hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (The Polymath) (02/26/86)
Here's an update on my adventures with _Playgirl_.
I sent in a set of photos as my application to be part of "The Men of
Mensa" last week. Having not heard from them since, I just called to make
sure they got them. They said the typical delay is 6 - 8 weeks before they
send out a response (~sigh~). Up 'til now I'd assumed I wasn't an instant
reject, anyway. Oh, well.
Net response has been surprising. So far, my mail has been 100% positive.
The few net postings I've seen have been mostly neutral or positive.
Hardly a flame in the bunch.
I'm a little disappointed. After the general hullabaloo over _Playboy's_
"The Women of Mensa" I thought there'd be _some_ controversy attached to
the _Playgirl_ equivalent. Apparently no one's much concerned about men
posing in the nude. How's that for sexism?
Anyway, when they let me know, I'll let you know. Thanks again to all who
wrote with encouragement.
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe)
Citicorp(+)TTI
3100 Ocean Park Blvd. Geniuses are people so lazy they
Santa Monica, CA 90405 do everything right the first time.
(213) 450-9111, ext. 2483
{philabs,randvax,trwrb,vortex}!ttidca!ttidcc!hollombehxe@rayssd.UUCP (Heather Emanuel) (03/02/86)
Jerry writes: > I sent in a set of photos as my application to be part of "The Men of > Mensa" last week... > > Net response has been surprising. So far, my mail has been 100% positive. > The few net postings I've seen have been mostly neutral or positive. > Hardly a flame in the bunch. > > I'm a little disappointed. After the general hullabaloo over _Playboy's_ > "The Women of Mensa" I thought there'd be _some_ controversy attached to > the _Playgirl_ equivalent. Apparently no one's much concerned about men > posing in the nude. How's that for sexism? There are, to me, two reasons for the difference in reaction here. One is that it is simply not as common, and thus much more of a novelty for a man to pose nude. After all, for years it seemed as though nobody wanted to see them. Now they're everywhere, in bars and in magazines, etc., and it's turning into a hip, pseudo-liberal thing for women to ogle too. So people are applauding the men as 'brave pioneers' who are doing it much more for the challenge of it than out of some desire to display their bodies for others' prurient interests. The other reason (in *my* opinion, but borne out by research and literature) is much more subtle. Take a look at the women's poses in Playboy. They're passive, submissive; they frighten me when I think of myself in that situation. They're asking to be dominated. Now look at the men in Playgirl. They're as comically macho as you can get. They climb mountains, fix cars, you name it -- all in the buff. They're *telling* you what you can expect from them. It's a completely non-threatening situation from the poser's point of view, and I can certainly see why it would be a tremendous ego boost. The issue is control -- even in soft-porn magazines, men have it and women don't. So that's why, although I would hope that someday all this garbage will be laughed out of existence, I'm not upset over a man posing for Playgirl nearly as much as I am over a women posing for Playboy. It's only sexist on the surface. -- --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
mojo@kepler.UUCP (Morris Jones) (03/07/86)
In article <2024@rayssd.UUCP> hxe@rayssd.UUCP (Heather Emanuel) writes: >The other reason (in *my* opinion, but borne out by research and >literature) is much more subtle. Take a look at the women's poses >in Playboy. They're passive, submissive; they frighten me when I >think of myself in that situation. They're asking to be dominated. I agree with you, but I also see evidence that this is changing. I think the modern sex movies are depicting women in a much more powerful position. The female stars in many scripts (in particular those written by women) are allowed to show most of the behavior we commonly associate with men (oggling the men, picking them up at bars, objectifying the sex). (Is this good? I can't tell!) MARKEDLY different is the portrayal of women in our modern soft-porn: Rock videos and teenage sex comedys. According to my hearsay research, the women here are depicted as exceedingly dominating over men -- and using sex as the source of thier power. <sigh> ... are we equals anywhere? Does this mean I'm not allowed to enjoy a Playboy? -- Mojo ... Morris Jones, MicroPro Product Development {lll-crg,ptsfa,dual,well,pyramid}!micropro!kepler!mojo
dbb@aicchi.UUCP (Burch) (03/15/86)
> In article <2024@rayssd.UUCP> hxe@rayssd.UUCP (Heather Emanuel) writes: > >The other reason (in *my* opinion, but borne out by research and > >literature) is much more subtle. Take a look at the women's poses > >in Playboy. They're passive, submissive; they frighten me when I > >think of myself in that situation. They're asking to be dominated. This may surprise you, but some women LIKE to be submissive. Although I object to the CHARCTERIZATION of women as all submissive, be aware that for some women, no other role will do... This is true of some men as well. -- -David B. (Ben) Burch Analyst's International Corp. Chicago Branch (ihnp4!aicchi!dbb) "Argue for your limitations, and they are yours"