Salon | Letters to the editor

_______________SINS OF THE FATHERS BY ROS DAVIDSON (07/29/98)

Ros Davidson's recent article on so-called Mormon polygamy was an excellent example of why we need Brill's Content to keep the media honest. I had two problems with the article. First, did someone at Salon fact-check Davidson's article? And second, what exactly is her vendetta against the Mormon Church and why is she trying to blame the church for the rogue abusive acts of a minority of non-church members?
With respect to my first point, I am curious who told Davidson that "Mormonism prohibits birth control, caffeine and even makeup?" Our church does prohibit tobacco and alcohol (which allows Mormons to leave statistically more healthy lives than smokers and drinkers). However, I am curious about the birth control, caffeine and makeup proscriptions. Can Davidson or anyone (possibly a fact-checker) provide the readers of Salon with commentary from any of our presidents in which church members are commanded not to use birth control, caffeine or makeup? I'm sorry, but that last one actually makes me laugh! I haven't heard that one yet!
My second point is more of a general one. It seems Davidson could have used a little more care in distinguishing the Kingston sect and allegedly abusive individuals from the Mormon Church. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has no formal or informal relationship with the Kingston sect or any of its kind.
You can take the easy route by writing me off as a whining Mormon who is overly concerned with my church's "image." Or you can use this as an opportunity to improve your magazine. I think this type of journalism is reckless and nonproductive.
-- Patrick Trepanier
EDITOR'S NOTE: The Salon article "Sins of the Fathers" did incorrectly state that the Mormon religion prohibited birth control, caffeine and makeup. The mistake has been corrected. Salon regrets the error.

I enjoyed the piece written by Ros Davidson dealing with polygamy practiced by Mormon splinter groups. As an active member of the Latter-day Saints church since my early teens (and probably one of the few who actually reads Salon), I have heard these types of stories about the abuse that runs rampant in these groups for years, but they still get under my skin.
-- Dan Gallagher
San Diego
The Mormon style of "sister-wife" polygamy is far from being the only style of multiple relationship. There are many people -- of whom I am one -- who practice multiple relationships, even committed ones, that are not so destructive of human dignity.
Perhaps it might be fitting to consider an article concerning such families that do actually work. I personally know of quite a few. It is, in my opinion, a far better option for families and children than the more "normal" cheating behavior that is seen in Western society. A situation based on honesty and mutual respect is preferable in all situations to one based on lies and power trips.
In my opinion, the current media blitz about the horrors of polygamy will only make it difficult for those people who wish to be free to truly love and care for more than one, and lead to still more difficulty as the polyamorist movement achieves popular consciousness.
I am no monstrous control freak who seeks women out of religious imperative or a desire for sex; I am a woman who honestly loves two men, is engaged to one, and who has the honesty and courage to care for both of them, with the full understanding and the blessings of each. If I could marry both, I would, but law prevents me, and, I fear, sensationalistic media coverage and one-sided presentations of multiple relationships will prevent that law from being changed.
-- Heather Nicoll

_______________LOVE HURTS BY CHARLES TAYLOR(07/28/98)

I have not seen Bertrand Blier's "Mon Homme," but when I read that the director tries, in this film, to see sexual desire "from a woman's point of view," and then learned in the next sentence that the heroine is a hooker, I burst out laughing. In all his praise for the film's honesty, fearlessness, dignity, doesn't reviewer Charles Taylor find it worth noting that the filmmaker apparently can only imagine female sexual desire in the context of prostitution? Going by the review, here is how the heroine Marie finds erotic pleasure:

Peeing in front of an "elderly gentleman"
Feeding, housing and having rough sex with a homeless man
Belonging to her pimp
Making love to dark, mournful music, expressive of deep inner pain

As I say, I haven't seen the movie, but I find it hard to believe, based on Taylor's review, that it could be anything other than a blatant male fantasy about that well-worn cliché, the prostitute with a heart of gold. Taylor even acknowledges this cliché, but dismisses it because Marie's performance has such "dignity." Apparently he doesn't consider that this is just one more element of the fantasy.
I can hear someone defending sex workers now, their autonomy, their power. However, Marie doesn't strike me as this kind of sex worker. She gets pleasure, apparently, by allowing herself to be used and controlled. There is little suggestion, at least in this review, of Marie's power and happiness. I really cannot believe that Salon and its reviewer have presented this film as somehow being about "female" desire.
-- Stephanie Dobler

_______________POOR LITTLE RICH THUGS BY HARIETTE SUROVELL (07/28/98)

Today's top story on drug murder/middle-class crime/fun details of hotel strangulation seems much more in poor taste than I usually expect from Salon. I tremendously value the useful content I receive from your magazine, but this is disgusting and unpleasant, and not in the genre of what I expect from your site.
Perhaps you could try not to turn into the Internet version of "Hard Copy" with the F-word thrown in for fun?
-- Dan Brown
Your recent cover article on depraved, spoiled criminals was accompanied by the author's byline: "Hariette Surovell is a freelance writer living in New York City who specializes in unusual true-crime stories, film criticism and celebrity profiles." I'm not sure which was more twisted and indicative of our times -- the article or the byline.
-- Paul McCudden
Los Angeles
SALON | Aug. 3, 1998

R E C E N T L Y+| TOTAL WAR BY GARY KAMIYA

If you'd like to submit a letter to the editor for publication,
please e-mail us at salon@salonmagazine.com.
Letters may be edited for clarity and conciseness.
If you do not wish the letter to be published, please say so.

_______________SINS OF THE FATHERS BY ROS DAVIDSON (07/29/98)
	Ros Davidson's recent article on so-called Mormon polygamy was an excellent example of why we need Brill's Content to keep the media honest. I had two problems with the article. First, did someone at Salon fact-check Davidson's article? And second, what exactly is her vendetta against the Mormon Church and why is she trying to blame the church for the rogue abusive acts of a minority of non-church members? With respect to my first point, I am curious who told Davidson that "Mormonism prohibits birth control, caffeine and even makeup?" Our church does prohibit tobacco and alcohol (which allows Mormons to leave statistically more healthy lives than smokers and drinkers). However, I am curious about the birth control, caffeine and makeup proscriptions. Can Davidson or anyone (possibly a fact-checker) provide the readers of Salon with commentary from any of our presidents in which church members are commanded not to use birth control, caffeine or makeup? I'm sorry, but that last one actually makes me laugh! I haven't heard that one yet! My second point is more of a general one. It seems Davidson could have used a little more care in distinguishing the Kingston sect and allegedly abusive individuals from the Mormon Church. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has no formal or informal relationship with the Kingston sect or any of its kind. You can take the easy route by writing me off as a whining Mormon who is overly concerned with my church's "image." Or you can use this as an opportunity to improve your magazine. I think this type of journalism is reckless and nonproductive. -- Patrick Trepanier EDITOR'S NOTE: The Salon article "Sins of the Fathers" did incorrectly state that the Mormon religion prohibited birth control, caffeine and makeup. The mistake has been corrected. Salon regrets the error. I enjoyed the piece written by Ros Davidson dealing with polygamy practiced by Mormon splinter groups. As an active member of the Latter-day Saints church since my early teens (and probably one of the few who actually reads Salon), I have heard these types of stories about the abuse that runs rampant in these groups for years, but they still get under my skin. -- Dan Gallagher San Diego The Mormon style of "sister-wife" polygamy is far from being the only style of multiple relationship. There are many people -- of whom I am one -- who practice multiple relationships, even committed ones, that are not so destructive of human dignity. Perhaps it might be fitting to consider an article concerning such families that do actually work. I personally know of quite a few. It is, in my opinion, a far better option for families and children than the more "normal" cheating behavior that is seen in Western society. A situation based on honesty and mutual respect is preferable in all situations to one based on lies and power trips. In my opinion, the current media blitz about the horrors of polygamy will only make it difficult for those people who wish to be free to truly love and care for more than one, and lead to still more difficulty as the polyamorist movement achieves popular consciousness. I am no monstrous control freak who seeks women out of religious imperative or a desire for sex; I am a woman who honestly loves two men, is engaged to one, and who has the honesty and courage to care for both of them, with the full understanding and the blessings of each. If I could marry both, I would, but law prevents me, and, I fear, sensationalistic media coverage and one-sided presentations of multiple relationships will prevent that law from being changed. -- Heather Nicoll
_______________LOVE HURTS BY CHARLES TAYLOR(07/28/98)
	I have not seen Bertrand Blier's "Mon Homme," but when I read that the director tries, in this film, to see sexual desire "from a woman's point of view," and then learned in the next sentence that the heroine is a hooker, I burst out laughing. In all his praise for the film's honesty, fearlessness, dignity, doesn't reviewer Charles Taylor find it worth noting that the filmmaker apparently can only imagine female sexual desire in the context of prostitution? Going by the review, here is how the heroine Marie finds erotic pleasure: Peeing in front of an "elderly gentleman" Feeding, housing and having rough sex with a homeless man Belonging to her pimp Making love to dark, mournful music, expressive of deep inner pain As I say, I haven't seen the movie, but I find it hard to believe, based on Taylor's review, that it could be anything other than a blatant male fantasy about that well-worn cliché, the prostitute with a heart of gold. Taylor even acknowledges this cliché, but dismisses it because Marie's performance has such "dignity." Apparently he doesn't consider that this is just one more element of the fantasy. I can hear someone defending sex workers now, their autonomy, their power. However, Marie doesn't strike me as this kind of sex worker. She gets pleasure, apparently, by allowing herself to be used and controlled. There is little suggestion, at least in this review, of Marie's power and happiness. I really cannot believe that Salon and its reviewer have presented this film as somehow being about "female" desire. -- Stephanie Dobler
_______________POOR LITTLE RICH THUGS BY HARIETTE SUROVELL (07/28/98)
	Today's top story on drug murder/middle-class crime/fun details of hotel strangulation seems much more in poor taste than I usually expect from Salon. I tremendously value the useful content I receive from your magazine, but this is disgusting and unpleasant, and not in the genre of what I expect from your site. Perhaps you could try not to turn into the Internet version of "Hard Copy" with the F-word thrown in for fun? -- Dan Brown Your recent cover article on depraved, spoiled criminals was accompanied by the author's byline: "Hariette Surovell is a freelance writer living in New York City who specializes in unusual true-crime stories, film criticism and celebrity profiles." I'm not sure which was more twisted and indicative of our times -- the article or the byline. -- Paul McCudden Los Angeles SALON \| Aug. 3, 1998