From: crywalt@vaxc.stevens-tech.edu (Christopher Rywalt, maladjusted cartoonist)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,misc.legal,alt.postmodern,alt.censorship
Subject: <None>
Date: 29 Jul 92 16:03:18 GMT
Organization: Fairleigh Dickinson University

In article <1992Jul29.031843.4563@panix.com>, gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
> First, let's remember, as we should know from the low-Q
> newsgroups, it is men and not women who are exploited by the
> likes of Playboy and Hustler.  That is, the male nervous system
> responds strongly to visual images and physical (as opposed to
> emotional) fantasies.  The emotional development of the male 
> is sidetracked and stunted by the constant proffering of images
> from whom there is no real heat, and never can be, so that
> magazines and advertising can be sold at high prices and bottom
> lines can grow fat while the souls of innumerable young men
> grow thin on the vacuous fare.

	I agree with this in part; I think it's true that current 
	pornography, like the rest of current "media", hold up before
	the public an "ideal" which can never be reached.  Attempting
	to reach this ideal results in disappointment and unhappiness
	(and for those of you who followed the earlier thread on the
	bully-violence myth, you can see that here the "media" is doing
	it again).

	However, enough has been written on this subject elsewhere, so
	I'll drop it.

> The answer to this problem, however, is not censorship.  What
> censorship would do in this instance would be to make the
> censoring party, the government, a partner in pornography, by
> adding its tax to the price of the material -- by sharpening
> the gradient of acquisition.  This is probably what McKinnon
> and Dworkin wish -- I'll get into this in a moment -- but it 
> is not what I wish, because I desire erotic freedom as well 
> as the other kinds.  The good answer to the problem is better 
> pornography -- erotica, if you prefer -- and more of it, and
> of the sort in which the girl or boy next door can be 
> imagined.  The vague images of airbrushed pornography 
> correspond visually to the indefinite sight of the infant;
> the better pornography will guide its consumer to discern-
> ment and appreciation of the specific, the individual, the
> real.

	I find that pornography, in careful dosage, can add a little
	spice to a healthy sexual relationship.  While my girlfriend
	and I don't frequently indulge in it, occasionally we go
	down to the video store and rent a XXX video.  The only guilt
	I feel in this is the possibility that the actors or actresses
	might be coerced into it, and thus are being exploited.  If
	we had a real aboveground industry, then this worry would be
	cleared.  Some well-made films can actually be found, and they're
	getting more common; I can only hope this trend will continue.
	However, I worry that, if the two-headed ClintonGore monster
	gets into office, we'll be swinging back to censorship.

	And, as an airbrush artist, let me say that airbrushing doesn't
	have to be vague; some people just aren't very good at it.

> Now, what are Dworkin and McKinnon up to?  Primarily, they are
> making a living.  Their particular approach is to exploit
> women.  Specifically, they exploit women by emphasizing the
> difference between the female and male erotism, which of course
> is already being emphasized and exploited by the media we have
> been discussing.  An undeveloped erotic consciousness in a
> large muscular body can only be disquieting, if not
> frightening, to a person of lesser musculature who at the same
> time is the possible object, however hazily, of this same
> undeveloped consciousness.  Passing in front of any newsstand,
> they are aware at once of this dumbed-down erotism and the
> powerful corporate forces enhancing it; they see bodies like
> their own marketed as oranges are marketed in the supermarket,
> rank upon rank, indistinguishable, to be squeezed out and 
> thrown away.  Dworkin and McKinnon and people like them can 
> profit by exploiting this fear, and by opening as far as 
> possible the space between the male and the female; the 
> censorship they advocate can be sold directly to the women, as 
> a brand of politics, and at the same time it can, if 
> implemented, enhance the conditions for further sales.

	This is exactly what I was saying when I posted the Heinlein
	quote, but you've detailed better than I ever could.

> -- 
> Gordon Fitch | gcf@panix.com | uunet!cmcl2!panix!gcf 
> *       1238 Blg. Grn. Sta., N.Y., N.Y. 10274      *

-- Chris