rob@dadla.UUCP (Rob Vetter) (09/18/86)
In article <4107@reed.UUCP> thoma@reed.UUCP (Ann Muir Thomas) writes: > . > . > . >porn. The dormies retaliated by putting up pictures of naked men and >women all over the dorm, along with a sign that basically said >"If you don't like our taste in pictures, go away." The same Reed >feminist is now up in arms and threatening all kinds of actions >against the dorm (which she does NOT live in, by the way.) What >do you think about all this? Childish on the part of the "feminist" and childish on the part of the dormies. Posting for appreciation is one thing, posting for retaliation is another. -- Rob Vetter (503) 629-1044 [ihnp4, ucbvax, decvax, uw-beaver]!tektronix!dadla!rob "Waste is a terrible thing to mind" - NRC (Well, they COULD have said it)
sdp@omssw1.UUCP (Scott Peterson) (09/18/86)
In article <4107@reed.UUCP> thoma@reed.UUCP (Ann Muir Thomas) writes: >Meanwhile, here at Reed there is considerable backlash against the >Reed feminists. One of them got offended at the appearance of >Playboy in a dorm social room and managed to antagonize most of the >dormies while telling them why they shouldn't read (or look at) >porn. The dormies retaliated by putting up pictures of naked men and >women all over the dorm, along with a sign that basically said >"If you don't like our taste in pictures, go away." The same Reed >feminist is now up in arms and threatening all kinds of actions >against the dorm (which she does NOT live in, by the way.) What >do you think about all this? > >Ann Muir Thomas >...tektronix!reed!thoma Anytime someone starts _telling_ me what I shouldn't do, I tend to react negatively. She must have really pissed them off to get a reaction like that, but from the information above it sounds like she deserved it. Tell her to try being nice first. If not for the others, for the selfish reason that it's usually a much faster way to get what you want. It works for friends, financial aid offices, department stores, or just about anywhere except large organizations where the members are "programmed" (i.e. "I'm sorry but our records show that the accoun must be paid by such-and-such to avoid legal action ... ") Seems like it's not a pornography issue. How old is this person? Maybe she has a "programmed" response to porn. That's probably the real problem. -- Scott Peterson, Intel Corp., Hillsboro, OR, ...!tektronix!ogcvax!omssw1!sdp
korn@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Peter "Arrgh" Korn) (09/20/86)
In article <1056@dadla.UUCP> rob@dadla.UUCP (Rob Vetter) writes: >In article <4107@reed.UUCP> thoma@reed.UUCP (Ann Muir Thomas) writes: >> . >> . >> . >>porn. The dormies retaliated by putting up pictures of naked men and >>women all over the dorm, along with a sign that basically said >>"If you don't like our taste in pictures, go away." The same Reed >>feminist is now up in arms and threatening all kinds of actions >>against the dorm (which she does NOT live in, by the way.) What >>do you think about all this? > > Childish on the part of the "feminist" and childish on the > part of the dormies. Posting for appreciation is one thing, > posting for retaliation is another. This reminds me of a story from my old high-school days. A typical senior prank (often done by non-seniors every chance they got) was to post playboy, penthouse, and hustler photos all over campus, especially behind the glass display-cases that were then glued shut. Typically these photos would remain in place for several days. A close female friend of mine got revenge: she got a subscription to playgirl, and, after a year's worth of nude male pics had been accumulated, she posted them up ALL over campus. Needless to say, they were all torn down within 30 minutes (mostly by male staff members). Sounds like a much more effective form of revenge to me. Peter ----- Peter "Arrgh" Korn I know lots of honorary jews! Why, korn@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU some of my very best friends {decvax,dual,hplabs,sdcsvax,ulysses}!ucbvax!korn are honorary jews!
