instead of giving my arguments even a modicum of respect (i am
engaging in "debate" just as much as the rest of you, although my position
is clearly unpopular), you have automatically labeled me as shrill (thank
you, adam, that is exactly what i was thinking, it IS the well-lubricated
tool of the oppressor), hysterical, and irrational -- in short, just another
crazy feminist bitch.  
        well, i AM angry and i am a feminist, so deal with it.  most of your
responses came off as deeply threatened -- sorry.  Twice I have stated that
it is not my desire to ban all pornography, neither have i taken the
position that all man-woman sex is rape, or that all interactions between
men and women are sexual harassment.  
        i will say, however, that some guy driving by and yelling "nice ass,
i'd like some of that" is NOT a compliment to me, does NOT make me feel
beautiful and powerful, but rather makes me feel vulnerable and nervous --
that is an unwelcome sexual advance, much different than when my boyfriend
compliments me on my body. has anyone ever heard of context? 
        why is it so difficult to understand that i fear that a lawyer, for
example, who frequently spends his lunches at strip clubs, where women are
primarily there for the sexual gratification of men (and to make money to
feed their kids, probably more money than other "female" jobs, and also
maybe because some of these women enjoy their jobs, whatever), will carry
that attitude back with him to the office and spend more time looking at the
opposing attorney's tits than listening to her arguments?  not to assume
that all men think of women as hyper-sexualized or can't differentiate
between "play" and work, but you have to admit that this is a potential
barrier for women in the working world -- and not just professional women,
but also women in predominantly male blue-collar jobs, you name it.  
        i suggest that you go to the law library and check out a couple of
cases for examples of how pornography has adversely affected women in the
workplace -- robinson v. jacksonville shipyards, inc. 760 f.supp. 1486.
here, a woman was a skilled welder working in a predominantly male part of
the factory.  the men felt threatened by ms. robinson's presence, and used
pornography to make her feel unwelcome and vulnerable.  of the many
egregious examples of sexual harassment, i will include only a few . . . "a
picture of a woman's pubic area with a meat spatula pressed on it", "a
picture of a nude womean left on the tool box where Robinson returned her
tools . . . [depicting] the womean's legs spread apart, knees bent up toward
her chest, expositn her breasts and genitals . . . several men were present
and laughed at Robinson when she appeared upset by the pictures", and a
picture of a nude woman lying on her back with the caption, "this woman
deserves a raise!"  
        And before you dismiss wholesale a potential link between
pornography and sexual violation, please consider the following.  The
effects of these images were bolstered by physical acts -- another female
craftworker had her breasts pinched by a foreman, and "[had] her ankles
grabbed by a male coworker who pulled her legs apart and stood between
them."  Are these women hysterical prudes for feeling threatened?  is it
really so heretical to suggest that there is sometimes a fine line
separating images that depict women as submissive, hyper-sexualized objects
and an anti-woman attitude in the workplace and even violation of bodily
integrity, as in the case cited above?  
        can you admit--if only in this limited context of the case
above--that pornography might have an adverse effect on women? if you want
more cases supporting this claim, let me know. my housemate is a law student
and can supply them. 
        all this aside, i just want to respond to a few of your comments. i
know that you're going to say that i'm being defensive but hey, i'm being
attacked by the majority here. of course i'm on the defensive. As to
comparing Margaret to an idiot, i think you misunderstood me.  i was simply
saying that i felt like she was discrediting an entire movement based on the
extremist position of one activist (andrea dworkin), in the same way that my
brother-in-law discredits the entire black power movement based on the
extremist position of one activist (farrakhan).
        also, i wasn't comparing dworkin to mlk, per se.  i was merely
rebutting margaret's assertion that dworkin was capitalizing on pornography
merely to gain noteriety and make a few bucks.  that's like saying that mlk
was speaking out against racism for fun and profit. i'm comparing the
concepts, not the people.
        and of course, as i have stated several times, i am not an expert on
the difference between porn and erotica, i am well aware that my definition
of sexy is different from someone else's, etc. etc. 
        but am i not allowed to have a visceral response to some porn, just
as you are?  am i not allowed to discuss my opinion without being roundly
chastised and dismissed as irrational and humorless?  
        and as to the statement that i am "mean" -- why is it that when i am
being attacked (by j for example) it's all in the spirit of debate, but when
i assert my opinion, it's mean. i'll tell ya why, it's because i am
unpopular among you. shake your head all you want j. 
        why do you all just assume that margaret knows what's she's talking
about? j and others have completely ignored where she has been outright
wrong! just listen to me for a second, please. in an attempt to discredit
anti-porn feminists as hysterical, margaret said that there were "surveys"
that showed that women claimed whistling to be a form of rape. after i
challenged that, she admitted that she had overstated her case and actually
meant to say sexual harrassment. there IS a huge distinction. and its an
easy tool to classify anti-porn feminists as prudish hysterics. 
        also, she makes unsubstantiated claims that speakers at TBTN marches
"frequently define harrassment as a form of rape". did you not see my
rebuttal, which WAS substantiated with evidence from a TBTN speaker? also,
the fact that she faults TBTN at all makes me wonder where she is coming
from. they speak about rape and domestic violence--social problems that we
do encounter in this society. 
        what is there to feel threatened by? i don't understand the
wholesale criticism of these marches. it's not like they're bashing men or
conspiring to take power away from them to take over the country or something. 
        as to a whistle being a form of sexual harassment -- consider that
there may be a continuum extending from whistles, to comments to sexual
assault.          consider a woman walking down the street at dusk, and a
man slowing down to comment on her body (she is wearing baggy clothes) and
asking her if she needs a ride.  she politely declines.  then imagine him
pulling down a side street and comes after her on foot.  she escapes rape,
barely.  well, this has happened to me, and i am not alone -- 3 out of 5 of
my best girlfriends have been in similar situations.  so, i'm sorry if i
can't nonchalantly say that a whistle is harmless or a compliment.  and i am
constantly aware that i am forced to circumscribe my actions and not walk
alone at night or at nightfall. 
        i'm merely suggesting to you that TBTN is not radical and off-base
if a speaker proclaims whistling to be a form of sexual harrassment. ya
know, it's one thing if my friend whistles at me or pinches my ass, but it
is quite scary if it's a stranger whose limits are unknown. 
        i don't have time to try to educate people on an issue that they
would just as well mock. If by chance, anyone is interested, i implore you
to check it out with a non-biased attitude.