At 01:12 AM 1/14/97 EST, you wrote:
>Chris, FWIW, I don't reply to your messages because they are too long.  Too 
>wordy.  I don't have time to parse all of that.  Sorry.
>

The way you trivialize rape is so completely astounding to me. 2 people
fucking is not rape! Do you understand the distiction b/w sex and rape
because from your posts it's pretty hard to tell.
>

What does working "on the fringes of porn" mean? That you worked for the
industry? If so, I'm sure you did hear a lot of "discussion" about snuff films.
Look, all I am saying is that I'm more likely to believe prostitutes'
testimony over the Pornography lobby or a PR Firm on this issue. It's like
taking the Tobacco Lobby's word when they stated that they couldn't find any
link b/w smoking and lung cancer. I can see the smoke coming out of your
ears already. 

The murders and rapes, themselves are not legal. The point was that in the
event that they were made, they could legally be shown for purposes of
entertainment. 
So you think that the description of the film, "Made in South America..." is
offensive. Can you at least admit that you find it remotely sexist that a
film (snuff or not) was made about raping and cutting up women??? I'm just
trying to establish SOME common ground here. 

I really believe that you don't want to see the difference between anti-sex
and anti-porn feminists. Again, the only anti-sex feminist I have heard of
is Andrea Dworkin. There are plenty of outspoken women on this subject
including, Diana E.H. Russell, Gloria Steinem, Alice Walker, Susan
Brownmiller, Susan Griffin, Nikki Craft, KathleenBarry, Florence Rush, Ann
Simonton, Melissa Farley, Jane Caputi, and Catherine Itzin. As far as I
understand these women have sex (with men even) and actually like it.

You are taking these insipid quotes from the extereme right and generalizing
all anti-porn feminists as such. You use the same reasoning as my staunch
conservative brother-in-law uses who tries to discredit the civil rights
movement because he thinks that Louis Farrakhan is an idiot. 

Again, 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, it's not offesive. That
is what erotica means to me. I understand that the word degredation would be
very hard to operationally define and therefore hard to pinpoint in terms of
regulation. It's a sticky situation--no pun intended. And I don't have the
answers-I never claimed to. 
>
One burning question for you. Do you think that all or most porn is
respectful to women?  
> 
I just have to include this paragraph of your's because it is so absurd.

Margret: The surveys that included such things as being whistled at as sexual 
>harrassment (rape was overstating my case) are usually touted by TBTN.  And 
>speakers at TBTN marches frequently define the harrassment as a form of rape.
>
That's quite a large "overstatement"! It's statements like this one that
leads me to believe that you think that rape is just a bunch of hype. I hate
to break it to you but heckling by construction workers is actually a form
of sexual harassment. What do you call it when someone is giving you an
unwanted sexual advance? Well, maybe all of your advances have been wanted
but not everybody else's are. 

Now the problem you have with Take Back The Night marches is beyind me. I
was so bewildered by this comment that I actually called the headquarters or
whatever the fuck it is and I asked them if it was true that if during
marches, speakers "frequently define sexual harrassment as a form of rape".
A rape counselor and frequent TBTN march speaker got on the phone and
although she was insulted by this ignorance, she respectfully informed me
that that is not a belief touted by their speakers. These are literally the
tactics that anti-women MEN use to give such events a bad name. And it leads
me to believe that you think that rape and domestic violence are myths.  
>
What Hustler printed about Falwell seems to be slander to me. Even though
the guy is a freak, I still contend that he had every right to try sue Flynt.  
>
I never said that no women ever consent to appearing in porn. In fact I
specifically made such a disclaimer in my argument of consent.  
>
Dworkin is not using porn to make money! I can't believe that I'm even
wasting my time arguing about this. She has become well known by speaking
out against the industry. Do you actually believe that she is trying to
capitalize on that?!? Do you think that Martin Luther King was trying to use
the civil rights movement as a get rich quick scheme? Some people are
actually trying to get a message across.

What do you mean, "Of course the ACLU uses porn to raise money"? Are we
supposed to take for granted that civil rights organizations will make
decisions in favor of the highest bidder? How about the media for that
matter?--you read Chomsky, what do you think?
>
I don't have any more time to spend on this argument. I have to go and do
some work. I'll try to respond to the rest of your comments later.
>
>