From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Pornography... (was: MacKinnon...)
Date: 8 Oct 92 11:02:13
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<1992Oct7.180559.10555@midway.uchicago.edu>
	<1992Oct7.210929.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>
	<1992Oct8.040814.25037@midway.uchicago.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu's message of 8 Oct 92 04:08:14 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.040814.25037@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini) writes:
>Well, seems like there is some agreement here, but I find myself
>wanting to disagree, nonetheless.  From my limited experience, these
>(for lack of a better term) "Fat Momma" videos are not, umm, B-movies.
>What I mean to say, it's not like they say, "Well, we couldn't find
>any babes, so we got these fat ladies instead... they still do kinky
>things, so maybe you'll like it anyway."  No, on the box it says, "You
>like 'em! Big Fat Mommas, coming your way!! Hold on to your dxxk!"

>So now I'm starting to think more along the lines of Hillel's other
>suggestion:

>>2) Hard-core Porno is far away from the main-stream standards while the
>>>swimsuit issue is not.  May be the people who consume the porno
>>>are different from the average person.

>You know what I'm thinking?  I'm thinking that it's only the true pervert
>(ie. hard-core fan, no offense intended) in our society that can 
>possible come to think that having sex with fat women can actually be
>fun and exciting.  That says a lot to me about both how our society
>thinks about sex and about standards of beauty. 

>I don't know what I'm trying to say, but it seems to be that there are
>*elements* of a true feminist porn not in the muted soft-core stuff (and 
>god, not in romance novels) but in the *hard-core* stuff...  I don't know.

Whoah!  Talk about your revelations.  You know, I think there is
definitely something in this.  Here's the difference that struck me when
reading your article:

The "soft-core" stuff is more *telling* people what they should like:
"here are pictures of beautiful women.  You now know what's beautiful
because they all look very similar."  (That's oversimplified, of course,
especially as the desirable characteristics start out by being
societally defined and are then refined by the magazines, but I'm just
trying to find the distinction here, not discuss all the fine points.)

The "hard-core" stuff is *catering* to particular people's desires: "you 
like fat women, we'll give you fat women."  This says that it's okay to
be attracted to something that is *not* usually considered attractive.
It says "yes, fat women *are* sexy, and we'll show you how."

Of course, really, both are just trying to make some money...*grin*.

>I know, I know.  I'm not towing anybody's party line, and probably nobody
>respects me anymore. :(  But that's what I (sometimes) think.

I respect you...*smile*...

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy                               muffy@mica.berkeley.edu
~Little round planet/in a big universe/sometimes it looks blessed/
 sometimes it looks cursed/Depends on what you look at, obviously/
 But even more it depends on the way that you see~ - Bruce Cockburn
Newsgroups: alt.feminism