Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 12:41:12 CST
From: <U53644@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: chi.general
Subject: Re: PATRONIZE Camille Paglia !
Distribution: chi
 <1993Jan27.150247.21450@ils.nwu.edu>




=========================================================================
While I certainly do have a sense of humor, I think that the subject of the
original post is important enough to bear repeating.
=========================================================================


Subject: Boycott Camille Paglia !

For those who don't already know..................

Camille Paglia is a local performance artist, and claims to be a feminist.
She has also defended the practice of date rape. Her argument is that a big
part of the thrill of sex is the danger, and that women who have complained
after being raped by the men they dated should have a more mature attitude
about the whole thing (and not pursue the complaint).

I should also point out that Camille Paglia is a lesbian, and is in no personal
danger if such an attitude becomes widespread. She wouldn't date a man,
so she is in no danger of being raped by a male date. She has pushed the
that any young woman who doesn't share her sexual orientation, or keep celibate
is fair game. The hidden agenda isn't too hard to find here - don't you dare
date men, or you'll deserve whatever happens to you. Such compassion!

This attitude isn't tangentially related to her act - it often is brought up
during her act. Please, don't give this person any business. Don't attend her
performances, or contribute to any organization that gives her funding. Yes,
the 1st amendment guarantees her right to push this kind of attitude, but it
doesn't require us to help her do so. Let's show that we know that there is a
difference between being sophisticated, and being a pig. Camille Paglia is
clearly the latter - and she's trying to get more people to be like her. Let's
not bankroll the effort.

                                              Joseph B. Dunphy

==============================================================================

So, I repeat, this person is pushing a point of view that would not only
endorse the practice of rape any time the woman agreed to go out with the
man who raped her, but would also condemn any woman who minded. I think that
it is very important that she be sent a message that this attitude, and the
attempt to spread it, is unacceptable. While it is true that each person
reading this can only deny her a few ticket sales, if enough people do this,
she's going to have a hard time making a living doing this sort of thing.

I'm tempted to ask which century this woman is living in. But have no doubt,
this attitude victimizes heterosexuals of both genders. It victimizes the woman
who is raped. It also victimizes the nonviolent men who wouldn't engage in the
behavior defended by Ms. Paglia, but who would find themselves dateless because
the women they might have dated are scared to go out - are staying at home, to
avoid being raped. Paglia is attempting to abolish heterosexual relationships
through indirect action - or, at least, to heavily punish the women who engage
in them. As she is attempting to interfere in the private affairs of others,
any call for tolerance for her point of view would seem a trifle hypocritical.
She is not different from the homophobes she complains about. The only
difference is that her victims of choice are heterosexual.

To not support someone who is attempting to do one harm isn't "radical" or
"liberal", it's just common sense.

                                          Joseph B. Dunphy