Blakes7 March 2001

blakes7@lists.lysator.liu.se

96 participants
1067 discussions

Re: Re [B7L] PWP (porn? what porn?)
by Bizarro7＠aol.com 05 Mar '01

05 Mar '01

In a message dated 3/4/01 12:07:55 PM Eastern Standard Time, tavia(a)btinternet.com writes: << (LEAH:) If you stop having sex of any kind, you are not behaving in a natural fashion.<< >> Hmm. The 'natural' function of sex is procreation. So all sex without that as its aim is 'unnatural' ? The one thing I've learned over the years is there's no such thing as normal in this area. >> Like Neil, you appear to have misinterpreted my phrase. The subject matter I was discussion was complete abstention from addictive activities. My statement was clearly referring to 'cold turkey' (complete abstention from any kind of sex) as not the norm for most life forms, the human animal included. This is not to imply that people who choose not to have sex, or a certain kind of sex, are 'unnatural'. It simply means they are not behaving according to the usual norm of nature, with respect to their species. Leah

1 0

Re: [B7L] Re: slash
by Bizarro7＠aol.com 05 Mar '01

05 Mar '01

In a message dated 3/4/01 10:59:42 AM Eastern Standard Time, calle(a)lysator.liu.se writes: << What about Vila and Kerril in "City at the Edge of the World"? >> Yes thanks for refreshing my memory! To this day I marvel, however, at how fastideous they were about restoring their clothing to pristine order afterward. :) Actually, you have to admit that they showed no more 'real' physical sex between these two than they did between anyone else on the show. It was all coyly implied. Leah

1 0

Re: slash
by Steve Rogerson 05 Mar '01

05 Mar '01

Fiona said: "Just because I like chocolate ice cream, it's a bit much to assume that I'll also like vanilla." The point is that I wouldn't make any assumption about your feelings towards vanilla either way. It is you who seems to be saying that because someone likes chocolate they therefore don't like vanilla. -- cheers Steve Rogerson http://homepages.poptel.org.uk/steve.rogerson Redemption: The Blake's 7 and Babylon 5 convention 21-23 February 2003, Ashford, Kent http://www.smof.com/redemption

2 1

Re: wobblevision
by Steve Rogerson 05 Mar '01

05 Mar '01

Excellent Emma, and Michael Sheard's hunger (?) captured for eternity. -- cheers Steve Rogerson http://homepages.poptel.org.uk/steve.rogerson Redemption: The Blake's 7 and Babylon 5 convention 21-23 February 2003, Ashford, Kent http://www.smof.com/redemption

1 0

Re: Re [B7L] PWP (porn? what porn?)
by Bizarro7＠aol.com 05 Mar '01

05 Mar '01

In a message dated 3/3/01 9:20:22 PM Eastern Standard Time, littles(a)lycos.co.uk writes: << Ah, but... supposing you work in an office where everyone eats a lot of chocolate? Gradually you start eating more and more too... and let's just hope you're smart enough to recognise how much is too much, and what's causing you to eat too much, or you're going to need to go on a serious slimming diet. >> Food and sex are two addictions that have something in common, that set them apart from addictions to things like cigarettes, drugs and gambling. They are natural functions that can not be quit 'cold turkey.' You can live without cigarettes, recreational drugs or gambling. If you stop eating, you die. If you stop having sex of any kind, you are not behaving in a natural fashion. Therefore, it's much more difficult to manage these, as they are simply a matter of managed degree of addiction. In the case of food, you have, at least, a visible means of telling when you've reached an unhealthy level of use. But the level of our sex lives is frequently subject to judgement that has nothing to do with physical health. The "normality" of sex is often dictated by ephimerial social mores based on a certain religion (and the society that sets laws according to that religion). The truth, however, is that once you are practicing safe sex and indulging with only consenting adults, there really isn't anything unhealthy about sex (unless you adventure with positions that your back will punish you for, later!).

3 2

site update
by Emma Peel 05 Mar '01

05 Mar '01

Redemption Wobblevision (Shadow) is now up on site, as well as worship for April. Apologies in advance that there won't be another update until late April/early May as real life is about to explode. Enjoy the usual poor quality items :-). Actually the pictures have come out really well, but I'm so knackered my page editing is not too spiffy... Emma http://avon.tvheaven.com

2 1

Re: [B7L] Re: in calm discussion (was Deliverance)
by Ashton7＠aol.com 05 Mar '01

05 Mar '01

In a message dated 3/1/01 10:02:57 AM Eastern Standard Time, nydersdyner(a)yahoo.co.uk writes: << BTW, Una, you've met him-- is Jenkins really this horrible demon bloke who came in and didn't tell anyone bar a few what he was really doing? I read "Textual Poachers" years ago, and while I haven't read it lately, I was shocked to hear Annie say his work was ethically suspect... >> I did NOT say this. Please do NOT put words in my mouth. That is hardly "scientific" or "non-biased," or "academic," is it? If you are going to repeatedly misinterpret and twist people's words, it's no wonder that they will equate your "study" of them as akin to being a lab rat with no say in the matter. I never categorized Jenkins as "ethically suspect" or some sort of "horrible demon bloke." In fact, I very carefully pointed out that he corresponded directly with both Leah and myself and that *we personally* had NO problems with anything he said or did. That doesn't change the fact that other fans over the years DID have problems with it. Annie

