http://www.local10.com/entertainment/4371684/detail.html

I saw her on the CBS Evening News in probably 1984. She was in a full foaming fury in support of some proposed anti-porn law somewhere. I mostly kept up with her and Catherine MacKinnon's doings by reading Playboy over the years. Nothing I ever read by or about Dworkin did anything to change my bad first impression. But I had forgotten about her until I read this today.

I'm more of a Camille Paglia fan.

You read Playboy articles? No wonder you're a loser who makes superficial judgements.

Poor Andrea, bit screwy but a great writer and she sure as hell had more balls than any of the ditzy 'sex positive' whores like Suzy Bright.

Xev, if you think I give a flying fuck about what you think about anything, you could not be more wrong.

Yes, over the years I read the articles by Nat Hentoff, Kurt Vonnegut, Hunter S. Thompson, James Baldwin, and many others.

And nothing I've ever read about Dworkin changed my mind that she was a sex negative psycho who hated men.

Yes, over the years I read the articles by Nat Hentoff, Curt Vonnegut, Hunter S. Thompson, James Baldwin, and many others.


The "C" is no where near the "K" on the keyboard. So I must assume that you do not know who "Curt Vonnegut" is.

Hunter S. Thompson I can't stand. He's from my home town and people will drive you up a fucking wall about Hunter S. Thompson being from Louisville and blah blah.

I'll stick to coke and Coulter.

Xev, if you think I give a flying fuck about what you think about anything, you could not be more wrong.

I like how you assume that I do. Actually, I would not do you the discourtesy of assuming that you think at all.

Yes, over the years I read the articles by Nat Hentoff, Curt Vonnegut, Hunter S. Thompson, James Baldwin, and many others.

As above noted.
Who is Curt? Is he related to the author of Slaughterhouse-5? Is there a Kilgore Mackrel in there too?

And nothing I've ever read about Dworkin changed my mind that she was a sex negative psycho who hated men.

First mistake of an emotive, trivial mind: reading things about authors rather than actually reading those authors.

I bet you tried to impress people by talking about "Curt" Vonnegut based on what you read on Amazon reviews.

Cunt.

You remind me of Proud Muslim when I dismissed Islam, and he asked if I had read the Koran. Since I hadn't, I had no grounds upon which to criticize Islam in his opinion. BS. I know enough about Islam by world events, and by religion in general. I wonder how much of the book of Mormon he had to read before he decided that Mormonism was nonsense.

Dworkin's support for the Indianapolis law that was struck down as unconstitutional American Booksellers V. Hudnut (http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/hudnut.html) was enough for me. Anyone who views the First Amendment as an obstacle is an ideological foe. Especially if they're trying to take away my fwapping material. Just a Jerry Falwell from another part of the political spectrum.

Must be careful about the spelling lest I undermine my point again.

So far only two of the people I dislike the most on Sci. Anyone else have anything to say?

I'd reply in kind on the insult Xev, but in past experience I would be edited where you will not. How about this: may you be afflicted with a particularly nasty form of cervical cancer.

when I dismissed Islam, and he asked if I had read the Koran. Since I hadn't, I had no grounds upon which to criticize Islam in his opinion.

You really can't. You shouldn't read things via a proxy. You should go to the source and form an opinion. In this case, you made a snap judgement about Dworkin.

You dislike me? Why? Is it because I'm Irish?

Okay, this is boring. How do you know her views on the first amendment when you've never read her, you ignorent son of a syphilitic truck-stop hooker? She wrote well. She had courage and vision to stand for something, even if that something is as goofy as

I love the hypocrisy here. You and every other liberal pansy would bitch to high heaven about something as harmless as Peter Sotos' "Pure" or any sort of pseudo-child pornography (because children are saaaacred) but god forbid that someone regulate

"(1) Women are presented as sexual objects who enjoy pain or humiliation; or
(2) Women are presented as sexual objects who experience sexual pleasure in being raped; or
(3) Women are presented as sexual objects tied up or cut up or mutilated or bruised or physically hurt, or as dismembered or truncated or fragmented or severed into body parts; or
(4) Women are presented as being penetrated by objects or animals; or
(5) Women are presented in scenarios of degradation, injury abasement, torture, shown as filthy or inferior, bleeding, bruised, or hurt in a context that makes these conditions sexual; or
(6) Women are presented as sexual objects for domination, conquest, violation, exploitation, possession, or use, or through postures or positions of servility or submission or display.""

What else is some no-balls leftist like you going to get off on?

