Amazons International # 34 ************************** Contents: Words from editor News: alt.amazon-women.admirers Patrick: Re: Polymorphous erotic Pete: Re: Polymorphous erotic Jennifer: Gripes with recent postings Thomas: Re: Gripes with recent postings Jennifer: Re: Gripes with recent postings Mitch: Re: Bodybuilders and anorexic women Thomas: Objectification and gender roles Date of Transmission: 30.12.93 ************************************************************** Words from editor This issue of Amazons International is severely delayed; my apologies to all yearning souls yonder. The last couple of months I've had a really heavy multiple-jobs and exam workload crunch. The thing about getting overloaded and delayed is that the catching-up takes more time than the sum of the various tasks would if they could be done 'going-with-the-flow-style' immediately upon arrival. Anyway, you will now receive three issues of AI within short time. This is (I think) the all-time issue with the most "follow-ups" to messages in the previous issue. These have been waiting far too long, so they'll be prioritized. But first there is something else: =====*******===== NEWSFLASH =====*******===== 2-3 weeks ago Jim Woodard started a usenet newsgroup devoted to Amazons. Jim Woodard is, as you may recall, the owner of the Amazon's Arena BBS and a member of AI (see his bio and info in AI # 31). The name of the newsgroup is alt.amazon-women.admirers. There are already many participants and several threads of discussion. Check if the group is present at your system, and ask your local news administrator to take it in if it isn't. Some of you are on sites that do not carry alt.-groups, and some are on sites that do not carry usenet at all. In that case, your only possibility to access the information of the newsgroup is that somebody sets up a mailing list feed that picks up and forwards messages posted to the newsgroup to you, so that you get it as if it were a mailinglist. I don't know what this would require of work and expertise -- anybody care to comment or volunteer? - Thomas The Golden Rule of erotic wrestling: The pin is mightier than the sword! ************************************************************** Date: 09 Oct 93 18:03:09 EDT From: Paul Robinson <72162.261@CompuServe.COM> Subject: "polymorphous erotic" > . . . But the reason that I'm writing at this point has > to do with my wish to disturb the stereotypes that rule AI > . . . Aloha, Marcia. Some of your thought-provoking comments of Sept. 4th in AI #33 uncovered the fact that my built-in word processing dictionary is almost totally worthless in being able to transliterate Internet bytes to ASCII to text reader software that I can readily understand. I stumbled over a couple of terms . . ."taxonomies" and "polymorphous" (neither of which were in the online dictionary . . . but otherwise found myself delighted with the thrust of your thesis. One of the dangers those of us who have a predilection for Amazons face is that of becoming too fixated on the physical stereotypes. However, I feel that Thomas has provided us with a fairly drawn map, to keep us within his arbitrarily set boundaries of "Amazonishness." At least part of your argument, if I understand it properly, is that we shouldn't mistake the map for the territory . . . and that we should constantly be pushing against these stereotypical boundaries, to enjoy the far-reaching territories as seen through the eyes of other travelers journeying through the Land of the Amazons. Agreed! However, I also feel that the stereo- typical viewpoints that seem to *rule* AI become the seasoning that makes this electronic journal so tasty. The dash of concern you've added makes it just that much more delicious, at least to me. Patrick Robinson (72162.261@compuserve.com) ************************************************************** Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1993 14:16:12 +0100 From: Pete J Suters Subject: Re: Polymorphous erotic I was very interested to read Marcia Ian's article regarding sexual roles in the last issue. Broadly I am in agreement with her, in that it does seem that male-submissive erotica is very prevalent in Amazons International, and I can see that she would feel a little underrepresented. We all have our particular preferences when it comes to our sexual roles. Speaking for myself, I am part of the group of men who prefers to be sexually submissive to a woman. I enjoy being overpowered by a strong muscular woman. This is the role I always prefer to be in. However, I can understand others who prefer to be in alternating roles, or women that prefer to be the submissive ones, despite being Amazons themselves. We are all free to choose whatever we like, and as long as it comes down to the consensus of two equal partners in a relationship, there is no reason why two people should not give each other what they really need. In my reading of previous editions of AI, I have not encountered many articles from women who