6 7

Re: Re [B7L] PWP (porn? what porn?)
by Cheryl _ 05 Mar '01

05 Mar '01

I have selected a few points around the list to which I would like to directly respond, I thought it economical to condense in one post. I hope this is okay. Ellynne said: >>Regular consumers of porn show a marked tendency to be more callous towards women and to minimize rape as a criminal offense.<< To which Dana replied: >>Is this cause or effect--i.e., haven't these attitudes been formed before the individual becomes a consumer of pornography?<< My response: Whilst it is most certainly true, that there are people who do not respect common decency, and who have no compunction regards taking what they want, or doing what they wish, due to a deviant set of moral guidelines - and - to whom the removal of porn would make absolutely no difference to their behavioural patterns whatsoever - I personally don't think that this is the whole issue...To take the case of impressionable youth, if something is shown to be an acceptable form of expression, then many of the younger set(who may not have been provided with a set of moral principals during their formative years)may very well develop a distorted view as to what is acceptable behaviour towards not only the opposite sex but pretty much toward anyone in general. OR To take the case of the previously mentioned natural deviant...whilst lack of porn will not prevent this character from going about his/her 'business' I think that an open acknowledgement that this is unacceptable material, will make said deviant stop and think a bit more before going ahead with any plans that he/she may have. To openly approve of this type of material is in some respects saying to this type of mind - Hey, it's okay...express yourself. This is not an argument against the average Joe, enjoying a bit of smut/whatever, but more a statement as to what I think it represents to the uninformed mind and what statements (allowing this type of material to infiltrate the non porn areas)this makes to our deviant types about our general regard for one another as a whole. It is in these two areas that I think the problem can manifest. Dana said: >>Any fiction is something that the writer has dreamed up and wants other people to see. Personally, given a choice between reading about the crew blowing up a Federation installation, except somebody gets trapped in the basement without a working teleport bracelet and [omitted in the interests of good taste and list etiquette] I'd tend to choose the latter.<< Now this does confuse me, you just gave a brief rundown on a similar scene from S-L-D, I would have thought that as a B7 fan - the first scenario would be more to the average fans taste. Fan fiction is by definition - fiction based on a show or whatever and/or its character(s) of which any given individual is a fan - I would have thought that B7 fan fiction would be more about what the show is about, otherwise, why call it fan fiction? I have to wonder, just how many fans of B7, Star trek and the like are actually fans of the show or just see characters with whom they would like to immerse in the realm of porn/slash. Steve said: >>They show at various times that they fancy women, but that cannot be said as a declaration of heterosexuality unless they also say they don't fancy men.<< I don't think it is feasible to expect every single individual to declare that they don't fancy the same sex just to prove that they are heterosexual - I think the fact that all the men on B7 having either declared an interest in the opposite sex and/or actually kissed or had sex with women only and no such declarations or actions occurred between the men, pretty much speaks for itself. ===== Cheryl. (My favourite 'Blake's 7' moment) What a fiasco! We could take over the ship you said, if I did my bit. Well, I did my bit, and what happened? Your 'troops' bumble around looking for someone to surrender to, and when they've succeeded, You, follow suit! (Avon to Blake. "Spacefall") _____________________________________________________________________________ http://store.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Store - The fastest, easiest way to open an online store.

2 1

Re: [B7L] Re: slash
by Bizarro7＠aol.com 05 Mar '01

05 Mar '01

In a message dated 3/4/01 7:33:47 AM Eastern Standard Time, wilsonfisk2(a)yahoo.com writes: << As Blake and Avon don’t know one another before the series starts, if the series were about ‘them as couple’ then the process of them becoming one would be illustrated, reaching it’s zenith with a kiss/sex scene. To not do so would be a clear disregard of dramatic conventions which ‘Blake’s 7’ otherwise adheres to. >> Your theory makes perfect sense; that if the sex that takes place on the series was relevant to portray a developing relationship, then it would have followed the dramatic precedent of B7 and it would have been shown. But an obvious decision was made *not* to show sex on B7, probably because they didn't want to risk the possibility of exposing any younger viewers to it. This included heterosexual sex. The only implied 'real nookie' was shown in the first episode between Blake's lawyers, and in "Sand", between Servalan and Tarrant (and this reproductive was necessary as a part of the rather exotic plot, *not* to show a developing relationship between S&T.) All of this hints that although your theory has impeccable logic, the producers chose to follow that convention in everything...up to and not including sex.

3 2

Stats
by Una McCormack 05 Mar '01

05 Mar '01

Did you know that on the first of March alone, the number of posts to this list surpassed the *monthly* scores for 12 separate months in Lysator's history? Wow. As of typing we are already two-thirds of the way to equalling the total number of posts for January this year, and nearly a quarter of the way towards equalling the total number of posts for February which, as we all know, was the busiest month in Lysator's history. How thrilling. Can you tell that I am desperate for the World Snooker Championship to start so that I have a new source of stats to drool over? Una

3 3

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

Blakes7 March 2001