hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (The Polymath) (10/02/85)
The Playboy Mensa pictorial that got pre-empted by the Madonna pictorial
has finally appeared in this month's issue. Somewhere along the way, the
title got changed from "The Mensa Girls" to "The Women of Mensa".
I checked the names against the Mensa Register -- they're legit. (I've
_got_ to start going to more regional gatherings (-:{ ).
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe)
Citicorp(+)TTI Common Sense is what tells you that a ten
3100 Ocean Park Blvd. pound weight falls ten times as fast as a
Santa Monica, CA 90405 one pound weight.
(213) 450-9111, ext. 2483
{philabs,randvax,trwrb,vortex}!ttidca!ttidcc!hollomberay@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (10/05/85)
> The Playboy Mensa pictorial that got pre-empted by the Madonna pictorial > has finally appeared in this month's issue. Somewhere along the way, the > title got changed from "The Mensa Girls" to "The Women of Mensa". > > I checked the names against the Mensa Register -- they're legit. (I've > _got_ to start going to more regional gatherings (-:{ ). > > -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Are you sure that's not "The Densa Girls" to "The Women of Densa"?
dyer@vaxuum.DEC (People 'R' People) (10/08/85)
Re: A flash from the (recent) past._______________________________ > The Playboy Mensa pictorial . . . has finally appeared in this > month's issue. . . . I've _got_ to start going to more regional > gatherings. One would think that a member of Mensa - as you have announced yourself to be (in a rather roundabout way) - would have more sense than to pollute this newsgroup with such sentiments. <_Jym_> :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::' :: `:::: Jym Dyer ::::' :: `:::: ::' :: `:: Dracut, Massachusetts ::' :: `:: :: :: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :: :: :: .::::. :: DYER%VAXUUM.DEC@DECWRL.ARPA :: .::::. :: ::..:' :: `:..:: {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|ucbvax} ::..:' :: `:..:: ::::. :: .:::: decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-vaxuum!dyer ::::' :: `:::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
spaf@gatech.CSNET (Gene Spafford) (10/08/85)
In article <746@ttidcc.UUCP> hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (The Polymath) writes: >The Playboy Mensa pictorial that got pre-empted by the Madonna pictorial >has finally appeared in this month's issue. Somewhere along the way, the >title got changed from "The Mensa Girls" to "The Women of Mensa". > >I checked the names against the Mensa Register -- they're legit. (I've >_got_ to start going to more regional gatherings (-:{ ). > Really. If only you'd been at the Atlanta RG a week and a half ago.... It's not a coincidence that 2 of the women happen to be from Atlanta. BTW, if any of you were interested in writing in for one of the little red plastic balls, Sheri informed me that they're going fast -- the Chicago offices have been receiving letters at a rate of almost 100 per day. And yes, they're legit, as easily evidenced if one talks with any of them for any length of time. -- Gene "3 months and counting slowly" Spafford The Clouds Project, School of ICS, Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332 CSNet: Spaf @ GATech ARPA: Spaf%GATech.CSNet @ CSNet-Relay.ARPA uucp: ...!{akgua,allegra,hplabs,ihnp4,linus,seismo,ulysses}!gatech!spaf
andrew@grkermi.UUCP (Kent Dorfman) (10/09/85)
In article <742@decwrl.UUCP> dyer@vaxuum.DEC (People 'R' People) writes: >> The Playboy Mensa pictorial . . . has finally appeared in this >> month's issue. . . . I've _got_ to start going to more regional >> gatherings. > > One would think that a member of Mensa - as you have >announced yourself to be (in a rather roundabout way) - would have >more sense than to pollute this newsgroup with such sentiments. I passed the Mensa exam when I was 11... but you'll never see _m_e cluttering an unrelated newsgroup bragging about it!