ronc@fai.UUCP (Ronald O. Christian) (09/24/86)
In article <7428@sun.uucp> falk@sun.uucp (Ed Falk) writes: >>[Feminist complains about Playboy in reading room, residents >>of dorm retaliates by hanging foldouts (male and female) on >>walls, etc. Feminist threatens to sue.] > >Well, if she lived there, she'd have a legitimate complaint, Would she? >but since >she doesn't, it's none of her damn business what other people choose >to read in their own homes. Does she have the right to tell others in a dorm what they can read, even *if* she also lives there? I'm not talking about the hanging of nude pictures, that was a childish reaction to a childish action. (Although it's arguable that they had the right.) But does one person have the right to censor other people's reading material in a communal living arrangement? What if I decided that I was offending by the presence of religious material in the common room? Ron -- -- Ronald O. Christian (Fujitsu America Inc., San Jose, Calif.) seismo!amdahl!fai!ronc -or- ihnp4!pesnta!fai!ronc Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: "If you are seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it."
jeffw@midas.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (09/26/86)
In article <246@zen.BERKELEY.EDU> korn@cory.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Peter "Arrgh" Korn) writes: >A close female friend of mine got revenge: she got a subscription >to playgirl, and, after a year's worth of nude male pics had been >accumulated, she posted them up ALL over campus. Needless to say, >they were all torn down within 30 minutes (mostly by male staff >members). That's a damn shame. Jeff Winslow
ugeileen@sunybcs.UUCP (Eileen McGowan) (10/04/86)
In article <4107@reed.UUCP> thoma@reed.UUCP (Ann Muir Thomas) writes: >Meanwhile, here at Reed there is considerable backlash against the >Reed feminists. One of them got offended at the appearance of >Playboy in a dorm social room and managed to antagonize most of the >dormies while telling them why they shouldn't read (or look at) >porn. The dormies retaliated by putting up pictures of naked men and >women all over the dorm, along with a sign that basically said >"If you don't like our taste in pictures, go away." The same Reed >feminist is now up in arms and threatening all kinds of actions >against the dorm (which she does NOT live in, by the way.) What >do you think about all this? :-( She might be just plain angry. So angry that she really doesn't care that what she is doing may not really benefit her cause...she just might want to punish these people in the dorm for reacting to her the way they did. I know when I see a man sporting one of those Playboy logos..or whatever...the picture of the bunny head...I get angry. I find it hard to tolerate a man who is proud of viewing women as sex toys. I am tempted to give him a punch in the gut or say something very insulting to him. But, I try to avoid doing either. It probably would only make him angry at me and want to be a "playboy" even more.
bryant@endor.harvard.edu (jim bryant) (10/05/86)
In article <1076@sunybcs.UUCP> ugeileen@gort.UUCP (Eileen McGowan) writes: > > I know when I see a man sporting one of those Playboy logos..or > whatever...the picture of the bunny head...I get angry. I find it hard > to tolerate a man who is proud of viewing women as sex toys. I am > tempted to give him a punch in the gut or say something very insulting > to him. But, I try to avoid doing either. It probably would only make > him angry at me and want to be a "playboy" even more. perhaps i'm wrong, but i've always interpreted the display of a playboy logo (besides tacky) as an attempt by the wearer to proclaim to *other men* that he's a "playboy" (trying to impress the other guys of his sexual success, and to bolster his own ego). i don't think it is consciously worn to proclaim the wearer "views women as sex toys" (although that may well be true). if anything, as you said, i would think women would find it a turn-off. harvard university/graduate school of arts & sciences/jim bryant -k6 ...ihnp4!harvard!bryant
rb@cci632.UUCP (Rex Ballard) (10/06/86)
