ri wrote, perhaps in paraphrase of Gloria Steinem:

 we are so desensitized to the exploitation of women that we
> >shrug, chortle, whisper about fanaticism, and gape when someone suggests
> >that hustler and its ilk should be curtailed. not censored, mind.
> >curtailed.
> 
Define "curtailed" in this context. What is going too far? Images of
older women naked? Images of Jackie O sunbathing naked? That whole
meat-grinder thing? Which is most offensive, and how does one go about
curtailment?

then Diane wrote
> Images in Huster and the like are not only damaging
> because they de-value women but it is widely known that they perpetuate acts
> of sexual violence against women.

I have a problem with this last statement. It is widely assumed by
certain people, and it has been much-talked-about, but I'd hardly go so
far as to make that last statement. Hyperbole is unnecessary.

I also have a problem with the phrase "Hustler and the like." I'd like
for you to define "the like," and let me know where you draw the line.
Which images "perpetuate acts of violence" and which ones don't? What
can be shown/not shown before that little switch goes off and acts of
violence are perpetuated? Women's breasts? How about just one nipple?
How about pubic hair but no vulva? How about a one-legged semi-bald
German lesbian fisting her lover?

No, I really want to know. What separates Hustler, makes it somehow more
dangerous? And how does it compare, in the realm of
violence-perpetuation in the world, to (a) poverty, (b) wealth/greed,
(c) xenophobia?

> Thanks Larry and sexist Hollywood, but if
> I must- I'll fight my own free speech battles!

And I mine.

See, I didn't wind up seeing "People Vs. Larry Flynt" tonight because it
was sold out. But I talked about it a lot, and I've read a good bit, and
while I understand the motivation to boycott those works which relied
upon the involuntary/coerced cooperation of women for their creation, as
the 70s porn industry has been documented to have done, I *cannot*
sympathize with a move to boycott an obviously-flawed, but still
discussion-generating semi-non-fiction film.

Gloria Steinem would presume to make my decisions about accuracy, taste
and morality for me. No thank you. I'd rather pay $6 and decide for
myself. And I don't think I'll be so suckered in by Hollywood's
feel-good machine that I'll be blinded to however much or little of the
real Larry Flynt lurks below the veneer.

I've seen Hustler once or twice, but my main exposure to Larry Flynt, at
least recently, has been hearing him on the radio, and reading about him
in the Village Voice. From both of these outlets, I've gotten one major
impression: He's got an enormous case of the lower-class paranoia. He
apparently subscribes wholeheartedly to the notion that "the poor can't
afford morality." He would seem to see all sorts of polite social
constructs as luxuries for the rich.

This makes him rather grotesque. This makes him a crass stinky weirdo
who can't behave himself. But he does make an interesting point, albeit
non-consciously: everything he does forces us, however briefly, to
examine the needs which are being met by our rules of polite social
engagement. He makes us wonder why, if only for a moment, we're offended
when he runs semi-nude photos of our holy First Widow.

And my point is that these assumptions *need* to be questioned, if only
so we have a better idea of why they're important assumptions. 

I understand (secondhand, unfortunately--how much easier it would be to
talk about this had I seen the film already. How much easier would it be
for you to follow if you *planned* to see the film, at least?) that
Forman has managed to fuck this point up. He's apparently constructed
the whole film as some kind of giant coming-of-age fable, one which
takes 40 years to reach its end. And when it does, Larry has apparently
become some kind of de facto constitutional scholar.

Well, bullshit. Larry is a weird gross little man who actually
apparently likes pictures of women spreading their labia apart with
their fingers, more than just about anything in the world. 

He made the point on the radio that the people he knew--scuzzy
blue-collar types--couldn't relate to Playboy, and that whole Hefner
lifestyle industry. Not sure whether they relate any more readily to his
vaginal fetish, but he also has a history of running photos of women who
wouldn't meet Playboy's skewed fetishistic airbrushed standards. So
who's worse, Hefner or Flynt? Or once you cross that invisible line, do
you all become equally bad?

So while Forman wants to cast him as some kind of weird
civil-libertarian antihero for the 90s, I'd just as soon think of him as
the GG Allin of the publishing industry. He hates polite society. He'll
immediately leap to do anything to debase it. Those last two sentences
are eerily reminiscent of vintage descriptions of punkrock.

I'm not trying to hold Flynt up as some exemplar of punk ideals--he's
about as non-communitarian as they come, and community is a big part of
punk. He is a lot like your average 14-year-old nihilist mall rat,
though. Hey--Larry Flynt, Beavis, Butthead. Whatever.

My point is that he plays a rather unique role, inasmuch as he seems to
embrace crass lower-class mores, rather than participating in the whole
"climb the social ladder" thing. Most of the nouveau-riche go out of
their way to make some stabs at what they perceive as gentility. Larry
Flynt takes pokes at gentility with whatever weapon he's got handy. I
find that interesting.

So while I suspect that the film is a lousy introduction to his life (as
I understand his autobiography is, as well), I don't think it should be
censured. Good god. Let's check out the ideas and discuss them, shall
we? Please.

Ross
--
http://sunsite.unc.edu/grady/ch-scene    The alt.music.chapel-hill Guide
to the Triangle
http://sunsite.unc.edu/grady/ch-scene/weekhome.htm    A half-dozen
things to do this next week.