From: lstewart@watserv1.waterloo.edu (L. Stewart -- IS      Office 1058)
Subject: Re: SNUFF FILMS sighted in TIME MAGAZINE!!! (Dworkin and MacKinnon, too)
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 19:40:42 GMT

In article <STEINAR.92Apr14194103@otello.solan.unit.no> steinar@otello.solan.unit.no (Cindy Kandolf) writes:
>Charles Herrick writes:
>>Note that pornography is being equated with violence and snuff films
>>by the feminazis again.
>
>Note the term "feminazis" being used by someone wishing to discredit 
>anything that _might_ be feminist again.  Quite honestly i wonder if
>the people who use that term ever think about what the Nazis were.
>Scratch that, what the Nazis are, because they're still around.
>
>>What about all the pornography where the women are obviously enjoying
>>themselves?
>>
>>Or do the feminist really want to imply that all females, like them,
>>are sexually disfunctional and unable to enjoy healthy sex?
>
>There is, i think, an obvious difference between soft-core porn, in which
>all parties involved are (or for the sake of the picture pretending to be)
>enjoying themselves, and hard-core porn, where violence is involved and
>not all involved are (seem to be) enjoying themselves.
>
>Films in which one person appears to be murdered are pretty clearly in
>the second category.  We're in agreement so far, i hope?
>
>Now, maybe the reason you hear so little about soft-core porn is that
>most people don't feel it does any harm, and so ignore it.  And maybe
>the reason you hear so much about violent porn is because a fairly
>vocal group feels it _does_ do harm.  And after a while, since
>soft-core is so seldom spoken about, the word "pornography" comes to
>mean for some people only the more violent type.
>
>I hope this isn't too far-fetched for you.
>
>-Cindy Kandolf
> cindy@solan.unit.no
> Trondheim, Norway

Sorry to leave the entire article untrimmed gang, but...
I feel that there is a distinction missing here, well, maybe a
few.
First off, while there are some people who call themselves
"feminist" who wish to create a platform both socially and
politically to limit the freedoms of others, they are not
I believe in the majority. Therefore Charles is being a little
too broad in implying Naziism. Nazis have become the catch-all
bugaboo nasties of the century. 

Dworkin and her ilk have neither the charisma nor the popular
support to impliment their dysfunctions on society. Hitler was
enormously popular and spoke to an entire nation in a time of
crisis. MacKinnon and the censor-gang speak to a fraction of the 
population and haven't managed too much popularity. Let us hope     
that they haven't managed the putsch that launches a thousand
repressive laws, and "actions". 

It is far too easy to wave the red flag of Nazi. It smacks of
dismissal without consideration. 

From the readings I have done on the net and in literature there  
are many people, both men and women, working toward a better
future. Some of these people call themselves feminist and some
do not. Sometimes they agree and other times not. That's alright
though, because it is our differences that make us unique and
individual. 

Charles wants to protect his personal right to choose the material
that he uses for recreation without interference.
Cindy wants to be assured that that material is not produced at
the expense of the freedom of other individuals.

We need a reasonable system of balances to protect everyone
with a minimum of interference. Charles should be able to 
enjoy erotic, sexual entertainments if he wants. Cindy should
be able to sleep at night knowing that these products are not
produced through coersion, duress or violence. One freedom should
not come at the expense of another.

"Soft-core" tends to be vague, sexually implicit rather than
explicit. It can be every bit as violent, oppressive and 
coersive as any other erotica. Hence the great Bikini team
wars. Drink our brand and fuck these busty babes. That is a
negative message delivered in a soft-core package.

"Hard-core" is sexually explicit. Full frontal nudity.
Depictions of actual intercourse, penetration and sex acts
with nothing set aside, "for the imagination". These might not
appeal to the "romantic" idea of love or lovemaking, but the
explicit nature of the material is not inherently evil, 
oppressive, violent or degrading.

"Pornography" in my opinion is the classification of erotic 
materials that is produced, either soft or hard that DOES feature
violence, degradation and evil intent. 

Until such a time as we (North American speaking) can bring
sexuality out of the ghetto of Victorian prudery and give our
bodies back to healthy reverence and enjoyment of sexuality,
until we can bring the erotic materials industry out of the hands 
of criminals, mobsters and deviants we will be stuck with these
problems.

It is high time that in our supposed advanced culture we abandon
the idea that our bodies are dirty. That sex is nasty. That
fantasy is hurtful. That sex is done to, that sex is done by.
We must recover the notion that sex is a natural and splendid human
function. More fun than baseball, something to share.

As long as we allow our sexes to be used as weapons against us
we will be stuck with the Dworkins and the pimps all of whom are  
too pleased to manipulate our feelings and fears, our insecurities
and weaknesses.
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA