people will begin to believe the bad idea, which is thought control.
>in the latter case, we should look at (among other things) -
>
>2a) how many people does it potentially benefit and how many does it
>potentially harm?
>
>2b) how much potential benefit is there for those whom it can benefit
>and how much potential harm is there for those whom it can harm.
>
>then we can look at "(2a * 2b) benefit" vs. "(2a * 2b) harm"
Of course the idea that this is quantifiable, especially in any sort
of accurate way, is rather silly.
>suppose we apply this to the subset of pornography which dworkin's
>ordinance says should be censored. suppose there are a few million
>people who benefit from this pornography. the benefit is sexual
>pleasure.
Sexual pleasure, the ability to express your ideas in the way you want,
the ability to read literature and address ideas (remember that this
could be very far-ranging), the idea that the government is not telling
people how they should think, etc. A great many people who feel
benefitted by such laws are not even consumers of pornography. I just
don't want my government deciding what is right and wrong for people to
read (for example).
Also, having clearcut principles forbidding censorship based on ideas
benefits society in general, since they don't have to fear censorship
of their ideas or ways of expressing them.
>now, suppose there is one person who is raped by one or more
>people under the influence of this pleasure (who would not have been
>raped otherwise).
Prove this. Also, many have pointed out that the harm that MacKinnon is
supposedly concerned about -- that the lack of equality in how women
are seen leads to people thinking that they can and like to be raped --
is presented the popular (non-obscene) media far more often and more
convincingly than in porn. (I think Strossen discusses this in
_Defending Pornography_, and Posner does in _Overcoming Law_.) In order
to get rid of the message (if you choose to blame it, rather than the
criminals), you would have to censor huge amounts of materials and then
basically go through through the efforts of the War on Drugs (and that
sure works well!) to get rid of all the stuff and the black markets for
them.
(actually i think there would be more than one person.
>but then, i choose to believe the studies done on this and the victims'
>stories.) and the harm is rape and possible death. (violent porn is a
>subset in the ordinance). do you think the sexual pleasure of those
>millions is more valuable than the bodily integrity of that one person?
>(here i have not even considered other harms such as to the people
>working for the pornographers or to the people who are offended by
>forcibly being shown some examples.)
Well, first, I don't think that convincing studies have even been done
that demonstrate this. Also, others believe that the use of porn can
be a substitute for action -- potentially reducing such crimes.
But tell me exactly what new materials will be censored (that couldn't
already be censored through obscenity laws -- which I don't particularly
like either, but that's not the issue now) which will prevent the harms.
How far would you go? What if the danger is not just sexual materials,
but any violence (which seems more likely). What if it's also partially
the prevalence of materials implicitly portraying the message that
women are inferior or not worthy of respect or really want to be raped,
but which don't contain explicit sex? How would you distinguish all
that?
>perhaps your fear is that the haloed first amendment might be violated
>by this one transgression on its grounds. this censorship might start
>spreading to other areas where it will be more harmful than beneficial.
Your respect for the values protected by the first amendment is lovely.
But, yes, I think a precedent that censoring ideas because we don't like
the message is acceptable would be very dangerous. And I don't see how
you can limit the principle.
>however, i don't know how founded those fears are. maybe you should have
>more faith in your people to prevent that from happening.
As shown by past history, both here and elsewhere (as well as current
efforts -- both from the right and left), I don't. Sorry. The US system
is not particularly based on blind trust of the majority or the
government, as I tend to agree with that accessment. I think people
often worry that the "masses" would be able to make good decisions about
the different ideas that they heard, and think the best thing to do to to
prevent them from hearing them -- inculcate them with the "right" ideas.
I've certainly become both angry and worried while listening to the Rush
Limbaugh show, for example, since I think that talk radio is a powerful
medium and his lies (and historical inaccuracies) are likely to be
believed by many who prefer it to thinking for themselves. However, you
have to trust people to make the right decision. What gives me or you
the right to tell them what to think? And I certainly don't trust the
government to make this decision -- especially since it already is
selected by the majority, so is likely to favor the ideas that are most
prevalent anyway.
>first of all, there is already some censorship going on. obscenity laws,
>child porn, publishers' bias, market demand, resources available to the
>person/group making the "speech", etc etc.
Obscenity laws -- right. That's why MacKinnon's laws are either
redundant or a lot more pernicious than you are willing to let on.
Child porn -- true, but that's not based on the idea but the fact that
it is impossible to make such films without violating the law (since
children can't consent).
However, publisher's bias and market demand is not censorship. The idea
that we should be more afraid of Time Warner or _Playboy_ than the
power of the government makes no sense to me. And women certainly do
not lack market power. In fact, the fastest growing segment of
pornography has been that aimed at women.
>secondly, maybe these fears are a result of a lot of propaganda and
>paranoia surrounding this issue. i even read someplace on the net that
>this ordinance would reduce the net to an equivalent of a children's
>library. (the children are getting really advanced nowadays. nuclear
>physics, corporate law, structural engineering, cognitive
>psychology...what next?) when a person makes such a statement, one has
>to question her/his motives. maybe he/she is so addicted to
>degrading/violent pornography that she/he cannot live without it? :-)
Which ordinance? Are you now talking about the CDA? I don't think the
fears are based on paranoia, but past history and recent events (the
increased power of the religious right and PC in the universities).
People are concerned about the state of society and many would love
to censor everything (as I tried to show through the selections from
Bork) which helps lead to this "moral decline". Since in many areas
the religious right have strong political power, I think it is not
unrealistic to believe that violating the constitutional principle
would not lead to much farther ranging censorship based on the idea of
harm from speech. After all, it is often the most well-meaning
people who support the most restrictive laws.
Stephanie
Stephanie Smith
In article <19961119203...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, catha...@aol.com says...
>Please forgive me for taking so long to reply to your thoughtful post.
No problem. It's taken me about as long to reply to yours.
>You wrote:
>> >There are any number of limitations on free speech, having to do with
>> >protecting people from harm...
>I responded:
>>Protecting people from immediate physical harm, yes (children being
>>the exception, since they are "protected" from everything).
>There are laws against assualt (verbal attack), as well as against
>slander, neither of which threaten immediate physical harm.
The laws against assault deal with physical harm, since making threats of
physical harm directly to a person must be illegal if the battery itself
is. (Are you thinking of something different?) About slander you are
right, but it's not a case of making the speech illegal, but allowing
damages if low value speech (lies about an individual) causes damages (if
anything that's more like MacKinnon's tort claim proposal). But what I
see as the major difference is that these deal with speech aimed at and
intended to cause tangible harm to an individual.
There are two ways in which MacKinnon's focus differs (IMO). First,
it is the expression of general ideas, not aimed at the person who
allegedly suffers harm (the harm, if any, is a side effect of the idea).
And second, it counts as high value speech since MacKinnon is targeting
it based on the viewpoint (I know you disagree, I'll address this below).
Also, she makes no effort to distinguish between works with redeeming
artistic value (or political) and those without -- that is the main
difference between her approach and the traditional obscenity approach.
If it was just violent portrayals of sex which she thought was harmful,
she could probably address that through a traditional (and Constitutional) obscenity law. Instead, she focuses on anything (obscenity or not) which meets certain qualifications involving subordination of women (or another group) and of course the factors you listed originally. But as Ampersand pointed out (and as the 7th Circuit did in the decision holding the statute unconstitutional, _Hudnut v. American Booksellers_), many works which are not normally considered obscene (and are even considered great art) could be included.
>>But first the burden is on the person advocating the restriction to prove
>the
>>harm.
>I agree. Harm must be shown.
Ampersand addressed this portion of the argument better than I could, so
I'll defer to his response here.
My point is that while I concede that this material may well contribute
to inequality in society, since it affects the way women are seen, I
don't think that is sufficient to censor it. In fact, many ideas have
such effects -- that is the power of ideas and expression -- and perhaps
more important, this effect is not at all limited to explicit pornography.
In fact, if you just want to deal with the "women like to be raped" myth,
just look at two portrayals which are part of our popular culture:
Scarlett O'Hara's rape by Rhett Butler in Gone with the Wind and Luke's
rape of Laura on General Hospital back at the height of their popularity
in the early 80s (I remember watching the coverage of Reagan's shooting
back in elementary school and how someone turned the channel to GH when
the teacher left the room for a bit so we could all watch Luke and Laura).
[snip]
>Where we disagree is, I don't think the graphic and sexually explicit
>subordination of women - or of anyone - is political speech.
Why not? The idea that someone is subordinate is certainly a political
idea. Not one I like, but one nonetheless. And the image may not
be used only to express the idea that someone should be subordinate, but
to express the idea that someone is (actually intended as a protest of
that). Is it the sexually explicit part that you think takes it out of
the political realm?
What about the photo (used in a protest, for example) of a man pissing on
the flag? (That may not be a sexual image, but I think it's analogous.)
You don't need speech to make a point. Or imagine a drawing of Bob Dole
on his knees giving oral sex to Ralph Reed. That could certainly be
interpreted as sexually explicit subordination. What if the Bob Dole
figure was meant to convey all Republicans? There you have a group.
Yet I think that's undeniably political.
And more relevant to MacKinnon's idea, the message that women are intended
to be subordinate to men is clearly a political message -- it's one that
has been debated in various ways continuously.
