Diane Wininger wrote:
(a lot of stuff I've deleted in the interest of brevity)

I said:
> >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.
> 

Then Diane said:
> 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.

Let's look back at the *whole* exchange. 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."

Then I wrote: "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."

In other words, you need to be a little more specific. *You* know what
you mean by "Hustler and the like," but we don't. And it's incredibly
dangerous, in any case, to make *any* kind of broad sweeping
generalizations when the subject matter is so serious. And I'd say the
phrase "it is widely known" would be a red flag, in that case.

That is what I said--I said nothing, pro or con, about the correlation
between some porn and some sexual predation.

> 
> 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.

Well, actually, regarding any subject, whether one is a feminist or not,
one is still expected to provide some evidence to back up statements,
particularly those which are not immediately self-evident truths.

> 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. 

No, on its face that makes a great deal of sense.

 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.

In other words, porn used as a tool to harass. Well, the U.S. Army used
Van Halen to harass Manuel Noriega, but I'm not sure that justifies
condemnation of Van Halen outright. Not that they don't deserve
condemnation. But I digress.

 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.

Agreed. I've been more than a little constarned by the laugh-a-minute
press coverage of the whole Larry Flynt thing. I think there's no
question that his celeb-of-the-moment status is the product of massive
ignorance of the specifics of what he does--something, as I said earlier
today, which the movie does little to correct.

> 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.
> 
You know, a friend of my sister's once saw Bigfoot. No really.

> 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.
> 
Yes, well, these two things happened during the same time period. That
does not even *imply* a causal connection.

> 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!

Huh? How about the increase in alcohol overuse at frat/sorority parties
over the past thirty years? I'd say there's at least an equally credible
correlation between that and date rape vs. increase in exposure to porn,
and date rape.
 
> 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".

This brings me back to my initial question, which Diane thoughtfully
clipped and answered below:
> 
> >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.

Uh, those aren't my attitudes. Don't put words in my mouth, thanks. I
quite literally asked if you would define what you meant by "Hustler and
the like," specifically the "the like" part. If you would simply make
more clear *what* images you feel "perpetuate violence," and what images
don't, then we'd be able to talk more clearly and effectively.

 Once again proving that free
> speech means free market access to media by the highest bidder.

Free speech means that. It *also*, thankfully, means that you and I can
have this discussion. It means that Krapper Keeper can record a
million-selling hit song called "Chewbacca is Gay" and be protected from
censorship or legal action. I like that. I'm willing to go to great
lengths to preserve that right.
> 
> 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!

Yes, well, there's the rub, eh? That sticky Context question. Hmm. 

> 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. 

I beg your pardon. Now it's my turn to ask you to provide some examples
of *both* what you mean by "like Hustler" *and* what you mean when you
say that *I* have "really managed to trivialize" etc.

 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?
 
How can you draw the line? That is my point: it does not matter what the
point of view is. period. No exception. No question. Because I guarantee
you: for every person like you, who hates the same forms of speech *you*
hate, there is another person who hates *your* speech just as much. I'd
prefer to keep *both* forms free.

> 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. 

This is a sincere question: where is there documented firsthand evidence
of the existence/content of snuff films? These things are alluded to all
the time, and I don't know that I've ever seen a real explicit account
of one. I've always wondered.

> 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.

Almost certainly some, and almost certainly not all. Then there's the
basic fact of human nature that we all do stupid shit we're going to
regret later in life. I'd bet that at least 10% of the women who posed
for porn magazines thought it would be cool at the time, and almost
immediately thought better of it after the magazine came out. It's a
broad continuum from outright consent to out-and-out coercion, I'd
think.

 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".
> 
Absolutely. I would guess that poverty is the #1 inducement for women to
enter into prostitution as well. 

Not coincidentally, I was trying to discuss the extent to which a lot of
Larry Flynt's behavior is an outgrowth of his hatred/fear/embarassment
about being (a) poor and from white-trash, and (b) in a wheelchair.
There is a complicated class-struggle component to the porn industry, on
both sides of the camera, and I think it's worth discussing. 

 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.

Yep. The stuff on the web, for the most part, is awful. There's also a
goodly number of scanned photos of kids from european nudist magazines
from the 70s. 
>
> Speaking of Playboy and it's highly esteemed reputation for being classy and
> even innocuous,

Something which I'm not going to defend, since I think it sucks. My
friend Lisa was in it and I didn't even recognize her.

 I'd like to comment on an article [long synopsis of article deleted, in
light of the statement above. I think it sucks.]

At some point, I said:
> >I *cannot* sympathize with a move to boycott an obviously-flawed, but still
> >discussion-generating semi-non-fiction film.
> 
Then Diane said:
> 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!

No, I said I couldn't sympathize with a move to boycott the film, which
was what I saw happening in the wake of Steinem's NYT editorial: folks
deciding to not see the film based solely upon that one piece. I said
I'd rather discuss it based upon having seen it, rather than having read
one person's review of it. As it turns out, it was a pretty good movie,
but it was a fairly-obviously-faulty biography of Flynt.

In other news, Mike Judge's "King of the Hill" is a little slow,
particularly coming as it does immediately after the Simpsons. It did,
however, contain the phrase "thanks for the latte, Kenneth."

Ross
--
http://sunsite.unc.edu/grady/ch-scene/ 
The alt.music.chapel-hill Guide to the Triangle