Warning: "Language" is sexist and dangerous to a woman's health

G

Guest

Guest
I found this piece insightful, amusing and well done. I put it here as there has been much discussion of gender and language, including the semi-infamous not-erotic story about a woman raped and brutalized ("Cunt in an SUV" ?); and earlier Irony and other tropes (figures of speech) in rhetoric. For the non-Brits I hope the accompanying illustration comes through.

My only point: I thought of the SUV story heated debate and the arguments about "it's only fiction", "only words", etc., and even the idea of "intent", including discussions of "women's humor". Here we have a bit more academic but well focused and structured conversation. - Perdita :)

(It's a long post but I presume everyone knows how to use the back-arrow key.)

Semiotics for Beginners—Daniel Chandler (Rhetorical Tropes)
http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/S4B/sem07.html

A typical instance of this was the furious argument they had about the Silk Cut advertisement... Every few miles, it seemed, they passed the same huge poster on roadside hoardings, a photographic depiction of a rippling expanse of purple silk in which there was a single slit, as if the material had been slashed with a razor. There were no words in the advertisement, except for the Government Health Warning about smoking. This ubiquitous image, flashing past at regular intervals, both irritiated and intrigued Robyn, and she began to do her semiotic stuff on the deep structure hidden beneath its bland surface.

It was in the first instance a kind of riddle. That is to say, in order to decode it, you had to know that there was a brand of cigarettes called Silk Cut. The poster was the iconic representation of a missing name, like a rebus. But the icon was also a metaphor. The shimmering silk, with its voluptuous curves and sensuous texture, obviously symbolized the female body, and the elliptical slit, foregrounded by a lighter colour showing through, was still more obviously a vagina. The advert thus appealed to both sensual and sadistic impulses, the desire to mutilate as well as penetrate the female body.

Vic Wilcox spluttered with outraged derision as she expounded this interpretation. He smoked a different brand himself, but it was as if he felt his whole philosophy of life was threatened by Robyn's analysis of the advert. 'You must have a twisted mind to see all that in a perfectly harmless bit of cloth,' he said.

'What's the point of it, then?' Robyn challenged him. 'Why use cloth to advertise cigarettes?'

'Well, that's the name of 'em, isn't it? Silk Cut. It's a picture of the name. Nothing more or less.'

'Suppose they'd used a picture of a roll of silk cut in half - would that do just as well?'

'I suppose so. Yes, why not?'

'Because it would look like a penis cut in half, that's why.'
He forced a laugh to cover his embarrassment.

'Why can't you people take things at their face value?'

'What people are you refering to?'

'Highbrows. Intellectuals. You're always trying to find hidden meanings in things. Why? A cigarette is a cigarette. A piece of silk is a piece of silk. Why not leave it at that?

'When they're represented they acquire additional meanings,' said Robyn. 'Signs are never innocent. Semiotics teaches us that.'

'Semi-what?'

'Semiotics. The study of signs.'

'It teaches us to have dirty minds, if you ask me.'

'Why do you think the wretched cigarettes were called Silk Cut in the first place?'

'I dunno. It's just a name, as good as any other.'

"Cut" has something to do with the tobacco, doesn't it? The way the tobacco leaf is cut. Like "Player's Navy Cut" - my uncle Walter used to smoke them.'

'Well, what if it does?' Vic said warily.

'But silk has nothing to do with tobacco. It's a metaphor, a metaphor that means something like, "smooth as silk". Somebody in an advertising agency dreamt up the name "Silk Cut" to suggest a cigarette that wouldn't give you a sore throat or a hacking cough or lung cancer. But after a while the public got used to the name, the word "Silk" ceased to signify, so they decided to have an advertising campaign to give the brand a high profile again. Some bright spark in the agency came up with the idea of rippling silk with a cut in it. The original metaphor is now represented literally. Whether they consciously intended or not doesn't really matter. It's a good example of the perpetual sliding of the signified under a signifier, actually.'

Wilcox chewed on this for a while, then said, 'Why do women smoke them, then, eh?' his triumphant expression showed that he thought this was a knock-down argument. 'If smoking Silk Cut is a form of aggravated rape, as you try to make out, how come women smoke 'em too?'

'Many women are masochistic by temperament,' said Robyn. 'They've learnt what's expected of them in a patriarchical society.'

'Ha!' Wilcox exclaimed, tossing back his head. 'I might have known you'd have some daft answer.'

'I don't know why you're so worked up,' Said Robyn. 'It's not as if you smoke Silk Cut yourself.'

'No, I smoke Marlboros. Funnily enough, I smoke them because I like the taste.'

'They're the ones that have the lone cowboy ads, aren't they?'

'I suppose that makes me a repressed homosexual, does it?'

'No, it's a very straightforward metonymic message.'

'Metawhat?'

'Metonymic. One of the fundamental tools of semiotics is the distinction between metaphor and metonymy. D'you want me to explain it to you?'

'It'll pass the time,' he said.

'Metaphor is a figure of speech based on similarity, whereas metonymy is based on contiguity. In metaphor you substitute something like the thing you mean for the thing itself, whereas in metonymy you substitute some attribute or cause or effect of the thing for the thing itself'.

'I don't understand a word you're saying.'

'Well, take one of your moulds. The bottom bit is called the drag because it's dragged across the floor and the top bit is called the cope because it covers the bottom bit.'
'I told you that.'

'Yes, I know. What you didn't tell me was that "drag" is a metonymy and "cope" is a metaphor.'

Vic grunted. 'What difference does it make?'

