I'm in a mood to explore (I'd originally typed 'explode', maybe there's a bit of THAT going on, too, as I broaden my mind) the widening caverns of my mind, to go down tunnels I've not yet been and see if any treasure can be found.

I got side tracked in my web-meanders last night. I ended up going from link to link and ended up at a rather interesting site called 'The Purging Talon'. Ow! What images this title calls up, from birds plucking out one's eyes or the finger that an anorexic uses . . .

. . . okay, I'll cease that passage of thought right now. I apologize for your upset tummy. Ahem! Anyway, the title bar of this web site's main page proudly declares PURGING TALON: DISEMBOWELING HERD CULTURE SINCE 1993CE. Yes, it sounds painful. And he doesn't offer painkillers.

But the articles the web author writes are thought-provoking. Even if he did call Setians 'anteater worshippers'.

''I don't see Baphomet winning any beauty contests!''

I'm not under any contract to forgive him, so I'm not. But, as I said before, the author, a Matt Paradise, writes interesting articles. He's Not Like Most (Okay, SOME. OKAY! A FEW!!) Satanists, in that he doesn't merely feature Christian bashing, ''Anti-Christianity is such a tiny part of Satanism (and less so as a person gets older and puts away childish things). I have no concern for Christianity myself. Many of us don't. It is a foreign, extremely alien body of thought to our very core personalities.''

Okay, he's 'mature'. He deals with 'adult' themes. He has an article called "Let's Hear It For Sexual Objectification!" Would only a Satanist have the balls to write such an article? The readers of Playboy, Playgirl and various such other publications would certainly agree, but would they say so in such sharp terms? I was originally going to write 'blunt terms', but then I remembered his is the pointy-sharp talon that pierces, stabs, AND 'disembowels'. Whew!

Various of these Leveyian Satanist sites feature images of scantily clad women. A 'Deeta' of the amazing 'Teata' invites you to her web page on one such site. She doesn't seem to be oppressed by the 'patriarchy'. I have to admit her smiling face seems to suggest she's having a damn good time.

I can't say she isn't. And those who would try are robbing that person of the ability to speak for themselves.

Paradise states, ''It is a brutal call, but the reason why Madonna doesn't scream injustice and why Andrea Dworkin does has a whole lot to do with the fact that one person is not only sexually endowed but has learned to utilize it to her best advantage and the other person has little to no chance in Hades of achieving such a goal.''

That's cold. He's saying it's because a woman might be homely by societies standards, that she will be incensed by those ladies 'strutting their stuff'. However, when Andrea Dworkin speaks of 'pornography' and when Matt Paradise speaks of 'pornography', it soon becomes clear they are talking about two different things.

Let's look at what the dictionary declares as 'pornography':

Etymology: Greek pornographos, adjective, writing about prostitutes, from pornE prostitute + graphein to write; akin to Greek pernanai to sell, poros journey -- more at FARE, CARVE Date: circa 1864

1 : the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement

But when we go to Dworkin's site, we find a radically different definition of pornography than our objective dictionary source:

''Pornography is defined as the graphic, sexually explicit subordination of women in pictures and/or words that also includes women presented dehumanized as sexual objects who enjoy pain or humiliation; or women presented as sexual objects who experience sexual pleasure in being raped; or women presented as sexual objects tied up or cut up or mutilated or bruised or physically hurt; or women presented as whores by nature; or women presented being penetrated by objects or animals; or women presented in scenarios of degradation, injury, torture, shown as filthy or inferior, bleeding, bruised, or hurt in a context that makes these conditions sexual. If men, children, or transsexuals are used in any of the same ways, the material also meets the definition of pornography.''

Of course THIS form of 'pornography' is something about which to be incensed. This type glorifies ABUSE of women. Those smiling dancing teasing ladies with their assets pushed high are having fun. They are not being 'abused', unless it were discovered they were being forced to do this against their will. But this isn't likely. It wouldn't be 'sexy' for the viewer if the woman herself wasn't enjoying herself.

So how did Dworkin's pornography definition become so diverged from the standard source? Clearly the things she addresses are vastly different than the 'visuals' of which Paradise speaks.

I wonder that. Painful, abusive experiences in one's own life can certainly change one's perspective on things. Dworkin admits:

Yet when I wrote Intercourse and Pornography: Men Possessing Women, I used my life in every decision I made. It was my compass. Only by using it could I find north and stay on course. If a reader could lift up the words on the page, she would see-- far, far under the surface--my life. If the print on the page turned into blood, it would be my blood from many different places and times. But I did not want the reader to see my life or my blood. I wanted her to see intercourse or pornography. I wanted her to know them the way I know them: which is deeply.

I felt once again the simpleton, thinking, 'But isn't this part of what being attracted to women means?' I admit some of the feminist perspective is lost on me. I'm as 'homely' as Paradise declares Dworkin, so my perspective sure isn't because I'm a raving beauty that sends men panting. Maybe you can blame it on the male 'Charlie energy' residing within me. I don't 'get' the anger some women possess. Over thirty years of the monthly bleeds and I don't 'get' it.

I just think women can be sexy, allure men (and a few women) and not lose power doing it.

Maybe Dworkin needs to be put to the test and asked, ''Don't you admit this can happen?'' And Paradise needs to be similarily tested, ''Don't you agree abuses can and do occur, more often than you'd like to admit?''

The balanced approach is so often the wise one.

Meanwhile 'Dita Von Teese' looks purty hot in that little black suit and top hat.

Go to Call It By Whatever Name You Wish
Go to Archive - May 2003 to April 2004
Go Back to INDEX of Markings Of My Path
© JAL: