On 6 Apr 01, at 17:34, Alan Sondheim wrote:
> she was a frightened slavegirl on the run; there were merchants, some
> sort of bazaar; i didn't know her. she wore a leather belt with
> several thongs hanging from it; she was otherwise naked. she
> prostrated herself before the merchants; she had olive skin. she had a
> letter in her hand; they were full of desire for the frightened
> slavegirl.
---8<---
Computer Geeks of Gor?
Okay, now I've read everything.
Blessings,
Elizabeth
*****************
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 22:16:16 -0500<
From: Wendlyn Alter
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
While I think much of your work is brilliant, Alan, I find this
slavegirl story objectionable and degrading to women. I believe that
it`s wrong to use humiliation as a sexual stimulant unless both
parties are in full agreement.
--Wendlyn
*****************
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 23:28:43 -0400<
From: dstreever
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
I do not find it to be either.
I do not see in anyway Alan advocating sexual slavery, and therefore find
him to be as blameless as someone who photographs a starving child in
Africa.
In my mind, I see him pointing out a problem that he percieves in the world,
which is the degradation and sexual humiliation of women. He has neither
degraded nor humiliated anyone deliberately, and anyone who feels either way
by this is, in my opinion, carrying some past trauma to the fore.
Respectfully submitted,
David
Shop online without a credit card
http://www.rocketcash.com
RocketCash, a NetZero subsidiary
*****************
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 23:35:41 -0400
From: dstreever
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
In my last sentence, it should have read:
"Anyone who personally feels degradated or sexually abused by reading Alan`s
story is probably carrying a past trauma to the fore, and would hopefully
not blame Alan for this"
Sorry for the mix up, I just realized how insulting that last sentence could
be, and I didn`t mean it that way.
*****************
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 20:46:26 -0700
From: Sebastian Mendler
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
I also suspect there`s something allegorical going on in the text, but
that mught just be me...
/ /skip
On Sat, 7 Apr 2001, dstreever wrote:
> I do not find it to be either.
>
> I do not see in anyway Alan advocating sexual slavery, and therefore find
> him to be as blameless as someone who photographs a starving child in
> Africa.
>
> In my mind, I see him pointing out a problem that he percieves in the world,
> which is the degradation and sexual humiliation of women. He has neither
> degraded nor humiliated anyone deliberately, and anyone who feels either way
> by this is, in my opinion, carrying some past trauma to the fore.
>
> Respectfully submitted,
> David
*****************
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 23:53:25 -0400<
From: dstreever
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
As with all of Alan`s texts...
> I also suspect there`s something allegorical going on in the text, but
> that mught just be me...
>
> / /skip
*****************
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 00:17:18 -0400
From: Alan Sondheim
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
It`s a reference to most forms of Orientalism which are a priori abject,
but abject in their reptition; one only has to read the absurd parallel
structures of the sentences and their `sticking` to see that. As far as
it`s being sexual, yes, pornographic, no. I don`t know what you mean about
"both parties" since this is clearly about race. I just don`t think you
get my work, Wendlyn, from this and other statements, which is fine, but
I must admit your moralizing bothers me.
Alan
*****************
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 00:09:59 -0500<
From: Elizabeth Barrette
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
On 8 Apr 01, at 0:17, Alan Sondheim wrote:
> It`s a reference to most forms of Orientalism which are a priori
> abject, but abject in their reptition; one only has to read the absurd
> parallel structures of the sentences and their `sticking` to see that.
> As far as it`s being sexual, yes, pornographic, no. I don`t know what
> you mean about "both parties" since this is clearly about race. I just
> don`t think you get my work, Wendlyn, from this and other statements,
> which is fine, but I must admit your moralizing bothers me.
I didn`t find it racist at all. I did find it sexist, derogatory of
*both* sexes, and a fairly twisted representation of
dominant/submissive dynamics. I also found it somewhat
entertaining. <shrug> You`re entitled to write whatever you wish,
or whatever beats you over the head until you give up and let it have
its way with you. Some of your writing thrills me, some doesn`t.
I`m certainly not going to discourage you. I might want to buy the
next thing you come up with.
Blessings,
Elizabeth
*****************
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 02:23:46 -0700>
From: catcher at times
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
Wendlyn Alter wrote:
> I find this slavegirl story objectionable and degrading to women.
> it`s wrong to use humiliation as a sexual stimulant unless both
parties are in full agreement.