prefer to be in the dominant role. Many articles seem to focus on either equality or being in a submissive or alternating role. Simularly, articles from men seem to veer towards the male submissive range of preferences. Are there AI subscribers who do not fit into these categories? I would like to think that we represent a broad range of opinions, rather than pulling in separate directions. I know from personal experience that there are women who prefer to be sexually dominant, yet enjoy the equality and fellowship of a good relationship at the same time, and can sometimes be vulnerable and need the support of their partner. I'm afraid I can't speak from the male perspective, as the only Amazon Admirers I know of are here, and most seem to follow my preferences. I hope that Marcia's article has opened up an interesting debate where all views can be freely and honestly expressed. I also hope that AI will continue to serve all its members and continue to provide the support and friendship that Amazons and Amazon Admirers all need. Pete ************************************************************** Date: Sun, 03 Oct 93 09:44:11 EDT From: IO11283 Subject: Gripes about recent AI posts Well, you said to write you with any dissent, and I was triggered enough by what I read in the latest edition (AI # 33) to write. I guess i am beginning to wonder if AI is the discussion group for me. You know I posted a bio in one of the earlier issues, AI # 24 (I am Jennifer Sanborn of Maine). It seemed to me when I posted that bio that this group and I had a lot in common, but I am beginning to wonder. Lately I feel like AI is solely for discussion of female bodybuilding, and similar objectification on the basis of musculature. I'm bothered by the fact that most of the men posting about the glories of strong women are looking at them like cartoon characters, or sex toys -- only from the outside. (I lift weights, but only for sport-specific reasons, for speedskating, not to get huge or to be a pro bodybuilder, so I can certainly identify with some of the women's posts about things in gyms, but the bodybuilding circuit is foreign to me.) While I agree with the poster this time that anorexic women aren't attractive, and that this image is dangerous to our young developing women for both medical and psychological reasons, I don't think it is necessary to strictly look at a pro bodybuilder and say "this is the image a woman should live up to", and to compare for shock value to try and inform or persuade our culture. I guess what has really angered me is that a lot of the recent posts which are supposedly glorifying the strength of women, and the Amazon image/ideal are just objectifying women with a different measuring stick. Can you refute or explain anything that might have lead me to this conclusion? Am I all wet in your opinion? On another note -- can you give me some more bibliography for The Valkyries which is quoted at the end of each edition of AI? Please? - Jennifer ************************************************************** Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1993 3:23:14 +0100 (and re-edited 30.12.93) From: Thomas Gramstad Subject: Re: Gripes about recent AI posts In response to Jennifer: I too had the feeling that Steve's message was objectifying or at least could be read that way; that's one reason I was skeptical to it. The other is that anorexia etc. is a serious problem for those they affect, while Steve seems to regard it mainly as an esthetical issue. When I decided to publish it anyway, it was because his message goes so strongly against the common beauty myths. I'm still not sure whether it was the best solution to publish it as it was -- on the one hand his submission could have been improved through editing, on the other hand it has incited several thoughtful responses, including the essay further down by me about Objectification and gender roles, which might otherwise not have been conceived or written. Only a minority of AI readers post. There is no reason to assume that they necessarily are representative of the whole group as such, or to assign them a spokesperson role or some such. I feel that you are doing that when you say that you are beginning to wonder if AI is the right group for you, and that it's only concerned with bodybuilding etc. AI is based on text, so those who write becomes more visible than those who don't, and will influence the tone and themes. When things are going in an unwanted direction, the best thing to do is to write, like you did, to move things in another direction. > I'm bothered by the fact that most of the men posting about > the glories of strong women are looking at them like > cartoon characters, or sex toys -- only from the outside. With this I have to disagree -- at least as it stands in the form of a general statement like that. That is, I disagree, first, with the idea that being turned on by muscles implies that one regards the other as a sex-toy. (I'm not saying that no man does