crs@lanl.ARPA (10/09/85)
> > Re: A flash from the (recent) past._______________________________ > > > The Playboy Mensa pictorial . . . has finally appeared in this > > month's issue. . . . I've _got_ to start going to more regional > > gatherings. > > One would think that a member of Mensa - as you have > announced yourself to be (in a rather roundabout way) - would have > more sense than to pollute this newsgroup with such sentiments. > <_Jym_> Oh don't take yourself and others so seriously! -- All opinions are mine alone... Charlie Sorsby ...!{cmcl2,ihnp4,...}!lanl!crs crs@lanl.arpa
mce@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Mark McEntee%CGL) (10/14/85)
In article <742@decwrl.UUCP> dyer@vaxuum.DEC (People 'R' People) writes: >> [article prompting Jym's message] >> The Playboy Mensa pictorial . . . has finally appeared in this >> month's issue. . . . I've _got_ to start going to more regional >> gatherings. > One would think that a member of Mensa - as you have >announced yourself to be (in a rather roundabout way) - would have >more sense than to pollute this newsgroup with such sentiments. > <_Jym_> Jym, I'm confused. Why exactly do you object to this person's sentiments? And what does membership in Mensa have to do with it?
jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (10/15/85)
> > Re: A flash from the (recent) past._______________________________ > > > The Playboy Mensa pictorial . . . has finally appeared in this > > month's issue. . . . I've _got_ to start going to more regional > > gatherings. > > One would think that a member of Mensa - as you have > announced yourself to be (in a rather roundabout way) - would have > more sense than to pollute this newsgroup with such sentiments. > <_Jym_> Stop being such a prig. Just because you feel guilty about being interested in pretty women is no reason to expect that others will have the same problem. Jeff Winslow
hxe@rayssd.UUCP (Heather Emanuel) (10/20/85)
Jerry says: > > > The Playboy Mensa pictorial . . . has finally appeared in this > > > month's issue. . . . I've _got_ to start going to more regional > > > gatherings. To which Jym replies (three cheers!): > > One would think that a member of Mensa - as you have > > announced yourself to be (in a rather roundabout way) - would have > > more sense than to pollute this newsgroup with such sentiments. > > <_Jym_> Which prompts Jeff to say: > Stop being such a prig. Just because you feel guilty about being interested > in pretty women is no reason to expect that others will have the same > problem. > Jeff Winslow Ooh, this makes me mad!!!!! First, I'm surprised at you, Jeff. You're usually not like this. Maybe you were kidding? On the assumption that you were serious: are you *crazy*? Haven't you been listening AT ALL to the overwhelming sentiment of the postings in this group for the last two years? This is net.women, started for discussions by and about women. Most of the women who post or respond via personal mail to various posters have made it QUITE CLEAR that we view pornography as something that demeans us as a whole and offends us as individuals, NOT as "being interested in pretty women." Even if you don't agree with that, and even if *Jym* doesn't agree with that, Jym's posting was pointing out that most of us *do* agree with that. As such, I feel your attack on Jym was unwarranted. And by the way, as long as there are people who feel that not "being interested in pretty women" in pornographic magazines is a "problem" then I, as an individual woman, am going to be robbed of a little of my identity. From the heart, with sadness, -- --Heather Emanuel {allegra, decvax!brunix, linus, raybed2} rayssd!hxe -------------------------------------------------------------------- I don't think my company *has* an opinion, so the ones in this article are obviously my own. -------------------------------------------------------------------- "Ain't life a brook... Sometimes I feel just like a polished stone" -Ferron
jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (10/21/85)
> Jerry says: > > > > The Playboy Mensa pictorial . . . has finally appeared in this > > > > month's issue. . . . I've _got_ to start going to more regional > > > > gatherings. > > To which Jym replies (three cheers!): > > > One would think that a member of Mensa - as you have > > > announced yourself to be (in a rather roundabout way) - would have > > > more sense than to pollute this newsgroup with such sentiments. > > > <_Jym_> > > Which prompts Jeff to say: > > Stop being such a prig. Just because you feel guilty about being interested > > in pretty women is no reason to expect that others will have the same > > problem. > > Jeff Winslow > > Ooh, this makes me mad!!!!! First, I'm surprised at you, Jeff. > You're usually not like this. Maybe you were kidding? > > On the assumption that you were serious: are you *crazy*? Haven't > you been listening AT ALL to the overwhelming sentiment of the > postings in this group for the last two years? This is net.women, > started for discussions by and about women. Most of the women who > post or respond via personal mail to various posters have made it > QUITE CLEAR that we view pornography as something that demeans us as > a whole and offends us as individuals, NOT as "being interested in > pretty women." Even if you don't agree with that, and even if *Jym* > doesn't agree with that, Jym's posting was pointing out that most of > us *do* agree with that. As such, I feel your attack on Jym was > unwarranted. Well! I seem to have stepped in it this time. But I was not joking, and I am not crazy. All I