Obscenity laws have been on the books since the founding of this country. You can't blame Dworkin for them. But then, like a typical liberal, you go off your already precarious emotional rocker whenever someone tries to enforce them.

"Ooh, but we're all equal and we have the right to do whatever we want so long as we just pretend to be hurting each other"

Clarity. Vision. Purpose. Lack of hypocrisy. Andrea, wack-job as she was, had more of those qualities in her pudgy little finger than you could even hope to possess.

There comes a time when you know enough. I don't need to know everything about Islam, it is a bunch of nonsensical theism no better than the rest.

I don't need to know everything about Adolph Hitler to know he was a real asshole. I know about the holocaust, and many of his other crimes. That is more than enough.

I read enough of Dworkin to know I didn't need to read any more.

Quotes like this:
Feminists are often asked whether pornography causes rape. The fact is that rape and prostitution caused and continue to cause pornography. Politically, culturally, socially, sexually, and economically, rape and prostitution generated pornography; and pornography depends for its continued existence on the rape and prostitution of women.

It betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature. The basis for pornography is in evolutionary psychology, not misogyny.

Ted Kaczynski had courage and vision. So did Eric Rudolph. Yay for courage and vision!

Do you have to read the Unabomber Manifesto in order to be able to dismiss Kaczynski? How many do you think have bothered to wade through it?

It wasn't simply trying to have a law enforced. She was co-author of that law. And as a social libertarian, yes, I'm with the ACLU 99% of the time. Fuck censorship, and if you support it guess what? :)

Repo Man:

I don't need to know everything about Adolph Hitler to know he was a real asshole

Hitler was a visionary. But beyond that, the proper analogy is "I read the back cover of Mein Kampf, and I dated a Jewish girl. I can therefore critique Hitler's political philosophy"

Just like you read Curt Vonnegut, author of novels like "Car Alarms of Miranda" and author under pseudonym of "Freya on the Whole Shell" by Jose Cuervo.

It betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature. The basis for pornography is in evolutionary psychology, not misogyny.

Liberals love to talk about 'evolutionary psychology' - it absolves them of personal responsibility and allows them to feel superior to others.

But why don't you explain yourself, and how "evolutionary psychology" accounts for misogynistic porn and not misogyny. Or maybe you want to start by telling us that pictures of women in servile or degrading actions are actually empowering and bold? I love second-gen feminists.

Unless you're male. Then it will be less fun.

Dworkin was a Jew, hence prone to idealistic views of humanity. We're all vile beasts at heart, but at least she had the courage to stand against our being so.

(I liked how you ducked the issue of obscenity, pussy)

you ignorent son of a syphilitic truck-stop hooker? You possibly meant ignorant (one good turn...)? By way of reply, may your herpes lesions burn without relief both night and day.

Yes, Hitler was a visionary. And what a grand vision it was! I suppose my negative impressions caused by the Final Solution could be ameliorated by a better understanding of the man and his "vision"?

Obscenity? Hugh Hefner had to fight obscenity charges brought after the first peek of pubes in Playboy. Lenny Bruce had to repeatedly fight obscenity prosecutions. Obviously what is considered obscene is subjective. I've personally always found those True Crime rags that show women tied up, defenseless, and being threatened by a creep to be questionable. But as long as the consumer only whacks off to it, no harm done.

No more time for fun tonight.

I've had enough tequila to numb my fingers, it's to the credit of my liver that I can still type. Spelling? Confusing e and a is a common mistake. Confusing Kurt Vonnegut and Curt Vonnegut? Nah, that takes gross ignorence and posing.

Nah, I'm just throwing that in 'cause there's an Anal Cunt song about Hitler playing in the background.

Yes, and obscenity laws have always been vauge and subject to challenge. Dworkin/Mckinnon proposed a different set of standards. Personally, they seem sensible.

Society imposes it's values through force or thought control. Your ilk impose anti-racism, Andrea's would impose sexual decency. It has so little to do with liberty, really, and yet you've been so socialized to associate sexual license with liberty that you can't help but getting all hysterical at the thought of someone removing the more vile portions of your wank materials.

Again, I don't justify Andrea. She had a dewy eyed view of humans and issues with men. Her politics were as irrational as they were visionary, and yet I can't help admiring the vigor with which she could propound them! For that matter, having issues with males and thinking that rape is a bad thing does not translate into hating males as a whole.

Anyways, I'm done.

