gregbo@houxm.UUCP (Greg Skinner) (09/07/84)
[I'd like to see this continue in net.religion] >> I do think that reading Playboy is unlikely to bring one closer to God. >> And I haven't the slightest inclination or desire to read it. [Paul DuBois] Neither do I. I think we all basically agree, judging from the repsonses to Trish's article on VW, that such magazines are degrading to women. > Actually, you're right...usually. Every once in a while, God can even use > Playboy to zap one with an insight into a twist in one's own feelings about > relationships, sexuality, or whatever. [Jeff Sargent] If you mean "after I read Playboy I discovered that I wasn't interested in seeing women degraded in that manner" I would agree. > I could comment that you don't need Playboy, since you have access to a woman > who is beautiful to you (I have no idea of her physical appearance, but she's > certainly beautiful to you) at any time you reasonably desire -- and not just > to a view of her, but to her reality. Of course, in order for you to not need > or want to examine Playboy, this would also imply that you are strong enough > to handle having a real woman in your life, who may not always behave quite > the way you would most want, and who has some degree of control over you -- > distinct from fantasies (with or without the aid of photos), which you control > entirely. More power to you! I'm not sure I'm at that point; the thought of > having an SO, now that I examine it more closely, is frightening. > [Jeff Sargent] Question for Paul DuBois: Are you married? Seriously though, Jeff has brought up a valid point. If he is married, then he doesn't need Playboy obviously. In general though, I think the point is that those Christians who are married have a distinct advantage that they can have sex with their SOs and not feel guilty. But what about us Christians who aren't married and have to keep our hormones on a leash? -- Hug me till you drug me, honey! Greg Skinner (gregbo) {allegra,cbosgd,ihnp4}!houxm!gregbo
aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) (09/12/84)
>> Actually, you're right...usually. Every once in a while, God can even use >> Playboy to zap one with an insight into a twist in one's own feelings about >> relationships, sexuality, or whatever. [Jeff Sargent] > If you mean "after I read Playboy I discovered that I wasn't interested in > seeing women degraded in that manner" I would agree. [Greg Skinner] Actually I am coming more and more to that point; but I was actually referring to the fact that occasionally a Playboy article will make a point that will alert me to some area of psychological wrongness inside myself. -- -- Jeff Sargent {decvax|harpo|ihnp4|inuxc|seismo|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h:aeq THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK (it couldn't stand it there any longer).
gregbo@houxm.UUCP (Greg Skinner) (09/21/84)
> From: rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) > > >> I do think that reading Playboy is unlikely to bring one closer to God. > > >> And I haven't the slightest inclination or desire to read it. > [Paul DuBois] > > > > Neither do I. I think we all basically agree, judging from the repsonses > > to Trish's article on VW, that such magazines are degrading to women. (me) > Like it or not, there are some worthwhile things in Playboy (or at > least there used to be:-). There's also some trash. PARTS of the magazine > are degrading to women. Actually, Playboy as I recall it significantly > overlaps Bon Appetit, Road and Track, maybe a bit of the New Yorker. Best > sort out what's there...but that's not my main point... Well, not being an avid reader of Playboy, I really can't say whether is it worthwhile or not. I have heard comments by others that the articles are good reading material, but what I was commenting on, mostly, was the nudity. > >> I could comment that you don't need Playboy, since you have access to a > >> woman who is beautiful to you (I have no idea of her physical appearance, > >> but she's certainly beautiful to you) at any time you reasonably desire -- > >> and not just to a view of her, but to her reality... [Jeff Sargent] > I find it hard to believe that Greg (>) is willing to take shots at Playboy > as being degrading to women, without using a tactical nuke on this (>>=Jeff) > opinion. If believing that having "access to a woman...at any time you > reasonably desire..." isn't degrading, I can't imagine what is! Well, ok, I see your point. Perhaps the wording of Jeff's article is degrading, but I don't think that was his intent. I think I misread his posting, and associated it with married vs. non-married (read on) ... > And further on the same discussion... > > Seriously though, Jeff has brought up a valid point. If he is married, then > > he doesn't need Playboy obviously. In general though, I think the point is > > that those Christians who are married have a distinct advantage that they > > can have sex with their SOs and not feel guilty. But what about us > > Christians who aren't married and have to keep our hormones on a leash? (me) > First off, could you tell me just what need it is that is satisfied by both > a wife and Playboy magazine? I think I have erred here. What I was probably getting at was that once one is married, one is able to make love to one's partner, relieving one of the necess- ity of looking at Playboy or what-have-you. (I know that it is not necessary to be married to make love to someone, but this is an accepted rule by most Christians.) In retrospect, I realize that it's not necessary to turn to Playboy or anything else to satisfy one's needs (I don't). > If Christianity vs hormones is a problem, I suggest that you look again to > your religion. It better have an answer for you, because the hormones are > there just as they should be, doing what they're supposed to do. I'll give > you one clue: "Ignore them" ain't a useful answer. Since it has been said that this discussion doesn't belong in net.singles, I'll refrain from comment here, and continue on in net.religion (when I'm more awake). -- Hug me till you drug me, honey! Greg Skinner (gregbo) {allegra,cbosgd,harvard,ihnp4}!houxm!gregbo