ford@titan.tsd.arlut.utexas.edu (Carolyn Ford) (03/20/91)
In article <27e10cc1.3f0f@petunia.CalPoly.EDU> dgross@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Dave Gross) writes: > > > >According to ford@titan.tsd.arlut.utexas.edu (): >> [ my description of the problem deleted] > > In my Psych of Women class this quarter we've just finished > a lecture on pornography. Actually, it was less a lecture [ etc...] > 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." My reasons have nothing to do with morality. They have to do with strongs feelings about effects on all women. But I have not included the argument on purpose -- that is, I had and have no desire to get into that discussion on the net. It is useless. I only included the background I thought necessary for people to understand what my request was. I am in no way telling you what you should or should not think of Playboy, OK? > [ my explanation that I don't want to get into a pornography debate deleted] [ question about mutual erotica..] > > > It all seems to center on what you happen to like. No, it all centers on how I feel it effects people's expected roles. This would hold true for men, too. > > 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. > Can't disagree with you there. Playboy isn't the only thing I dislike, but the others aren't germaine to my question. Ummm.. OK, perhaps I did not make myself clear. There are many, many, many,manymanymanymany arguments on both sides of this issue. I don't want to get into right now. I haven't the energy. Let's just say as you have the right to think it's innocent, I have the right to think it is not. So maybe I need to define what I would see as "healthier," you can give me suggestions and leave it at that, without arguing either way. Good grief, this could go on forever. Healthier: Since what bothers me is the position of "man-the-observer" vs. "woman-the-observed," which DOES HEAVILY carry over into society AND I HATE IT, then what I am looking for is depictions of BOTH sexes in an equal celebration of human sexuality. Playboy does not fit my image of this, because it is depictions of women being playthings for all men. OK, does everybody understand what I want now? Maybe I should not have mentioned my partner in this, because I, too, think the human body is beautiful, but PlayGIRL does not do it for me either. I want something positive, with more than one body type represented. Speaking of the observer/observed roles, someone last year mentioned a reference regarding a book or studies or something on this theory. If anyone knows what it was, please tell me. AND DON'T ADD EDITORIAL COMMENT REGARDING IT. I'M A BIG GIRL, LET ME READ AND DECIDE FOR MYSELF!!! Thank you. Now ONE MORE TIME! Your points about what one likes is erotica, etc. are well taken, but that wasn't part of the question. The question was, given a description of (OK, fine) what *I* and perhaps ONLY *I* consider to be healthy, can you recommend something? Please, no more attacks at me on what I consider healthy. That is my right. If you have no suggestions, just skip the postings. Carolyn