In article <1076@sunybcs.UUCP> ugeileen@gort.UUCP (Eileen McGowan) writes: >In article <4107@reed.UUCP> thoma@reed.UUCP (Ann Muir Thomas) writes: >>Meanwhile, here at Reed there is considerable backlash against the >>Reed feminists. One of them got offended at the appearance of >>Playboy in a dorm social room and managed to antagonize most of the >>dormies while telling them why they shouldn't read (or look at) >>porn. > She might be just plain angry. Got two problems here. Those who displayed the porn seem to be saying "It's not OK to not like porn" The feminist/moralist/... is saying "It's not OK to like porn". Neither is right. If one group likes porn, they should be able to read it, not put it on display for those who don't. If one group does not like porn, they should be able to go into the public portions of a building without being confronted by it. >So angry that she really doesn't > care that what she is doing may not really benefit her cause...she Which cause? Fundamentalism, moralism, or feminism? > I know when I see a man sporting one of those Playboy logos..or > whatever...the picture of the bunny head...I get angry. Don't get angry, be grateful. By displaying the logo, he is giving you a warning as well as an invitation. If you want someone like that, it's an invitation. If you don't, it's a warning. > I find it hard > to tolerate a man who is proud of viewing women as sex toys. Would you rather find out after you've married him? By wearing the appropriate "signal", you can avoid him, but another woman who wants a man like that (I suppose there might be a few) can do what is appropriate to start a relationship with him. Remember that the Playboy mentality also includes a money oriented, expensive life-style, "success ethic". Some women like this aspect as well. > I am tempted to give him a punch in the gut or say something very insulting > to him. How about coming up with a "signal" that the type of man your'e interested in could wear/display? I knew of one group that used a dog's choke chain to mean "the woman's needs/wants come first". Men wearing this chain around their neck were to live by that ethic. A woman wearing the symbol would expect a man to know what it meant. Another group used to wear special crosses that meant, "celibate and enjoying it". Those men and women would date, party, and socialize, but with the understanding of "No sex". Many of the gay men would have the left ear pierced, and the het men would have the right ear pierced. Very useful in a situation were 70% of the male population preferred men. Stuffing people "back into the closet" as far as their expression of sexual values is more of a problem than "letting them out". Would you rather no one expressed, and then the hard core feminist met "Mr. Macho", and both try to pursuade each other to each other's point of view? There have always been signals which had specific sexual meaning to others with similar interests. These range from the green carnation of Oscar Wilde's day, to the black patent leather 5" high heeled shoes, meaning "dominant woman" or "sexual feminist" in some circles. The biggest problem is that some people don't know about these signals. At least the bunny has become more of a "standard" signal.
jeffw@midas.UUCP (10/06/86)
In article <1076@sunybcs.UUCP> ugeileen@gort.UUCP (Eileen McGowan) writes: > I know when I see a man sporting one of those Playboy logos..or > whatever...the picture of the bunny head...I get angry. I find it hard > to tolerate a man who is proud of viewing women as sex toys. Do you have any *evidence* that a guy with a Playboy logo is "proud of viewing women as sex toys"? I can easily imagine some man viewing women as sex toys, but being proud of it seems a truly bizarre notion. Probably he's just proud of *his* "sex toys". :-) Or wants you to think he is. Jeff Winslow
mjranum@gouldsd.UUCP (Marcus the Ranum) (10/08/86)
> In article <1076@sunybcs.UUCP> ugeileen@gort.UUCP (Eileen McGowan) writes: > > > > I know when I see a man sporting one of those Playboy logos..or > > whatever...the picture of the bunny head...I get angry. I find it hard > > to tolerate a man who is proud of viewing women as sex toys. I am > > tempted to give him a punch in the gut or say something very insulting > > to him. But, I try to avoid doing either. It probably would only make > > him angry at me and want to be a "playboy" even more. I find it's largely a matter of taste in some economic classes. Hefner's playboy empire has come to symbolize a lot of things, incl. tons of sex, wild parties, expensive fast cars, jewelry, etc. It seems to me that the people who wear the playboy logo are trying to (on some level) associate themselves (in their wildest dreams) with the rich highflying jetset. I'd pity them first. They're a lot like the guys who wear cheap cotton t-shirts with a Gucci-compatible logo on them. It's trying to associate with an image that they see as cool and classy. As to whether the Playboy empire is as wonderful as it is cracked up to be, I am sure there are varying opinions. My disapproval won't make any difference one way or the other, but certainly some people do have very different ideas of what constitutes "style". Live Free mjr remember: you can lead a horse to water, but he'll never be as cool as Jimmie Dean. -- Moon so bright for love! Cormorants ... You are more like The little firefly