ford@titan.tsd.arlut.utexas.edu (Carolyn Ford) (03/15/91)
I need some advice/suggestions for the following delimma: My partner and I are having an ongoing debate on the harmfulness or harmlesness of "light" pornography, specifically "Playboy." My normally open-minded and understanding partner insists that it is completely innocuous, and he sees nothing wrong with looking at these women because they're beautiful, and there is nothing wrong with the human body. My argument is that these magazines portray women as the playthings of men, and the idea that women in general are primarily around for the pleasure of men. Now I know there was a raging debate in this newsgroup last year on the pros/cons of pornography. It is not my intent to start that up again. I have decided that, yes, I believe the human body is beautiful, and that there is nothing wrong with human sexuality, so what I am looking for are books or magazines that celebrate the beauty of mutual sexuality. I would be willing to trade him "erotica" involving both sexes which promotes positive feelings about both sexes, in exchange for him giving up his subscription to Playboy. Does anybody know if such things exist? Thanks for any help. Yes, I am reading Andrea Dworkin's _Pornography_ at the moment, but I think it's not going to help me out much in my argument because Playboy doesn't show bondage, abuse, etc. My partner would be very opposed to those things, but still sees Playboy as harmless. carolyn
dgross@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Dave Gross) (03/16/91)
According to ford@titan.tsd.arlut.utexas.edu (): > >My partner and I are having an ongoing debate on the harmfulness or >harmlesness of "light" pornography, specifically "Playboy." My >normally open-minded and understanding partner insists that it is >completely innocuous, and he sees nothing wrong with looking at >these women because they're beautiful, and there is nothing wrong >with the human body. My argument is that these magazines portray >women as the playthings of men, and the idea that women in general are >primarily around for the pleasure of men. In my Psych of Women class this quarter we've just finished a lecture on pornography. Actually, it was less a lecture and more a movie. We saw "Not A Love Story," which was put out by some feminists in cooperation with the Canadian Film Bureau. Mostly what was shown was a lot of bondage videos, but also included were brief interviews with strippers and peep-show performers. I've seen a couple of porno films, and I've seen my allotment of dirty magazines, but I've never seen anything as disturbing as the movie I saw in psych of women. The porno films I've seen are more absurd than frightening, but the ones they found for "Not A Love Story" (NALS) were pretty bad -- Women tied up being spanked, women performing fellatio on handguns, even a couple of excerpts from child porn films. The conclusion that I would have drawn from the evidence given in the film is that there is some really ugly pornography out there. The conclusion that they drew was that pornography was bad. It would be like reading excerpts from "Mein Kampf" and then concluding that books are evil. But they left themselves an out. So as not to appear too prudish or anti-sex (and so as not to condemn those depictions of sexuality that they happen to enjoy), they created this dichotomy: Good dirty pictures are "erotica;" Bad dirty pictures are "pornography." >Now I know there was a raging debate in >this newsgroup last year on the pros/cons of pornography. It is >not my intent to start that up again. I have decided that, yes, >I believe the human body is beautiful, and that there is nothing >wrong with human sexuality, so what I am looking for are books or >magazines that celebrate the beauty of mutual sexuality. I would >be willing to trade him "erotica" involving both sexes which >promotes positive feelings about both sexes, in exchange for him >giving up his subscription to Playboy. Does anybody know if >such things exist? Sure they do. If you like it, it's erotica. If you don't it's pornography. Go find some erotica and share it with him. It can't hurt. But don't tell him that the pictures in Playboy that he likes to look at are dirty, evil, pornography. They just happen to be things that turn him on. >Thanks for any help. Yes, I am reading Andrea Dworkin's _Pornography_ >at the moment, but I think it's not going to help me out much in >my argument because Playboy doesn't show bondage, abuse, etc. My >partner would be very opposed to those things, but still sees Playboy >as harmless. So do I. I've found that arguing with feminists about what is "erotica" and what is "pornography" is the same argument in substance and style as arguing with fundamentalists about what is "art" and what is "pornography." It all seems to center on what you happen to like. Men seem to be far more visual than women in what they respond to sexually. Women seem to be far more interested in stories and vivid verbal descriptions. I think that romance novels, women's favored pornography, are really dumb. I think they contain some really backward notions about the relations between the sexes. Many people draw the same conclusions about pornography. The problem isn't with the medium (the romance novel, or the nudie magazine), but with the sexist attitudes which are pretty pervasive in ALL media. -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- dgross@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- On Iraq's release of only female hostages: "That was Iraq's idea. In a touchy political situation, we didn't feel it was wise to make a comment." -- California NOW coordinator Linda Joplin
jls@ncar.UCAR.EDU (Jim Showalter) (03/17/91)
>My partner and I are having an ongoing debate on the harmfulness or >harmlesness of "light" pornography, specifically "Playboy." You've already polarized the issue as far as I'm concerned by using the word "pornography". The word "pornography" is deliberately calculated to convey the idea that there is something smutty, dirty, etc going on here. >normally open-minded and understanding partner insists that it is >completely innocuous, and he sees nothing wrong with looking at >these women because they're beautiful, and there is nothing wrong >with the human body. Shame on him. >I believe the human body is beautiful, and that there is nothing >wrong with human sexuality, Not true. You agree that certain Correct(tm) forms of sexual behavior are okay. On the other hand, as you indicate below (when the talk turns to things like bondage), you believe that OTHER forms of human sexuality are sick. As a person who happens to enjoy more than vanilla sex, I find your attitude annoying and discriminatory. >be willing to trade him "erotica" involving both sexes which >promotes positive feelings about both sexes, in exchange for him >giving up his subscription to Playboy. So in other words, if he stops acting like some dumb old ox of a brute and comes around to your way of thinking, you'll reward him with some Correct(tm) stuff to make up for it? Sounds like thought control to me. >Does anybody know if >such things exist? Actually, yes--there is a very nice book called "Erotic by Nature" you might check out. >I am reading Andrea Dworkin's _Pornography_ >at the moment, but I think it's not going to help me out much in >my argument because Playboy doesn't show bondage, abuse, etc. If Playboy DID show bondage, by what right would you call it pornographic? Many people consensually engage in bondage to their mutual satisfaction. Is that wrong? Or do you think you know better for them how to act than they do? P.S. Dworkin is full of shit. -- ***** DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed herein are my own. Duh. Like you'd ever be able to find a company (or, for that matter, very many people) with opinions like mine. -- "When I want your opinion, I'll read it in your entrails."
jls@ncar.ucar.EDU (Jim Showalter) (03/20/91)
> I've never seen anything as disturbing > as the movie I saw in psych of women. The porno films I've > seen are more absurd than frightening, but the ones they found > for "Not A Love Story" (NALS) were pretty bad -- Women tied > up being spanked Why is this bad? I have several female friends who are really into this. I'm really into this. Lots of people are really into this. Most of us are gainfully employed well-educated well-adjusted members of the community. The key word is "consent". Non-consensually inflicted pain is not sexy, it's violence--and quite rightly illegal. Consensually inflicted pain (if "pain" is even the right term) is fun. Calling it bad without taking into account that it represents some people's hard-won sexuality is discriminatory. Assuming that the women in bondage porn are hating it is ethnocentric: if you want to talk with some of them to find out how they REALLY feel about it, let me know. -- ***** DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed herein are my own. Duh. Like you'd ever be able to find a company (or, for that matter, very many people) with opinions like mine. -- "When I want your opinion, I'll read it in your entrails."
dgross@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Dave Gross) (03/21/91)
According to uunet!igor!rutabaga!jls@ncar.ucar.EDU (Jim Showalter): > dgross said: >> The porno films I've >> seen are more absurd than frightening, but the ones they found >> for "Not A Love Story" (NALS) were pretty bad -- Women tied >> up being spanked > >Why is this bad? I have several female friends who are really into >this. I'm really into this. Lots of people are really into this. Most >of us are gainfully employed well-educated well-adjusted members of >the community. No offense intended. >The key word is "consent". Non-consensually inflicted pain is not >sexy, it's violence--and quite rightly illegal. Although NALS only showed brief excerpts from porno films, the excerpts shown did not give any hint of consent. They just showed the woman tied up (and gagged) and apparantly struggling. To me it looked brutal, but perhaps in the mind of the woman involved it was nonthreatening. I dare not speculate... >Assuming that the women in bondage porn >are hating it is ethnocentric... Huh? Ethnocentric? -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- dgross@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- TIME IS MONEY! Here's Proof: -- Women earn 74 cents for each dollar than men earn. -- Men live 8.9 years for each decade that women live.