Sunday morning in Amsterdam, coffee and a joint and checking my mail.
Startled by the reactions to Alan`s slavegirl post. (I read it and
liked it like I seem to do most of his writing.)
And I don`t understand the objections raised - f.e. if both parties
would`ve been in full agreement there wouldn`t have been a story,
right?
Then there`s David who says that anyone who has a problem with
Alan`s text must have a trauma causing this. I mean, this is a cheap
and unintelligent way of discussing: just say the other guy has a
problem and you win.
------
I liked the way words became magic in the story.
renata
=====
I will change minds and souls from stone and plastic into linen and gold
I will draw my line in the sand and tell the world to cross it
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
*****************
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 08:57:37 -0400
From: Tom Ellis
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
I have to agree here. Both reactions were innapropriate. It was a piece of
allegorical fiction, LIGHTEN UP PEOPLE ;)
----- Original Message -----
From: "catcher at times" ;
To: <CYBERMIND@LISTSERV.AOL.COM>
Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2001 5:23 AM
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
> --- Wendlyn Alter wrote:
> > I find this slavegirl story objectionable and degrading to women.
> > it`s wrong to use humiliation as a sexual stimulant unless both
> parties are in full agreement.
>
> Sunday morning in Amsterdam, coffee and a joint and checking my
> mail.
> Startled by the reactions to Alan`s slavegirl post. (I read it and
> liked it like I seem to do most of his writing.)
> And I don`t understand the objections raised - f.e. if both parties
> would`ve been in full agreement there wouldn`t have been a story,
> right?
> Then there`s David who says that anyone who has a problem with
> Alan`s text must have a trauma causing this. I mean, this is a cheap
> and unintelligent way of discussing: just say the other guy has a
> problem and you win.
> ------
> I liked the way words became magic in the story.
> renata
>
>
> =====
> I will change minds and souls from stone and plastic into linen and gold
>
> I will draw my line in the sand and tell the world to cross it
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
> http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
>
*****************
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 12:43:59 -0500
From: Wendlyn Alter
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
A black man in South Africa has been arrested by white officers.
his rounded buttocks were in full view. was he available to all. he
had given up all hope. now he was utterly distraught. now he belonged
to everyone.
A Sikh is surrounded by an angry Hindu mob.
he was otherwise naked. he prostrated himself before the merchants;
they were full of desire for the frightened. his rounded buttocks were
in full view. was he available to all. he was utterly lost. it was the
doom of his freedom. now he belonged to everyone.
A Chinese student is arrested at Tianamen Square and is in custody of
the police.
he prostrated himself before the; they were full of desire for the
frightened; his rounded buttocks were in full view. was he available
to all; he waited breathlessly; he was utterly lost. he had been
exhilarated; now he was utterly distraught. this was his one big
chance in his frightened slave life and it was crushed into the
ground.
A IRA operative has been captured by British police.
he wore a leather belt; he was otherwise naked. he prostrated himself
before them; they were full of desire for the frightened. his rounded
buttocks were in full view. was he available to all; he saw there was
no more hope and nothing he could ever do about it. he thought he was
his own master; now he belonged to everyone. this was his one big
chance in his frightened slave life and it was crushed into the
ground.
A British police officer has been captured by IRA operatives.
he was otherwise naked. they were full of desire for the frightened.
his back was to me on the carpet; his rounded buttocks were in full
view. was he available to all; he was utterly lost. he was in hopeless
despair. he had given up all hope. it was the doom of his freedom. now
he was utterly distraught. he thought he was his own master; now he
belonged to everyone. the sun beat down on his distraught face; now he
was utterly without hope. he had no escape from his frightened slave
life; he could never stop crying.
*****************
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 12:45:22 -0500
From: Wendlyn Alter
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
frightened slave
naked
prostrated before
full of desire for the frightened
watched
back was to me on the carpet
rounded buttocks were in full view
available to all
clutched desperately
waited breathlessly
utterly lost
naked
hopeless despair
rounded buttocks were in full view
full of desire for the frightened
troubled misery
given up all hope
doom of freedom
naked
misery of frightened
rounded buttocks were in full view
available to all
harsher than ever
prostrated before
utterly distraught
naked
belonged to everyone
evil master
sun beat down
full of desire for the frightened
distraught face
utterly without hope
no escape
back was to me on the carpet
frightened
naked
slave
frightened
slave
available to all
never stop crying
no more hope
prostrated before
nothing ever do about it
rounded buttocks were in full view
naked
crushed into the ground
completely sorrowful
full of desire for the frightened
without any joy
*****************
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 14:03:31 -0400
From: dstreever
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
Renata, that was what I was trying to explain with my revision, though
looking at my first letter it should have been obvious.