>>Read (or look at) Defending Pornography. She goes into it in great
>>detail. I've witnessed it myself -- in a conference I was part of
>>planning, the Dworkin/MacKinnon types refused to come if others were
>>included, and went out of their way to censor the one opposing viewpoint
>>that had been included.
>Censor how?
Threatening to boycott the conference after making committments to
speak and the conference was about to start unless a related exhibit
(which could not be defined as sexually explicit subordination of women,
btw, but just a sexually explicit defense of pornography by a woman
artist) located in an entirely different location was taken down.
Granted this could have (and should have) just been refused and damn the
consequences, but it's certainly a censorial type of act IMO.
(I'll give you more details if you want by e-mail as soon as mine is
working again. There are various stories about what happened, but I
was there. In response to arguments against taking down the exhibit,
one of the people in favor of it -- not Dworkin, but a student -- said
"oh, they're just upset bc of that 1st amendment thing", which still
colors my impression of Dworkin and many of her followers, I'm afraid.)
>> This is similar to the strategy (among others)
>>that Strossen discusses -- the anti-porn feminists refuse to debate
>>anti-censorship feminists, but require that their opponents be
>>non-feminists, and the news media obliges. This helps in their efforts
>>to claim that all "real" feminists are against pornography.
>This is truly an unfortunate division, of anti- and pro-porn feminists...
>perhaps we can agree that all feminists are against pornography that
>presents women being degraded and abused... but I'm starting to suspect,
>in point of fact, we're not.
I am against that sort of pornography, but I still don't think it
should be censored. I am against lots of things that I don't think
can or should be made illegal. I'm also not convinced that it is anything
more than a small subsection of pornography, however. Do you have any
information on that?
>What I hear from alot of feminists is the opposite of what you describe...
>the politcally correct view would seem to be pornography is the neatest
>thing since sliced bread and never harmful to women, and anyone who
>disagrees with that is beneath contempt. Perhaps there's a middle ground?
I tend to think the best way to combat such obviously offensive materials
(such as the sorts of pornography you talk about) is to bring it (and
the possible negative effects) to people's attention. One problem is
that a lot of the messages bother me the most (that women like to
be raped or abused) tend to be transmitted in a somewhat "secretive"
environment or not met with any counterspeech. Just an awareness to
the message (which also gets transmitted in popular culture, again) and
the publicizing of the countermessage by someone who seems less hostile
to sex than MacKinnon and Dworkin may be helpful. In fact, I think that's
one way in which decreased attitudes of secrecy surrounding sex and
the increased prevalence of more pornography aimed more at women and
couples may help. I don't really know.
To compare this with race, I think a lot of the most extreme racist ideas
like the Neo Nazis, for example, help the anti-racist cause more than
their own. They point out that it's still a problem that we have to be
concerned with, and create a forum where racism can be denounced. I
see the more dangerous forms of racism as the more subtle messages, which
are not so obviously offensive or seem to correspond to personal
experience. If anything, the Neo Nazis create an embarrassing
association.
>One of my problems with people who argue this issue is that they reduce
>Dworkin's points "for the sake of convenience", and then argue against
>their reduction, instead of what is actually being presented.
>If you believe her to be pro-censorship, say so. It is a serious charge
>that deserves to be levelled and discussed.
Okay. Fair enough. I do believe her to be pro-censorship, though I
also believe the same about a lot of other people. I also think the
idea that free speech is a violation of equal protection is problematic.
>>Doesn't it bother you to see Dworkin or other feminists who support her
>>on these issues arguing with an ACLU person, perhaps, along with a
>>Christian Coalition type? I would hardly trust those so-called
>supporters
>>with censoring my reading material.
>Who, the ACLU or the Xian Coalition type? :-)
>It doesn't bother me, because I'm interested in the idea, not in who is
>defending it. I understand that the Christian Coalition's motivations on
>the subject are bound to be different than mine, and the ACLU's. Their
>aims are quite different from mine; I suspect they would like to outlaw
>all sexually explicit "speech" not just what could be shown to be harmful
>to women.
And beyond that, they may want to outlaw it because they think that
enjoying sex (outside of traditional marital sex or sex for procreation)
is wrong, or that non-traditional (particularly gay) sex is wrong, or
that women in particular should not enjoy sex. They also may think that
censoring such ideas is a good way to prevent the "moral decline" (as
I cited Bork arguing in another response in this thread). The point
is that opening the door to censorship due to this type of perceived
harm from the influence of ideas on society can be very dangerous if we
outlaw it, and knowing the motives of those who are supporting Dworkin
concerns me about the long term expansion of the censorship if allowed.