ask is that you not read into my statement that which I did not put into it. Now, let's get one thing straight. Since Jerry's statement was prompted by a Playboy article, when I talk about pornography below, I'm talking about Playboy, NOT some violent crap dredged up from the local sleaze bin. If you don't think there's a significant difference, you need to learn a whole lot more about pornography - and men. First, I respectfully suggest that your statement "Most of the women... QUITE CLEAR..." is colored by your own personal beliefs. I have observed a wide range of sentiment on soft porn from the women on this newsgroup, and, while I haven't kept count (have you?) I don't recall any particular consensus. And even if that consensus *did* exist, since I believe in a rational dialogue between the sexes, and I don't see any cause for serious offense either in Playboy or Jerry's statement, I would feel obligated to defend them anyway. Are you saying that, because a majority of people feel a certain way, no dissenting views are appropriate? Be careful! Now to the heart of the subject, what little there is. Both Jerry's and Jym's comments were pretty vague, so I suspect that the crux of our differences is simply a different reading of those comments. I read them this way: Jerry - "Hey, I didn't know there were such pretty (and otherwise interesting - don't forget that Playboy usually gives some sort of personal interest details) women in this group I belong to! I've got to meet them for myself." Jym - "How dare you consider a woman's attractiveness in deciding whether you want to meet her or not!" Me - "What sort of #@$%^&*%$ is that?!" Let me add that I have seen very few women of approximately my own age that were not physically attractive in some way or other. What is attractive varies so much with the beholder that I fail to see how this can even be an issue. Now I can readily understand what is wrong with a man hiring only women that he finds personally attractive (besides it being unlikely to find him the best employee) but, fer chrissake, Jerry's talking about who he wants in his *personal* life (and not entirely seriously, either, I suspect). > And by the way, as long as there are people who feel that not "being > interested in pretty women" in pornographic magazines is a "problem" > then I, as an individual woman, am going to be robbed of a little > of my identity. I think you probably see now that that is *not* what I was saying. But it moves me to say that, as long as there are people who who feel that "being interested in pretty women" in pornographic magazines (if anybody takes this statement out of context I will toast them to a cinder) is a "problem", just by itself, there are people who need to understand that men are not as simple-minded as these people think. I am sorry if you feel robbed of a little of your identity by Playboy, but I encourage you and assure you that there is no need for you to feel that way. > From the heart, with sadness, > > -- > --Heather Emanuel {allegra, decvax!brunix, linus, raybed2} rayssd!hxe Please don't be sad. I don't think there is any need to be (in this case). Jeff Winslow
lee@dsi1.UUCP (Lee Hagerty) (10/21/85)
> And by the way, as long as there are people who feel that not "being > interested in pretty women" in pornographic magazines is a "problem" > then I, as an individual woman, am going to be robbed of a little > of my identity. > > From the heart, with sadness, > > -- > --Heather Emanuel {allegra, decvax!brunix, linus, raybed2} rayssd!hxe As long as all or any of your identity is dependent on other people, then you have been "robbed" of nothing--you gave it away! Lee
tron@fluke.UUCP (Peter Barbee) (10/21/85)
To set the stage: Jerry mentions and jokes about "The Playboy Mensa pictorial". Jym castigates Jerry. Jeff accusses Jym of prigishness, implying he doesn't have that problem. >And Heather continues: >Ooh, this makes me mad!!!!! > >On the assumption that you were serious: are you *crazy*? Haven't >you been listening AT ALL to the overwhelming sentiment of the >postings in this group for the last two years? I'm not sure about overwhelming sentiment, but I do 'k' most porn discussions. >Most of the women who >post or respond via personal mail to various posters have made it >QUITE CLEAR that we view pornography as something that demeans us as >a whole and offends us as individuals, NOT as "being interested in >pretty women." Heather, this brings up an interesting point. The women pictured in this particular feature are obviously intelligent. It seems likely that they are not particularly desperate for money. Why did they pose? Of course they did get paid, and it was very easy money, maybe even fun. But they most obviously do not feel that nude ,or semi-nude, pictures of them demean them, let alone demeaning women as a whole. (Remember, I'm assuming these women are intelligent and wouldn't purposely demean themselves) My quesstion is; Heather, how can what these women did and what you say be compatible? Is there not room for differing and yet respectful views? >And by the way, as long as there are people who feel that not "being >interested in pretty women" in pornographic magazines is a "problem" >then I, as an individual woman, am going to be robbed of a little >of my identity. And as long as people equate nude pictures as pornagraphy this debate will continue to polarize. >From the heart, with sadness, yea, me too, Peter B
scott@hou2g.UUCP (Colonel'K) (10/22/85)
You know, Jerry has been getting a lot of heat for his comment
on the women who appeared in the Mensa pictorial in Playboy.