Let me clarify the annunciation
Anyone who IS degradated anyone who IS abused BY THIS story is obviously
carrying around some trauma.
A story can not degradate or humilate someone or abuse someone; a story is
a story is a story. Her reaction is not born of trauma; I never said this
anywhere in what I wrote. She claimed the story degraded women; I said I
only thought that an individual would be degraded if they were carrying
around some trauma.
I`ve read some pretty violent literature that included the painful and
humiliating sexual degradation of a man, and I was neither degraded nor
humiliated; the character was. That is what I am saying...
It`s a story, and a story is a story, is a story. It`s not real life; Alan
didn`t degrade anyone.
In closing, I stick by my statement as being both accurate and correct.
Feeling sexually degraded by reading Alan`s story means you have baggage.
Shop online without a credit card
http://www.rocketcash.com
RocketCash, a NetZero subsidiary
*****************
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 12:54:59 -0500
From: Wendlyn Alter
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
>It`s a reference to most forms of Orientalism which are a priori abject,
>but abject in their reptition; one only has to read the absurd parallel
>structures of the sentences and their `sticking` to see that.
Specious.
>As far as
>it`s being sexual, yes, pornographic, no. I don`t know what you mean about
>"both parties" since this is clearly about race.
Nonsense. Why deny your own writing? Don`t toss out a stinkbomb, then
scurry behind intellectualisms. Have courage here; stand by your
pornography just as I stand by my principles.
>I just don`t think you
>get my work, Wendlyn, from this and other statements, which is fine, but
>I must admit your moralizing bothers me.
You aren`t suggesting that my views should be censored, surely?
--Wendlyn
*****************
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 13:54:41 -0400<
From: dstreever
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
He has not suggested you should be censored; he merely admited to his own
humanity in being bothered by your review of his work.
*****************
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 14:35:48 -0400<
From: Tom Ellis
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
You really need a vacation.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wendlyn Alter"
To: <CYBERMIND@LISTSERV.AOL.COM>
Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2001 1:54 PM
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
> >It`s a reference to most forms of Orientalism which are a priori abject,
> >but abject in their reptition; one only has to read the absurd parallel
> >structures of the sentences and their `sticking` to see that.
>
> Specious.
>
> >As far as
> >it`s being sexual, yes, pornographic, no. I don`t know what you mean
> about "both parties" since this is clearly about race.
>
> Nonsense. Why deny your own writing? Don`t toss out a stinkbomb, then
> scurry behind intellectualisms. Have courage here; stand by your
> pornography just as I stand by my principles.
>
> >I just don`t think you
> >get my work, Wendlyn, from this and other statements, which is fine,
> but I must admit your moralizing bothers me.
>
> You aren`t suggesting that my views should be censored, surely?
>
> --Wendlyn
>
*****************
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 20:05:12 +0100
From: Arctic Fox
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
At 19:57 08/04/01, Alan wrote:
>I don`t suggest your views should be censored; you can say whatever the
>fuck you want. But you`re speaking out of ignorance like you did when you
>suggested I tackle death and your pseudo-imitations don`t change a thing.
>
>And how dare you talk about me denying my own writing? You don`t even know
>what it`s about. How dare you?
Would it be possible for you and Wendlyn to discuss this backchannel?
Paul, who needs to read something positive on a rainy Sunday
*****************
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 15:11:42 -0400
From: Tom Ellis
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
Then ignore the thread. I think it is highly germane for others to see this.
----- Original Message -----
From: Arctic Fox
To: CYBERMIND@LISTSERV.AOL.COM
Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2001 3:05 PM
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
At 19:57 08/04/01, Alan wrote:
I don`t suggest your views should be censored; you can say whateverthe
fuck you want. But you`re speaking out of ignorance like you did when you
suggested I tackle death and your pseudo-imitations don`t change a thing.
And how dare you talk about me denying my own writing? You don`t even know
what it`s about. How dare you?
Would it be possible for you and Wendlyn to discuss this backchannel?
Paul, who needs to read something positive on a rainy Sunday
**********
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 15:14:09 -0400
From: Tom Ellis
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
Actually, it was she who wanted your views censored, I think....