[snip]
>> I live in a largely gay neighborhood. The most explicit materials I've
>> seen recently are in the neighborhood 7-11 and video stores and contain
>> sexual depictions of men aimed at men. Hardly discrimination.
>It isn't? Don't any women live in your neighborhood? No straight people?
Sure. But the biggest market for such materials in the immediate
neighborhood is (apparently) gay men. Why is it discrimination for
a business to provide materials for the biggest market? Its not like the
stuff is unavailable to women or straights, just that they don't have
as easy a time of finding it displayed or have video stores in the area
aimed right at them.
>> (and all women) don't have to look at this stuff. In fact, it takes
>some
>> effort to do so.
>Not hardly. Any book or liquor store I walk into has the same set of
>magazines displayed over and over again. Perhaps I should walk with my
>eyes modestly downcast whenever I approach such magazine racks. To
>protect the rights of others, of course.
What magazines? The only ones I ever see in mainstream stores are
Playboy (and maybe Penthouse). The only more explicit ones are the gay
ones I mentioned, and even those tend to be behind a counter (though
there are video shops that I walk by). The covers of the mainstream
magazines don't seem to meet the explict and degrading subordination
standard unless we interpret it pretty broadly. I know there are more
explicit magazines, but they don't seem to be displayed out in the open
that much. Have you have a different experience?
>It does take effort to find stores devoted to filmed or more hard-core
>published pornography, 99.9% of which establishments I would not feel
>either safe or welcome in as a straight woman. Do they need to put a sign
>on the wall, "No Straight Women Allowed" before you would recognize
>discrimination based on sex?
The fact that there are stores that I would not feel comfortable in,
especially ones that I would have to spend effort to find, just doesn't
amount to discrimination to me. There are bars that I don't feel
comfortable in -- a few (not most) of the gay bars in my neighborhood,
there are certainly neighborhoods in this (and other) cities that I
don't feel comfortable in due to my race, and there are any number of
other places that I don't feel comfortable for any number of other
reasons (and the same, I'm sure, for men). I don't think that's
discrimination on its own.
>>Now, I agree that some of it encourages ideas that are harmful to women,
>>but I don't see a rational way to distinguish that from books, etc.
>>expressing extremely harmful ideas about blacks, Jews, etc. (the Nazi
>>example again).
>It seems to me Dworkin is attempting to define a rational way to
>distinguish them, but you are rejecting her ideas out of hand. Where does
>that leave us?
But she's not. MacKinnon defines what she thinks should be censored, but
does not explain why the harm from materials expressing those ideas is
different from that from non-sexually explicit materials or sexually
explicit materials expressing other ideas (such as that sex is good, or
that women can enjoy sex outside of marriage). I realize that she
claims it's different (the argument that saying "kill" to an attack dog
isn't protected speech), but she both lacks sufficient proof of that
premise IMO (as Ampersand discussed) and fails to distinguish it from
other cases -- Bork claims that seeing explicit sex causes teenagers to
have sex, thus causing teenage pregnancy and ultimately increasing crime.
>>There must be a better way to work against the effect of
>>the materials (if it is indeed that extensive) other than censorship.
>OK, please suggest it.
Counterspeech, as I sort of suggested above. One thing to remember is
that women are not a group which lacks power in terms of size or
financial resources, taken as a whole. The problem was more the lack
of awareness of the issue and lack of demand for other sorts of
pornography (if that's what you want). And that's changing -- women's
pornography has been the fastest growing porn market (at least it was
during the 80s). An examination of what myths contribute to type of
abuse (the "she really wants it" myth for rape, the "he only does it
because he loves me" myth for battered women, etc., etc.). Perhaps
sensitizing people to the harms of the messages, so people don't react
to the Luke and Laura story with "it's so romantic" rather than
"he raped her!" And I really do think that some of this is already
starting to change.
Just look at rape -- in the relatively recent past we have rape shield
laws (just because she has a sexual history doesn't mean she wanted it),
the creation of laws forbidding spousal rape, the recognition of date
rape, the idea that it's not okay to rape someone just because they're
drunk, etc. And according to Linda Fairstein, women are often much
more difficult to convince as jury members than men. This (while
rather anecdotal, of course) indicates to me that violant porn aimed at
men is not the main problem. Normal men can tell the difference between
rape and sex, and there is no reason to assume that abnormal men wouldn't
be just as dangerous without porn.
>> >I'm not turned on by any of this, and often times am actively offended
>> >by it, to the point of being sickened and depressed. Therefore I
>perceive
>> >I am being discriminated against. If you live somewhere that
>> >pornography has become more egalitarian, I'd love to hear about it.