this; I'm saying that not all, and I hope, not many, men do this, and that there is no necessary connection between "I love muscles" and "sex-toy".) Secondly, I disagree with the idea that "I love muscles" must imply "I only look at you from the outside". After all, it takes a lot of mental qualities to build and maintain those muscles and fitness. So they're much more a part of the inner person than those outward aspects one happens to be born with, those outward aspects that are stressed in traditional ideals of female beauty. And that's a very important difference; traditional ideals lead to passivity and objectification because it's about things women are born with, while ideals anchored in muscularity (and other self-made or chosen characteristics) presuppose and express personal power, dedication and will, and hence point to and reflect the person. > I guess what has really angered me is that a lot of the > recent posts which are supposedly glorifying the strength > of women, and the Amazon image/ideal are just objectifying > women with a different measuring stick. I'm not saying that this can't happen, but I hope I have made the case that one cannot generalize from any instance of preoccupation with some aspect of the body to conclude that it is an instance of objectification. There is also the issue of what objectification is, and whether it is always bad -- and if not, in what kind of situations is it good, and when is it bad? See the essay further down. There seems to be a statistical difference between men and women in that many men are very focused at visual input (such as aspects of the body), while many women are more focused on the kinesthetic (touch/feel)-sense. I wonder if this is a cause of plenty miscommunication between men and women. To me it's obvious that a muscular body is a concrete symbol of strength and thereby naturally becomes a focal point of sexual energies, through a process that definitely is not some belittling kind of objectification. (See also what I wrote about realism and symbolism in AI # 33.) > On another note -- can you give me some more bibliography for > The Valkyries which is quoted at the end of each edition of > AI? Please? Ehh, it's the b-word again... :-) They're a group of female bodybuilders who produce T-shirts, bags, decals, and other items for sale. They have the same symbolic view of female bodybuilding that I advocate, so they see themselves as a vanguard of feminism, presenting a new image of women. - Thomas ************************************************************** Date: Wed, 06 Oct 93 07:55:35 EDT From: IO11283 Subject: Re: Gripes about recent AI posts Thanks for your response Thomas -- I think a lot of misunderstanding happens over these computerized discussions due to the loss of the intonation, etc. of speech, which more often than not, can tell more about a statement than the words. I think I may have read this issue in a particularly defensive moment, but I don't think I was really all wet in what I wrote. Certainly I made some generalizations that don't fit all members of AI, and I know that there are more readers than posters, as you said. I have no contact with the list other than what is posted, though, so this does set a tone. I agree that men are often more visually oriented than women, and this can probably explain some of the miscommunication. Or maybe I just feel a bit left out becuase I don't understand all the references to pro bodybuilding, and certain pro bodybuilding celebrities, but I had thought this group was a broader based discussion, and I've been feeling that I haven't had anything to identify with in a lot of the previous issues. In retrospect, I believe I had serious gripes with the objectification of women -- just measuring them with a different yardstick, and the trivializing of eating disorders as something that is just aesthetically displeasing, and the rest of my tone was more of a call for different kinds of discussion. Not that I think bodybuilding is bad or wrong, I just don't follow it, and I don't understand the references people are making, so I feel as if I shouldn't be in the group if that is what is going to be the focal point of discussion. - Jennifer ************************************************************** Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1993 12:36:00 CDT From: "U15289%UICVM.bitnet" Subject: Re: Steve on bodybuilders and anorexic women 'Steve200' wrote in AI # 33: > (1) As you probably know from my subscribing to AI, I think > women with big muscles are sexy. I don't care for tall, fat, ^^^^ > or women with aggressive personalities (in fact, I think they ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > make women less attractive). The bigger, and stronger the > woman, the sexier she is. This seems curiously contradictory to the overall tone of Steve's essay, not to mention the general spirit of AI. There certainly is nothing incongruous about an Amazon being tall; indeed, some may consider it integral to