Confusing Kurt Vonnegut and Curt Vonnegut? Nah, that takes gross ignorence and posing.
.Ignorence? Right. Very good.

Anyways, I'm done.Sorry, is that another error. Did you mean to type "Anyways, I'm dumb"?

You really are a rude bastard. I am debating whether its worth the effort to engage you in debate. Probably not. Wrong and polite I can live with; wrong, rude and ridiculous is a shade too far.

[By the way is this spelt correctly? chronosynclastic infundibulum ]

Pornography and rape have a common origin: the politicization of women.

So, fuck pornography... and fuck feminism! We need an apolitical, collaborative not factionalist solution.

(IMHO)

*** Yawn ***

Ophiolite:
What? I'm going to toss a coin on what is more faggish - you addressing this under a different username or you trying to dredge it back up.

Anyways of course things were misspelled, I was drunk and tired.

Nor does saying "I read a Playboy sidebar once, Andrea Dworkin was fat and mean" constitute "engaging a debate". It constitutes "acting like the scatterbrained jewish fratboy that I am"

Pornography and rape have a common origin: the politicization of women.

Well, considering that rape has existed before there were women or politics as such, it does not make sense to say that it was caused by women's lib.

By the way, you misspelled something. You've lost all credibility, you heathen dog.

Nah, this thread is dead. Xev killed it. For her Sci evidently exist to sharpen her flaming skills. Hey Xev, go run down the D cells in your "Big Black Mamba" vibrator.

Wow, how's that for a lack of irony - you accuse me of destroying a thread (itself based on superficialities) through "flaming" and then add a hackneyed reference to masturbation.

Typical, you vapid cunt. First attack someone you've never read, based on a sidebar in a magazine not meant to be read, posture with references to Curt Vonnegut and when pressed for any sort of argument at all, retreat to "the first amendment!"

After all, you have a right to do as you please. You don't owe anything to anyone, and if the attempt to maintain a bit of hygiene encroaches on your precious wank material, so much the worse for hygiene!

What a bore it would be to think about things on a fundamental level. That's what Andrea did. Did she strike jarring notes? Sure. But she played some damn fine chords, above that she actually did something rather than sit on her ass thinking that she was important because she read Playboy sidebars about Curt Vonnegut.

Does that resound for you? What Andrea wanted was:

"at base was a dream of a sexual and social empathy that negated the strictures of gender, a dream of sexual equality based on what men and women had in common, what the adults tried to kill in you as they made you grow up."

But translate that into positive action and what does some goofball male-liberal, some pseudo-woman who wants sensitive sensibilities and his porn, too, what does such a bastard see it as? Why...hysteria. And he's "unimpressed" by such things, as if the unimpression of a worthless life really matters.

You want an actual rebuttel? Post something with substance, cocksucker.

Well, considering that rape has existed before there were women or politics as such, it does not make sense to say that it was caused by women's lib.

Well, perhaps I should be more specific. I see in politics what Thomas Pynchon sees in "pornographies of flight": a detachment of numerical significance from reality. And thus, is there much of a difference between porn and feminism? Send 'em both to hell.

What I wanted was an intelligent exchange of ideas with mature people who don't resort to insults. You cannot have a reasonable discussion with an unreasonable person.

Fuck off. And please die.

Pynchon frickin' rules, this guy I know read me some of his stuff recently.

*Shrugs*

Feminist literature always seemed to take an almost fetishistic interest in sexual assault. Hell, very little of the porn I've watched was that bad.

It all depends on what one thinks the problem is. Liberals think it is that we are too unkind, feminists think that it is that we have lost the ability to relate between genders, conservatives think that we have lost contact with traditional values.

You take any ideology and you take all of its baggage. I say fuck ideology, the first and most important thing to do is to live your own ideas. In the absence of any political movement, pick and choose from the objectives of various movements.

Feminism degenerated into pointless rumination about sex. There was an idea at its heart, but watching a girl's soccer game turn into a good-natured competition expresses that idea more perfectly than any hand-wringing over objectification could.

Repo Man:
Insult does not equate to irrationality, not even to emotion.

Say what you like, fact is I've put forth various ideas that you could have run with and didn't. Quit posturing, turn off the computer, and finally make that appointment to have yourself sterilized.

For any non psychotic people who are curious about what Dworkin was about:

By some estimates, Americans rented almost 800 million pornographic videotapes last year. Women, either singly or as part of couples, took home about half of them. Since porn seems to be very much a "guy" thing, one may reasonably wonder whether watching a skin flick is the first choice of the women included as "part of couples." But from my observations of couples renting x-rated movies on a Friday night at my local video store, most women take a very active part in choosing the tapes. They appeared to have very definite likes (Rocco Siffredi), very definite dislikes (Ron Jeremy), and one common complaint (you can't tell anything about the movie from the box cover).