>> Not at all. I rarely see explicit pornography that I'm turned on by,
>> certainly not of the type we are talking about (though it's certainly
>> easy to find books, etc. which are aimed toward women, you hear more
>> lately about porn aimed toward women, most women I know have gone to a
>> male strip bar at least once, etc.) I just don't see why the lack of
>> explicit porn aimed toward me means I am discriminated against.
>I hardly know how to respond to that without seeming offensive. Going
>back to the African-American descendants of slaves at the back of the bus
>example, maybe you are like any number of perfectly decent white people
>who took the status quo for granted... anyway, it's not just that there is
>a lack of it aimed at you, it's that the lack exists concurrently with no
>such lack for men.
I'm sorry, but I still don't see why that means I am discriminated
against rather than that there has traditionally been a greater demand
for such items from men. And even that seems to be changing somewhat
as women become more comfortable with the idea that it is okay to be
interested in sex (something MacKinnon seems to have a bit of a problem
with). (Yes, I know she's married.)
>>But if it is okay to pass an ordinance like hers, what guarantee do we
>>have that people won't expand it to other "offensive" areas? This is one
>>arena in which I actually agree with the slippery slope argument.
>What other offensive areas? As I argued, her very specificity is your
>defense against such a slide down the slope. Also, "offensive" is not the
>criteria, harm is.
It's not. The only thing that can protect against the "slippery slope"
is a principle, and she violates the principle (by censoring due to
*message* which may be harmful). Bork (and most right-wingers) generally
focus on alleged harms to society, increased crime, etc. to support
their arguments for censorship.
[snip]
>Yes it does matter. [Harm's] the basis for any law restricting freedom of
>speech.
But specific harm aimed at a person or direct and immediate tangible
harm (physical harm, damage to property). If you can prove that it is
the materials, rather than the criminals, which cause certain violent
crimes, you might have a case for the tort claims statute (though I
don't think it would ever be possible to prove a case under it). However
the threat of general societal harm from the promulgation of an idea,
even a bad idea, is not sufficient to restrict freedom of speech, IMO.
>> The protection of even
>>objectionable or unpopular or offensive points of view from censorship is
>>one of the strongest reasons behind the First Amendment.
>Completely agreed. I'm not talking about objectionable or unpopular or
>offensive, I'm talking about harmful.
But you have to very specifically define harmful -- harmful how? to
whom? Most ideas are objectionable in part because they could lead to
harm. The idea that gays are unnatural and sinful probably causes
the widespread discrimination against them, and may even contribute to
their being beaten up. Does this mean that people can't express that
idea? I wish they wouldn't, I think it is harmful, but of course they
must be able to.
Eugene Debs was put in prison for expressing ideas (socialism) which
were considered harmful, since dangerous to the stability of the
government and (at times) the war effort.
So harm alone can't be the standard.
>> Many people would think that any depiction of gay sex (or even writing
>> supporting the idea that gays should be treated as people) is offensive
>and
>> serves no purpose.
>But would gay people find such depictions actually harmful and
>discriminatory?
No. But presumably the people at whom the porn MacKinnon would censor
don't feel harmed by it either. And supposedly the people who
object to the gay sex feel harmed by it since it weakens the moral
order or whatever stupid argument they rely on.
They would feel that a society which rejects traditional values is
discriminatory and prevents them from being able to raise their kids in
the way they want. (And this is definitely the argument they use in
arguing against teaching tolerance to gays in public schools.)
>Those are the standards, not offensiveness to Christians.
Why does it matter who feels harmed? But take the argument about
spreading hate and intolerance toward gays instead.
>> But also the burden is on the person advocating censorship to show the
>> distinct harm from the material to be censored, which I don't think has
>> been done yet (not convincingly -- the Meese report doesn't count).
[snip]
>> Well, I was trying to make a point beyond the specific statute, since
>> it's not self-limiting. The principle is the issue, IMO.
>I begin to see why "anti-porn feminists" may not wish to engage in
>debate... here you are ignoring the statute, attacking it on basis
>outside of what it is trying to accomplish. Kind of hard to defend.
But this is how I see it -- it is a statute that attempts to limit
freedom of speech based on the ideas (and their potential harm if
believed) contained in the materials. That strikes me as both wrong and
dangerous, regardless of the unbelieveably disgusting nature of some
of the materials affected (though not all). Not to mention that while
MacKinnon uses the worst stuff to try and argue her point, much of it
is already illegal or can be made so through a traditional obscenity
law. That's why I tend to think she's more concerned about the stuff that
wouldn't meet the traditional obscenity definition, not the hard core
stuff that you are discussing.
>> Like I said, the vast majority of porn I see on a daily basis (videos in
>> video stores, magazines, etc.) don't involve women at all. The only
>> stuff I see involving women are rather softcore ads for strip bars,
>which
>> (in the ads at least) don't include any of the particularly graphic
>> elements (or the subordination part that I can see).