'It's just a question of understanding how language works. I thought you were interested in how things work.'

'I don't see what it's got to do with cigarettes.'

'In the case of the Silk Cut poster, the picture signifies the female body metaphorically: the slit in the silk is like a vagina -'

Vic flinched at the word. 'So you say.'

'All holes, hollow places, fissures and folds represent the female genitals.'

'Prove it.'

'Freud proved it, by his successful analysis of dreams,' said Robyn. 'But the Marlboro ads don't use any metaphors. That's probably why you smoke them, actually.'

'What d'you mean?' he said suspiciously.

'You don't have any sympathy with the metaphorical way of looking at things. A cigarette is a cigarette as far as you are concerned.'

'Right.'

'The Marlboro ad doesn't disturb that naive faith in the stability of the signified. It establishes a metonymic connection - completely spurious of course, but realistically plausible - between smoking that particular brand and the healthy, heroic, outdoor life of the cowboy. Buy the cigarette and you buy the lifestyle, or the fantasy of living it.'

'Rubbish!' said Wilcox. 'I hate the country and the open air. I'm scared to go into a field with a cow in it.'

'Well then, maybe it's the solitariness of the cowboy in the ads that appeals to you. Self-reliant, independent, very macho.'

'I've never heard such a lot of balls in all my life,' said Vic Wilcox, which was strong language coming from him.

'Balls - now that's an interesting expression...' Robyn mused.

'Oh no!' he groaned.

'When you say a man "has balls", approvingly, it's a metonymy, whereas if you say something is a "lot of balls", or "a balls-up", it's a sort of metaphor. The metonymy attributes value to the testicles whereas the metaphor uses them to degrade something else.'

'I can't take any more of this,' said Vic. 'D'you mind if I smoke? Just a plain, ordinary cigarette?'
 
A long time ago there was a cigarette brand called "Strand". The adverts showed a man alone in a variety of situations smoking a Strand.

I think the slogan was "You're never alone with a Strand".

The cigarette was a failure because the advert was taking as impying that if you smoked "Strand" you were a sad male loser who deserved to be alone.

The mindsets of some advertising gurus are just plain weird. They put far more into a simple advertisement than any reasonable person can be expected to follow.

The most successful TV advertising scenario in this country is known as "Two Tarts in a Kitchen". It has been used for years and even parodying it seems to work. "Have you tried this new ...? No. Let me show you." "Oh. It works."

These adverts seem to work with the public too.

Og
 
I'd have made the slit either jet black or a maroon. That grey is rather unattractive.

" ...it was as if he felt his whole philosophy of life was threatened by Robyn's analysis of the advert."

:rolleyes:

I dislike it when writers give men so little credit. It's as back as the airhead blondes that populate movies and books.

I agree that the ad is like a vagina but not that it's trying to mutilate one.
 
"Changing Places", by David Lodge.

I read it when I was reading English in university. I loved that book!
 
I don't know. Slashing, cutting. Those words have connotations attached to them for me.

Also, there does seem to a be a sort of violent visceral reaction to any kind of suggestion that something might carry a degrading intent toward women, especially from men- whose fragile egos immediately assume that they are being impuned along with their entire gender.

Many of them have genuine trouble separating a comment from a woman about something "sexist" that troubles her as just that: a justified comment. They respond in full defensive battle mode; the way a lot of white people still do at any allegation of racism, regardless of how justified- or slight- or specifically targeted the claim might be.

More troubling responses come from those women who have socialized themselves against their gender in order to escape it's subjugation.

I know whereof I speak- I've been guilty of it myself when I was younger; not wanting to be derided as a "feminist" [what a dirty word, on par with "baby-raper"]. You become sort of a female misogynist: "Oh, yes...I'm not like them- I love men, I'm modern- listen to that silly bitch. She's hysterical." Sometimes this becomes a self-preservationist knee-jerk reaction, that is triggered even when the plaint alleged is fairly mild. By allying themselves against the thing that offends male sensitivity, they in essence render themselves "immune" and increase their own market value- at the expense of women who have legitimate issues with being marginalized and dismissed.

Men can then say "Yeah, see? She knows how to take a joke. She knows it don't mean nothing!" Their egos are mollified and their viewpoint upheld- and the idea of female reactionary hysteria is further reinforced by individuals from our own gender.

To me these women are our "Aunt Toms".

If we were to all adhere to a regular standard of how women deserve to be treated, without individuals down-selling our dignity for personal gain, then "female hysteria" and "feminazis" wouldn't exist. The problem is that minimum respect for us as a whole is consistently undermined- why are "feminists" so awful? Because they take themselves so seriously! Which is offensive because- why? "Women are a joke." That's the implication.

One needs only to read Gauchecritic's exasperated response to me and Killermuffin in a recent thread to understand how deep-seeded this notion runs.

"You're a girl." "You're a girl too."

Read: So stop taking yourself so seriously.

Apparently two guys can carry on a fact-filled in-depth political arguement about the polarity of England and America in respective wars- but if two women become involved in a debate about the implications of rape writing using similarly long-winded and verbose arguments, this is cause for a hose-down.

mlle
 
" I don't know. Slashing, cutting. Those words have connotations attached to them for me."

I assume you're responding to my comment.

It's called silk cut, not just cut, the slit is from left to right, the colors are not primary, or bright, and the cut on the image is smooth and 'silky'. None of these things suggest a desire to mutilate. I can understand the suggestion of sadism, not that I agree with it, but mutilation contains both a level and type of violence that seems contradictory to the ad's emotional message.