He indicated interest in getting to know these women.
WHY DOES EVERYONE ASSUME IT WAS SOLELY BECAUSE THEY WERE NAKED?
When I first read the comment, I assumed it was said because
Jerry found the women attractive. My impression was that he would
have said EXACTLY THE SAME THING if he had seen these women in
a fashion magazine, WEARING FANCY CLOTHES. Talk about knee-jerk!
Am I correct? Let's let Jerry answer for himself, eh?
"Ever since I come to New York..everybody
I meet...from someplace else."
Scott J. Berry
ihnp4!hou2g!scottgeoff@burl.UUCP (geoff) (10/22/85)
In article <1171@rayssd.UUCP> hxe@rayssd.UUCP (Heather Emanuel) writes: >Jerry says: >> > > The Playboy Mensa pictorial . . . has finally appeared in this >> > > month's issue. . . . I've _got_ to start going to more regional >> > > gatherings. > >To which Jym replies (three cheers!) <and a very loud raspberry>: >> > One would think that a member of Mensa - as you have >> > announced yourself to be (in a rather roundabout way) - would have >> > more sense than to pollute this newsgroup with such sentiments. >> > <_Jym_> > >Which prompts Jeff to say: >> Stop being such a prig. Just because you feel guilty about being interested >> in pretty women is no reason to expect that others will have the same >> problem. >> Jeff Winslow > >Which incites Heather to say: >Ooh, this makes me mad!!!!! First, I'm surprised at you, Jeff. >You're usually not like this. Maybe you were kidding? > >On the assumption that you were serious: are you *crazy*? Haven't >you been listening AT ALL to the overwhelming sentiment of the >postings in this group for the last two years? Um, excuse me, but what does the fact of the 'overwhelming sentiment of the postings' have to do with whether Jeff should have made that comment? Should every poster check his or her back files to make sure they are presenting the 'appropriate' image so as not to offend readers? Or, since that would not be practical, lets just have one central clearing point for 'correct' thought. Would you care to volunteer, Heather? >This is net.women, started for discussions by and about women. I saw the Mensa pictoral. In my considered opinion, the models were definitely women. Oh, but they are not right-thinking women. That's different. >Most of the women who >post or respond via personal mail to various posters have made it >QUITE CLEAR that we view pornography as something that demeans us as >a whole and offends us as individuals, NOT as "being interested in >pretty women." Even if you don't agree with that, and even if *Jym* >doesn't agree with that, Jym's posting was pointing out that most of >us *do* agree with that. As such, I feel your attack on Jym was >unwarranted. I feel the attack was entirely warranted. Surely free speech is a touchy problem, because those who support it must support the right of those who oppose it to argue their case. Those who oppose it, of course, are under no such obligation. I disliked Jym's posting, not (just) because he disliked Jerry's comment, but because of the way he said that posting such sentiments 'pollute this newsgroup'. Considering how much petty bickering, name calling, and mud-slinging goes on in this group, I think Jym is just a little bit late to be worried about trash. > >And by the way, as long as there are people who feel that not "being >interested in pretty women" in pornographic magazines is a "problem" >then I, as an individual woman, am going to be robbed of a little >of my identity. Your identity is fine, but all who disagree must give up some of theirs to coddle yours? If you are going to be robbed of your identity as long as people disagree with you, in this respect or any other, you had better live in a vault. You will be robbed until the day you die. Let people live their own lives; it is the only way to let you live yours. geoff sherwood ihnp4!burl!geoff
dyer@vaxuum.DEC (People 'R' People) (10/22/85)
Re: A flash from the (recent) past._______________________________ >>> I've _got_ to start going to more regional gatherings [now >>> that I've seen pictures of naked Mensa women in _Playboy_]. >> One would think that a member of Mensa . . . would have more >> sense than to pollute this newsgroup with such sentiments. > Stop being such a prig. Name-calling, eh? Stop being such a child. > Just because you feel guilty about being interested in pretty > women is no reason to expect that others will have the same > problem. Interesting prognosis. Too bad it's totally off the mark. I have no problem dealing with pretty women (or with pretty men, for that matter). At any rate, the point is irrelevant, since what we're talking about is a _Playboy_ pictorial. _Playboy_ pictorials generally consist of photographs that have been