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alan Sondheim"
To: <CYBERMIND@LISTSERV.AOL.COM>
Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2001 2:57 PM
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
> I don`t suggest your views should be censored; you can say whatever the
> fuck you want. But you`re speaking out of ignorance like you did when you
> suggested I tackle death and your pseudo-imitations don`t change a thing.
>
> And how dare you talk about me denying my own writing? You don`t even know
> what it`s about. How dare you?
>
> Alan
>
> Internet Text at http://www2.sva.edu/~alans/
> Partial at http://www.anu.edu.au/english/internet_txt
> Partial at http://lists.village.virginia.edu/~spoons/internet_txt.html
> Trace Projects at http://trace.ntu.ac.uk/writers/sondheim/index.htm
> CDROM of collected work 1994-2000/1 available: write sondheim@panix.com
>
*****************
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 14:57:34 -0400
From: Alan Sondheim
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
I don`t suggest your views should be censored; you can say whatever the
fuck you want. But you`re speaking out of ignorance like you did when you
suggested I tackle death and your pseudo-imitations don`t change a thing.
And how dare you talk about me denying my own writing? You don`t even know
what it`s about. How dare you?
Alan
*****************
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 15:27:08 -0400
From: dstreever
Subject: Re: Slavegir
Laughing, Paul... Let`s have a "battle royale" mailing list, people who =
want to fight can be on for free, but it costs money to lurk.
*****************
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 15:39:33 -0400
From: Alan Sondheim
Subject: Re: Slavegir
You can go to alt.flame for that, if it`s still running. I haven`t seen it
in a long time -
Alan
*****************
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 15:13:43 -0400
From: dstreever
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
Paul, I have something positive.
I`ve decided what to do with my life. Make a quick buck in the next five =
years, and use it to get a small and spartan home in a fishing town =
where the economy is poor. Then I can spend my days on a small boat =
writing, and enjoying myself where it`s simple and pleasent.
Does that sound good?
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Arctic Fox
To: CYBERMIND@LISTSERV.AOL.COM
Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2001 3:05 PM
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
At 19:57 08/04/01, Alan wrote:
I don`t suggest your views should be censored; you can say whatever the
fuck you want. But you`re speaking out of ignorance like you did when you
suggested I tackle death and your pseudo-imitations don`t change a thing.
And how dare you talk about me denying my own writing? You don`t even know
what it`s about. How dare you?
Would it be possible for you and Wendlyn to discuss this backchannel?
Paul, who needs to read something positive on a rainy Sunday=20
*****************
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 20:24:10 +0100
From: Arctic Fox
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
>
At 20:11 08/04/01, you wrote:
>Then ignore the thread. I think it is highly germane for others to see this.
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: Artic Fox
>>To: CYBERMIND@LISTSERV.AOL.COM
>>Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2001 3:05 PM
>>Subject: Re: Slavegirl
>>
>>At 19:57 08/04/01, Alan wrote:
>>>I don`t suggest your views should be censored; you can say whatever the
>>>fuck you want. But you`re speaking out of ignorance like you did when you
>>>suggested I tackle death and your pseudo-imitations don`t change a thing.
>>>
>>>And how dare you talk about me denying my own writing? You don`t even know
>>>what it`s about. How dare you?
>>Would it be possible for you and Wendlyn to discuss this backchannel?
>>
>>Paul, who needs to read something positive on a rainy Sunday
>
Fair comment. I guess what I`m trying to say is can we keep things
civilised? Not that things weren`t - just don`t want it turning into a
shouting match. We should save that for a pay per view mailing list :)
Paul
*****************
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 15:56:46 -0400
From: dstreever
Subject: Re: life decisions (was Slavegirl)
Hmmm I don`t know about the internet, I don`t think it`ll matter :-)
Did I forget to mention my vegetable garden?
I`d also like to learn how to bow/fletch, and learn how to hunt.
My Eudora at work also picks up those words. At home I have Outlook, =
which also does :-)
*****************
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 14:03:20 -0600
From: Gordon Rumson
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
Greetings,
I`ve read "slave-girl" and what I read was horrifying. And that`s what it
was supposed to be, I think. Horrifying stuff is also sadly part of life
thanks to various monsters and monstrous beliefs.
I think that Alan belongs to the artistic school that believes that art
should challenge. Certainly his does. This was an imaginative
investigation of a terrible reality. Now one is free, I also think, to
doubt whether art should ONLY challenge. Personally I feel that art can do
a lot of things depending on the situation, the audience and the author.