turpin@cs.utexas.EDU (Russell Turpin) (03/21/91)
----- In article <9103191737.AA01224@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> albert_lunde@plato.nwu.EDU (Albert Lunde) writes: > "Yellow Silk: Journal of Erotic Arts" > > (As near to "ideological" purity as anything I've seen, but not > heavy handed about it.) But is it erotic? I asked this question here (or perhaps in another newsgroup) about a year ago. Does *anyone* find that the stories in this magazine makes their pulse quicken, their juices flow, and their desire turn to something sweaty and fun? Does anyone find that they cannot read it through without interruption so that their fingers turn to more concrete lasciviousness? Last time I asked this, not a single person anwered in the positive. However literate and ideologically pure, unless it turns someone on, in a sexual not merely intellectual fashion, then it is *not* erotica, regardless of how it advertises itself. > "On Our Backs: Entertainment for the Adventurous Lesbian" > 526 Castro, San Francisco, CA 94114 > USA $28 / for six issues a year > > This is in part a reaction to the lesbian-feminist "political- > correctness" on sexuality. ... But without a doubt, it is erotic. The original poster will not like it, because it does not shy away from S&M. > Without speaking for or against the larger issues, it is > certianly possible to make a case that stuff like "Playboy" > is suffering from a sort of erotic tunnel vision. ... A tunnel more difficult to navigate than a nun's ... Well, you get the picture. I suspect that mostly it is teenage boys who actually find Playboy erotic. Its adult readership is maintained, I suspect, by the fact that it is *safe* erotica. Playboy is to the average man what Yellow Silk is to the liberal who thinks that leather is a sign of evil. In the crowds in which they run, neither will have their politics nor their sexuality questioned by such a choice. Russell
robert@ncar.ucar.EDU (robert coleman) (03/21/91)
In article <2995@titan.tsd.arlut.utexas.edu> ford@titan.tsd.arlut.utexas.edu () writes: > >My partner and I are having an ongoing debate on the harmfulness or >harmlesness of "light" pornography, specifically "Playboy." My >normally open-minded and understanding partner insists that it is >completely innocuous, and he sees nothing wrong with looking at >these women because they're beautiful, and there is nothing wrong >with the human body. My argument is that these magazines portray >women as the playthings of men, and the idea that women in general >are primarily around for the pleasure of men. Do you see evidence in your partner that he considers women to be "playthings of men", and "primarily around for the pleasure of men"? (I would be surprised, given the content of this posting, if you did, as you would clearly have some very fundamental problems with your relationship with him. I would be hard-pressed imagining someone with your viewpoints hanging around someone who felt that she was his plaything. I'm going to assume, therefore, that your answer is "no".) If not, then: a) Either the material does not contain the message that you think it does, or: b) The message does not have the impact that Dworkin et. al. claims that it has. Personally, I suspect case b). It's not surprising that a fantasy magazine for men would portray it's women as being sexually available, and, indeed, primarily interested in sex. After all, it is a *fantasy* magazine, intended to supply men with something that they otherwise cannot have. Sex, in real life, ordinarily involves establishing a relationship first, which involves time, energy, commitment (usually monogomous) along with compromises that amount to losses of personal freedom ( and, says the cynic in me, copious amounts of moolah ). All this is worth it, but wouldn't it be nice, the man fantasizes, if just for a little while it didn't involve so damn much *work*? So the man involves himself temporarily in a world where sex is easily available. Where Dworkin, et. al. go wrong is in the assumption that this attitude is carried into the real world. The fact is, the real world very quickly slaps men back into reality; it doesn't take geniuses to discover that the dating system generally bears no relation to any fantasy world represented in any magazine, or that real life women do not generally maintain the sexually free attitude projected by the models in the magazines. In fact, this is the single most insulting thing about the anti-pornography movements; they assume, (without any real evidence, mind you) that men are completely incapable of separating fantasy from reality, even when bluntly faced with the reality most of the time. If this were true, there would be no hope; men fantasize with or without the aid of pornography, and I suspect that they always have. Two dimensional pictures of models paid to pose do not make that fantasy world any realer than the one constructed in one's own mind. Or do you imagine that men, left to their own devices, would fantasize about weeks-to-years of courting, spending uncountable dollars on someone else, pleasing them in every way possible, possibly marrying them, and finally finding them in just the right mood in order to get sex? ;-) ----------------- In either case a) or b), what's the problem? Why do you wish to provide him with alternate material to avoid a problem that, for him, doesn't exist? And if the problem does exist for him, why not face that directly? --------- Robert C. --------- (BTW, I was very amused at your characterization of your partner as "normally open-minded". In this context, it can only be interpreted "normally agrees with me" or "normally accepts the PC point of view". ;-) I suspect he thinks *you're* pretty close-minded on the topic, and this can be said: it doesn't take an open mind to agree with what's currently popular, and anti-pornography is currently PC; it does take an open mind to entertain the currently unpopular ideas.) -- ---------------------------------------------- Disclaimer: My company has not yet seen fit to elect me as spokesperson. Hmmpf.
dmerrill@zombie.dtc.hp.com (David Merrill) (03/22/91)
In soc.feminism, ford@titan.tsd.arlut.utexas.edu (Carolyn Ford) writes: >I need some advice/suggestions for the following delimma: >My partner and I are having an ongoing debate on the harmfulness or >harmlesness of "light" pornography, specifically "Playboy." My >normally open-minded and understanding partner insists that it is >completely innocuous, and he sees nothing wrong with looking at >these women because they're beautiful, and there is nothing wrong >with the human body. My argument is that these magazines portray >women as the playthings of men, and the idea that women in general are primarily >around for the pleasure of men. Well, women ARE the playthings of men, just as men are the playthings of women. Likewise, men are around for the pleasure of women just as much as women are around for the pleasure of men. However, it is important that we realize that that's not ALL we are to each other. BTW, I don't consider "Playboy" to be pornography at all. In fact, I barely call it erotica. I also consider it very rude when someone calls me a liar when I tell them that I spend more time reading the articles in "Playboy" than I do looking at the girlies. >Now I know there was a raging debate in >this newsgroup last year on the pros/cons of pornography. It is >not my intent to start that up again. I have decided that, yes, >I believe the human body is beautiful, and that there is nothing >wrong with human sexuality, so what I am looking for are books or >magazines that celebrate the beauty of mutual sexuality. I would >be willing to trade him "erotica" involving both sexes which >promotes positive feelings about both sexes, in exchange for him >giving up his subscription to Playboy. Does anybody know if >such things exist? Maybe this isn't about erotica for him at all. Maybe this is more about you telling him which magazines to read. Women. All they think about is sex. >Thanks for any help. Yes, I am reading Andrea Dworkin's _Pornography_ >at the moment, but I think it's not going to help me out much in >my argument because Playboy doesn't show bondage, abuse, etc. My >partner would be very opposed to those things, but still sees Playboy >as harmless. I agree with him. >carolyn Dave
Steinar.Haug@elab-runit.sintef.no (Steinar Haug) (03/22/91)
there is a magazine here in norway, now sold in sweden and denmark too as far as i know, called "cupido". it's IMHO a very enjoyable magazine, and it takes letters from, writes articles on, and includes pictures of, straights and gays of both genders. i think it would have to classify it as erotica, but it could never be compared to playboy. my husband and i both enjoy reading it... well, i mostly look at the pictures, my norwegian isnt that great yet... but i enjoy what i am able to read. the concept is not impossible by any stretch of the imagination! -cindy kandolf cindy@solan.unit.no trondheim, norway
dcasper@antares.concordia.ca (David Casperson) (03/23/91)
dgross@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Dave Gross) writes: > We saw "Not A Love Story," which was put out by some feminists in > cooperation with the Canadian Film Bureau. Ummh, for those who care that's the National Film Board. I also think that the collaboration is tighter than Dave Gross's wording implies. As I remember NALS is a NFB production by a feminist producer. I would reccomend this film to people who care about erotica/pornography issues. It's biased, but well made. -- David Casperson (non-practising druid)
jls@rutabaga.UUCP (Jim Showalter) (03/26/91)
>Although NALS only showed brief excerpts from porno films, the excerpts shown >did not give any hint of consent. See, that's the problem with selective editing and taking things out of context to press an agenda. Many bondage films (not all, but many) make sure to have a disclaimer at the beginning to the effect that everything depicted is consensual and/or even include the dialogue those of us in the scene call "negotiation" before the tying up begins. >They just showed the woman tied up (and >gagged) and apparantly struggling. To me it looked brutal, but perhaps in >the mind of the woman involved it was nonthreatening. Yeah, it probably does look bad to a person who isn't in on the joke. A classical problem of miscommunication. >>Assuming that the women in bondage porn >>are hating it is ethnocentric... >Huh? Ethnocentric? Yes, ethnocentric. As in "drug culture", "SM community", etc. I tend to view the macro-culture called America as largely irrelevant: it is really just a bag containing a large number of much smaller cultures. Typically members of one culture don't "get" members of other cultures, which is what I refer to as "ethnocentrism". -- ***** DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed herein are my own. Duh. Like you'd ever be able to find a company (or, for that matter, very many people) with opinions like mine. -- "When I want your opinion, I'll read it in your entrails."