Obviously, not all women enjoy pornography. But a substantial number certainly do. For most of the past 20 years, however, a certain segment of the feminist movement has tried to marginalize these women, either by denying that they exist or by telling them that they suffer from false consciousness. Only women brainwashed by the patriarchy could be deluded enough to think they really enjoyed porno, goes this line of thinking. Widespread media attention to such anti-sex zealots as Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon makes it seem as if their beliefs are universally shared by feminists.

In fact, there are many feminists who disagree with the Dworkin-MacKinnon line. Porn star Nina Hartley, activist Susie Bright, and journalist Lisa Palac, among others, have stepped forward to defend pornography and women's rights to enjoy and to participate in it. Of course, you will never see them counter Dworkin or MacKinnon face to face, since those two refuse to debate other women on the subject.

The latest feminist case for porn is Defending Pornography, by ACLU President Nadine Strossen. Strossen makes an important, if ultimately flawed, contribution to the ongoing feminist debate on the matter. Pay careful attention to the title of her book: Strossen does not merely defend free speech--she makes a positive case for pornography itself. Porn, says Strossen, does not play an especially strong role in engendering sexism in society. In fact, for many women, it has a positive impact, helping them get in touch with their sexuality. Indeed, even the Meese Commission agreed that sexually explicit images can have such therapeutic effects.

This line of reasoning stands in stark contrast to the Dworkin-MacKinnon position, which holds that pornography fosters sexism, upholds patriarchy, and causes rape. They define sexually explicit speech as a form of sexual discrimination and propose changing laws so that "victims" of pornography can bring a variety of civil suits. For example, if a rapist claims that a particular book or movie inspired his crimes, then his victim would be able to sue the work's producers and distributors for damages. Or if a woman is coerced into making a pornographic film, she would be able to sue the people involved. Dworkin has even argued that female participation in porn is in fact proof of coercion--even if no threats or force were used and even if the women say they participated freely.

Strossen agrees that coercing women into making pornographic films should be illegal and notes that it is in fact already illegal. But she argues that claiming women can never consent to pose for sexual images denies women full citizenship and reduces them to the status of children or the mentally deficient.

Indeed, she notes that the model anti-pornography legislation drafted by MacKinnon and Dworkin states, "Children are incapable of consenting to engage in pornographic conduct, even absent physical coercion, and therefore require special protection. By the same token, the physical and psychological well-being of women ought to be afforded comparable protection."

Strossen argues persuasively that the feminist censorship movement is rooted in a distrust of sex itself. "Compare victims' reports of rape with women's reports of sex. They look a lot alike," writes MacKinnon. Dworkin has offered such observations as: "One of the differences between marriage and prostitution is that in marriage you only have to make a deal with one man"; "Romance...is rape embellished with meaningful looks"; "In seduction, the rapist bothers to buy a bottle of wine."

Strossen points out that the Dworkin-MacKinnon world view is essentially old-fashioned sexual conservatism: that sexuality is male, not female; that men are raving beasts; that men inflict sex on women; and that sex is inherently degrading to women. Indeed, conservative censors have appropriated Dworkin and MacKinnon's arguments about pornography and have tried to enact their ideas into law in several places. Talk about strange bedfellows.

http://reason.com/9504/STROSSENbook.apr.shtml

http://www.drunkanddisorderly.net/spacemoose/dworkin.gif

http://www.drunkanddisorderly.net/spacemoose/give_to_me.htm

I think I'll find out where she is buried and leave a copy of Hustler on her grave.

The pornographers rank with Nazis and Klansmen in promoting hatred and violence.

--Andrea Dworkin

Anyone who could write such a sentence knows nothing about pornography or Nazism.

--Camille Paglia, in direct response to the above statement by Andrea Dworkin

name an abuse and I hear: "Oh, it happens to men, too." That is not the equality we are struggling for. We could change our strategy and say: well, okay, we want equality; we'll stick something up the ass of a man every three minutes.

--Andrea Dworkin

If pornography is part of your sexuality, then you have no rights to your sexuality.

--Catharine MacKinnon

I hate it when other people try to tell me what I can or cannot do with my own body and mind. I am astounded by the persistent praise of the MacKinnon-Dworkin ordinance that went as far as the Supreme Court, where it was finally struck down as unconstitutional.