airbrushed and painted until they depict an artificial poreless sex robot. No woman looks like that, including the woman who was in the original photograph. Mensa is an organization formed for people with high IQs to find others with high IQs to socialize with. Apparently women with high IQs aren't what the author of the original article is interested in, but women "suitable" for _Playboy_ provoke his interest enough to attend "more regional gatherings." I hardly think that this is the newsgroup to express such sentiments. <_Jym_> :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::' :: `:::: Jym Dyer ::::' :: `:::: ::' :: `:: Dracut, Massachusetts ::' :: `:: :: :: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :: :: :: .::::. :: DYER%VAXUUM.DEC@DECWRL.ARPA :: .::::. :: ::..:' :: `:..:: {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|ucbvax} ::..:' :: `:..:: ::::. :: .:::: decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-vaxuum!dyer ::::' :: `:::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (10/22/85)
From Heather Emanuel (rayssd!hxe): >Jerry says: >> > > The Playboy Mensa pictorial . . . has finally appeared in this >> > > month's issue. . . . I've _got_ to start going to more regional >> > > gatherings. > >To which Jym replies (three cheers!): >> > One would think that a member of Mensa - as you have >> > announced yourself to be (in a rather roundabout way) - would have >> > more sense than to pollute this newsgroup with such sentiments. >> > <_Jym_> > >Which prompts Jeff to say: >> Stop being such a prig. Just because you feel guilty about being interested >> in pretty women is no reason to expect that others will have the same >> problem. >> Jeff Winslow > >Ooh, this makes me mad!!!!! First, I'm surprised at you, Jeff. >You're usually not like this. Maybe you were kidding? > >On the assumption that you were serious: are you *crazy*? Haven't >you been listening AT ALL to the overwhelming sentiment of the >postings in this group for the last two years? This is net.women, >started for discussions by and about women. Most of the women who >post or respond via personal mail to various posters have made it >QUITE CLEAR that we view pornography as something that demeans us as >a whole and offends us as individuals, NOT as "being interested in >pretty women." Even if you don't agree with that, and even if *Jym* >doesn't agree with that, Jym's posting was pointing out that most of >us *do* agree with that. As such, I feel your attack on Jym was >unwarranted. I think two points need to be addressed. First, reread the quote from Jerry. As far as I can tell, all it does is to express a liking for pretty women. It does not express *any* opinion on PLAYBOY, only an interest in meeting the Mensa members who were featured in the article in question. If an interest in pretty women make Jerry Hollombe a sexist, I guess it's time for me to come out of the closet and declare myself a sexist, too; it seems I meet the definition. As for the porn matter, you are assuming a lot. A variety of opinions on the subject have been expressed in net.women, by both men and women. If the women on this board have expressed near-universal condemnation of PLAYBOY, I have failed to notice it. >And by the way, as long as there are people who feel that not "being >interested in pretty women" in pornographic magazines is a "problem" >then I, as an individual woman, am going to be robbed of a little >of my identity. No one (except you) has suggested that lack of interest in pictures of naked women is a problem. *Please* read what you are responding to carefully before posting. Neither Jerry Hollombe's article, nor Jeff Winslow's, takes any stand on the propriety of magazines like PLAYBOY; all they say is that they like pretty women. I have no idea of their opinion of PLAYBOY and, unless they've expressed an opinion elsewhere, neither do you or Mr Dyer. - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ELECTRIC AVENUE: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,nsc,hao,hplabs}!ames!barry
reh@aplvax.UUCP (Ron E. Hall) (10/23/85)