"Many of them have genuine trouble separating a comment from a woman about something "sexist" that troubles her as just that: a justified comment. They respond in full defensive battle mode; the way a lot of white people still do at any allegation of racism, regardless of how justified- or slight- or specifically targeted the claim might be."

I'm not saying that men don't react that way, anymore than I'm saying that there aren't air-headed blondes. However, this is a work of fiction.

"More troubling responses come from those women who have socialized themselves against their gender in order to escape it's subjugation."

Ah – many are the women, still, who suck the cock of Patriarchy.

Something I thought of after I posted last time: The woman in the article assumes that all the women who smoke Silk Cut have a masochistic impulse. I find it much easier to believe that women are acting off of the same 'sadistic' impulse the men are.
 
Last edited:
FWIW, when I clicked on the Silk Cut link the cloth came up purple.
 
Never said:
That grey is rather unattractive.
...
I dislike it when writers give men so little credit. It's as back as the airhead blondes that populate movies and books.
...
I agree that the ad is like a vagina but not that it's trying to mutilate one.
Hi Never. The silk in the pic is a "royal" (it is a Brit cig) purple, which makes it even more significant I think; am surprised the author did not mention it.

I don't think the piece gives all men little credit; the stereotype in it is very true to life and not uncommon (which is how stereotypes develop, including the feminazis Mlle. notes).

The mutilation is metonymically suggested by the slit, as is the vagina. I think the point of Robyn's proposal (and Mlle's hard fought points in other threads) is that signs and signifiers (language) are never innocent or position free, esp. in advertising, and I would add especially in erotica.

regards, Perdita
 
SlickTony said:
FWIW, when I clicked on the Silk Cut link the cloth came up purple.

Sure but the slit is grey, which is what Never was referring to. I also think it isn't particularly aesthetic, especially if it is supposed to be vaginal. (Isn't the equivalent of phallic called "vedic"? Or did my source make that up?) A good friend of mine is a film major and wrote a rather lengthy report over sexually violent images in movies. I never knew that chainsaws were interpretable as rape symbols, nor stakes. Buffy, a serial rapist. *shrugs*

Miss Blue Pen said "If we were to all adhere to a regular standard of how women deserve to be treated, without individuals down-selling our dignity for personal gain, then "female hysteria" and "feminazis" wouldn't exist." I don't believe any regular standard does or could exist. Is there a consensus on how children ought to be treated? Animals? Foreign countries? Total different fields, but the point is that they are vague and huge terms that vary greatly on an individual basis. My opinion is that each person should be treated exactly as they deserve to be, all other factors notwithstanding.

I agree and confess to a great many other points that you raised about downplaying the authenticity of feminists. However, ideally I want it to come down to "I can dismiss this idea because I believe it to be wrong or ill-informed" for all, and thus be free to say "bah" to a particular person who may in fact identify as a feminist. I don't think we disagree on this issue but I've been dying for a good clarification-of-a-point-that-needs-none.
 
Quint said:
... I don't believe any regular standard does or could exist. Is there a consensus on how children ought to be treated? Animals? ...
Hi Quint, don't think we've spoken before, hope this goes well. Perhaps Mlle. might have been clearer; doesn't matter as we're not talking state, national or global policy here.

I think there is consensus in most of the world about children's rights; it wasn't that long ago that child labor laws came into effect. Animals have legal rights too, and as most people know there is a movement to give them more (like not to be raised and die for fashion). Since 9/11 people who never gave Muslims a second thought are now bending over backwards to be inclusive.
So I don't think it's such a big reach for half the world's population to want it generally understood how they wish to be treated, regarded, let live, and earn as much as a man for equal work (or even just get the chance to do so). We have basic human rights acknowledged by all types of governments and the United Nations, but too many women do not share them.

Since this is Lit., and I am made to understand horses are immortal on the boards, I'll repeat myself and state that underneath all the rancor and much illogic re. the SUV sadist tale, without regard to whether it should be moved or banned, I merely thought it would be significant if an Erotica site, or at least its populace, took a positive stand against the pervasiveness of violence to women in our society, and the 'arts'. Other issues overtook the main points, even egos and a variety of personalities. Not surprising but disappointing.

regards, Perdita
 
perdita said:
Since this is Lit., and I am made to understand horses are immortal on the boards, I'll repeat myself and state that underneath all the rancor and much illogic re. the SUV sadist tale, without regard to whether it should be moved or banned, I merely thought it would be significant if an Erotica site, or at least its populace, took a positive stand against the pervasiveness of violence to women in our society, and the 'arts'.

1: Lit is an adult board, and is unlikely to affect attitudes and prejudices that develop long before a personis legally able to access this site.

2: I posted a thread a month or so ago on the GB about an ad campaign running localy that urges " teach young boys that violence against women is wrong." The campaign is aimed at teaching pubeasent boys (age 13 or so) how to treat women. I object to that ad campaign because it's aimed at the wrong target and the wrong goal -- What wrong with teaching children from birth that violence against anyone is an absolute last resort. By age 13, attitudes and prejudices about gender roles and "proper treatment" is firmly established.

3: IMHO, 99.9999% of authors here at Lit are NOT accomplished enough to actually consciously use semiotics to either promote or discourage anything. It requires a good deal of knowledge and linguistic skill to consciously use the language to shape a reader's opinions without causing them to back-click or low-ball the votes.


4: Eliminating violence or violent stories from this site does nothing discourage violence against women, it simply reduces the number of sites where those stories can be posted by one. Laurel's normal distinction between "rape fantasies" and "rapist fantasies" already makes this site one of the tamest erotic sites and generally unattractive to someone who needs misogynistic elements or violence in their stories.