Challenge it should also do.
Aside: To me though, the idea that two adults consenting to engage in weird
behavior is itself weird to me.
I am fully aware of how women are degraded by advertising, pornography and
various mental assumptions and this is something to battle against. But
this prose poem of Alan`s is not pornography. Not even close. I find it
compelling and awful. It reminds me of what slavery means. It reminds me
that we should not be silent to oppression, slavery, horror.
It reminds me that I should go ahead with my planned fund raiser for women
in Afghanistan, though it will mean huge amounts of work as no one will
likely help me with it. They will all be home watching Temptation Island or
Survivor, a slasher film or media ads. Now THATıS pornography!
All best wishes,
Gordon Rumson
Pianist and composer
"It speaks volumes that our culture places its prosperity in the hands of
nothing better than a bunch of crapshooters in the stock market." Gordon
Rumson
Web page: http://www.cadvision.com/Home_Pages/accounts/liszt/rumson.html
*****************
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 20:48:15 +0100
From: Arctic Fox
Subject: life decisions (was Slavegirl)
At 20:13 08/04/01, you wrote:
>LOL Paul, I have something positive.
>
>I`ve decided what to do with my life. Make a quick buck in the next five
>years, and use it to get a small and spartan home in a fishing town where
>the economy is poor. Then I can spend my days on a small boat writing, and
>enjoying myself where it`s simple and pleasent.
>
That`s a beautiful dream. I hope you get to turn it into reality as soon as
possible. Will you be able to get an internet connection hooked up to your
boat?
I`m tempted to do something similar. The city I live in (Brighton, UK) is
very expensive with a 2 bedroom flat costing around 150,000 in some of the
nicer parts. A friend of mine who lives in a village up north recently
bought a 3 bedroom house for under 50,000 pounds. I`m not one for
possessions and my physical location is becoming less important (what with
the internet and telephone) so I`m thinking of living somewhere cheaper and
only working half the week.
Paul
PS - just noticed my Eudora spell checker doesn`t think "internet" is a
word. Same with "newsgroup". Struggles with e-mail too. Anyone else got a
luddite computer?
*****************
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 15:20:48 -0500
From: Wendlyn Alter
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
dstreever writes,
>It`s a story, and a story is a story, is a story. It`s not real life; Alan
>didn`t degrade anyone.
I disagree here. I`m inclined to agree with L. Deitrich "about fiction
being emotional, rather than factual truth, and therefore actually
truer."
The stories we`re told, the stories we tell ourselves, are what give
us permission to think and feel as we do. Stories are dangerously
important. We need to be very careful with our stories, impeccable. If
we`re going to get experimental with stories - and I am in favor of
that - we also need to be excruciatingly aware of and responsible for
the consequences - intended AND OTHERWISE - of our experiments.
--Wyn
*****************
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 16:29:01 -0400
From: dstreever
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
We also need to be careful not to place the blame on the writer, who in this
case has done nothing wrong.
I don`t think you feel as if your person has been degraded or otherwise
humiliated, and I don`t think anyone would feel that way from this story.
Regardless of other stories, that is the real topic here, and I think that
is what we should address...
*****************
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 17:00:15 -0400
From: dstreever
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
Wendlyn, I did not get a "hard-on" over Alan`s demonstration of something I
found personally to be repugnant. I actually felt shame over being a male,
because I know this type of thing happens.
The others who wrote in to describe their personal disgust with the scene in
question also did not get "hard ons" over it.
I feel you are being hard on Alan over this, and that the discussion has
reached a point which is no longer going to be productive.
I like Alan`s writing, and I feel he has not in anyway glorified "power
over" anyone or anything. I feel anyone who isn`t already consumed with lust
for "power over" will not get a "hard on" by reading Alan`s text; if
anything, it promotes awareness. He does not describe arousal, he describes
her state, and anyone who has a standard of morality consistent with the
norm will find themselves reacting in digust at what is done to this girl.
*****************
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 15:56:45 -0500
From: Wendlyn Alter
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
>I don`t suggest your views should be censored; you can say whatever the
>fuck you want. But you`re speaking out of ignorance like you did when you
>suggested I tackle death and your pseudo-imitations don`t change a thing.