jls@uunet.uu.net (Jim Showalter) (03/28/91)
>But is it erotic? I asked this question here (or perhaps in another >newsgroup) about a year ago. Does *anyone* find that the stories in >this magazine makes their pulse quicken, their juices flow, and their >desire turn to something sweaty and fun? Does anyone find that they >cannot read it through without interruption so that their fingers turn >to more concrete lasciviousness? Last time I asked this, not a single >person anwered in the positive. However literate and ideologically >pure, unless it turns someone on, in a sexual not merely intellectual >fashion, then it is *not* erotica, regardless of how it advertises >itself. My definition of the difference between erotica and pornography is that I can masturbate to pornography. Or, as Woody Allen put it when he was asked if sex was dirty: "It is if you're doing it right". I'd rather be politically incorrect than bored any day. -- ***** DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed herein are my own. Duh. Like you'd ever be able to find a company (or, for that matter, very many people) with opinions like mine. -- "When I want your opinion, I'll read it in your entrails."
kbennett@milton.u.washington.edu (Kathleen Bennett) (03/28/91)
Suggestions for reading material Erotic by Nature Herotica, edited by Susie Bright Pleasures, edited by Lonnie Barbach Ladies Home Erotica [The authors of _LHE_ have recently put out another anthology titled _Look Homeward Erotica_ -- AMBAR] some of these are kind of light ; many think they are not too exciting. For more variety and hotness, try getting a subscription to Frighten The Horses. There is also a journal called Libido. All of these are available from The Sexuality Library located at Good Vibrations in San Francisco. They can send you a catalog of lots of works of female-positive erotica.
jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) (03/28/91)
___
__ I suspect what you're looking for is a way to communicate your
_ dislike of _Playboy_ in a persuasive manner. I recommend sub-
version. :-)
___
__ The first step is to review the material and catalogue what
_ you don't like about it.
___
__ Objections that come to my mind are things like the fact that
_ the women are passive objects, that no women look like that in
real life, that the expressions on their faces don't reflect
any genuine emotion or thought, etc.
___
__ _Playboy_ operates on a principle of being non-threatening to
_ its male readers: the women are photographed with soft-focus
and air-brushed to be made "softer;" they tend to have larger-
than-average breasts, which some consider a motherly trait;
and they are of course relentlessly passive (or have their
"activeness" safely contained).
___
__ And, of course, there's the _Playboy_ lifestyle angle: the
_ magazine is basically about selling objects (stereos, clothes,
alcohol) to men. Not exactly the best environment for viewing
women as human beings.
___
__ At any rate, catalogue your objections in specific terms and
_ let him know about them. It might help if you're adept at
humor and sarcasm. At any rate, the idea is to link the
objections to the specific images used in the magazine, so
that when he'll notice the vacant expressions and such in
the photos. With any luck, this will spoil the fantasy for
him and he won't enjoy _Playboy_ anymore.
___
__ Personally, I only found _Playboy_ interesting in puberty,
_ when I had no idea what naked women really looked like.
I have trouble understanding the magazine's appeal for
non-virgin adult audiences.
> I am reading Andrea Dworkin's _Pornography_ at the moment, but
> I think it's not going to help me out much . . .
___
__ Be aware that Dworkin tends to extrapolate generalizations
_ to absurd extremes. She does catalogue a lot of worthwhile
and overlooked information in support of her absurd extremes,
though.
___
__ I don't know if it was in _Pornography_, but I seem to recall
_ Dworkin going so far as to suggest that any graphic represen-
tation of women (a drawing, a painting, a photo, etc.) is a
way of objectifying, dominating and possessing women!
* * *
___
__ In regard to the subject line, I'm afraid I've never found any
_ graphic erotica that isn't either sexist or as dumb as a bag
of rocks. The search continues . . .
<_Jym_>albert_lunde@plato.nwu.edu (Albert Lunde) (03/28/91)
In article <2995@titan.tsd.arlut.utexas.edu> ford@titan.tsd.arlut.utexas.edu (Carolyn Ford) writes: > what I am looking for are books or > magazines that celebrate the beauty of mutual sexuality. Here are some magazines with alternative views (addresses from spring 1991 issue of Libido, see it for more detail): "Libido: The Journal of Sex and Sensibiltity" published by: Libido,Inc / P.O. Box 146721 / Chicago, IL 60614 USA Subscription $20/year - published quarterly Not all "mutual" or without "objectification", but featuring a wider variety of views and objects: men, women, straight, lesbigay. For example, the Spring 91 is a nude man dancing with a clothed woman. "Yellow Silk: Journal of Erotic Arts" P.O. Box 6374 / Albany, CA 94706 USA Subscription $28/year Their slogan "All persuasions, no brutality". Slick, artistic. (As near to "ideological" purity as anything I've seen, but not heavy handed about it.) "Frighten The Horses" Heat Seeking Publishing / 41 Sutter St. #1108 / San Francisco, CA 94104 USA $8 for two issues I haven't seen it but it sounds interesting - the editor is quoted as being in favor of a world of "justice, pleasure and mutuality". "On Our Backs: Entertainment for the Adventurous Lesbian" 526 Castro, San Francisco, CA 94114 USA $28 / for six issues a year This is in part a reaction to the lesbian-feminist "political-correctness" on sexuality. It's not all vanilla sex. I would recommend it to all readers for Suzie Bright's column alone. Whatever you think of the contents of these mags, one can't make the economic arguments against them that one can make against the much of the sex industry; there is no evidence they are exploiting their workers. I am a bit put out by the other postings I've seen so far in response. Most seemed to be taking up one side or another of the ideological argument, not offering alternative resources. Without speaking for or against the larger issues, it is certianly possible to make a case that stuff like "Playboy" is suffering from a sort of erotic tunnel vision. I would like to see more alternative erotica, reflecting different values, visions and experiences.
wjf@mvuxn.att.COM (William J Fallon) (03/30/91)
In article <JYM.91Mar18145430@remarque.berkeley.edu!. jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) writes:
!.___
!. __ Objections that come to my mind are things like the fact that
!. _ the women are passive objects, that no women look like that in
!. real life, that the expressions on their faces don't reflect
!. any genuine emotion or thought, etc.
Some women DO look like that. It helps if you're 19 though.
!. __ And, of course, there's the _Playboy_ lifestyle angle: the
!. _ magazine is basically about selling objects (stereos, clothes,
!. alcohol) to men. Not exactly the best environment for viewing
!. women as human beings.
This is my personal primary objection to Playboy. Start at page one
and you see something telling you which stereo to buy, turn the page
and see what kind of car you should drive, then they'll advise you on
how to properly decant a bottle of wine, then there's a feature
showing you what kind of girlfriend you should have. As you say, not
the best environment for viewing women as human beings.
!.___
!. __ At any rate, catalogue your objections in specific terms and
!. _ let him know about them. It might help if you're adept at
!. humor and sarcasm. At any rate, the idea is to link the
!. objections to the specific images used in the magazine, so
!. that when he'll notice the vacant expressions and such in
!. the photos. With any luck, this will spoil the fantasy for
!. him and he won't enjoy _Playboy_ anymore.
Bull. If you really object to it, tell him. If he cares about how you
feel he should find a way to alter his behavior.
!. __ In regard to the subject line, I'm afraid I've never found any
!. _ graphic erotica that isn't either sexist or as dumb as a bag
!. of rocks. The search continues . . .