> > Re: A flash from the (recent) past._______________________________ > > >>> I've _got_ to start going to more regional gatherings [now > >>> that I've seen pictures of naked Mensa women in _Playboy_]. > >> One would think that a member of Mensa . . . would have more > >> sense than to pollute this newsgroup with such sentiments. > > Stop being such a prig. > > Name-calling, eh? Stop being such a child. > Mensa is an organization formed for people with high IQs > to find others with high IQs to socialize with. Apparently women > with high IQs aren't what the author of the original article is > interested in, but women "suitable" for _Playboy_ provoke his > interest enough to attend "more regional gatherings." > I hardly think that this is the newsgroup to express such > sentiments. > <_Jym_> Prig is defined as "...a person who is excessively precise, proper and smug in his moral behavior and attitudes, to the annoyance of others." I think he describes Jym's attitude accurately, and is not just childishly calling names. The original poster was making a little joke; Jym is trying to make a big statement out of it, and not quite succeeding. Ron Hall JHU/APL ...decvax!decuac!aplvax!reh ...rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!aplvax!reh -- Ron Hall JHU/APL ...decvax!decuac!aplvax!reh ...rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!aplvax!reh
jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (10/24/85)
> > Re: A flash from the (recent) past._______________________________ > > >>> I've _got_ to start going to more regional gatherings [now > >>> that I've seen pictures of naked Mensa women in _Playboy_]. > >> One would think that a member of Mensa . . . would have more > >> sense than to pollute this newsgroup with such sentiments. > > Stop being such a prig. > > Name-calling, eh? Stop being such a child. So tell me. What is the difference between me calling you a prig and you calling me a child? Practice what you preach. and preach. and preach. > > Just because you feel guilty about being interested in pretty > > women is no reason to expect that others will have the same > > problem. > > Interesting prognosis. Too bad it's totally off the mark. > I have no problem dealing with pretty women (or with pretty men, > for that matter). At any rate, the point is irrelevant, since > what we're talking about is a _Playboy_ pictorial. _Playboy_ > pictorials generally consist of photographs that have been > airbrushed and painted until they depict an artificial poreless > sex robot. No woman looks like that, including the woman who was > in the original photograph. > > Mensa is an organization formed for people with high IQs > to find others with high IQs to socialize with. Apparently women > with high IQs aren't what the author of the original article is > interested in, but women "suitable" for _Playboy_ provoke his > interest enough to attend "more regional gatherings." > I hardly think that this is the newsgroup to express such > sentiments. > <_Jym_> I apologize if my prognosis was, indeed, incorrect. However, I find your attitude of assumed moral superiority to be offensive enough that it's hard to feel very sorry about it. Ad for the other points raised, I refer you to my reply and Peter Barbee's reply to Heather Emanuel's interesting posting. Jeff Winslow
ishizaki@hplabsc.UUCP (Audrey Ishizaki) (10/24/85)
Regarding the Playboy Mensa pictorial: > Heather, this brings up an interesting point. The women pictured in this > particular feature are obviously intelligent. It seems likely that they > are not particularly desperate for money. Why did they pose? Of course > they did get paid, and it was very easy money, maybe even fun. But they > most obviously do not feel that nude ,or semi-nude, pictures of them > demean them, let alone demeaning women as a whole. (Remember, I'm assuming > these women are intelligent and wouldn't purposely demean themselves) There was an article in the local San Jose Mercury News about one of the women pictured in the Playboy pictorial who lives/works locally. She is the head chef in a local restaurant. She wanted to do the Playboy pictorial to help free the stereotype that smart women are ugly, dumpy, and wear thick glasses. Or, conversely, that because women are attractive, they cannot also be intelligent. There may have been other reasons, too, but this is the one I recall. Her family (husband, parents, in-laws) were very supportive. She said she wasn't sure if her mother was proud of her for doing the pictorial or because she appeared on Donahue because of it. She said the Donahue show was surprisingly controversial (the premise was almost discarded because it was not deemed controversial enough) though there was little else said about it. Obviously women do not agree on what constitutes pornography. From the little I have seen of Playboy, it is definitely not in the same class as violent "pornography" or kiddie-porn. I do not take the view that soft-core porn leads to violence against women. Audrey Ishizaki HPlabs -- audrey k. ishizaki Hplabs Palo Alto, CA ------------------------------------------------------------ csnet: ishizaki%hplabs@csnet-relay.csnet arpanet: ishizaki%hplabs@csnet-relay.arpa usenet: {allegra,decvax,Shasta,ucbvax}!hplabs!ishizaki ------------------------------------------------------------ of course, HP is not responsible for anything I post.
hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (The Polymath) (10/24/85)
In article <683@hou2g.UUCP> scott@hou2g.UUCP (Colonel'K) writes: > >Am I correct? Let's let Jerry answer for himself, eh? > > Scott J. Berry My God! A voice of reason in the wilderness! Thank you, Scott. I've already responded to some of the comments in a slightly flamish article posted yesterday. Having cooled off a bit, I'd like to add a few factual comments. The current issue of the Mensa Bulletin (the national newsletter) contains an article on the Playboy pictorial. The article is written by one of the women who posed and explains her thoughts and feelings and those of her fellow posers on the experience, how they were chosen, why they applied, how they were treated by Playboy, etc. The article includes several of the less revealing pictures from the pictorial (does that make Mensa into a bunch of pornographers? (-: ). A friend of mine, one of the most fanatic feminists I know, had previously condemned the behavior of the women in the pictorial (the knee-jerk almost put a hole in her wall (-: ). After reading the article, she did a complete turnaround, decided the pictorial was acceptable after all, and _then_ decided to get a Playboy and see for herself what all the fuss was about. I'm _not_ going to type in the text of the article here. It's several pages typeset and I haven't got the time. Anyone who's really interested can contact their local Mensa chapter (try the white pages under Mensa) or the home office in New York (American Mensa, Ltd., 2626 East 14th Street, Brooklyn, NY, 11235, (718) 376-1925). -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe) Citicorp(+)TTI Common Sense is what tells you that a ten 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. pound weight falls ten times as fast as a Santa Monica, CA 90405 one pound weight. (213) 450-9111, ext. 2483 {philabs,randvax,trwrb,vortex}!ttidca!ttidcc!hollombe
barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (10/25/85)
From Jym Dyer (dec-vaxuum!dyer): >>>> I've _got_ to start going to more regional gatherings [now >>>> that I've seen pictures of naked Mensa women in _Playboy_]. [Jerry Hollombe] Is this an honest attempt at paraphrase, or a hidden editorial comment? Why do you assume that it is the nudity, rather than the beauty of the women pictured, which provoked Jerry's light-hearted comment? > Mensa is an organization formed for people with high IQs >to find others with high IQs to socialize with. Apparently women >with high IQs aren't what the author of the original article is >interested in, but women "suitable" for _Playboy_ provoke his >interest enough to attend "more regional gatherings." > I hardly think that this is the newsgroup to express such >sentiments. Jeezus, lighten up, guy. Are you saying it's politically correct to like women for their brains, but not for their beauty? Jerry saw photos of beautiful and (based on their Mensa membership) intelligent women. He made a remark implying he wouldn't mind meeting them. Well, I haven't seen the magazine, but I'm willing to bet there were some pictures of women *I'd* like to meet, too. Perhaps someone can explain to me why that is sexist, or whatever it's supposed to be. - Evil is in the mind of the beholder - Kenn Barry NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ELECTRIC AVENUE: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,hao,menlo70,hplabs}!ames!barry
dyer@vaxuum.DEC (People 'R' People) (10/25/85)
Re: A flash from the (recent) past._______________________________
{Heather (three cheers!) says:}
H> . . . I feel your attack on Jym was unwarranted.
{Which somehow incited Geoff (a very loud raspberry!) to say:}
G> I feel the attack was entirely warranted.
{Geoff then explains why he feels it is "entirely warranted" for}
{me to be called a "prig" who "feel[s] guilty about being inter-}
{ested in pretty women:"}
G> Surely free speech is a touchy problem, because those who sup-
G> port it must support the right of those who oppose it to argue
G> their case.
Free speech is not at issue here. I never said that Jeff
should not be permitted to make his silly remarks here, I merely
pointed out that net.women is not exactly the most intelligent
place to make such remarks.
(Similarly, I would never suggest that Geoff be forbidden
from including the full text of my article in a reply that claims
it says something else; but I would not hesitate to suggest that
it's not the smartest thing in the world to do.)
{Geoff continues explaining why I should be called a guilt-ridden}
{prig:}
G> I disliked Jym's posting . . . because of the way he said that
G> posting such sentiments 'pollute this newsgroup.'
I agree that this newgroup is already polluted. As an
environmentalist, though, I could hardly agree that this means one
should not complain about more pollution.
{Ron felt he just had to tell us this:}
R> Prig is defined as ". . . a person who is excessively precise,
R> proper and smug in his [sic] moral behavior and attitudes, to
R> the annoyance of others."
So when did I bring up morality? All I said was that
net.women is a dumb place to post articles that say, in effect,
"hey, guys, check out the bazongas on that one!"
