From: rhb@world.std.com (Robert H Brueckner)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Shaming men's sexuality
Date: 12 Dec 1992 03:25:14 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Distribution: world
	<1g80lcINN1b6@agate.berkeley.edu> <1g8nu6INN6rm@agate.berkeley.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

In article <1g8nu6INN6rm@agate.berkeley.edu> spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:

   >>   If by "men's" magazines you refer to soft-core pornography,
   >>   I have read that in the United States 90% of
   >>   men and 70% of women at least occasionally read or view
   >>   such material.  Are you saying that all (or even most)
   >>   of these people suffer from low self-esteem and feelings of
   >>   inadequacy?  This seems really far-fetched.
   >>
   >>   Why do you believe this?  

   >I believe it because it's true. 

   That's nice. Circular logic carried to an extreme...

Thank you for the snide put-down. The ellipctical way you quote this
makes it sound as if I offered nothing but this one set-up statement
as proof, which is disingenuous and intellectually dishonest in the
extreme. And, incidentally, false.


   >Apart from the fact that pornography
   >presents an unrealistic view (no pun intended) of the opposite sex, it
   >is also usually an "objectified" view. I don't believe it is erotic in
   >the way art is erotic, drawing out some hidden truth that makes us
   >understand more about the subject and our own sensuality. I think it
   >merely caters to the baser male presumptions about women and their
   >"uses."

   Well, certainly the softcore porno pictorials presents images that are
   artificial (though I don't know about unrealistic or objectified).  
   And these images are aimed directly at some of the prevalent male
   fetishes in our society -- no question there.

   But you're making a big leap of logic if you think this implies
   that the male porno consumer has "presumptions about women
   and their uses".  There's no evidence pointing towards that.

The presumption is based on the images presented. Women are regularly
shown in the skin books as degraded beings who exist only that their
sexual organs may prove stimulating to a certain type of man, i.e.,
the "male porno consumer." This is objectification par excellence,
IMHO, and if it's realistic, then why aren't thse valiant consumers
out getting laid instead of settling for their one-handed readership
of these publications?

   >But my real point was the cartoons in these magazines [..] people
who
   >seize upon and champion humor directed against another group are
   >expressing feelings of inadequacy, and I stand by that point.

   I dislike that type of cartoon as well.  I have the
   same reaction to them as I do to many stand-up comedians --
   the situations depicted are racist/sexist/homophobic and most
   importantly, embarassing -- and while many people find this 
   amusing, I simply get squicked.

   But to say those who DO find these things amusing are
   "expressing feelings of inadequacy" is just armchair psychology.
   I'm pretty cautious about judging people.  All I'm willing to say 
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^     
   is I don't share their tastes.

And you say this apparently without irony, after calling me an
armchair psychologist, etc.! 

-- 
|"The truth is cruel, but it can be loved, and it makes free those who  |
| have loved it." -- George Santayana  // Opinions expressed here, when |
| clear and persuasive, are my own. --Rob Brueckner (rhb@world.std.com) |



-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
newsgroup is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.