Try either Yellow Silk or On Our Backs as has been previously suggested.jeanne@mica.berkeley.edu (Jeanne Dusseault) (04/06/91)
In article <1991Mar20.050507.24027@informix.com> uunet!infmx!robert@ncar.ucar.EDU (robert coleman) writes: >In article <2995@titan.tsd.arlut.utexas.edu> ford@titan.tsd.arlut.utexas.edu () writes: >>My partner and I are having an ongoing debate on the harmfulness or >>harmlesness of "light" pornography, specifically "Playboy." My >>normally open-minded and understanding partner insists that it is >>completely innocuous, and he sees nothing wrong with looking at >>these women because they're beautiful, and there is nothing wrong >>with the human body. My argument is that these magazines portray >>women as the playthings of men, and the idea that women in general >>are primarily around for the pleasure of men. >In fact, this is the single most insulting thing about the >anti-pornography movements; they assume, (without any real evidence, >mind you) that men are completely incapable of separating fantasy from >reality, even when bluntly faced with the reality most of the time. >If this were true, there would be no hope; men fantasize with or >without the aid of pornography, and I suspect that they always have. >Two dimensional pictures of models paid to pose do not make that >fantasy world any realer than the one constructed in one's own mind. The role of various representations, i.e. photographs, films, advertisements, is constructing what we know as reality. Since reality can be known only through the forms that articulate it, there can be no reality outside of representation. With its synonyms, truth and meaning, it is a fiction produced by its cultural representations, a construction solidified through repetition. Representation, hardly neutral, acts to regulate and define the subject it addresses, positioning them by class or by sex, in active or passive relations to meaning. Over time and constant repetitions these positions become fixed and acquire the status of identities and of categories. Hence the forms of representations are at once forms of definition, means of limitation, modes of power. I'm not labeling "Playboy" pornographic, however, its representation of women does not further a feminist objective. Jeanne jeanne@mica.berkeley.edu
jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) (04/06/91)
wjf> Some women DO look like that [as depicted in _Playboy_]. > It helps if you're 19 though. ___ __ If you're seeing airbrushed 19-year-old women with orange _ skin in soft focus, with no pores yet every strand of hair under perfect control, luminscent in othwise dark surround- ings, perhaps a visit to an optometrist is in order. ___ __ Nobody looks like that. Not even the models in the pictures _ look like that. jym>> With any luck, this will spoil the fantasy for him and he won't >> enjoy _Playboy_ anymore. > Bull. ___ __ No bull. I've known this to work. > If you really object to it, tell him. If he cares about how you > feel he should find a way to alter his behavior. ___ __ Which is essentially what I suggested. The idea is to _ articulate what is troublesome about the magazine and communicate it. >> I'm afraid I've never found any graphic erotica that isn't >> either sexist or as dumb as a bag of rocks. > Try either Yellow Silk or On Our Backs . . . ___ __ I left out boring. _Yellow_Silk_ is boring. _On_Our_Backs_ _ is as dumb as a bag of rocks. <_Jym_>
Marc.Ringuette@DAISY.LEARNING.CS.CMU.EDU (04/09/91)
jeanne@mica.berkeley.edu (Jeanne Dusseault) writes: > The role of various representations, i.e. photographs, films, > advertisements, is constructing what we know as reality. Since > reality can be known only through the forms that articulate it, there > can be no reality outside of representation. With its synonyms, truth > and meaning, it is a fiction produced by its cultural representations, > a construction solidified through repetition. Representation, hardly > neutral, acts to regulate and define the subject it addresses, > positioning them by class or by sex, in active or passive relations to > meaning. Over time and constant repetitions these positions become > fixed and acquire the status of identities and of categories. Hence > the forms of representations are at once forms of definition, means of > limitation, modes of power. This is the most opaque paragraph I've read for many months. Please try to be more clear! Don't hide behind words! On to your point, which I'll paraphrase as "...but representations create reality, and there's no reality without representation." There's a good point in there, but it's obscured by some total baloney. The good point is that the things we see on the TV or read in a magazine really do influence how we see the world and how we act. The baloney is that that's all there is. Of course there's a reality! We can feel it and touch it. We spend most of our lives dealing with real, tangible people, and how we act with them and feel about them is what our lives are made of. The point that has some real oomph, for me, is that fiction _influences_ us and how we see reality, and can guide us strongly in some direction. That direction, in my opinion, is determined most strongly by compelling ideas we hear, role models we see, and common ideas of how the world works. These vivid ideas, which come alive in our imaginations, are what motivate us and guide our choices. In the case of Playboy, I would argue that men, seeing (for example) rich older men frolicking with airbrushed 19-year-olds, may acquire some daydreams and ideals which they will unconsciously strive for later in life. The concept of "ideas having influence" seems like a more powerful way to understand this phenomenon than "media creating reality." One thing this point of view suggests to me is that we're in a war of ideas: if we (the freedom-loving, non-sexist, empower-everybody good guys) can create compelling visions of a world that we like and strive for, we can help make it happen by capturing some space in the minds of the people around us. In the war of ideas, the best weapon is a vivid daydream. ------------------ -------------------------- ------------------------------- | Marc Ringuette | Cucumber Science Dept. | If you can't stand solitude, | | mnr@cs.cmu.edu | Cranberry Melon Univ. | perhaps you bore others as | | 412-268-3728 | Pittsburgh, PA 15213 | well. | ------------------ -------------------------- -------------------------------
tfarmer@cavebbs.gen.nz (Thomas Farmer) (04/10/91)
[Please, let's not go through the whole round again. I'm letting this posting
through because I don't think the question has actually been answered that
directly. -MHN]
Well, I haven't been following his discussion, but seeing as it's been
going on for a while I'm assuming that there are two sides.
Could the side that does believe in "healthy, mutual erotica" give me
some examples in the field of film and video?
Ciao.
--
Mail to: sbeagle@kennels.actrix.gen.nz Or phone +64-4-796-306
I live in a sane society, I don't need a disclaimer!!
I ain't nothin' but a Hound Dogjls@ncar.UCAR.EDU (Jim Showalter) (04/10/91)
>I'm not labeling "Playboy" pornographic, however, its representation >of women does not further a feminist objective. Speak for yourself. There are women who have posed for Playboy who are on record as having said they did it FOR feminist reasons (one in particular I remember said she was raised in an uptight super-religious quagmire of a family and felt free finally to do what she pleased). You are now confronted with a choice between: 1) Those poor women are brainwashed victims of the patriarchy. They didn't really choose to pose of their own free will. 2) Perhaps my feminist objectives are not the same as other feminists' objectives. Perhaps my particular version of feminism even disenfranchises other women with an equal right to validation as women and feminists. Take your pick. -- * The opinions expressed herein are my own, except in the realm of software * * engineering, in which case I borrowed them from incredibly smart people. * * * * Rational: cutting-edge software engineering technology and services. *
falk@peregrine.Eng.Sun.COM (Ed Falk) (04/11/91)
In article <1991Apr8.175404.9017@aero.org> Marc.Ringuette@DAISY.LEARNING.CS.CMU.EDU writes: > >In the case of Playboy, I would argue that men, seeing (for example) >rich older men frolicking with airbrushed 19-year-olds, may acquire >some daydreams and ideals which they will unconsciously strive for >later in life.... In the same manner, many women daydream of going out with the rich man who owns a Porsche (but not, so often, of owning a Porsche themselves -- why?); we all have daydreams that put unreasonable expectations on other people. -ed falk, sun microsystems sun!falk, falk@sun.com In the future, somebody will quote Andy Warhol every 15 minutes.
jeanne@mica.berkeley.edu (Jeanne Dusseault) (04/13/91)
In article <jls.671251912@rutabaga> uunet!igor!rutabaga!jls@ncar.UCAR.EDU (Jim Showalter) writes: >>Jeanne: >>I'm not labeling "Playboy" pornographic, however, its representation >>of women does not further a feminist objective. >Jim: >Speak for yourself. There are women who have posed for Playboy who are on >record as having said they did it FOR feminist reasons (one in particular Read the statement again. I said "PLAYBOY'S" REPRESENTATION OF WOMEN does not further a feminist objective. This has nothing to do with women posing nude to further their own feminist agenda. Jeanne jeanne@mica.berkeley.edu
robert@ncar.UCAR.EDU (robert coleman) (04/13/91)
jeanne@mica.berkeley.edu (Jeanne Dusseault) writes: >In article <1991Mar20.050507.24027@informix.com> uunet!infmx!robert@ncar.ucar.EDU (robert coleman) writes: >>In fact, this is the single most insulting thing about the >>anti-pornography movements; they assume, (without any real evidence, >>mind you) that men are completely incapable of separating fantasy from >>reality, even when bluntly faced with the reality most of the time. >The role of various representations, i.e. photographs, films, >advertisements, is constructing what we know as reality. Since >reality can be known only through the forms that articulate it, there >can be no reality outside of representation. With its synonyms, truth >and meaning, it is a fiction produced by its cultural representations, >a construction solidified through repetition. Representation, hardly >neutral, acts to regulate and define the subject it addresses, >positioning them by class or by sex, in active or passive relations to >meaning. Over time and constant repetitions these positions become >fixed and acquire the status of identities and of categories. Hence >the forms of representations are at once forms of definition, means of >limitation, modes of power. Absolutely, with exceptions for your second sentence. Representations represent ideas, and ideas, given the appropriate environment, change the world. Control of ideas is control of power. This is one of the reasons why freedom of speech is so fundamentally important. However, my exception for your second sentence is important. The construct we call reality is known through our *senses*, and only a part of the input to the senses comes vicariously through representations. Our preferred method for constructing reality is through our personal experiences; for that which we cannot personally experience, we accept the poor substitute of other's representations. Thus, an abused husband believes he's been attacked even though nearly all media representations of family life ignore the possibility (as once they did for abused wives). It's important to recognize that our personal experiences provide a filter through which we view other's representations. The power of all representations is not equal, particularly on a person-by-person basis; if I trust magazine X and you do not, representations in magazine X will have impact for me, but not for you. If a message violates my personal experience, but not yours, said message is likely to have a greater effect on you. Another factor in the power of representations is the plurality of messages. If all representations contain one message, that message is more likely to have an impact on a given individual than if conflicting messages are represented. In terms of Playboy, the impact of its representations is dependent on the filter of the viewer (for example, the degree to which the viewer is willing to believe the magazine represents "reality", or the message the viewer gets from one representation that another viewer might not), the viewer's personal experiences, and the number of conflicting messages the viewer receives. My thesis has been that personal experience teaches men quickly that most women do not look like Playboy women, and most women do not act like Playboy women. The pictorials in Playboy represent fantasy women, and are intended to represent fantasy women. Given that, I restate that the most insulting thing about the anti-pornography movements is that they assume that men are completely incapable of separating fantasy from reality, even when bluntly faced with the reality most of the time. >I'm not labeling "Playboy" pornographic, however, its representation >of women does not further a feminist objective. Thank you. This is debatable in a very minor way, as I have met one very famous X-rated actress who is a feminist and believes that freedom for women is compromised if women are forbidden from this form of personal expression. However, I would agree that, on the whole, Playboy could not be considered to further a feminist objective. Robert C. -- ---------------------------------------------- Disclaimer: My company has not yet seen fit to elect me as spokesperson. Hmmpf.