Catharine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin have repeatedly insulted women by trying to create laws to protect them, as though women were a collection of glass figurines under the constant threat of being bumped off a table by the brutes who control their every move.

The ordinance reads that any form of expression that is degrading to women, or objectifies women, can be banned while the producer of said materials could be sued for damages against women.

Catharine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin penned an ordinance called the "Pornography Victims Compensation Act" in 1983. It was passed in Indianapolis in 1985, and became law for a short time until the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled it unconstitutional.

The definition of pornography in this law was "graphic sexually explicit subordination of women through pictures and/or words." The Indianapolis law declared that pornography "is a practice of sex discrimination," and lawsuits could be filed for damages stemming from any of four offenses: "trafficking in pornography," "coercion into pornography," "forcing pornography on a person," and "assault or physical attack due to pornography."

The following are additional criteria defining "pornography" as listed in the Indianapolis law:

* women are presented as dehumanized sexual objects, things or commodities; or
* women are presented as sexual objects who enjoy humiliation or pain; or
* women are presented as sexual objects experiencing sexual pleasure in rape, incest, or other sexual assault; or
* women are presented as sexual objects tied up or cut up or mutilated or bruised or physically hurt; or
* women are presented in postures or positions of sexual submission, servility, or display; or
* women's body parts--including but not limited to vaginas, breasts, and buttocks--are exhibited such that women are reduced to those parts; or
* women are presented being penetrated by objects or animals; or
* women are presented in scenarios of degradation, humiliation, injury, torture, shown as filthy or inferior, bleeding, bruised, or hurt in a context that makes these conditions sexual.

In February 1992, Canada's Supreme Court ruled 9 - 0 that obscenity can be defined as anything harmful to women, or as stated in the law, "Materials portraying women as a class of objects for sexual exploitation and abuse have a negative impact on the individual's sense of self-worth and acceptance . . . a substantial concern which justifies restricting the otherwise full exercise of the freedom of expression." (emphasis added)

Suppressing art, music, sculpture, and literature for the good off all women justifies restricting freedom of expression? What about other threats to women's safety--cigarettes, alcohol, diet pills, sedatives, sexually transmitted diseases, guns, or cars?
http://www.alexanderrenault.com/macd_workin_pu.html

It all depends on what one thinks the problem is. Liberals think it is that we are too unkind, feminists think that it is that we have lost the ability to relate between genders, conservatives think that we have lost contact with traditional values.

All saying the same thing, to a philosopher... no?

Pynchon's weakness is he was an engineer pretending to be a philosopher. He got some of it right, and then botched the rest, badly.

:m:

Android:
All symptoms of the same disease. There are too many people, and they've gotten the idea that they are entitled to things.

It's cultural rot. Compare the literary avante-guarde (however that's spelled) these days to what was produced even fifty years ago - all in-fucking and endless production of the same sort of books, with a sensationalism calculated to shock somewhat but not to be too disturbing.

I haven't read many of his books so I am not qualified to give an opinion.
But I did not know he was an engineer. I like that about him...there's something methodical and detail-oriented to what I've sampled.

Repo Man:
Hey, nice use of the cut and paste.

Look, I'm not going to justify Andrea's take on porn. I simply think she was more worthy than a lot of those who criticised her.

I've noticed that those fond of debating porn are just using the debate as an excuse to talk about blowjobs with the opposite sex (ON TEH INTRANET!!!11!) so I'll leave you to it.

"I think I'll find out where she is buried and leave a copy of Hustler on her grave."

Wow, you're a disrespectful asshole. How transgressive.

I just love it when famous people die and then people stand over their grave arguing about whether or not their life meant anything... same thing with this pope business.

I think this is more whining "she was fat and wanted to take away my schoolgirl bondage rape porn, yay she's dead!"

Personally I can't decide who is funnier - feminists or people who get upset by feminists.

Yeah, sort of.

I'm ambivalent on the subject. I don't have any 'schoolgirl bondage porn'. My stack is mostly composed of either big boob mags, like "Voluptuous" or amateur porn like "naughty neighbors". The women seem happy enough to me. They look like they're enjoying themselves.

Then again, would we have to ban Fine Art as well?

http://www.lilt.ilstu.edu/jhreid/FOI/delacroix.jpg

But you're right, if I didn't agree with Dworkin I would probably talk about how she was fat and ugly and just says all that stuff because she's mad that men don't like her. (because that's what feminism is, just ugly chicks trying to get respect).

