Ross's comments are denoted by a >


>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.

First of all, I'd like to preface this argument by saying that it is so
disheartening that my views are met with such skepticism.

In regards to the link between violence and pornography, I find it rather
interesting that if one is a feminist, he or she is not credited in public
without scientific evidence. Even in a laboratory setting with college men
as the subjects, violent pornography caused aggression against women.
References can be provided if necessary but you can find the study in any
introductory social psychology textbook.

It simply doesn't make sense in itself to most people that, desensitizing
men to sexually submissive images of women undermines their social
inhibitions against demeaning women. Commonplace pornography (even
soft-core) gives its readers the message that women are reduced to objects
of sexual gratification. And this attitude is not confined to the privacy of
their bedrooms or bathrooms (wherever it is read). It spills over into the
real world. We see a use of pornography in the harassment of women at work,
especially in nontraditional jobs, on the street, and to create terror and
compliance in the home, which as you know is the most dangerous place for
women in this society. Domestic Violence is the leading cause of emergency
room trips for women in the United States. If you want to see case studies
and statistics for the aforementioned points, it's been a while since I've
looked at them but I will gladly dig them up for you. 


>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?

In the following paragraphs I will attempt to address these questions...
 
It's much more difficult for you to understand pornography's social
ramifications because your body is not the subject of it. With all due
respect, as a man you have the privilege of not having to feel vulnerable
and sexually denigrated. And you have the luxury of being so cavalier
regarding your opinions of pornography. You simply are not bearing the brunt
of the sexism that it encourages. And the attitudes about women as sex
objects are socially validated every time a movie like Striptease or
Showgirls comes out or misogynists like Larry Flynt receive Hollywood's and
its critics' adoration. Yes, he was referred to as the "adorable man... you
hate to love" in a film review that I read. 

The following is an example of the damaging perceptions of women that are
rooted in a porn saturated society. Back when I still had HBO, I remember
seeing a made for HBO documentary called -Taxicab Confessions-. You've
probably heard of it. Well, hurtful, aggressive attitudes about women were
expressed by those real life passengers taped without their knowledge. These
3 very average, middle-upper class twenty-somethings were bragging to the
cab driver (a confederate for HBO) that they get off on video taping their
sexual encounters with women without getting the women's consent. The guys
described how they would conceal the camera from the woman's view and then
"get her from behind and make sure her face is in full view of the camera".
They then would distribute the tapes as entertainment for their friends. 

I was completely horrified. I was watching the program with my boyfriend who
admitted that similar comments and conceptions of women were shared on his
freshman dorm floor at William and Mary. 

A good friend of mine who lives among the "alternative" fringes of Chapel
Hill society has expressed to me how offended he has become by his
housemates' sexist comments. He said that I wouldn't believe the things they
say about women. 

Since you've probably disregarded all of the above due to its lack of
empirical evidence, here is a striking statistic. Rape has increased over
500% since 1960 (that's one rape every 46 seconds). Although this can be
linked to the fact that women are becoming less afraid to report rape to an
often unresponsive law enforcement and legal system that is male dominated,
you can't ignore that during this very same period, this country experienced
a sharp increase in its availability of sexually explicit material. 

In 1988 Diana E.H. Russell published a theory in "Political Psychology"
based on this correlation. Her theoretical model of pornography as a cause
of rape, asserted that violent porn diminishes men's fears of disapproval by
their peers to act out rape desires. If you think this finding is absurd,
just think for a minute about the prevalence of date rape in the Greek
system alone!

Other prominent researchers on the relationship between porn and violence
against women include Neil Malamuth, James Check, Dolf Zillman, and Bryant
Jennings. Look them up.

Not convinced eh? Need to hear it from the horse's mouth? Well, in an
interview conducted by psychologist Timothy Beneke in 1982, one rapist said,
"I went to a porno bookstore, put a quarter in a slot, and saw this movie.
It was just a guy coming up from behind a girl and attacking and raping her.
That's when I started having rape fantasies...It was like somebody lit a
fuse from my childhood on up".


>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?

Oh yes! You hit the nail right on the head! It's the mere image of a naked
woman that repels and shames me! And I'm a silly little prude that thinks
sex is dirty! Those are the attitudes that you're supposed to hold about
censorship queens like me. They have been sponsored by the PR firms who have
waged million dollar campaigns to create a hysteria over pornography
publisher's first amendment liberties. In 1986, Washington DC's largest PR
firm was given $1 million to discredit the findings of the Attorney
General's Commission on Pornography. They successfully smeared those who
opposed it by planting news stories that disproved any relationship between
pornography and harm to women and children; Once again proving that free
speech means free market access to media by the highest bidder.

Believe it or not, I'm not a prude. I think women's bodies are beautiful, as
are men's. I do not think that it is shameful to see a naked body or to see
2 or more mutually consenting adults engaged in sex. It's the CONTEXT in
which the material is presented! If the material is free of sexism, racism,
homophobia, and respectful to all parties involved, then great! Pass it on!  

I think that you have really managed to trivialize what effects pornographic
media like Hustler (that includes Penthouse, Playboy, etc.) have on women in
our society.  They seriously distort men's perceptions of women.
Pornographers are showing women the way they WANT them to be shown, not the
way they actually are. And you're right if you say that they have the right
to portray women any way they want. They are only exercising their freedom
of speech. I just have one question, what are they speaking about? What is
this point of view that so desperately needs to be expressed? Is there
actually one, or is it just about making money? 

There is a major trade in women, we see the brutalization of women in
violent porn and even murder in snuff films, as a form of entertainment. We
also see women in society suffering the injury of objectification. We are
often dehumanized and that is a precondition for the callous attitudes and
aggressive behavior that we are faced with.

I'm speculating that you would further argue that the women in these
pictures have given their consent and that they are being paid for it. Let
us ponder the concept of consent. As Andrea Dworkin stated in her testimony
to the Attorney General's Commission,"...there are forms of
coercion--including the reality of poverty, the limited opportunities, the
vulnerability of child sexual abuse (65-70% are victims of incest or
molestation) makes it difficult to define the word consent". 

"Dorothy Stratton was coerced and raped in the Playboy system. There is a
history of the exploitation of women through sexual harassment, through
coercion in the Playboy system."

"In 1980, Linda Marchiano published "Ordeal", World-famous as Linda
Lovelace, the porn-queen extraordinaire of "Deep Throat", Marchiano revealed
that she had been forced into prostitution and pornography by brute
terrorism. Gang raped, beaten, kept in sexual slavery by her pimp/husband,
forced to have intercourse with a dog for a film, subjected to a sustained
sadism rarely found by Amnesty International with regard to political
prisoners, she dared to survive, escape, and expose the men who had sexually
used her (including Hugh Hefner and Al Goldstein)...Today Marchiano is a
strong feminist fighting pornography."

Now I realize that magazines like Playboy and Penthouse have realized the
huge market potential of exploiting wealthy, successful women and that they
are fervently recruiting these women as well. I also understand that not all
women are forced by circumstance into pornography. The majority of
pornography (not the convenience store variety, which represents a small
minority of the publications, videos, CD-ROM's, web sites available)
features prostitutes, women with histories of poverty and sexual abuse as
children and adults--not-exactly up-and-coming Jenny McCarthy's. We happen
to live in a society that normalizes pornography and even rewards women who
expose themselves to the public. Playboy has either boosted or has been the
starting point of the careers of innumerable women in the entertainment
industry. That's how women really gain popularity and that's not how it
works for men.

Speaking of Playboy and it's highly esteemed reputation for being classy and
even innocuous, I'd like to comment on an article (we all know how guys read
it for its articles) from the May '96 issue that I was so respectfully given
as were all the guests of a music promotions company party in NYC. The
article is by Asa Baber and it is affectionately entitled, "Diagnosis:
Pussy-Whipped". 

The article begins by persecuting the feminist movement for removing the
phrase "pussy-whipped" from the vocabulary of American men. Baber asserts
that "for decades we have handed feminists the power to edit and reprogram
our language." He argues that the expression must persist because of its
"too colorful and illustrative" nature.

He goes on to define Pussy-whipped as the state of "...a pussy whipping you.
It has become a pink, slippery, thrashing, living thing, an angry ogre in
curls, a ravenous beast with a wrinkled face, a creature as wide as a
building and as deep as an oil well, with the roar of a lioness and the
mouth of a shark. So salute this shaggy monster and get out of its way, fella!"

He claims that all men are motivated into relationships solely by sex and
must submit to the "pussy monster" in order "to get laid". 

Baber holds firmly that the "pussy monster" will impose her unyielding wrath
upon you casting you to the throes of subservience. All women are
pernicious, control freaks that will rob you of your opinions, your
constitution, your freedom, essentially, your life if you're not careful. 

Contrary to popular opinion, Playboy does appear to be harmful and hateful
to women when it's writers print their hateful ideas about women. Aside from
the photographs, the cartoons are demeaning as well. You can usually find
scenarios like a naked secretary sitting on the lap of her fat, balding boss
while he conducts a business meeting. Now I realize that this may be a male
fantasy but fucking A, it's at the expense of women who have to endure
sexual harassment at work.   

>I *cannot* sympathize with a move to boycott an obviously-flawed, but still
>discussion-generating semi-non-fiction film.

Wow, you're pretty incredible! Now you're criticizing me for my personal
opinion of the film and my personal CHOICE not to see it! Whose organizing a
boycott???? I was simply making a statement to another woman who was also
making her CHOICE not to see the film. Get off my back! 


>Gloria Steinem would presume to make my decisions about accuracy, taste
>and morality for me. No thank you. 

Whatever-then don't read it--nobody's forced you to. It's just interesting
that you'd meet a personal CRITIQUE with such adversity. From your testimony
here it appears that you've read other people's critiques of the film. 


>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.
>
"Good God"--please refrain from melodrama. Thank you. I guess I should
readdress that I never made any suggestions to anyone to censor or boycott
this film. I have just made a personal decision not to go see it. Anyway, I
hope that this will provide you with a little insight into a feminist
perspective of a topic that you appear to be so compelled by.   

Yours truly,
Diane
>