I just want to say that I mostly can't whistle, so if anyone tries to arrest 
me for whistling at a boy or a girl, no matter how deserving of a whistle 
they are, it's a frame job.  Thank you.

One could be tempted to say that when the going got tough, Diane went and 
found a man to fight her battle(s), but that would be unfair and possibly 
untrue, so I won't say it.

The Dworkin/MacKinnon proposed law, which was enacted, pretty much stet, in 
(at least parts) of Canada was and is used to ban publications.  As I noted 
it has mostly been used against gay/lesbian bookstores.  But even if you say 
that isn't what was meant (and ignore how it is being used), you are 
absolving the perpetrator of rape or abuse if you say it is partially the 
fault of the pornography, and they should pay.  Well, gee, in that case, 
let's just pat that nice man on his hand, and tell him to watch nothing but 
Disney in the future.

And if porn can make people do bad things, well, heck, the authors of murder 
mysteries are probably in a *lot* of trouble--can you sue Dashiell Hammett's 
estate?  Or how about Quentin Tarrentino?  His movies are violent enough, and 
I'm sure that you could sue him, too.

Look.  If one is an adult, one should be able to tell the difference between 
a movie and reality.  In some cases, yes, some viewers cannot.  Forcing all 
media to kowtow to that level would mean that we are all, even if we can tell 
the difference, reduced to watching Andy Roony/Judy Garland movies.  Forever.

Laws against defamation and libel do not attempt to ban speech.  They may 
punish the speech, but not bad it beforehand.  And, again, the MacDworkinite 
law has been used as an excuse to ban speech.

Actually, in some cases, access to the media *has* been defended by the 
government, on the grounds that freedom of speech is meaningless without the 
access.  The court records on this are inconsistent, though, and even the 
Supremes have switched back and forth.  

Yes, free market forces distort the media.  Umm, who said they didn't?

Porn teaches men and women how to express themselves sexually?  Umm, not me, 
bucko.  I kinda invented what I liked doing long before I knew that anyone 
else liked it, too.  In fact, what I was given by the media didn't (and 
doesn't) match my sexual tastes at all.  To say that women have historically 
been denied access to media (granted), therefore certain types of pornography 
should be actionable is incoherent nonsense.

Let us take Victorian porn as an example--Victorian society was not awash in 
feminist principles.  Most V porn I've read (and I've read everything I could 
find, which is a lot) features more fem dom sex than a year's worth of 
Variations magazine.  Or is your argument that any sex that involves any sort 
of power play, *regardless* of who holds the power in the sexual act, is 
automatically anti-woman?  If it is, I suddenly begin to understand those 
people who say that gay male porn is sexist and degrading to women.

"But when women are attacked in pornography...." Cite, please--what exactly 
are you talking about?  What percentage of women involved in porn?  

I find it amazing that you can imply (with, one assumes, a straight face) 
that the anti-porn forces have trouble getting media access.  It contradicts 
completely my experience of mainstream journalism.

----------------------------------------------------

For those of you who have tuned out, herewith I answer other messages, but 
still about pornography.  

----------------------------------------------------

Todd--sorry, I don't know what Hemphill's reaction was when he was told who 
the man in the photo was.  But the cite for his statement (which I quoted) is 
his (Hemphill's) book, _Ceremonies_, Plume Books, 1991.  As for the identity 
of the man, and why he didn't have a head, I think the story is in most 
Mapplethorpe bios.  I first encountered the story in a book by my favorite 
porn theorist, the late, great, John Preston.  (Of course, you say.)

Ruby--thanks.  I'm not a bad person, really I'm not.  I just like smut. 


I'll sign this one, in case I get bitten by the dougbug, but I was kicked off 
a listserv a couple of months ago for forgetting to sign my messages, so 
don't expect me to make a habit of it.   (I also mostly write short 
messages.  No, really, I do.  This is a perversion of my normal online style, 
and I should sue.)

--Margaret Campbell, mjc@pobox.com  or inkwench@pobox.com or 
76710.1375@compuserve.com or Margaret_Campbell@pobox.com....