-Bob-
Again - I don't care about porn.
What's that, the Death of Sardanopolis? Looks familiar.
I don't think it would violate the terms of Dworkin's amendment. Nobody is in degrading or upsetting postures.

Of course, my took-me-fucking-forever-to-find copies of Total Abuse would.

There are too many people, and they've gotten the idea that they are entitled to things.

It's cultural rot. Compare the literary avante-guarde (however that's spelled) these days to what was produced even fifty years ago - all in-fucking and endless production of the same sort of books, with a sensationalism calculated to shock somewhat but not to be too disturbing.

It's really amazing how little of importance is produced. But plenty of book's about person XYZ's unique suffering and transcendent vision, and all the abstract symbols it implies...

Sometimes I wonder: am I the one smoking pot, or... the rest of them?

:m:

Death of Sardanapalis, by Delacroix. Sardanapalis committed suicide, but before he did he wanted to have all his possessions burned, including his women. So you see the women as possessions, essentially being executed for his pleasure (and eventually everything is burned).

I'd say it easily falls under all those categories for censorship that you mentioned being applied to porn. Some feminist art historians have issues with it, understandably.

The Nazis had a censorship policy on porn: censor the degenerate porn, and let the rest stand.

android:
It's really amazing how little of importance is produced. But plenty of book's about person XYZ's unique suffering and transcendent vision, and all the abstract symbols it implies...

Then again I ask myself if it wasn't always this way. When Goethe and Schiller were writing, I am sure there were fifty hacks writing "Huhn Suppe fur die Seele" poetry.

Greshem's law of literature.

I wasn't aware of the Nazi policy towards porn, it's quite amusing to think of a bunch of S.S men reading through and approving porn according to how Aryan it is.
Especially considering the high number of homosexuals in the early Nazi party.

I wonder what they'd think of "Ilsa: She-Wolf of the SS"


-Bob-
Ah, I didn't know the backstory.
I still can't imagine that ordinance being used against that painting.
Then again I have been known to wildly overestimate people's intellectual prowess.
Would they really censor Fuseli?

http://www.skidmore.edu/academics/fll/janzalon/fuseli.jpg

*Shrugs*
I don't particularly consider myself a feminist, but it seems sensible enough to have some standards as to porn. Dworkin's ordinance seems like a better standard than most - there's nothing obscene about the human body, put perhaps in the way it is treated.

I'm glad you enjoyed the cut and paste. Though you obviously couldn't be bothered to read all of it. You'd have seen this:
An excellent way to determine the effect of MacDworkinism upon censorship is to closely monitor the developments in Canada since the MacDworkinite procensorship law was passed in 1992.

It is no surprise to many that MacDworkinism has greatly damaged businesses owned and operated by feminists, along with gay men and lesbians. Those targeted by law enforcement agents have been, ironically, feminists themselves, along with the Canadian gay and lesbian community.

Lesbian magazines, feminists books, and materials on gay and lesbian issues have taken the worst of the assaults. Books are routinely confiscated at the Canadian border and are often held in storage for months while smaller bookstores flounder financially. It has also been found that smaller bookstores have been raided by the Canadian Thought Police and have had books and magazines confiscated that were still available at larger bookstore chains, unnoticed by the Canadian Gestapo.

Confiscated literature includes works by feminist scholar bell hooks, Kathy Acker, Langston Hughes, David Leavitt, Audre Lorde, Anne Rice, and Oscar Wilde. Diane DiMassa's cartoon strip Hothead Paisan has also been banned because the lead character is a lesbian. It is also interesting to note that works by both Catharine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin have been deemed pornographic and demeaning to women and have been confiscated.

Wow, you're a disrespectful asshole.
Sorry for sinking to your level.

If even half of the events she claimed ocurred in her life actually did, then she had a terrible and tragic life. That's too bad. But it doesn't excuse her finding common cause with Ed Meese.

Bob, no one aside from you has mentioned her appearance.

-Bob-
Ah, I didn't know the backstory.
I still can't imagine that ordinance being used against that painting.
Then again I have been known to wildly overestimate people's intellectual prowess.
Would they really censor Fuseli?

Most of Fuseli's really sick pictures were burnt after his death. (I would show you some better ones, but I have trouble finding it on the internet damnit). So in a way, he was censored in his own time. But yeah, he liked bestiality, lesbianism, rape and all that good stuff.