5: Miss Blue Pen said "If we were to all adhere to a regular standard of how women deserve to be treated, without individuals down-selling our dignity for personal gain, then "female hysteria" and "feminazis" wouldn't exist."

Personally, I'm more than willing to hold women to the same standard of treatment and behavior as I do men. I'm old enough to be conditioned to accord women a bit more courtesy than I do men, but I've never seen that as "down-selling" them.

I do object to women who curse me for holding a door or their chair for them becuase they think that "good manners" are sexist and demeaning.

In short, I object to anyone who think the injustices that their ancestors endured entitle them to "special treatment" or "compensation." I don't care if the injustices were racial, gender, or religious based, they do NOT entitle anyone today to special treatment.

Violence against womenis WRONG; there is absolutely noquestion about that. However, violence against children, jews, native americans, blacks, the homeless, or anyone else is equally wrong. The problem is violence in real life, no matter who it is directed against.

Violence in fiction is another matter entirely. Without violence, racism, religious intolerance, drugs and other "bad things" that people want to ban from fiction, there can be no villians and damn little conflict. Without villians and conflict, Fiction is boring and unrealistic.
 
Weird Harold said,


/Violence against women is WRONG; there is absolutely no question about that. However, violence against children, jews, native americans, blacks, the homeless, or anyone else is equally wrong. The problem is violence in real life, no matter who it is directed against.

Violence in fiction is another matter entirely. Without violence, racism, religious intolerance, drugs and other "bad things" that people want to ban from fiction, there can be no villians and damn little conflict. Without villians and conflict, Fiction is boring and unrealistic./


======
Well said, WH. Recent comments on violence in a particular story seem unable to comprehend the basic distinction between seeing a violent act, and reading about an imagined violent act, and between erotic response to the former and to the latter. I have raised similar points in the thread, "is someone here talking about me?"

I'd only take exception to the word 'unrealistic'. Substitute 'emotionally flat.' Fiction, esp. here does not necessarily aim for or achieve a mirroring of reality.

Unfortunately, the language police have problem about the connection between violent words in fiction and violent acts:

[Perd:]
I merely thought it would be significant if an Erotica site, or at least its populace, took a positive stand against the pervasiveness of violence to women in our society, and the 'arts'.


Here taking a 'positive stand' against violence to women is equated to denouncing a *story* about violence to a woman, and labelling the author of the story of a sociopath as himslef sociopathic; and claiming the author is about to engage in violence against women, because that what a character in his story does.

PC folks always think that in eliminating a 'sign' of something you do something toward eliminating the something; if you eliminate talk of 'dwarves' you help eliminate the real problems of actual 'small people.' If you eliminate talk of the 'blind', you're helping the lives of the 'visually challenged.'

It's a effortless way to publicly call attention to one's own virtue and benevolence by pointing out that one's *language* has been pruned of words that directly indicate unseemly things; to imply that in calling for others to purge their language one is inducing them to behave in a more humane way.

J.

PS. In relation to the dialogue of the oh-so-clever Robyn and her idiot boy friend and foil: it's typical of the sloppiness of argument in certain quarters that the passage is not even correctly labelled or attributed; "Chandler", mentioned, is NOT the author and the correct author is not indicated in any way: From _Nice Work_ by David Lodge.
 
Last edited:
Harold, Pure, everyone: I truly appreciate all your comments, and your intentions; only hope all others are too. Lest those whom I particularly care for and respect have any doubts I am not an angry woman, I love gentlemanly ways, and I have never felt anyone owes me anything outside actual debts or particular relationships (then it's usually a negotiated effort). I like having doors opened for me, by anyone, and as one of the three people in California who smoke I miss having my cigarette lit by a man.

I am more cognizant now than ever at how difficult it is in such a small arena to make oneself clear. I'm too fatigued mentally to argue, or merely clarify my thoughts, but am grateful to be heard, however understood or misunderstood.

Pure, I listed the website as it wasn't clear to me whether Lodge was the actual author of the excerpt. Thanks for making it clear.

Perdita
 
Semiotics for Beginners—Daniel Chandler (Rhetorical Tropes)
http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/S4B/sem07.html

Semiotics assumes a common cultural understanding. We have enough simple misunderstandings between different parts of the UK (No one else can understand anyone from Yorkshire or if we do we pretend that we don't) and once we communicate beyond our own country and/or culture the possibilities for mutual misunderstanding grow larger.

Semiotics reminds me of the old fashioned (1930s) IQ tests. If you were an educated white middle class male you would do well because the questions were written by educated white middle class males. Other cultures and races (and sexes) were "inferior" and the IQ tests "proved" that inferiority.

A parallel was the language proficency test necessary to be admitted to White Australia in the 1950s. If you were acceptable i.e. white you would be tested in your own European language. If you were not acceptable i.e black, brown, yellow then the test would be in a European language of the tester's choice. The most extreme was Scottish Gaelic for a Chinese.

I do not understand all US idioms. I cannot distinguish the writing of a Texan from a Bostonian. I have no hope of understanding US semiotics but I might understand the semiotics of "standard" UK English.

Og

PS: Silk Cut was the name of the cigarette before the advertising campaign. I thought that the name was intended to show that the cigarette was smoother (i.e less nicotine and tar which had been "cut") with an overtone of the older tobaccos such as Navy Cut. At the time of the introduction of Silk Cut I was smoking Capstan Full Strength which was as loaded with nicotine and tar as Silk Cut wasn't.
 
