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