ford@titan.tsd.arlut.utexas.edu (Carolyn Ford) (04/13/91)
In article <1991Apr10.020732.12773@cavebbs.gen.nz> tfarmer@cavebbs.gen.nz (Thomas Farmer) writes: >Could the side that does believe in "healthy, mutual erotica" give me >some examples in the field of film and video? Well, since I posed the original question, I'll give you a couple of examples of what *I* think is healthy and mutual, and why, so that if people know of more similar examples, they can tell me (us) about them. "Betty Blue" -- this is a French film about the love between two people, as the woman (Betty) slowly goes insane. Both Betty and her lover are naked through much of the film, and sex is depicted as beautiful and natural, and not just something a man does TO a woman. Betty and her sexuality and nudity are not highlighted as the centerpiece of teh film -- she is not displayed as a toy. The nudity of both partners is equally as sensual and important. The story is very touching, and was very arousing to both me and the guy I saw it with. It wasn't sex directed towards only one gender. Well, I said "a couple" of examples, but this is the only one I can come up with at the moment. Other suggestions are very welcome.
turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) (04/14/91)
----- In article <1991Apr10.020732.12773@cavebbs.gen.nz> tfarmer@cavebbs.gen.nz (Thomas Farmer) writes: > Could the side that does believe in "healthy, mutual erotica" > give me some examples in the field of film and video? Almost all of it. Of course, I would give the same response if asked what erotica is sick and useful for criminal purposes. The problem lies in the question. Asking what pornography is healthy is similar to asking what books are safe to read. It is utterly impossible to assess this independent of the reader. Some psychotic might read the tale of Little Red Riding Hood, and under its influence, go out and kill old ladies with an axe. For others, de Sade is healthy reading. Any book and any film that is 'safe' and 'healthy' for all is necessarily bland, puerile, and worthless. This is true of works that are erotic, and those that aren't. The pornography that is guaranteed safe is also the pornography that is guaranteed to be vacuous and worthless. Conversely, any pornography (and any other fiction) that is worth reading will carry some small amount of danger therein. Perhaps we can settle this whole debate by having the surgeon general issue stamps that read "Warning: the contents of this book (or film) might affect your thoughts and influence your life in ways that cannot be predicted". A government committee would decide what books deserve the stamp. Any author whose works are not so stamped will know right away that they have nothing useful to say, and so they should cap their pen, stop wasting good paper with their attempts at writing, and turn to other kinds of work. (Even good children's books carry some element of risk. Go read anything by R L Stevenson or "Where the Monsters Are", and you will find that they are not totally innocent.) Along these lines, I find it curious that no one has yet responded positively to my earlier question about the magazine "Yellow Silk", which is commonly mentioned as a source of 'safe' erotica. I asked if anyone found it erotic. Does anyone on reading this magazine find they have to put it down to turn their hands to more lascivious purposes? Or is it so devoid of anything erotic that it can be read straight through without pause? No one has yet admitted to finding it sexually exciting. Perhaps we should sue this magazine for false advertising. It seems that it would pass through the government committee unstamped. Russell
jls@ncar.UCAR.EDU (Jim Showalter) (04/16/91)
>Could the side that does believe in "healthy, mutual erotica" give me >some examples in the field of film and video? My wife and I enjoy a wide range of pornographic tapes, so by our definition these tapes constitute "healthy, mutual erotica". Others, of course, are convinced that these very same tapes are horrid exploitations of women (oddly enough, they have men in them too but of course THEY'RE not exploited...). This is the crux of the problem: "healthy, mutual erotica" is in the eye of the beholder. It exists if you see it. It doesn't exist if you don't see it. -- * The opinions expressed herein are my own, except in the realm of software * * engineering, in which case I borrowed them from incredibly smart people. * * * * Rational: cutting-edge software engineering technology and services. *
jeffb.bbs@shark.cs.fau.edu (Jeffrey Boser) (04/19/91)
jeanne@mica.berkeley.edu (Jeanne Dusseault) writes: > Read the statement again. I said "PLAYBOY'S" REPRESENTATION OF WOMEN > does not further a feminist objective. This has nothing to do with > women posing nude to further their own feminist agenda. come again? "their own feminist agenda" certainly qualifies as "a feminist objective" As far as I know, there is no official feminist organizations, only various organizations with little linking them other than general attitudes. .....jeff jeffb.bbs@shark.cs.fau.edu "You call these opinions?" "Make something an idiot can use, and only an idiot will use it" -RAH
hrdoucet@watcgl.waterloo.edu (Heloise Doucet) (04/19/91)
Questions to all:
Why is it that women "seem" to prefer the soft pornography and dislike
anything violent? Why do "a number" of women get so upset when they
see their boyfriends reading Playboy and such? Are they being
controlling? Are they insecure?
Why do men "seem" to prefer "porno" magazines and think that there is
nothing wrong with violence? Are they being controlling? Are they
insecure?
Why does this difference in attitude exist? Is it just society or is
it something deeper?
If we could answer these questions, then maybe we wouldn't have a problem.
Heloise
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may be a dumb blonde but at least I'm a natural dumb blonde!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sure that if you feel my arguments are wrong you'll correct me.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I love mail -- and my boyfriend :-)
(should I be telling people this?) Oh well, just send it to
hrdoucet@cgl.waterloo.edu ((H)eloise Doucet)muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) (04/19/91)
In article <RaBi11w163w@shark.cs.fau.edu> jeffb.bbs@shark.cs.fau.edu (Jeffrey Boser) writes: jeanne@mica.berkeley.edu (Jeanne Dusseault) writes: > Read the statement again. I said "PLAYBOY'S" REPRESENTATION OF WOMEN > does not further a feminist objective. This has nothing to do with > women posing nude to further their own feminist agenda. come again? "their own feminist agenda" certainly qualifies as "a feminist objective" As far as I know, there is no official feminist organizations, only various organizations with little linking them other than general attitudes. .....jeff If a woman poses for Playboy because she feels that it will futher her "feminist agenda," that does not imply that the representation itself (the pictures, as published in the magazine and seen by men) will further a "feminist objective." That is, suppose that I want to pose for a spread on female computer programmers, because I want to show that intelligent, technical women are not necessarily unattractive (i.e. bashing a stereotype). So, I pose, and I'm pleased with having done what I wanted to do, etc. Now, are the pictures of me any different from the pictures of other women in there? Probably not, since Playboy has a reasonably consistent style, from what I've seen. So, regardless of my motives in posing, the published pictures are just like all the other pictures. My motives are not visible in the picture. Muffy
Steinar.Haug@delab.sintef.no (Steinar Haug) (04/20/91)
i know the answer to my side of the question. my husband doesnt read playboy, but he does read mayfair (british) and cupido (norwegian) on occasion. i dont mind him looking at female bodies. i myself happen to find some female bodies interesting to look at. he obviously gets some sexual excitement out of them, but since most of the time he reads these when i'm "unavailable" (he's on a business trip, i'm sick, etc.) or reads cupido together with me (it is intended for both sexes), i dont mind that. if he read them and ignored me when i was making it clear i was ready, willing and able, i know i'd mind. and i know he'd mind if i did the same thing with women's magazines. we've discussed this. i would strongly mind it, though, if he read violent porn. (does playboy really fall into this category? i've never looked at it, or playgirl either for that matter, so i have no idea, really.) looking at female bodies and felling pleasure because they are beautiful bodies is one thing. that to me simply presents the attitude "here are some attractive women". violent porn presents a different attitude, "here are some attractive women, isn't it fun to see them get hurt?" i object to that on principal, and i dont want it in our apartment. it's not him reading it specifically that i mind, it's the violent porn in general. i know he would never harm a woman for sexual fun. he's too tender hearted and gentle, which is one of the reasons i married him. but, now that i think about it, that may also explain why he's never read violent porn (that i know of anyway). maybe it bugs him too? i'll have to ask him... -cindy kandolf cindy@solan.unit.no trondheim, norway
jdravk@speech2.cs.cmu.edu (Jeanette Dravk) (04/24/91)
In article <MUFFY.91Apr18113224@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes: >In article <RaBi11w163w@shark.cs.fau.edu> jeffb.bbs@shark.cs.fau.edu (Jeffrey Boser) writes: > > come again? "their own feminist agenda" certainly qualifies as "a > feminist objective" As far as I know, there is no official feminist > organizations, only various organizations with little linking them > other than general attitudes. >If a woman poses for Playboy because she feels that it will futher her >"feminist agenda," that does not imply that the representation itself >(the pictures, as published in the magazine and seen by men) will >further a "feminist objective." So far as I know there is no single group called "feminist" or "feminism" and certainly no single, accepted "feminist agenda". A large part of most brands of feminism urge the politicization of the personal as part of the effort of exposing the value of personal experience in the face of formalist "objective" studies of their positions. So, in keeping with that spirit, there's no real way to critisize the woman who poses for Playboy except in the way that it interfers with your _own_ agenda, not theirs. It amounts to about the same thing as saying Democrat A is not furthering the "Democratic agenda" because she does not agree with Democrat B. j- -- #*#*#*#*#*# Transient Creature of the Wide, Wild World #*#*#*#*#*#*#* "Time is not linear to me, it is a nebulous web of existential freedom."
turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) (04/24/91)
In article <1991Apr19.213039*Steinar.Haug@delab.sintef.no> Steinar.Haug@delab.sintef.no (Steinar Haug) writes: > ... i would strongly mind it, though, if he read violent porn. > ... looking at female bodies and felling pleasure because they > are beautiful bodies is one thing. that to me simply presents > the attitude "here are some attractive women". violent porn > presents a different attitude, "here are some attractive women, > isn't it fun to see them get hurt?" i object to that on > principal, and i dont want it in our apartment. it's not him > reading it specifically that i mind, it's the violent porn in > general. ... Ms. Haug expresses an attitude toward violent porn that to many people seems quite natural. I would suspect that concommitant with her distaste for violent porn is some amount of suspicion of those who enjoy it. While everyone has a right to their own tastes, it stikes me that this prejudice against violent porn is just that: a prejudgment of it and those who enjoy it with very little knowledge. We have, right here on the net in the newsgroup alt.sex.bondage, a considerable group of women and men who both produce and consume this broadly detested commodity. They are some of the most reasonable and gentle people I have met on the net, which means that except when some puritan decides to flame them for their "perversions", the group has much less of the bickering and vituperatude that is so common on most unmoderated groups. The women, for the most part, are decidedly feminist in their attitude, and one subject that has been batted around on occasion is the supposed conflict between feminist ideals and S&M. I would encourage readers in this newsgroup who automatically react in revulsion to violent porn and with suspicion to those who enjoy it to perhaps browse a.s.b for a few weeks. At least then, you would be more familiar with the thing you detest and the people you mistrust. And who knows? You might find that there is not so much reason to be suspicious and mistrustful after all. Russell
muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) (04/24/91)
In article <9104220218.AA18024@rutgers.edu> jdravk@speech2.cs.cmu.edu (Jeanette Dravk) writes: In article <MUFFY.91Apr18113224@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes: >In article <RaBi11w163w@shark.cs.fau.edu> jeffb.bbs@shark.cs.fau.edu (Jeffrey Boser) writes: > > come again? "their own feminist agenda" certainly qualifies as "a > feminist objective" As far as I know, there is no official feminist > organizations, only various organizations with little linking them > other than general attitudes. >If a woman poses for Playboy because she feels that it will futher her >"feminist agenda," that does not imply that the representation itself >(the pictures, as published in the magazine and seen by men) will >further a "feminist objective." So far as I know there is no single group called "feminist" or "feminism" and certainly no single, accepted "feminist agenda". This is still not what I was saying. I agree with this statement. However, my real point (which you cut off) was that the representation which is the result of the feminist posing for Playboy for her feminist reasons is no different from the representations of the women who posed for Playboy for other reasons. Therefore, the representation (which is what Jeanne was referring to in her original article) will not further *any* feminist agenda, unless you claim that all of the pictures in Playboy do. A large part of most brands of feminism urge the politicization of the personal as part of the effort of exposing the value of personal experience in the face of formalist "objective" studies of their positions. So, in keeping with that spirit, there's no real way to critisize the woman who poses for Playboy except in the way that it interfers with your _own_ agenda, not theirs. I am not criticizing the woman who poses for Playboy, nor claiming that anyone is interfering with *my* agenda. All I was doing was pointing out that the example given, that a woman might pose for Playboy from feminist motives, will not change the end product, the magazine and the pictures in it. So, that woman may have done something for her agenda, but she has not affected *Playboy's representation of women* in any way. What this means is, that if the representation of women who pose for non-feminist motives does not future any feminist objectives, then neither does the representation of women who pose for feminist motives. Please notice that there is a difference between the motives, the posing, and the pictures. Indeed, it is my understanding that the pictures which are published are often altered, such that they are rather different from the original shots (I don't have any proof of this, it's one of those "common knowledge" things that I don't know where it came from). It amounts to about the same thing as saying Democrat A is not furthering the "Democratic agenda" because she does not agree with Democrat B. No, it is not. Indeed, your statement here is more similar to the poster who questioned Jeanne's statement, who seemed to be saying that the motives of the people in posing made some difference in the effect of the representation. Since the motives do not alter the pictures in any way, this cannot be true. As far as posing for Playboy goes, I think that if anyone wants to, they should. I do not personally want to, because I don't like the idea of a lot of people who I don't know looking at nude pictures of me. I also don't object to anyone reading Playboy (or looking at the pictures!), including the people I'm dating. Indeed, if one of them happens to have one, I like to read it, myself. I haven't found the pictures particularly exciting, but I do like many of the cartoons...*smile*.
fester@wolf.cs.washington.edu (Lea Fester) (04/24/91)
In article <19418@cs.utexas.edu> turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) writes: >> general. ... >groups. The women, for the most part, are decidedly feminist in their >attitude, and one subject that has been batted around on occasion is >the supposed conflict between feminist ideals and S&M. I would >encourage readers in this newsgroup who automatically react in >revulsion to violent porn and with suspicion to those who enjoy it to >perhaps browse a.s.b for a few weeks. At least then, you would be >more familiar with the thing you detest .... No, you wouldn't. You'd be more familiar with how the people involved with S&M and who enjoy violent porn PERCIEVE and/or PRESENT themselves. Presentation is not reality, and I personally don't find self-perception to be the most accurate assessment possible. If you want to be more familiar with "the thing" itself, READ and LOOK AT violent porn and S/M literature. People can present themselves any way they want on the net. There are quite a number of people on the net who percieve themselves to be and/or present themselves as feminists, who are "into" the aforementioned. It is far more instructive, in general, to observe people closely than to listen to what they have to say about themselves. It is more instructive to find about something from the source than to trust someone else to describe it honestly and/or correctly. Leaf, ex-boob
robert@ncar.ucar.EDU (robert coleman) (04/24/91)
In article <MUFFY.91Apr18113224@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes: >In article <RaBi11w163w@shark.cs.fau.edu> jeffb.bbs@shark.cs.fau.edu (Jeffrey Boser) writes: - - jeanne@mica.berkeley.edu (Jeanne Dusseault) writes: - - > Read the statement again. I said "PLAYBOY'S" REPRESENTATION OF WOMEN - > does not further a feminist objective. This has nothing to do with - > women posing nude to further their own feminist agenda. - - come again? "their own feminist agenda" certainly qualifies as "a - feminist objective" As far as I know, there is no official feminist - organizations, only various organizations with little linking them - other than general attitudes. - - .....jeff - -If a woman poses for Playboy because she feels that it will futher her -"feminist agenda," that does not imply that the representation itself -(the pictures, as published in the magazine and seen by men) will -further a "feminist objective." That is, suppose that I want to pose -for a spread on female computer programmers, because I want to show that -intelligent, technical women are not necessarily unattractive (i.e. -bashing a stereotype). So, I pose, and I'm pleased with having done -what I wanted to do, etc. Now, are the pictures of me any different -from the pictures of other women in there? Probably not, since Playboy -has a reasonably consistent style, from what I've seen. So, regardless -of my motives in posing, the published pictures are just like all the -other pictures. My motives are not visible in the picture. Actually, the text that accompanies each picture almost always gives details about the profession of the woman being pictured. The text *is* part of Playboy's representation of women. In fact, Playboy seems to give active support to their models for the kind of point you've mentioned. For instance, within the last year or so, one woman who was a mortician had a pictorial; one of the printed reasons (I believe) for her deciding to pose was to dispell some of the stereotypical ways she was viewed. Playboy often does theme pictorials on particular professions that bash stereotypes, such as women in the armed forces, women on wall street, women police officers, etc. In this sense, Playboy's representations can very well be said to "further a feminist objective". I previously agreed that this was unlikely, but after thinking it over, I've changed my mind. (Incidentally, a few years back Playboy tried to do a "Women of the Silicon Valley" pictorial; my understanding is that they did not get enough applicants, for whatever reason. Too bad; I guess the stereotype still stands unchallenged.) Robert C. -- ---------------------------------------------- Disclaimer: My company has not yet seen fit to elect me as spokesperson. Hmmpf.
muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) (04/26/91)
In article <1991Apr24.010420.18829@informix.com> uunet!infmx!robert@ncar.ucar.EDU (robert coleman) writes: In article <MUFFY.91Apr18113224@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes: -[...] Now, are the pictures of me any different -from the pictures of other women in there? Probably not, since Playboy -has a reasonably consistent style, from what I've seen. So, regardless -of my motives in posing, the published pictures are just like all the -other pictures. My motives are not visible in the picture. Actually, the text that accompanies each picture almost always gives details about the profession of the woman being pictured. The text *is* part of Playboy's representation of women. I must admit that when I have looked at the magazine, I have found the text accompanying the pictures rather uninteresting, so I don't know much about what is included there. This would certainly be a way of including the motives of the person posing. Of course, this, by itself, isn't enough, since if people either don't read the text or don't really think about it, it may not have an effect on them. So, some questions about this: 1. What sort of information is included in the text? 2. Do people generally read the text? 3. What sort of information/statement in the text would be likely to "further a feminist objective?" (I'll define this, for the purposes of this question, as changing the way someone views women in some positive way.) 4. Would the effect of this be affected (particularly lessened) by the pictures themselves? (I've always thought they looked more like ads than like pictures of "real people" - you know, lucite ice cubes, gelatin instead of drops of water...everything a little more perfect than I've ever seen in "real life.") 5. Does anyone know of anyone who has changed their opinions due to these pictures? (I was once told, on meeting someone, "you're a triple contradiction - an attractive female programmer." Sometimes, people will just decide that there are one or two exceptions to their stereotype, rather than deciding that the stereotype is wrong.) As a side note to all this, I read a story recently in the SF Chronicle about how Playboy was trying to do a "women from women's colleges" layout. Another one of those "stereotype-dispelling" things. The particular articles I read discussed two women from Mills College. One (who had graduated some years ago) had posed for this layout. The other went to the recruiting session. She described her experience there, saying she felt that she had been somewhat-subtly pressured into posing, even though she had not wanted to. She seemed to be concluding that this was what always happened, but I doubt that, since I'm sure that most people who go to Playboy are ready to pose, although they could certainly be drawn into more than they planned. Anyway, she called the other woman, who felt she was furthering feminism by trying to dispell the stereotype, and convinced her to withdraw her pictures. (Incidentally, a few years back Playboy tried to do a "Women of the Silicon Valley" pictorial; my understanding is that they did not get enough applicants, for whatever reason. Too bad; I guess the stereotype still stands unchallenged.) I certainly don't think that posing for Playboy is the only way, or even a particularly good way, of dispelling stereotypes. A better, and more productive, way might be to actually get more women into CS. This just made me wonder - has there been any effort to dispell the image of male programmers as being unattractive by having them pose nude? Is there still a Playgirl magazine, perhaps, to do this? Muffy
monaghan@cs.heriot-watt.ac.uk (N.O. Monaghan) (04/26/91)
In article <1991Apr19.213039*Steinar.Haug@delab.sintef.no> Steinar.Haug@delab.sintef.no (Steinar Haug) writes: >[...] my husband doesnt read playboy, >i would strongly mind it, though, if he read violent porn. (does playboy >really fall into this category? i've never looked at it, or playgirl either >for that matter, so i have no idea, really.) It always seems somewhat strange that Playboy is considered as the shining example of 'soft porn.' From what I have seen of it, there is in fact very little nudity in it - I think about 4 or 5 pages in the centre of what is a fairly bulky magazine. And that is just 'straight forward' female nudity - in other words nudity occupies about the same ratio of space as it does in several national British newspapers which depict topless girls on 'page 3'. I.e. in Playboy, the nudity is somewhat incidental rather than the central theme of the magazine. There are a couple of German weekly magazines which seem to have quite a few posed nudes scattered through them - it seems somewhat strange as they do not seem to be aimed at a solely male audience - the rest of the articles are mixed between news features, travel, cookery and 'problem pages'. I can imagine conversations between husband and wife - "No, of course I didn't buy it to look at the nudes; I just thought that we could cook this pork dish for our next dinner party." I was very suprised in Sweden once (do you have the same type of magazine in Norway?) when I picked up what seemed to be a fairly innocent magazine which turned out to alternate between news features and (very) hard-core pornography. > [...] it's not him reading it specifically that i mind, it's the violent >porn in general. There are a lot of books which include descriptions of violence against women but are not classified as pornography because there is a low sexual content - at least I assume that - I have never read one myself. Funnily enough (I may be wrong) but it seems that they are read mainly by women. Why? An exception is the science fantasy series by John Norman known as the Chronicles of Gor or Counter-Earth. Otherwise an enjoyable series it has been totally ruined by the increasing concentration on the theme of male sexual and in fact total dominace over women. Essentially this topic is brought in by the existence of slavery on Gor - although just a passing theme in the earlier books, in the later ones it has totally obsessed the author to the stage where he has written more than one volume from the woman's perspective detailing the kidnapping of a woman from modern-day Earth and her submission 'to the lash' - at first unwilling but then 'she realises her true biological role and hence happiness, love and fulfillment comes from being the total slave of men'. There is little explicit sexual description and nothing that can be classed as even remotely erotic. Almost all of the debate about pornography whether violent or not seems to be centred on visual pornography in magazines and films. There does not seem to be the same intensity on purely written pornography - do people feel that there is a major difference between the two forms. Is something described in a book allowable but the same thing shown on a film unacceptable? Or are both acceptable or not acceptable? I myself think that violence is somehow the dividing mark. I have never seen any explicitly violent pronography (nor do I wish to) but from what I read on the net, there seems to be a lot of it about. Is this perhaps more of an American problem that a European one? >i know he would never harm a woman for sexual fun. he's too >tender hearted and gentle, which is one of the reasons i married him. but, now >that i think about it, that may also explain why he's never read violent porn >(that i know of anyway). maybe it bugs him too? It certainly worries me that there are people out there who actually enjoy such material. Nils.
rberlin%birdlandEng@Sun.COM (Rich Berlin) (04/26/91)
In article <MUFFY.91Apr24103727@remarque.berkeley.edu>, muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes: |> I certainly don't think that posing for Playboy is the only way, or |> even a particularly good way, of dispelling stereotypes. A better, |> and more productive, way might be to actually get more women into CS. |> This just made me wonder - has there been any effort to dispell the |> image of male programmers as being unattractive by having them pose |> nude? Is there still a Playgirl magazine, perhaps, to do this? According to the stereotype as I understand it, what makes us "unattractive" is not our looks, it's that we have poor social skills (even compared to other males?) and prefer the company of computers to that of live people. (NB: if the previous sentence doesn't sound angry or resentful, I think you're reading it wrong.) Can someone explain how posing nude would provide an opportunity to dispel that sterotype? I can just imagine women looking at my body and fantasizing about what an interesting conversationalist and supportive partner I'd be. :-) -- Rich
robert@ncar.ucar.EDU (robert coleman) (04/26/91)
fester@wolf.cs.washington.edu (Lea Fester) writes: >In article <19418@cs.utexas.edu> turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) writes: >>> general. ... >>groups. The women, for the most part, are decidedly feminist in their >>attitude, and one subject that has been batted around on occasion is >>the supposed conflict between feminist ideals and S&M. I would >>encourage readers in this newsgroup who automatically react in >>revulsion to violent porn and with suspicion to those who enjoy it to >>perhaps browse a.s.b for a few weeks. At least then, you would be >>more familiar with the thing you detest .... >No, you wouldn't. You'd be more familiar with how the people >involved with S&M and who enjoy violent porn PERCIEVE and/or >PRESENT themselves. Presentation is not reality, and I personally >don't find self-perception to be the most accurate assessment >possible. >If you want to be more familiar with "the thing" itself, READ and >LOOK AT violent porn and S/M literature. >People can present themselves any way they want on the net. There >are quite a number of people on the net who percieve themselves to >be and/or present themselves as feminists, who are "into" the >aforementioned. It is far more instructive, in general, to >observe people closely than to listen to what they have to say about >themselves. It is more instructive to find about something from the >source than to trust someone else to describe it honestly and/or >correctly. I don't pretend to be an expert on this subject, but it seems to me that the people who are practicing S/M are acting out fantasies. There wouldn't be any way to know what the reality of their feelings were without asking them. Just seeing the raw films/literature wouldn't necessarily give you the whole story. The other night I saw a film on Cinemax where the woman asked "to be raped" by her lover. It was a sexual game. However, they were being filmed; when others saw the film without the context of their feelings, what they saw was rape. I suspect doing both would give you the best information. Doing either by itself might only yield half the story. Incidentally, the general consensus of the net, every time the question of "is she/he or isn't he/she a feminist" seems to be that if they say they are, they are. No matter how they really act, or what they really do, they may have that title. The last example I saw of this was a short debate about Dorothy Parker. Robert C. -- ---------------------------------------------- Disclaimer: My company has not yet seen fit to elect me as spokesperson. Hmmpf.
falk@peregrine.eng.sun.com (Ed Falk) (04/26/91)
In article <1991Apr15.170141.19828@watcgl.waterloo.edu> hrdoucet@watcgl.waterloo.edu (Heloise Doucet) writes: > >Why do men "seem" to prefer "porno" magazines and think that there is >nothing wrong with violence? Are they being controlling? Are they >insecure? Well *this* man doesn't think there's nothing wrong with violence. It really bugs me that there's so much violence and so little sex in the movies. And what sex there is tends to be either bound up with violence (rape scenes) or just totally gratuitous (random nudity scenes added to a violent movie to get the valuable 'R' rating.) (I worry that movies that don't get the 'R' rating for all their violence can get it easily for a single nude scene.) Something to think about: does it make a woman more uncomfortable to be asked out to a violent movie (Die Hard, for example) than to a sex movie (Henry and June, for example.) -ed falk, sun microsystems sun!falk, falk@sun.com In the future, somebody will quote Andy Warhol every 15 minutes.
falk@peregrine.eng.sun.COM (Ed Falk) (04/26/91)
In article <2825@odin.cs.hw.ac.uk> monaghan@cs.heriot-watt.ac.uk (N.O. Monaghan) writes: > It always seems somewhat strange that Playboy is considered as the > shining example of 'soft porn.' From what I have seen of it, there is > in fact very little nudity in it - I think about 4 or 5 pages in the > centre of what is a fairly bulky magazine. I think there's more than 4 or 5 pages, but not being a regular Playboy reader I wouldn't swear to it. I think it's more a case of a nudie magazine with enough bulk added to (a) make it seem more respectable, and (b) make the magazine more expensive. In this country, there's very little mainstream soft porn. No page 3 girls, no casual nudity in the weeklies, almost nothing. Playboy is just about all the soft porn there is. (Although for a while in the 70's Newsweek (Time too? I don't remember) experimented with casual nudity; I remember seeing a pictorial review of Last Tango In Paris.) >There are a couple of German weekly magazines which seem to have quite >a few posed nudes scattered through them - it seems somewhat strange >as they do not seem to be aimed at a solely male audience - ... I was astonished the last time I looked through a copy of Vogue (something I do as often as I look through Playboy -- very rarely.) and saw all the nudity it contained. It seems that women like to look at women too. You can look at the cover of any issue of Cosmo and see that for yourself. I wonder why not nude men? Is it because women readers actually prefer pictures of women? Or maybe the editors or advertisers do. Maybe they want to, but haven't got the guts. -ed falk, sun microsystems sun!falk, falk@sun.com In the future, somebody will quote Andy Warhol every 15 minutes.
chris@psych.toronto.edu (Christine Hitchcock) (04/27/91)
In article <1991Apr24.010420.18829@informix.com> uunet!infmx!robert@ncar.ucar.EDU (robert coleman) writes: > > (Incidentally, a few years back Playboy tried to do a "Women >of the Silicon Valley" pictorial; my understanding is that they did >not get enough applicants, for whatever reason. Too bad; I guess the >stereotype still stands unchallenged.) > Why does this remind me of the Virginia Slims 'You've come a long way, baby' advertising campaign? You know: do this thing you might not feel like doing so you can prove how liberated you are. If people want to pose naked, it doesn't bother me. But I would hate to think that a woman would feel pressured to pose to fight a stereotype against her better judgement. Surely there are other ways for a stereotype to be challenged! -- Chris Hitchcock, Dept. of Psychology chris@psych.toronto.edu University of Toronto Toronto, Ontario UseNet: I only read it for the CANADA M5S 1A1 .signatures
robert@ncar.ucar.EDU (robert coleman) (04/29/91)
In article <MUFFY.91Apr24103727@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes: > >In article <1991Apr24.010420.18829@informix.com> uunet!infmx!robert@ncar.ucar.EDU (robert coleman) writes: > In article <MUFFY.91Apr18113224@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes: - -[...] Now, are the pictures of me any different - -from the pictures of other women in there? Probably not, since Playboy - -has a reasonably consistent style, from what I've seen. So, regardless - -of my motives in posing, the published pictures are just like all the - -other pictures. My motives are not visible in the picture. - - Actually, the text that accompanies each picture almost always - gives details about the profession of the woman being pictured. The - text *is* part of Playboy's representation of women. - -I must admit that when I have looked at the magazine, I have found the -text accompanying the pictures rather uninteresting, so I don't know -much about what is included there. This would certainly be a way of -including the motives of the person posing. Of course, this, by -itself, isn't enough, since if people either don't read the text or -don't really think about it, it may not have an effect on them. Whether or not people read the text, it is part of Playboy's representation of women. Whether or not this method of representation works is another question altogether. -1. What sort of information is included in the text? Interests, job descriptions, life experiences, viewpoints, why-I-posed-and-how-I-felt-about-it, pretty much the sort of things one would expect of any interview. -2. Do people generally read the text? Well, obviously, I do. The material is included for a reason; it gives the person pictured the added dimensionality of life and personality. Do others? I dunno. I don't know too many people who read Playboy (or admit to it, at least ;-) ). I have read stories about Playmates who were recognized on the street, and the recognizer could recite much of the information, but this might reflect obsession more than the norm. However: it isn't really necessary to read much of the text to achieve a feminist goal, as you've defined it. For instance, when a pictorial was on a policewoman, she was pictured on the cover in uniform. The title of the pictorial, which is hard to avoid reading, implied her career. I suspect most people read the titles (such as "Women of Wall Street") whether they read the rest of the text at all. Lastly, Playboy doesn't just produce a magazine. They also produce videos, where the voiceover has the woman talking. One can't exactly avoid "reading the text" in this environment. -3. What sort of information/statement in the text would be likely to - "further a feminist objective?" (I'll define this, for the purposes - of this question, as changing the way someone views women in some - positive way.) I think the original example was a good one: a computer programmer might wish to dispel stereotypes. Pictorials of women in the Armed Forces would do much to dispel the typical stereotype of an armed-forces woman. A Women of Wall Street pictorial is an excellent back-door approach to show men who otherwise might not believe it that there *are* women is such previously male-dominated positions as stock-brokers. -4. Would the effect of this be affected (particularly lessened) by the - pictures themselves? (I've always thought they looked more like ads - than like pictures of "real people" - you know, lucite ice cubes, - gelatin instead of drops of water...everything a little more perfect - than I've ever seen in "real life.") ???? Because someone appears nude, they can't really work on Wall Street? Because they appear in the nude, they have less credibility? Because they're in the nude, they couldn't be an effective police officer in real life? Most professional photographers, including family portrait takers, etc. touch-up their photos. It doesn't reduce the credibility in my eyes of the people who are pictured. -5. Does anyone know of anyone who has changed their opinions due to - these pictures? (I was once told, on meeting someone, "you're a - triple contradiction - an attractive female programmer." Sometimes, - people will just decide that there are one or two exceptions to their - stereotype, rather than deciding that the stereotype is wrong.) No. I've long ago done away with these kind of prejudices, and, well, frankly, they subject doesn't come up much with other men. ("Wow, Robert, I've just had an eye-opening experience! Check out this Playboy! *There are women on wall street*! ;-) ) -As a side note to all this, I read a story recently in the SF -Chronicle about how Playboy was trying to do a "women from women's -colleges" layout. Another one of those "stereotype-dispelling" -things. The particular articles I read discussed two women from Mills -College. One (who had graduated some years ago) had posed for this -layout. The other went to the recruiting session. She described her -experience there, saying she felt that she had been somewhat-subtly -pressured into posing, even though she had not wanted to. She seemed -to be concluding that this was what always happened, but I doubt that, -since I'm sure that most people who go to Playboy are ready to pose, -although they could certainly be drawn into more than they planned. -Anyway, she called the other woman, who felt she was furthering -feminism by trying to dispell the stereotype, and convinced her to -withdraw her pictures. Well, there's pressure, and then there's pressure. Was it OK for woman #1 to pressure woman #2 into not posing? Would it be OK for Playboy's representatives to pressure woman #2 into posing? Both woman #1 and Playboy are pushing their own agenda, using the same techniques...is one bad and the other good? But more than that, unless Playboy attempted to force anyone, or blackmail someone, the "pressure" they encountered was salesmanship, which most people wouldn't object to outside this context. Would it be different if, say, Playboy had offered to buy land, and these women went in to check it out, and got "pressure" to sell their land? - - (Incidentally, a few years back Playboy tried to do a "Women - of the Silicon Valley" pictorial; my understanding is that they did - not get enough applicants, for whatever reason. Too bad; I guess the - stereotype still stands unchallenged.) - -I certainly don't think that posing for Playboy is the only way, or -even a particularly good way, of dispelling stereotypes. A better, -and more productive, way might be to actually get more women into CS. I would also agree that posing for Playboy for the express purpose of destroying a stereotype may not be the best approach. There's even some (very small) evidence that Playboy readers may be the wrong target group (already are open to the message); I remember reading about a survey that uncovered, as an unexpected result, that men who frequent peep-hole sex shows were *more* receptive to feminist ideas than college women. :-) Robert C. -- ---------------------------------------------- Disclaimer: My company has not yet seen fit to elect me as spokesperson. Hmmpf.
RFM@psuvm.psu.EDU (05/08/91)
I ought to keep out of this, but I can't resist. There's a new *skin* flick in the video stores now . New, at least to me, because I don't often peruse the titles in the adult sections of the video stores; it might be relatively old. Anyway, the film is titled "Sensations", and it won some awards at Cannes Film Festival in some recent year. I'm curious whether this film would qualify as "mutually healthy erotica," etc. Maybe it's because it's a European film that it seems different, I'm not sure. But it has a plot of sorts, all the leading stars are women, all of whom choose to participate (according to the plot). I'm curious. BobM