@amd.UUCP (10/24/85)
> 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?!" I don't know what kind of "#@$%^&*%$" that is, but it's not what the people said, it's probably what you think the people said. I don't know and won't venture to say what Jerry meant, although I thought he probably meant it to be a bit of a joke. But, knowing Jym a bit better, and knowing HE DIDN'T SAY THAT AT ALL, and reading his followup, his point closer to the fact that the women you meet at Mensa aren't going to look like the women in the Playboy pictorial; you sadly mistaken if you think so, because of the photographic techniques widely used in that industry. Jym never says that you shouldn't look for people who you find physically attractive. I'm sorry, Jeff, I shouldn't jump up and down so hard, but it gripes me to see people misinterpreting Jym that much. Myself, well, I'd rather go off and interact with the real people rather than look at pictures. I'm not opposed to pictures of naked people, for reasons that include: there's plenty of pictures of naked men for those who want to look at naked men, scantily clad people aren't dancing about trying to convince me to buy compilers or toothpaste or other products which probably don't require lots of skin exposure, and (the nasty one) pictures of naked people don't have their importance inflated until they become more important than real people or more "real" than real people--in other words, if a person has more experience in looking at pictures of naked people than in dealing with real people in real situations, this person is likely to draw their model of what real people are like from what's in the magazines. Which are full of weird and unrealistic information. Don't get me wrong--I'm not accusing anybody here of being like this! L S Chabot ...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-amber!chabot
chabot@miles.DEC (10/25/85)
Nobody probably cares, but I made a mistake in my original article. Instead of saying that I'm not opposed to pictures of naked people because there's plenty of pictures of both sexes, I meant to say that I'm not opposed to pictures of naked people *as*long*as* there's pictures of both sexes. And I should have made clear that I mean pictures of *consenting* *adults*. (I'd like to put in something about no-violence, but I can't exactly figure out if that's just my bias...it's probably a good bias, but, well, I was aiming to be objective.)