colonel@ellie.UUCP (Col. G. L. Sicherman) (03/13/86)
> Playboy is the antithesis of naturism. If you lived in a world > of naked bodies, there would be no need to go out and buy pictures > of them. The basic idea is that clothing reduces the supply of > "scenery." ... > John. You might as well say that if we lived in a world with flowers there would be no need to paint pictures of flowers. Photography lets you see familiar things in a novel way. 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. That's because they're photographs. It's very hard for a photograph to make the first move! Captain Buffalo: "You see, Tommy ... When Mudman suffered a freak laboratory accident, something happened to his mind as well." Tommy Thrush: "You mean, it turned into mud!" Captain Buffalo: "In technical language, that's correct." -- Col. G. L. Sicherman UU: ...{rocksvax|decvax}!sunybcs!colonel CS: colonel@buffalo-cs BI: csdsicher@sunyabva