Not imitations. Quotations. I was turning a magnifying glass on your
own work. You claimed it wasn`t pornographic; that it was all about
race. What was the deal with the nakedness and rounded buttocks then,
the desirability, "available to all"? That doesn`t have a thing in the
world to do with race. It has everything to do with sex -
specifically, in this case, pornographic sex. Why pretend otherwise?
Despite what you may be assuming, how you may wish to dismiss me,
sexuality doesn`t upset me. What I take a stand against is
pornography - which to me differs from erotica by the element of power
differential, lack of consent.
I believe telling stories that stimulate sexual response by
emphasizing the other`s helplessness and unwillingness perpetuates
exactly the kind of mentality that allows governments and
multinationals to rape the environment. It`s all about POWER OVER,
depriving the other of quality of life, solely for one`s OWN pleasure
and benefit. As long as Power Over is portrayed as attractive, then
we`ll never make the kind of fundamental change in cultural mindset
that will allow us to devise a new, kind, responsible, mutual way of
living in the world.
>And how dare you talk about me denying my own writing? You don`t even know
>what it`s about. How dare you?
If what you`re trying to do is demonstrate to list members that even
they can get hard-ons by feeling Power Over helpless others, and that
the cultural problems we`re fighting when our government views US as
the helpless others will never be solved as long as we refuse to
acknowledge that we carry the seeds of that destruction in ourselves,
then I humbly beg your pardon.
If that`s not what it was really all about, then why not clarify? Art
that fails to effect transformation has not succeeded as art. So far I
haven`t seen any loyal defenders on this list who I believe show any
deeper insight into what you really were trying to accomplish - so
it`s not just me who doesn`t know what it`s about.
If you aren`t willing to work with the limitations of the milieu, you
can`t be surprised if we fail to get it. Maybe your art is not
intended to transform. If that doesn`t matter to you, why take it so
personally when we fail?
Just for clarification - I never declared that you shouldn`t have
posted what you did, nor would I. I made a public statement of my
objection, and cited my principles for consideration by any who choose
to reflect on these issues. I find it interesting that you object this
as "moralizing." I view it as my freedom to state my truth. But then,
you have as much right to object to my words as I have to object to
your words. Personally, I find the exchange worthwhile. I hope you
don`t feel too personally threatened to clarify your view of the
subject for us.
--Wendlyn
*****************
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 17:30:48 -0400
From: dstreever
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
This is true, and sad, and I appreciate the shift away from Alan`s writing
in your reply, as I feel that could only lead to fighting on list.
You are right about most men, but it`s in my opinion the same thing with
anyone, regardless of gender or race. Most of us are buying into a culture
that is depraved at the core.
The question though... if the culture is "flawed" as such, maybe that is the
way it is supposed to be? Evolution`s finger prints?
*****************
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 16:20:42 -0500
From: Wendlyn Alter
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
>I like Alan`s writing, and I feel he has not in anyway glorified "power
>over" anyone or anything. I feel anyone who isn`t already consumed with lust
>for "power over" will not get a "hard on" by reading Alan`s text; if
>anything, it promotes awareness. He does not describe arousal, he describes
>her state, and anyone who has a standard of morality consistent with the
>norm will find themselves reacting in digust at what is done to this girl.
I find this reassuring. Thank you for clarifying.
Only in one point do I differ somewhat - I believe men of integrity
can be manipulated to feel arousal over things they wouldn`t wish to.
I`ve heard more than one man confess to getting an erection during a
rape scene in a movie, and they felt humiliated and manipulated by it.
When a man is aroused without his own consent, he too is the victim of
a pornographic act. I feel compassion for the way men in our culture
are constantly jerked around by the pervasive pornography perpetrated
by the ad industry. How can a man be master of himself in the face of
such overwhelming forces?
Most fail. They become dutiful consumers.
They keep paying for admission to those movies.
--Wendlyn
*****************
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 10:03:30 -0400
From: Dominic Fox
Subject: Seduction
To be seduced and to consent: is that to consent to be seduced, or to be
seduced into consenting?
To speak of *qualified* consent - "adult" or "informed" consent - is to
speak of the consent of a properly constituted subject, an adult individual
who can speak for hirself, whose proper responsibility for hir actions and
passions is not diminished by naivety, feeblemindedness, indigence or
delusion. It is difficult to articulate any notion of individual rights and
obligations without invoking some such person, the "subject of the
contract", the "I who signs". Certain classes of person, such as children
and severely brain-damaged individuals, are understood to be incapable of
giving this kind of qualified consent; they are also not held legally
responsible for their actions. The boundary between legal-contractual
competance and incompetance is somewhat unstable; it`s something of a
social construct, but a reflexive one in that the society doing the
constructing is itself powerfully determined by the outcome.