Ogg: FYI, my fave semioticians, deconstructionists, structuralists, what-have-you, are British or British schooled. I love critical theory, all the post-mod ideas, just for their insightfulness and even incitefulness! They provide interesting ways to look at language and literature (and history, and ...) is all. I in no way prescribe to any one theory the way one might to a political party (though hardly anything is more political than academia).

ta, Perdita
 
Once, when I discussedd feminism with a girl in my class, she said: "I'm not a feminist. I want equality!"

I left the room, crying...

Seriously. I'm a feminist. To me, being a feminist means that I want women to have as high salary as men, when doing the same job. I want women to be able to get as good education as men, as good jobs as men, and the right to decide, when they get pregnant, if they want to carry it to terms or not.

I don't snap at men who hold the door open for me when I enter a room, I thank them, because in my mind, I don't read it as a man demonstrating his strength, but as a human being being considerate to another human being.

First of all, I'm a human being. Second, I'm a woman. That's how I want people to treat me.
 
Unfortunately, the responses were exactly what I expected.

Immediately, a reactionary whip-out of the "PC card". Aside from being a hyperbolic term loaded with bullshit that I endeavor to avoid ever using- it's misapplied here.

Do you know what genuine "PC"ness is? It's claiming that nothing has motive, that no one should be judged, that nothing anyone does is "wrong" or even "questionable". It's saying that there is no innate ethical responsibility, that there is nothing anyone can rightfully condemn or even opine, because no one can possibly know "how it is". It is taking a stance of absolute opinional passivity, except toward those who are directed. In that case, the PC become virulently opinionated- against the opinionated.

It is not "PC" to simply state that there are sexist or stereotypical images in advertising- whether deliberate or structured to produce effect. Slapping the PC label on anyone who has issues with anything has become a favorite pasttime- but it's junk debate- and actually- semiotic, because it invokes a visceral reaction- similar to "feminist", as a matter of fact.

If we're going to belabor the point about AD and his delightful bedtime stories, allow me to be crystal clear.

To reiterate absolutely everything I said before, in a [fucking] nutshell for clarity's sake:

Rape fantasies are not inherently bad.

There is a reason "non-consent" is called "non-consent" and not "rape". It's a romanticized concept. People want to be controlled, people want to control. Being "forced" relieves people of the burdens of societal guilt in enjoying sexuality..blah blah blah. Lots of people eroticize control, being "taken". Most people do not eroticize the concept of knocking someone's teeth out, or having their teeth knocked out. Feel free to take exception to this, but I would say it is an "extreme" facet of rape fantasy.

Regardless of the "PC" concept that everyone's thoughts are basically good and ok, certain viewpoints are not embraced by the majority of society, and that is not a bad thing, however much you may insist that it is. Things are not black and white. We as a society choose which models to emulate, which to promote, and which to sanction.

"But it's fiction!!!"

"Fiction"- everyone's favorite red-herring. Yeah, it's all fiction. Government Propaganda is fiction. The Bible is fiction as far as I'm concerned, and look what that got us. Fiction implies acceptance. Fiction promotes ideology.

"According to social learning theorists, rape is learned and reinforce through four processes: " 1) by imitating rape scenes and other acts of violence toward women that are seen in person, conveyed by others, or depicted by the mass media, 2) by associating sexuality and violence, 3) by perpetuating various "rape myths," such as "No means Yes" and "Women secretly desire to be raped," and 4) by desensitizing men to the pain, fear, and humiliation of sexual aggression" (Brown, Esbensen, Geis, 1991)."

I wish I had never even mentioned that I personally thought AD had aspects of a psycho-sexual predator, because at that moment my opinion became a lightning rod for diversion from the actual issue at hand. Who gives a rat's ass if I believe he's a sick fuck? Or if I don't?

Me- personally- feeling one way or another is NOT an accusation. So give the witch-hunt a rest.

The only point that I ever meant to make: I think his story is Extreme. Enough about AD.

Are we claiming that "authors" on Lit willfully use semiotics?

No. That is a red-herring extrapolation that misses the point.

RE: mythical apocryphal beliefs about feminism:

Somewhere along the line the wounded guys of the boomer generation evolved this bizarre belief that "feminism" somehow entails violent opposition to chivalry. I honestly think this is almost too ridiculous to respond to- but here goes.

Respect and deference, gallantry- are never demeaning. I should hope you'd treat us differently than men- it's us you want to fuck, right? Not your pal Bob from the Elks Club. That's common biological courtship sense.

Guess what, Gallant- it ain't you we're condemning. It's Goofus over there. The guy that dismisses our comments and insights because of the fact that we lacked a spontaneous burst of testosterone in utero. The guy that secretly thinks we were "asking for it" because of our taste in clothes. The guy that immediately writes off any anger or irritation on a chick's part as unjustified bitch ranting- especially if it involves being female in any way.

Generally, guys who get all up in arms about "women's issues" and "feminist man-haters" have some other unpopular old-world holdovers privately contained within their belief system that makes them feel righteously indignant. Kind of like the old guy that still doesn't really trust blacks but would never admit to it out loud? Thus whenever "racism" comes up, he gets all sputtery and defensive out of guilt- even though no one else has any idea he identifies himself as a racist, and thus feels "attacked".

Conversely- Guys who get the simple idea that we just want the basic intellectual and social respect accorded sentient beings in a civilized society are not threatened by it. Why wouldn't anyone- Jews, blacks, whites, hula boys, pole-vaulters, elephant riders, certified public accountants- want those basic considerations?

There is no vast unwashed, unshaven conspiracy of unnatural women out there plotting elaborate new ways to kick you in the nuts. If you have actually met women who have reacted badly to the polite offering of a door, or the assisting of a chair, then you have met the unfortunate equivalent of the reactionary men I described above: someone who doesn't "get it"- merely from the other side.

Am I offended by the "Silk Cut" ads? No, I'm not. Do they point to the idea that ads use subversive conditioning to appeal to people on a sub-conscious level? You bet your ass.

A general note, but especially directed to Quint:

I couldn't possibly write enough addendums, qualifiers, caveats, post-scripts, annotations or footnotes to adequately validate every aspect of every thought I express. Thus, however thoroughly I might support and explain the main points of my intended statement, there will always be ambiguous minuitiae that can be hauled out and masticated to death by conversational buzzards.

I only hope that the actual value of what I have to say is not lost among those who are simply intent on discredit by technicality.

mademoiselle

Oh, and Never- I wasn't really "addressing" anyone. Just talking :)
 
Last edited:
The old Mlle:

The poem DarlingNikki quoted above clearly shows the roiling anger inside this guy. He's furious at beautiful women, his mother, at people who can afford nice vacations, at women who have nice cars and talk on cell phones. He sees brutalization and rape as a justified means of leveling the playing field. He's obsessed with women as "baby-making machines" and "cum-buckets", and with sowing his "seed". He fantasizes about a vision of perfection, a blue-eyed, 120 lb blonde angel who who will see past the fact that he's bald and old and fat and just love him, because that's all he wants- just to be loved!

[...]
It's not about the worth of his writing, or it's merit. To say that is useless Devil's Advocacy. This man's body of work presents the picture of an individual well on the path to raping or even murdering someone. I read his writing as a diary of intent.[my bolding, pure


The new Mlle:
I wish I had never even mentioned that I personally thought AD had aspects of a psycho-sexual predator, because at that moment my opinion became a lightning rod for diversion from the actual issue at hand. Who gives a rat's ass if I believe he's a sick fuck? Or if I don't?

Me- personally- feeling one way or another is NOT an accusation. So give the witch-hunt a rest.

The only point that I ever meant to make: I think his story is Extreme. Enough about AD.

======

Well, the first sentence of the 'new' is _mostly_ true, though 'had aspects of a psychosexual predator' is a bit of a fudge.

Since there are a few hundred words of baseless personal characterization (and almost nothing about the story), I do see the point of saying "I wish I had never mentioned..."

Will you withdraw the remarks as utterly without evidential basis?

After the first sentence things sort of deteriorate in the veracity and credibility dept.

"The only point I ever meant to make...[is the story belongs in _extreme_]" I think not.

Nor is it even your only point now, for witness


"According to social learning theorists, rape is learned and reinforce through four processes: " 1) by imitating rape scenes and other acts of violence toward women that are seen in person, conveyed by others, or depicted by the mass media, 2) by associating sexuality and violence, 3) by perpetuating various "rape myths," such as "No means Yes" and "Women secretly desire to be raped," and 4) by desensitizing men to the pain, fear, and humiliation of sexual aggression" (Brown, Esbensen, Geis, 1991)."


Your quote treats sexually violent stories as promoting actual rape. May we presume you agree? Would you not have an objection, then, to much stuff in 'extreme'? I hope it's not putting too fine a point on this matter to wonder if you're being less than candid among those 'free speech' types here that defend artistic expression of perversity and often violence.

As to the problem of imagined and real violence:
Mlle:
"But it's fiction!!!"

"Fiction"- everyone's favorite red-herring. Yeah, it's all fiction. Government Propaganda is fiction. The Bible is fiction as far as I'm concerned, and look what that got us. Fiction implies acceptance. Fiction promotes ideology.


This gnomic little rant isn't entirely clear, but your 'fiction implies acceptance'---does it apply to the other stories at literotica? does it cease to apply to a story when it's moved to extreme? does it apply to the other stories in 'extreme'? Should we be wary of stories in either place? Do the incest stories in the main area 'imply acceptance' of incest?


Most people do not eroticize the concept of knocking someone's teeth out, or having their teeth knocked out. Feel free to take exception to this, but I would say it is an "extreme" facet of rape fantasy.


This echoes what you said earlier, in the KM thread

Does a depiction of repeatedly punching, kicking and brutalizing a woman until her teeth are knocked out ...

Let's try your moralizing formula on some other topics: Most people do not eroticize their 18 yr old daughter's fucking them and Uncle Bill. Most people do not eroticize heavy flogging.
Most people, indeed, do not eroticize homosexual activity. Hmm... cuts a wide swath, doesn't it?

But here's the real issue. I see no reference in the SUV story to the woman's teeth being knocked out. Can you give us a quote? Since many of posters agreeing with you, didn't read the thing, perhaps they assume that canards you keep re-iterating are actually based in fact.

Given that 'fiction implies acceptance,' doesn't the whole 'porn' thing make you a little uncomfortable, for as McKinnon et al. state, it's a dangerous myth that the female is always ready for the taking, and comes from getting fucked by the first fellow and all the others that arrive home with hubby on one fine day. Do you have problem with that story?

Final query. Since you started a thread on the depravity of the SUV story, I'm not too clear what you mean by the discussion of the author (which you started) being a distraction from the actual issue at hand.

What IS the actual issue at hand, according to the 'new' Mlle.? What fictional sources of corruption--with their semeiotic machinations-- must we be especially wary of?