I also cannot imagine such an ordinance being used against fine art, but then again, that's my point. Hundreds of years from now, our porn might be considered as fine art. Not to mention that it shares those mysogynistic and nasty aspects with contemporary porn (women as objects, etc).

I don't particularly consider myself a feminist, but it seems sensible enough to have some standards as to porn. Dworkin's ordinance seems like a better standard than most - there's nothing obscene about the human body, put perhaps in the way it is treated.

It seems sensible especially since we have those standards with 'kiddie' porn.
If I was forced to give an opinion on the matter, It wouldn't seem unreasonable to ban the stuff where the woman (or man) is obviously being subjected to humiliating or dehumanizing acts, and only in the case where the production of the image entails that those acts actually occur (actually, I see no reason to ban computer-generated kiddie porn). It's an extremely fuzzy line there... a lot of it is very arbitrary/ culturally determined.

Repo Man:

I was making a joke there. Actually I've never even seen a picture of Dworkin but I was guessing she was ugly (perhaps correctly?) based on my 'theory' of feminism.

-Bob-
Most of Fuseli's really sick pictures were burnt after his death. (I would show you some better ones, but I have trouble finding it on the internet damnit). So in a way, he was censored in his own time. But yeah, he liked bestiality, lesbianism, rape and all that good stuff.

Interesting, I didn't know that. The Symbolists were quite a group.

I also cannot imagine such an ordinance being used against fine art, but then again, that's my point. Hundreds of years from now, our porn might be considered as fine art.

I'm sure it could be considered so now. Look at all the academics who find great literary merit in the Marquis of Sade.

It seems sensible especially since we have those standards with 'kiddie' porn.

Yes. If we are to have indecency laws (and Repo Man has yet to give a reason for us not to have them) they ought to cover what we think is indecent.

It's an extremely fuzzy line there... a lot of it is very arbitrary/ culturally determined.

But all laws are arbitrary and culturally determined.

For instance, we could follow the lead of Camille Pagila and Georges Bataille and argue that sexual desire is inherently violent, then follow the argument to - why not suppress any exposition of it?

But we don't because of certain community standards. That's why we have law, to enforce the culturally determined idea that we oughtn't run about killing and raping each other all willy nilly.

Which brings me to -
Repo Man:

What exactly is your point?

Well Bob, you guessed correctly. There are many sites where her passing has brought out many unfortunate comments about her being overweight, and not pretty. This should not be an issue concerning the good or bad of what she had to say, and is a classic cheap shot. But her appearance and demeanor made her an easy target for Limbaugh and his ilk. She was used by the right wing as a strawman to dismiss women's issues. From the linked article again:
I believe feminist writer Pat Califia stated it best in 1993 with, "Andrea Dworkin has done more damage to women's culture in her tenure as darling of the media than anyone who is leader of the right wing. She is morally responsible for what is happening to women's literature in Canada."

So, your point is that some stupid dyke who couldn't craft an artful sentence if her life hung on a clause thinks that Andrea hurt women's literature in Canada?

Okay. That's great.

Neeexxt

Well Bob, you guessed correctly.

Do you think it was just a coincidence?

There are many sites where her passing has brought out many unfortunate comments about her being overweight, and not pretty. This should not be an issue concerning the good or bad of what she had to say, and is a classic cheap shot. But her appearance and demeanor made her an easy target for Limbaugh and his ilk. She was used by the right wing as a strawman to dismiss women's issues.


Wait a minute; what do you mean by 'her appearance and demeanor'?

Xev:

Some things are more arbitrary/culturally determined than others. Sex seems to be one of those issues that everyone has their own opinion about. Hell, in some other culture showing boobs might not be a big deal, or showing an elbow might be naughty.

Most arguments about illegalizing porn (including Dworkin's, apparently... that against kid porn) deal with certain harms it is either based on or causes. We don't ban porn simply because we are offended by it; although we could, we usually like to find a reason (a plausable connection to something else everyone agrees is bad).

Sure, there will be some people who think rape is OK and so then porn is OK but it's easier to disregard them, and just argue that porn is based on rape and should therefore be banned.

I wasn't aware of the Nazi policy towards porn, it's quite amusing to think of a bunch of S.S men reading through and approving porn according to how Aryan it is.
Especially considering the high number of homosexuals in the early Nazi party.

I wonder what they'd think of "Ilsa: She-Wolf of the SS"

"FEMALE CREATURE!!! NOOOOO!!!!"

Oh, you meant the S.S. in general...

android.

Well, not after the Night of the Long Knives.
The Nazis were actually fairly tolerant of what we call alternative sexual orientations. Roehm was killed, for instance, not because of his homosexuality but because of the tactical threat that the SA posed.

It is quite a pity, though. Roehm struck me as a man much more competent and practical than Hitler.

-Bob-
Andrea Dworkin was quite unattractive, everyone's stereotype of the man-hating feminist.

Most arguments about illegalizing porn (including Dworkin's, apparently... that against kid porn) deal with certain harms it is either based on or causes. We don't ban porn simply because we are offended by it; although we could, we usually like to find a reason (a plausable connection to something else everyone agrees is bad).

Now, come on.
We ban porn because we are offended by it.
We just try to find a justification for that.

In economics it's called an externality, a price paid for a service by someone who doesn't consume that service, or even necessarily want to. Pollution is a textbook externality. So are the sleazy characters I'd have to deal with if a porn store opened next door.

The problem is that in liberal democratic societies, externalities are unavoidable. We say that we have the 'right' to do as we please, so long as we don't harm anyone but ourselves, but the practice is complex. If I drive without a seatbelt and get in a serious accident, the consequences of my foolish action affect others. Maybe the hospital loses money on the bills that I can't afford to pay, maybe society as a whole loses out on my productivity as a worker.

As a general rule, I dislike porn. Not because it is degrading to women as a class, but more because it is tawdry and depressing. Besides imagining Terry Schiavo rimming the Pope, there's nothing more of a turn-off than watching artificialized people screwing. But is there any concrete harm in it?

Granted that degenerates ought to be bound, strangled and tossed into the marshes. But stopping them from watching porn won't do this. And then, most MTV rap videos are more degrading to women as a class than the porn I've watched, even compared to artsy violent Richard Kern films. Hell, I'm more offended by MTV. Yet regulation is tricky, and given the climate of the US, would result in cultural stasis.

Government is and always will be an order that holds out against chaos. Where do you draw the line? Too much regulation and you have the Leviathan, too little and you have anarchy.

What we ought to do is break up like the Soviet Bloc countries after 91 and live like the Vikings did, lots of little kingdoms in uneasy coexistence. People who liked degrading porn would go to DegradingPornLand, people who liked MTV would go to MTV land, and people who shared my opinions would go to ListentoMorbidAngelandtakeshrooms Land.

But that's not going to happen. It is more probable that people will continue to be tolerant of disgusting porn, bad music and intelligence-insulting politicians until we reach an abyss and, as Trent Reznor would say, "everything just falls apart"

I think this thread is over.

Now, come on.
We ban porn because we are offended by it.
We just try to find a justification for that.

For example, kid porn is banned because it depends on an industry that harms children. Dworkin makes the same argument, that it is based on harming women.

In economics it's called an externality

Yet with porn, it's not very 'externalized'. You don't usually have to look at it if you don't want to- as long as certain controls and censorship are in place. These controls are different in nature from a banning, in which the very existence of the porn disturbs us.

Supposedly, we have these individual rights that say we can do what we want as long as we don't interfere with other people's rights.

As a general rule, I dislike porn. Not because it is degrading to women as a class, but more because it is tawdry and depressing. Besides imagining Terry Schiavo rimming the Pope, there's nothing more of a turn-off than watching artificialized people screwing. But is there any concrete harm in it?

Not unless you class being artificialized and screwing as a concrete harm.

Granted that degenerates ought to be bound, strangled and tossed into the marshes. But stopping them from watching porn won't do this. And then, most MTV rap videos are more degrading to women as a class than the porn I've watched, even compared to artsy violent Richard Kern films. Hell, I'm more offended by MTV. Yet regulation is tricky, and given the climate of the US, would result in cultural stasis.

Government is and always will be an order that holds out against chaos.
Where do you draw the line? Too much regulation and you have the Leviathan, too little and you have anarchy.


We all find each other offensive, so we agree not to regulate the shit out of each other as long as we can live in our own holes and not be forced to see something we don't want to see. It's actually a nice arrangement.

What we ought to do is break up like the Soviet Bloc countries after 91 and live like the Vikings did, lots of little kingdoms in uneasy coexistence. People who liked degrading porn would go to DegradingPornLand, people who liked MTV would go to MTV land, and people who shared my opinions would go to ListentoMorbidAngelandtakeshrooms Land.

America is already a lot like this. We have cities for gay people, town for hicks, mormons, Christianland, negros, hippies, the list goes on. Same thing with our television channels. You can even block out the ones you don't like.