>Do the strip bars where you live only or primarily feature young women
>stripping for men, or are the less discrimantory than that?
You do know that there are plenty of strip bars aimed at women, don't
you? But I was referring to the ads, since I've never actually gone to
one of the bars they advertised. Would you really advocate the
banning of such ads?
>> But the problem is if it is okay to censor based on message, who is to
>> decide what message is appropriate?
>Victims of demonstrable harm?
Then you are talking about the tort claims act rather than the statute
banning the materials? How could you demonstrate such harm and what
kind of harm would you require?
>> I think the good old "marketplace of ideas" is the safest way to go --
>since
>> we agree that the message can be powerful, the government should
>>certainly not have control over what it is. If you don't like those
>ideas (and
>>I certainly agree with that opinion) work to counteract it by expressing
>other
>>ideas.
>I'm sorry, but what you euphemistically call "the marketplace of ideas" is
>often the marketplace of a small group profitting, economically and
>politically, from the dehumanization of others.
I don't think that makes sense in this context though. Women have just
as much market power than men. In the absence of some sort of conspiracy,
there is no reason that ideas which are pro-women don't have just as much
or a better chance of succeeding.
> Wars have been waged
>because of this very idea, that one class of people can harmlessly be
>reduced to commodities for the profit of another class of people.
Show that that situation exists here. I just see a distinct difference
between discrimination by the government and the expression of an idea,
even an offensive or pro-discrimination one, by individuals or even
businesses.
[snip]
>> But why is it necessarily limited to sexually explicit materials?
>Two reasons. First, when the materials are sexually explicit, then we are
>no longer talking about "depictions" but about actual events.
Why? Many works of art are sexually explicit and yet depictions and
thus expression. Mapplethorpe, for example. Many paintings. Many
literary works. Even many movies.
>The actors
>may be indeed be acting, but they are also indeed actually having sex.
Not always. And anyway, so? Sex is not illegal. If I have a play which
includes a scene where the characters have dinner, and the actors actually
eat during the scene, does that transform it from acting (protected
speech) to nothing more than reality?
>Second, not to put too fine a point on it, the statute in question
>concerns sexually explicit materials. It does not demand equality of
>message in all filmed works of any kind because that is The Right Thing To
>Do, which is indeed far too broad a standard.
Precisely. Why the distinction? Non-sexually explicit materials can
also cause harm. Does the same logic which would allow the statute
still protect these other materials? Not the language of the statute
itself, but any logic under which it could be considered legal.
>> I think materials which have nothing to do with sex can be just as
>harmful.
>I agree. I believe there are laws against certain kinds of harmful speech
>in Germany, for example, that have to do with racism rather than misogyny.
Yes. And those would certainly be unconstitutional in the US.
>They learned the hard way during WWII, apparently.
You really think those laws will eliminate racism? I don't. I think
such attitudes are mainly spread through family and in private anyway
and all banning the speech does is get rid of a good opportunity to
point out how dangerous and horrible those ideas are.
>> >Or put it another way, no films specifically designed to excite the
>> >racial prejudices of white supremecists, explicitly depicting the
>subordination
>> >of greedy Jews who enjoy pain and humiliation. One could call such
>> >films speech, even protected speech, but one could also make a pretty
>good
>> >case that such speech is not healthy for Jewish people, who have
>rights, too.
>> Precisely what I am talking about. And this means we are now allowing
>> the government to censor any ideas/depictions based on the majorities'
>> view of the message.
>No it doesn't. It means we are allowing government to protect people
>against harm, something we have always done.
We have not allowed the gov't to protect people against the harm of
ideas which it considered wrong. When it has tried to do that, we have
later found the actions unconstitutional.
>> Do you have faith in the government to back the same messages as you all
>> the time?
>Nope. I also don't have faith in very many hard-core pornographers to back
>the same messages as me.
I guess I'd just rather permit the existence of a relatively small group
of hardcore pornographers, along with a much greater group of people who
disagree with their work (or you could never get a law against it passed),
rather than give the power to the government to decide which ideas
are too harmful to express and thus should be prohibited.
>I don't have faith in the police to protect me
>from rape, either.
I don't have faith in the police to completely protect me from muggings
or killing either. However, I also don't have faith that MacKinnon's
law would make one bit of difference.
>I think it's time to start addressing those issues,
>however, instead of just singing "I was born a woman..."
We have been. Through addressing the law and social attitudes surrounding
rape. I think this should be continued.
>> Also, how do you determine whether it was "specifically designed to
>> excite racial prejudices" or can just be read or viewed that way?