:rose:
 
Last edited:
I think you make a general habit of presuming too much, Pure- and putting a pixelated flower beside your corybantic screed doesn't efface that fact.

I haven't said anything different than I stated multiple times on the previous thread. Your damning excisions are plainly stated as my opinion, and they will continue to be my opinion. Retract them? Not even if you shoved a cell phone up my ass.

The problem is, Pure, I don't see the world in black and white.

It's convenient, sure- what a wonderful argument template- just taking anyone's stance on a subject all the way to it's ultimate extreme. Gosh, that could make anyone look fascist!

The problem is, this kind of tactic is the province of incendiary idiots.

Per your previous post:

' "This gnomic little rant isn't entirely clear, but your 'fiction implies acceptance'---does it apply to the other stories at literotica? does it cease to apply to a story when it's moved to extreme? does it apply to the other stories in 'extreme'? Should we be wary of stories in either place? Do the incest stories in the main area 'imply acceptance' of incest?" '


This is a misguided assumption, tantamount to me suggesting that because you feel Literotica's character age restrictions are extreme, you must just adore writing toddler porn.

Well, gee- what am I supposed to think, Pure? You obviously feel really strongly about being able to write about fifteen year olds screwing- doesn't that logically mean you must advocate writing about all ages?

I think suggesting that I am an enemy of free speech is pretty ridiculous, given that you just requested a retraction of mine.

Oh, and I think we've all read Farenheit 454 enough times in ninth grade to have gotten past the novelty of indignant milk-fed primer-school accusations of censorship.

Let me edify you.

You don't know what fucking censorship is.

Censorship is not about an individual finding a story unfit for the percieved expectations of a category. Talk to someone who didn't grow up in America or Britain, ask them what censorship is. Or talk to Dalton Trumbo.

But don't talk to me, because your methods as a catalyst for dissention- the knee-jerk assignment of motives, the generous broad-brush application of labels- are frankly distasteful.

If I sound personally offended, I am; the first amendment is a big deal for me. I don't take it lightly, and I don't relish you slinging implications of "anti" in my direction. That crosses the line.

' "I think not." '

Yes, quotes work well out of context, don't they? Your way really *is* easier.
 
Svenfleka:
"Once, when I discussed feminism with a girl in my class, she said: "I'm not a feminist. I want equality!"

I left the room, crying..."


I'd have stayed in the room, laughing…
That might be why people hate arguing with me at school.

Blue Pen:
"Oh, and Never- I wasn't really "addressing" anyone. Just talking :)"

Here I was, feeling all warm and special inside. But no. Go ahead - dash my dreams against reality. Everyone else does.
 
A new Perdita speaks. I will generally keep trying to be polite and poised in my posts, but my white gloves need to come off now. Yeah, I’m inspired by Mlle, the smartest person I’ve read on Lit. so far, and the most level headed and mature. I think there’s only one other person on Lit. I regard as highly, another woman.

First, if one reads the Lodge excerpt it’s obvious what his intent is in the overall “Semiotics for Beginners” context. In this excerpt he uses, very precisely and in context certain phrases, e.g., rippling expanse of purple silk…; as if the material had been slashed with a razor…; The advert thus appealed to both sensual and sadistic impulses, the desire to mutilate as well as penetrate the female body. …; Signs are never innocent. Whether one “sees” or “reads” the same does not matter in agreeing with the intent of the piece; give a real author credit, please, especially when there is no apparent ambiguity for discussion. If you don’t know what I mean, reread the piece. If you still don’t know, don’t tell me; I can’t care.

Posted by Never on 08-10-2003 05:15 PM
The woman in the article assumes that all the women who smoke Silk Cut have a masochistic impulse. I find it much easier to believe that women are acting off of the same 'sadistic' impulse the men are.


I don’t know what Never means by the same ‘sadistic’ impulse as men, don’t care to know at this point. The article does NOT assume all women who smoke Silk Cuts have a masochistic impulse, it states, Many women are masochistic by temperament… They’ve learned what’s expected of them in a patriarchal society. The comment fits perfectly in the content and intent of the piece. Reread it.

Posted by Quint on 08-10-2003 07:30 PM
Sure but the slit is grey, which is what Never was referring to. I also think it isn't particularly aesthetic, especially if it is supposed to be vaginal. (Isn't the equivalent of phallic called "vedic"? Or did my source make that up?) A good friend of mine is a film major and wrote a rather lengthy report over sexually violent images in movies. I never knew that chainsaws were interpretable as rape symbols, nor stakes. Buffy, a serial rapist. *shrugs*


Who cares if a cunt symbol is aesthetic? The “slit” speaks for itself; at least it’s a clean cut (tongue in cheek there). I’ve a good reading background on film criticism and a brother who is a published film critic, which only serves to say I have credentials here. You bet chainsaws are rape symbols (see De Palma's "Body Double" for one fine example, and it's a film I like; just as the port openings on the stranded ship in “Alien” are vagina dentatae (talk about fear of pussies!)

The point of Buffy as a vampire slayer who “stakes” vampires (male and female) is that she is the opposite of a rapist. She’s a “girl”, blond, not an intellectual or feminist stereotype, and she turns the tables on “rapists” and the metaphor of a pointy wooden stick. Semioticians, Post-structuralists, et al, are having a field day with “Buffy”, and fun to boot.

