Ross;

Thanks for the nice words.  As soon as I figure out how to go entirely 
without sleep, I promise, I'll post more.

Adam--the piece currently sitting on an editor's desk, and which will, with 
luck, move me into the book anthology category, may run under the name 
Charity Primmer, which is an acquaintance's mother.  No, really.  And the 
mother thinks it is a hoot.

Diane;

I'm afraid I don't get your connection of my not being able to parse Chris's 
messages with what you see as my trivialization of rape.  I don't see what 
you're talking about at all.  If it was in response to something Chris said, 
I wasn't joking, I can't read his messages.  If he talked about rape, I 
wouldn't know it.

FWIW, rape is an act of violence that may share some of the same actions 
(such as vaginal/penile, anal/penile, oral/penile contact) that sex has, but 
this is purely coincidental, as it is coincidental that burglary and moving 
have some of the same actions.  Rape is an act of violence.

Now.  Do you have a different distinction?

As for snuff films, believe who you will.  Me, I tend to believe those that 
really, really wanted to prove their existence, but finally admitted that 
they were unable to.

Is it sexist to make a film about raping and killing women?  Most likely.  
But if that is your point, pornography is the least of your worries.

Common ground?  How about the 1st Amendment?  All of this stuff *is* legal.  
Constitutionally protected, even.  If I wanted to write a story wherein I 
kidnapped a small boy and raped him, that would be legal, and has been done 
in mainstream literature.  I'm blanking on the author, but I will probably 
always remember the book The Manhood Ceremony, which was very mainstream, and 
turned around just that plot.  (It also strongly implied that this was how 
gay men were made, they were raped when they were young, and grown gay men 
rape children.  The book was amazingly offensive all around.)  But things 
that are offensive are constitutionally protected.

I don't know all the names you bring out as being anti-porn but not 
anti-sex.  I'm quite willing to believe that some of them think that.  But 
everyone I've read, which does include Steinam, draw a line at what sex 
should include, even if consensual.  It may have changed of late, but at one 
point Ms. magazine wouldn't even acknowledge the existence of the pro-sex 
faction.  Read Pat Califia (I think it may be in Public Sex) for one account 
of the censorship, and remember MacKinnon saying Friedan was not a feminist.  

What quotes, specifically, are you calling insipid?  I'm afraid I don't keep 
a complete list of everything I've said online.


"If the material is free of sexism, racism, homophobia, and respectful to all 
parties involved..."  Who gets to make these determinations?  How familiar 
are you with the work of Robert Mapplethorpe?  One of his photos is of a 
black man in a suit, with his dick hanging out.  The man's head is cut 
off.  In response to this photo, Essex Hemphill said "Mapplethorpe's 'Man in 
a Polyester Suit" ...presents a black man without a head, wearing a business 
suit, his trousers unzipped, and his fat, long penis dangling down, a penis 
that is not erect.... What is insulting and endangering to black men is  
Mapplethorpe's conscious determination that the faces, the heads, and by 
extension, the minds and experiences of some of this black subjects are not 
as important as close-up shots of their cocks."

Sounds reasonable, doesn't it?  I mean, the man doesn't have a head, how can 
that be free of "racism, homophobia" and is certainly isn't respectful.

The man, however, was Mapplethorpe's lover, who agreed to pose *only* if his 
head was cut off, in order to protect his job.  Shat Hemphill saw in the 
photo was most likely not there in the minds of Mapplethorpe and his lover. 
Who gets to define whose opinion counts?


As for Hustler and Falwell--what they printed was lacking in any sort of 
taste.  But was it parodying Falwell's public image?  Unquestionably.  And 
parody is, thank you Supremes, protected speech.


I'm afraid Dworkin *is* using porn to make money.  She could have written on 
the sexism inherent in, say, the fashion industry.  Or the fast food 
industry.  But she chose porn, and as a result, she gets book contracts, and 
people pay to hear her speak, and to see her slides of bad, evil porn.  

The main difference between what the pornographers sell and what Dworkin 
sells is that the pornographers have releases from the models, and they pay 
them.  Dworkin, to the best of my knowledge, doesn't.

As for the ACLU, I do suppose you know that it stands for American Civil 
Liberties Union, yes?  Are they to turn down constitutional cases because 
they might make money?  Saying that they sometimes work for people who can 
pay them is *not* saying that they are for sale to the highest bidder. 

Oh, I knew I forgot something--working on the fringes of porn means keying 
orders in for Adam & Eve for a few years, then reviewing movies for them for 
a few years more.  Very much on the fringes.  And I never, ever, heard a 
discussion of snuff films.