the concept. If by "aggressive" Steve means "obnoxious," almost all of us would agree wih him; but if he means "assertive"--which, for whatever reason, was my initial impression--he again contradicts the whole _gestalt_ of Amazonism as we know it. Go figure :-). > [...] If a real bodybuilding woman can handle 300 lbs > benchpresses, it would take 7 women to overcome the immense > strength of an Amazon! It's a little unclear to me, from the way this is worded, whether he means "Amazon" and "real bodybuilding woman" to be synonymous. (This may very well be the case, but to me there remains an element of ambiguity.) If it takes seven real bodybuilding women, as opposed to seven more typical women, to overcome an Amazon, then the latter must be far stronger than even we pictured her :-). Mitch Pravatiner ************************************************************** From: Thomas Gramstad Subject: Objectification and gender roles There seems to be a statistically significant difference in the perception of objectification between women and men. When women talk about objectification, what they usually refer to seems to be unwanted sexual attention, and a belittling of themselves expressed by some man through his focusing on some physical or bodily aspect of the woman, which is perceived by the woman as a neglect of or lack of interest and respect for her character, personality, achievements and individual uniqueness. How do men (often) perceive objectification? What strikes me as a typical example is a Danish sexologist whose name escapes me, but who in an essay that I read many years ago made a lasting impression when he wrote that he couldn't at all understand why women complained about being viewed as sex objects -- he considered being viewed as a sex object to be a great experience and honor that he unfortunately far too seldom experienced and cherished on those occasions he could! This is a gender role issue. While boys are taught to be active, aggressive, to lead, take initiatives and all the rest, girls are taught to be passive, submissive, quiet and so on. In short, boys are trained to be subjects and girls are trained to be objects. When young women develop their character and personality, they soon rub against the edges of the cultural-personal cage, of which the 'object expectations' are an important constituent. Is this why women often have bad feelings toward anything that has a flavor of objectification? When young men develop their character and personality, they are expected to treat everything as instruments or objects to be commanded, and women are so often presented to them as objects too, in the media, beauty myths etc. Is this why many men seem to have difficulties in recognizing and respecting signals about unwanted sexual attention and in finding other modes of attention and communication? Moreover, is this part of the reason why men, when they find themselves in the role as sex objects, experience that as something unexpectedly and surprisingly positive and relaxing, self-building, an honor etc., a release from their own cultural-personal cage of always being expected to be the active subject, the leader and doer? What I'm getting at here are two points: (1) Objectification, in and by itself, is not a bad thing. On the contrary, it has the potential to make one feel visible in the world and attractive and appreciated. Whether one recognizes it or not, I think that some measure of one's sexual pleasure does arise in objectifying your lover -- lusty objectification is an integral part of the best sex and of the most loving sex. And of attraction, and of flirting, and of much non-verbal communication and... Everyone has a need to be, or will benefit from being, able to experience oneself as both subject and object, being able to shift from one to the other at will. (2) The arbitrary gender roles completely warp the role and nature of objectification. Instead of being a source of personal pleasure, enjoyment and recharge (as it would be in a balanced society), objectification has turned into some kind of twisted political/cultural power issue, half the population being constrained in their careers and personal development by being over-objectified, and the other half being similarly (or more precisely, complementary) constrained by being under-objectified. In other words, most women will react and revolt against the degree to which they are objectified in the current culture and with good reason; and most men will react to the experience of being a sex object with a feeling of satisfaction, lust and hunger. And this adds up to a serious communication problem (don't they all, all the gender role issues?). ********************************************************** * Amazons International * * Thomas Gramstad, editor: thomas@smaug.uio.no * * Administravia: amazons-request@math.uio.no * * Submissions: amazons@math.uio.no * ********************************************************** "A Hard Woman is Good to Find" -- The Valkyries