Seduction is not addressed to this subject, but to another: an enemy or
ally within. One cannot seduce a "thinking adult". The consent one gives to
a seducer is unqualified; or its qualifications are shaky, compromised. If
I say that I find seduction to be ubiquitous, I am also making a
confession: that my "thinking adult" self is a somewhat uncomfortable fit,
say, and that I find the world at large a frightening and frighteningly
stimulating place. Who knows what I might be seduced into (there`s some
vanity in this, too: it implies that underneath it all, I`m the sort of
terribly exciting person who if he didn`t keep himself under control would
do fantastically dangerous and wicked things. But surely sordid and sad
things are just as likely. Middle-aged university lecturer accused of
harassment; student sues)!
There ought to be a word for seduction-phobia, for that state of panic
about the irrational pull of the morally and prudentially dubious.
Perhaps "hysteria"? But there also ought to be a word for the ubiquity of
seduction in the real (one might object: surely you mean in the virtual?
Well, yes: in the virtual in the real) that the hysteric, or whatever,
senses - or fears being driven out of hir senses by. There is something
there (where?): the way things actually happen between people, things like
sex and politics, involves a persistent circumventing of the contractually
obligated and obligating selves who are said to reign over the porno shoot
or the sm scene. (I`d even go so far as to say that insofar as porn and sm
are involved in producing fictions, fantasies, simulacra, it is
the "consenting adults" who are meant to be giving the performance who are
the real fiction, the real product: the submissive isn`t pretending to
submit, he`s pretending to be in control of his submission. Or, to put it
another way: what`s the difference? How could you tell?).
Here`s a question: is it the case that the contractual stratum of human
interactions and negotiations is weakened on-line because social
conventions and obligations are harder to enforce (difficulty of finding
appropriate sanctions, ease with which participants can adopt a "remote"
stance that in RL would be considered psychopathic, etc.)? And does this
make for more seduction?
*****************
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 15:45:45 -0400
From: Alan Sondheim
Subject: Re: Seduction
This is brilliant and itself seductive and I`ve sensed the same symptom-
ologies myself. But online things are safe in a sense; alterity is never
Levinasian, in its fullness; it`s already translated into communicativity
- and this difference seems essential to me.
I`d save the "hysteria" to be salvaged elsewhere; I used a similar term
and was called to task (in Sydney, Au.) by people pointing out its history
through not only Freud, but Cixous etc. - so there might be a better
employment here.
Your texts, for me, always veer in their politics, which fascinates me -
moving from one pole to another, always uneasy -
Alan
*****************
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 17:44:46 -0400
From: Alan Sondheim
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
I don`t feel the slightest desire to enlighten you; what I see as your PC
views honestly disgust me. No matter how much you talk about rape, etc. -
I see your writing and comments contributing to an environment of repres-
sion and disgust.
This started a long time ago, with you writing about my not speaking of
death and giving advice in that direction - as a friend of mine said, my
work is about nothing, if not death, and anyone who has read it would know
that.
And it`s the same in this case. If you want to find out what the writing
is about, there are online interviews, there are a lot of texts at the
URLs, and so forth. And if you had asked in the first place, instead of
assuming you knew what was exactly going on, I would have taken the time.
I do that often, both in lectures/seminars, and online.
But I don`t want to take the time in a situation that defines itself as a
differend - i.e. you have already spoken for me, told me I should admit
it`s pornography - or whatever else you think - and I have no desire to
reply to what I see as your oppression and violence, no matter how sub-
textual it is.
And that`s all I`m going to say about it; I have other work to do today.
Alan
*****************
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 19:06:26 -0400
From: Tom Ellis
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
Nobody can be made to feel anything that they do not let themselves feel.
To pretend otherwise is a cop out. One of the things that separates human
from animal is mastery of our emotional and physical respones, at least
ideally.