Miss Blue Pen said "If we were to all adhere to a regular standard of how women deserve to be treated, without individuals down-selling our dignity for personal gain, then "female hysteria" and "feminazis" wouldn't exist." I don't believe any regular standard does or could exist. Is there a consensus on how children ought to be treated? Animals? Foreign countries? Total different fields, but the point is that they are vague and huge terms that vary greatly on an individual basis. My opinion is that each person should be treated exactly as they deserve to be, all other factors notwithstanding.

Well, who doesn’t feel this way (but for the millions of racists, misogynists, etc. we hear about everyday)? What’s so ‘vague’ and ‘huge’ about women’s rights? Quint’s seeming naiveté is astonishing to me and serves no purpose or rebuttal to Mlle’s points.

I agree and confess to a great many other points that you raised about downplaying the authenticity of feminists. However, ideally I want it to come down to "I can dismiss this idea because I believe it to be wrong or ill-informed" for all, and thus be free to say "bah" to a particular person who may in fact identify as a feminist. I don't think we disagree on this issue but I've been dying for a good clarification-of-a-point-that-needs-none.

Well, who doesn’t feel this way (but for the millions of misogynists we hear about everyday)?

Posted by Weird Harold on 08-10-2003 11:36 PM
1: Lit is an adult board, and is unlikely to affect attitudes and prejudices that develop long before a personis legally able to access this site.

3: IMHO, 99.9999% of authors here at Lit are NOT accomplished enough to actually consciously use semiotics to either promote or discourage anything. It requires a good deal of knowledge and linguistic skill to consciously use the language to shape a reader's opinions without causing them to back-click or low-ball the votes.

In short, I object to anyone who think the injustices that their ancestors endured entitle them to "special treatment" or "compensation." I don't care if the injustices were racial, gender, or religious based, they do NOT entitle anyone today to special treatment.

Violence against womenis WRONG; there is absolutely noquestion about that. However, violence against children, jews, native americans, blacks, the homeless, or anyone else is equally wrong. The problem is violence in real life, no matter who it is directed against.

Violence in fiction is another matter entirely. Without violence, racism, religious intolerance, drugs and other "bad things" that people want to ban from fiction, there can be no villians and damn little conflict. Without villians and conflict, Fiction is boring and unrealistic.


1. Of course my and Mlle’s arguments are not aimed at anyone not on Lit. Many agree that a child’s moral character is formed very early but it’s no reason to not keep trying to inform or educate anyone over five years old. Sheesh!

3. No one is advocating semiotics as a technique for Lit. writers. The excerpt’s inclusion was not to promote critical theory and practice but to lend some credence to the points about rape erotica vs. non-consent.

… And I nor Mlle are advocating compensation for a world history of patriarchy, nor special treatment. What’s so special about even a small group of women who are offended by violent rape fiction and its place in a section too naively titled “non-consent”? See Mlle’s points on the difference between nc and rape.

Great, just throw in all the wrongs of humanity (jews, the homeless, etc.) and get on Quint’s Pollyanna-ish train. No one wants to censor violence in fiction, or anything else outside kiddie-sex. Why can’t anyone, even wise old Harold, get the point?

Now we come to the subjectively dyslexic logician, Pure, who of course says, “Well said, WH.” I say, NOT well said at all, but not as badly said as Pure continues.

Posted by Pure on 08-11-2003 06:11 AM
… Unfortunately, the language police have problem about the connection between violent words in fiction and violent acts:
[Perd:]
I merely thought it would be significant if an Erotica site, or at least its populace, took a positive stand against the pervasiveness of violence to women in our society, and the 'arts'.

PC folks always think that in eliminating a 'sign' of something you do something toward eliminating the something; if you eliminate talk of 'dwarves' you help eliminate the real problems of actual 'small people.' If you eliminate talk of the 'blind', you're helping the lives of the 'visually challenged.'

It's a effortless way to publicly call attention to one's own virtue and benevolence by pointing out that one's *language* has been pruned of words that directly indicate unseemly things; to imply that in calling for others to purge their language one is inducing them to behave in a more humane way. …


“Language police”? Get off it, you jerk. Yeah, J. is for jerk now. I only demand, no gloves remember, that you reread Mlle’s comments on what’s PC and why we are NOT. You’re the most half-assed PC person around at the moment. Stupid examples too about dwarves and blind people; good examples of dyslexic logic though, and I say that with NO offense to real dyslexics.

“Calling attention to one’s own virtue and benevolence”? Who the fuck are you to judge my or anyone’s motives? And what would it have to do with the points at hand? You’re a pompous airhead of a wanker, Pure. And, I agree with everything Mlle says about you above, and thank her for my not having to regurgitate and spew more than this. I only wish I had her vocabulary and flair for expression. The only thing I’d like to purge is you. How’s that for subjective frankness?

Just so you don’t waste your time, let alone mine, I’m fairly certain I have no more to say to you. Your statements and literary techniques are nil; it’s ridiculous to me that I might find a need to respond further to you. Sod off and good riddance you over-stuffed twat (hit Ignore, Perdita).

Perdita
 
On a lighter note.............

Originally posted by Never Here I was, feeling all warm and special inside. But no. Go ahead - dash my dreams against reality. Everyone else does.
Dear Ms Never,
Are you going to extinguish that cigarette and get your feet off the couch? I hope you aren't going to make me come over there.
MG's Mom
 
Oh, Never! I can't win with you!

*laugh*

Look. Now you should feel all warm and squidgy, cause I have for you:

double nanas!
:nana: :nana:

miss blue pen
 
Arrrgghhhhhhh

Ohmigod, I've got dancing bananas! Better readjust my internet options.
MG
Ps. Hey Perdita,
Is that Brigett Nilsson?
 
Back
Top