[lbo-talk] Theory of Porn

[kelley at pulpculture.org]

At 12:54 PM 2/3/2004, Michael Dawson -PSU wrote:
> > Anyone who reads a good deall of erotic material from _before_ the 19th
> > century and then reads the professional pornography produced in
> > thousands of volumes in the late 19th century in England, and who still
> > thinks that some major change didn't happen . . . doesn't even know the
> > meaning of the word "historical."
> >
> > Carrol
>
>Thinking historically requires keeping the right question in mind, among
>other things.  The issue isn't whether a big change happened in modern
>times -- who would would deny that an explosion of printing presses would
>produce an explosion of porn? -- but whether porn existed before capitalism.
>It did.
>
>Meanwhile, where can one buy all of Carrol Cox's books?  She seems to
>promise that she's the biggest thing since sliced bread in just about any
>area you care to name...

No, the claim was that porn didn't exist as a _genre_, but emerged 
1500-1800. Lynn Hunt (and Ken) ddidn't argue that porn didn't exist prior 
to that era. I suspect it's probably an argument very similar to the 
argument that homosexuality, as we understand it today, didn't exist prior 
to the 1800s. Ultimately, whether you buy it or not, there's plenty of info 
out there on the 'net and in your library, so you can judge Hunt's claims 
for yourself. Maybe we'd even have a much more fruitful conversation than 
what has transpired so far--with some interlocutors unable to grasp the 
basic claim to begin with.

Kelley

and hey, Carrol, be proud. at least you didn't have to endure the "penis 
envy" comment. :)