>You know what, I'm not entirely sure. In hindsight one can certainly look
>at the progaganda of the Hutu government in Rwanda and the outcome it
>helped bring about and be pretty clear about it having been specifically
>designed to excite racial prejudices. At what point do we defend people
>against such propaganda? After it's had its intended effect?
That would be more the tort claims approach (sue the person who made
the material if it caused a crime). However, I really don't see that
as an enforceable law in any constitutional sense, since the decision
of the criminal is always an intervening factor.
>> Messages are often ambiguous.
>And they are also often not ambiguous in the least. I've seen very little
>ambiguous pornography, to be honest.
You think all porn conveys the message of the subordination of women?
(And define porn in this context as sexually explicit materials.) I
don't at all.
>> I think this just gives far to much leeway to a jury (or judge) to
>punish people
>> for what they just don't like.
>How does it give such leeway? The ordinance, I keep repeating ad nauseum,
>is very specific.
People would define "subordination of women" differently, for
example.
>BTW, I notice you long ago ceased addressing the individual provisions of
>the ordinance.
I wasn't trying to hide that. One of the main problems to me, as I
said, is that the theory behind allowing it can so easily be expanded
to many other areas.
>> This would also likely lead to a chilling effect, whereby people will
>> avoid anything that can even remotely be considered within the statute
>> for fear of punishment.
>The irony of you arguing about "a chilling effect" is quite astonishing,
>concerning how most pornography makes me feel. What about my right not to
>have had my sexuality chilled throughout my lifetime up to now?
>Anyway, is your argument that it's a bad thing to create a climate chilly
>to the graphic and sexually explicit subordination of women being
>presented enjoying being raped and brutalized, to take one provision?
No. It is that it's a bad thing to create a climate chilly to sexually
explicit materials, since almost any could be interpreted as involving
subordination if you so desired, and a jury which was offended by the
sexual content might well accept that argument since it didn't like
the materials.
[snip]
>> There are better ways to address perceived problems in prosecuting rape
>> cases then by censorship. Address those issues specifically.
>OK. One of the issues is how women are perceived by cops, judges, and
>juries, specifically that "they asked for it" or didn't fight it hard
>enough. Why are women percieved as guilty of inviting their own rapes by
>cops, judges, and juries?
Do you have evidence of this? I agree it still exists, but think a
lot of progress has been made. Laws have been changed to not require
actual resistence. The rape shield act addresses this question. As I
said women are often more difficult to convince than men (on juries).
Also, juries as a whole contain more women than men.
>Why do men continue to rape women with what
>they apparently perceive to be impunity? I certainly wouldn't hang out in
>city parks after dark by myself, for example.
But is this any different than the fact that violent crimes continue to
be carried out? I wouldn't hang out in many areas of the city after
dark either, but it's not specifically rape I worry about (though that's
among the general fears that would be in my mind).
Criminals exist. Law enforcement isn't perfect. That does not mean that
crimes are caused by porn.
>What are your thoughts on what causes these problems with perception, and
>how to address them?
Good question. I started to answer it, but I want to think about it a
little more. It might be interesting to start a discussion on this issue separately.
>> Something that has since been lost or snipped said "depicted". At any
>> rate, I read "presented" similarly. If you think this only refers to
>> actual rape, then it is written badly, since it can easily be read to
>> include depictions of rape.
>My point is that it doesn't refer simply to rape, but to acts in which the
>victim is shown, presented, depicted (whatever) experiencing sexual
>pleasure in being raped, in addition to being graphically subordinated
>sexually (i.e., the woman has no power in the encounter in any way).
>> ... It can certainly be read as I read it, and I still believe that
>> that is the meaning intended, since rape is already illegal.
>You reduced the statute to referring only to rape, not to the specific
>context of rape being depicted as pleasurable to the victim.
But still rape is illegal, so the depiction must refer to the rape as
well as the pleasure. Do you disagree? Also, you could have this
depiction in a painting or book where no real life crime would be allowed.
Can we at least agree that where the statute refers to actual rape,
abuse, etc. that I have no problem with it (except that those things are
already illegal).
>> I don't like anti-semitism either. That doesn't give me the right to
>> censor such ideas.
>Why not? Perhaps if Jews had the right to censor such ideas in the 20s
>and 30s in Germany, the Holocaust would not have taken place.
If the Jews had had the *political power* (numbers) to do so, it wouldn't
have taken place, but I seriously doubt censoring the ideas would have
gotten rid of them. And the same law that protects those who spread
an idea that I think is bad when the government I support is in power
may also protect those who spread an idea that I think is right when
a different government comes to power.
>> The illegal point was something different -- if it is actually being
>done, it is
>> already illegal.
>Ok. Guess I could boil my question down to, is the film itself illegal?
If not it could be made illegal. I have no problem with that.
