[net.rec.nude] Turn about is fair play -- update.

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!hollombe

hxe@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"