I find your attitude towards men in general to be a bit demeaning. Not just
in this thread, but in several other posts. I won`t lose any sleep over it,
nor does it incite anger. You don`t have that power over me, nor am I
willing to grant it.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wendlyn Alter"
To: <CYBERMIND@LISTSERV.AOL.COM>
Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2001 5:20 PM
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
> >I like Alan`s writing, and I feel he has not in anyway glorified "power
> >over" anyone or anything. I feel anyone who isn`t already consumed with lust
> >for "power over" will not get a "hard on" by reading Alan`s text; if
> >anything, it promotes awareness. He does not describe arousal, he
> >describes her state, and anyone who has a standard of morality consistent with
> >the norm will find themselves reacting in digust at what is done to this
> >girl.
>
> I find this reassuring. Thank you for clarifying.
>
> Only in one point do I differ somewhat - I believe men of integrity
> can be manipulated to feel arousal over things they wouldn`t wish to.
> I`ve heard more than one man confess to getting an erection during a
> rape scene in a movie, and they felt humiliated and manipulated by it.
> When a man is aroused without his own consent, he too is the victim of
> a pornographic act. I feel compassion for the way men in our culture
> are constantly jerked around by the pervasive pornography perpetrated
> by the ad industry. How can a man be master of himself in the face of
> such overwhelming forces?
>
> Most fail. They become dutiful consumers.
>
> They keep paying for admission to those movies.
>
> --Wendlyn
>
*****************
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 19:36:56 -0500
From: Wendlyn Alter
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
>Nobody can be made to feel anything that they do not let themselves feel.
>To pretend otherwise is a cop out. One of the things that separates human
>from animal is mastery of our emotional and physical respones, at least
>ideally.
So the slavegirl is herself at fault for her lack of freedom?
We don`t need to feel for her, because her abjection was of her own
doing.
Hm.
--Wendlyn
*****************
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 20:48:10 -0400
From: Tom Ellis
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
No, I was referring to your comments about men being manipulated by such
images. I`m not surprised that you didn`t read what I wrote, though, since
you`ve aleady made up your closed little PC mind.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wendlyn Alter"
To: <CYBERMIND@LISTSERV.AOL.COM>
Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2001 8:36 PM
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
> >Nobody can be made to feel anything that they do not let themselves feel.
> >To pretend otherwise is a cop out. One of the things that separates human
> >from animal is mastery of our emotional and physical respones, at least
> >ideally.
>
> So the slavegirl is herself at fault for her lack of freedom?
>
> We don`t need to feel for her, because her abjection was of her own
> doing.
>
> Hm.
>
> --Wendlyn
>
*****************
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 19:53:42 -0500
From: Wendlyn Alter
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
>No, I was referring to your comments about men being manipulated by such
>images. I`m not surprised that you didn`t read what I wrote, though, since
>you`ve aleady made up your closed little PC mind.
I know what you meant. Why does it only apply to me, though, not to
anything else? Why to my ideas, not to Alan`s? Why the double
standard?
I`m asking quite seriously.
--Wendlyn
*****************
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 21:05:09 -0400
From: Tom Ellis
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
It is not a double standard. You are comparing apples and oranges here. I
was not referring to any fiction or allegory that you have produced, but to
your statements. Presumably, these reflect your opinions. I find many of
those opinions to be mildly anti-male, to put it mildly.
I am not looking for a flame war, but I do tend to be blunt. No offense is
intended. I fail to see your point here, still. You seem hell bent on
finding double standards and injustices to women everywhere. That may be an
incorrect assesment, but I can only make assesments based on the data I
observe.
Life is full of injustices, demeaning situations, and other, even worse,
horrors. Illustrating these in art or text is not an assault on any given
group. If it is offensive or thought provoking, then it may just be
successful, in fact.
I share Alan`s feelings on this, I think. That is not an everyday event,
either, for we don`t always agree ;) I don`t think I`m going to waste any
more time on this. You have your opinions, and are certainly welcome to
them; erroneous or not they are yours. You have your mind made up as to
what reality is. Nothing I or anyone else says will alter that, sadly.
Peace,
Tom
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wendlyn Alter"
To: <CYBERMIND@LISTSERV.AOL.COM>
Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2001 8:53 PM
Subject: Re: Slavegirl
> >No, I was referring to your comments about men being manipulated by such
> >images. I`m not surprised that you didn`t read what I wrote, though, > since
> >you`ve aleady made up your closed little PC mind.
>
> I know what you meant. Why does it only apply to me, though, not to
> anything else? Why to my ideas, not to Alan`s? Why the double
> standard?
>
> I`m asking quite seriously.
>
> --Wendlyn
>
*****************
On to Part 2
This page hosted by
Get your own Free Home Page