[snip points that were addressed above]
>> How is it discrimination when you need not even read the stuff? I think
>> you need to establish this part of your argument more if you want to be
>> convincing.
>OK, as an example, how about if we just don't teach girls to read? Then
>men can write whatever they like and it could never be said to be harmful
>to women.
Not teaching girls to read is obviously discriminatory, though.
>The point isn't that _I_ don't have to read what is available, the point
>is, what if, as is currently true of pornography, that was pretty much all
>that was available and it is harmful to people, even those who don't read
>it?
That's the issue -- how is it harmful? If just through the expression
of ideas (that women are submissive or whatever) that are harmful, the
harm is not sufficient, IMO. The same could be said about lots of
other ideas. But I disagree that that is all that is available, and
this can certainly be changed if people want. So the fact that there
is more porn aimed at men than women also does not seem discriminatory.
The result of discriminatory ideas, perhaps, which have traditionally
prevented women from demanding such materials, but not in itself
discrimination.
[snip]
>> I think many films, books, photographs, etc. could be considered
>degrading and
>> dehumanizing, etc. It's still protected, since people have the right to
>advocate
>> even harmful, dangerous, and offensive viewpoints.
>Certain kinds of speech are actionable, such as incitement to riot,
>conspiracy to commit murder, that hoary old example of yelling "Fire!" in
>a crowded theater, slander, verbal assualt, etc... are you saying such
>speech should also be protected?
None of these are censored based on viewpoint or due to the harm
caused by people beginning to believe the idea (the purpose of politics,
btw). Slander comes the closest, but there you must prove that the
statement was a lie about an individual (not an idea) and caused that
person tangible harm. And even then the rules are different when we are
talking about a person in the public eye.
>> Again, the argument is not that it's not harmful, though I believe that
>> your accessment of the harm is much different than mine. I think
>> non-explicit mediums that communicate such messages about what
>> women like/really want, etc. can be harmful too, but certainly should
>> not be censored.
>I agree with you, they should not be censored. I also think they'd lose a
>great deal of their harmful power as images if we didn't have widespread
>acceptance and even protection of the hard-core pornographic images
>underlying them, nudge nudge wink wink...
I disagree strongly. I don't think the pornography is that powerful,
while the mainstream stuff, parental influence, etc. is far more so.
After all, these ideas tend to be developed while young -- before
most people even see the materials. And I think women (many of
whom have never seen hardcore porn) are affected by them as well.
>> It is about having the government make determinations, since that is the
>> case whenever the government can pass laws censoring works based on
>> viewpoint.
>*sigh* So, let's get down to brass tacks here. A movie showing a man
>phsyically entering a woman in addition to calling her a bitch and a whore
>and slapping her - not simply a depiction, but explicit showing of
>penetration, etc - is nothing more than a "viewpoint"?
If you are censoring it, not because it is obscene, but because it
shows the subordination of women or a woman enjoying sex that you
don't think women should (or do) enjoy, then you are censoring it
because of the viewpoint that you think it conveys.
>> And that is what is happening here -- the Indianapolis and
>> Minneapolis laws banned certain types of pornography, just as previous
>> laws have banned materials based on their ideas. Someone could argue
>> that laws banning gay porn responded to a harm -- that of encouraging
>> people to live immoral lifestyles. Now, I think that is laughable, but
>> It wouldn't surprise me if a majority in many places would support it.
>But such laws can be shown to discriminate against people on the basis of
>their sexual orientation, so I don't think they'd stand up.
Hate to break this to you, but that is not illegal most places. I hope
that changes, but it hasn't yet. Sodomy laws (even if expressly enforced
only against gays) are legal and exist in many states. The "state
interest" permitting this is partially the alleged harm of such
activity. So gay porn could certainly be singled out if it weren't
speech targeted for its viewpoint.
>The harm
>being done in your example is not definiable as anything beyond someone
>being offended.
You and I agree on that. However courts and legislatures have accepted
the argument (and many agree) that legitimizing homosexual relationships
harms society by adding to the decline in the moral order, etc. I think
this is incredibly stupid, which just adds to my conviction that the
government (majority) cannot be trusted to make such judgments in the
censoring of speech. (This "harm" is also the argument in part for
making gay marriage illegal.)
>> And again, I think you have to show how this harms women beyond the way
>> in which advocating any other discriminatory idea harms women or other
>> groups.
>Why do I have to show it harming them in ways worse than other forms of
>discrimination? Even harmful aspects of male sexuality deserve special
>dispensation? Why do you think that should be?
Because other ideas are not censored merely because they promote
discrimination. You can forbid actual discrimination, but not the
expression of the idea that certain classes of people should be
discriminated against or simply aren't equal.
Stephanie