R> I think he [Jeff?] describes Jym's attitude accurately.
Gee. Two people agree on the same prognosis. Two people
who have never met me consider themselves competent to tell the
net what my attitude is. Gee.
{Scott comes along and shouts the following:}
S> WHY DOES EVERYONE ASSUME IT WAS SOLELY BECAUSE THEY WERE NAKED?
Why do you assume everyone assumes that?
S> My impression was that he would have said EXACTLY THE SAME
S> THING if he had seen these women in a fashion magazine, WEARING
S> FANCY CLOTHES.
Possibly. So what? What difference would that make?
<_Jym_>
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
::::' :: `:::: Jym Dyer ::::' :: `::::
::' :: `:: Dracut, Massachusetts ::' :: `::
:: :: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :: ::
:: .::::. :: DYER%VAXUUM.DEC@DECWRL.ARPA :: .::::. ::
::..:' :: `:..:: {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|ucbvax} ::..:' :: `:..::
::::. :: .:::: decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-vaxuum!dyer ::::' :: `::::
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (10/27/85)
In article <1171@rayssd.UUCP> hxe@rayssd.UUCP (Heather Emanuel) writes: > Most of the women who post or respond via personal mail >to various posters have made it QUITE CLEAR that we view pornography >as something that demeans us as a whole and offends us as individuals, >NOT as "being interested in pretty women." But, are these feelings justified? I am not thinking of magazines that cater to violent, sadistic fantasies, but those that merely present women as sexual objects. What is so terrible about them? I view my tennis teacher as a tennis object (i.e. a tool to use in learning tennis, without concern for him as an individual), but I don't think he feels demeaned and offended by my attitude. Are male homosexuals similarly offended and demeaned by the pictures in the homosexual pornographic magazines that show men as sex objects? Why not? Frank Silbermann
michaelm@3comvax.UUCP (Michael McNeil) (11/01/85)
[don't eat lines, they'll rot your teeth.] > > And by the way, as long as there are people who feel that not "being > > interested in pretty women" in pornographic magazines is a "problem" > > then I, as an individual woman, am going to be robbed of a little > > of my identity. > > > > From the heart, with sadness, > > > > --Heather Emanuel {allegra, decvax!brunix, linus, raybed2} rayssd!hxe > As long as all or any of your identity is dependent on other people, then you > have been "robbed" of nothing--you gave it away! > > Lee And, I'd prefer not to be flamed for saying this (I can take it, though, if someone can't resist), but being "robbed of a little of my identity" by a *picture* sounds very much like primitive peoples who think that someone taking their photograph "steals their soul." The difference in this case is that it is a picture of somebody *else* that is purported to be stealing Heather's "identity." All this doesn't seem very rational to me. -- Michael McNeil 3Com Corporation "All disclaimers including this one apply" (415) 960-9367 ..!ucbvax!hplabs!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm Who knows for certain? Who shall here declare it? Whence was it born, whence came creation? The gods are later than this world's formation; Who then can know the origins of the world? None knows whence creation arose; And whether he has or has not made it; He who surveys it from the lofty skies, Only he knows -- or perhaps he knows not. *The Rig Veda*, X. 129
scott@cdp.UUCP (11/03/85)
> Are male homosexuals similarly offended and demeaned by the pictures > in the homosexual pornographic magazines that show men as sex objects? > Why not? I know that many gay men like gay mail porno (I also know of gay men who don't like it). But I'm afraid you can't really extrapolate. Gay men are men, and have grown up in a culture where it's very common and accepted for men to objectify women as sexual objects; I think that tendency can take hold and be translated into objectification of men as sexual objects. Also, objectification in same-sex relations is not as much of a problem as in opposite sex relations. The objectification of women as sex objects by men leads to men viewing women as less-than-human, i.e. not as multi-dimensional as men. In same-sex relations there's an inherent equality, because you're relating to someone of the same "cultural class", who thus has the same cultural identity as yourself; there is less danger that you consider your real or imagined partners as fundamentally different or less worthwhile than youself. Scott Weikart Community Data Processing: 415-322-9069 {decwrl,sun,bellcore,megatest,adobe,hplabs,...}!glacier!cdp!scott {ihnp4,decvax,ucbvax,cbosgd,hao,purdue,duke,...}!hplabs!cdp!scott