Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    
    Much as it seems like a double standard, I can't believe the publishers
    are doing this for any other reason than money.  Some marketing
    study may have told them that full nudity wouldn't sell as well.
    Bizarre, but maybe.
    
    I've heard a lot of complaints from readers of Playgirl that it
    wasn't up to the standards of Playboy.  Some of them have said that
    magazines catering to male homosexuals have got better photo layouts
    than Playgirl.  I wouldn't know, that not being where my tastes
    run.
    
    DFW

    Since I have absolutely no interest in looking at photographs of
    nude men, it wouldn't bother me if they stopped publication altogether.
     On the other hand, if some women want to have a magazine where
    they can oogle naked guys they should be able to.  I thought Playgirl
   was pretty tame to begin with, but pictures of skinny young men in
    their underwear is ridiculous.  There are too many good books for
    me to waste my time with that dumb magazine.
    

    			Let me know when Playboy (without nude
    		women) gets ready to hit the stands...
    
    						Suzanne...
    

    Sexual exploitation is always distasteful. 

    Iwasn't interested in it before the change and am not interested
    in it now.

    Careful what we say about skinny men.  My wife likes me the way
    I am. 8-)
    
    As for exploitation, this has always bothered me.  Is a person,
    male or female, exploited after having *volunteered* to pose for
    the photo?  Just what is the definition of exploitation?
    
    Webster's definition:
    exploit - a notable or heroic act
    	(no, wait, wrong exploit)
    exploitation - b: an unjust or improper use of another person for
    	one's own profit or advantage
        
    Who's to say what is unjust or improper usage of another person
    if that person *voluntarily* submits to the photo?  Slavery was/is
    exploitation.  Rape is exploitation.  Are *you* exploited because
    someone of your own sex posed for a photo?  Disclaimer: the *you*
    is directed at people in general with this belief, not necessarily
    the author of .7
    
    Some women have pinups of men in their offices.  I think its great.
    I have pinups of women in bikinis.  I don't feel that *I* am being
    exploited by their having pinups of other men.  Even if they were
    totally nude, it wouldn't bother me.  Unless it was a picture of
    me, then I would be bothered.  I understand that men haven't had
    to put up with male pinups for as long as women have had to put
    up with female pinups.  Some people will argue that it provokes
    rape, I feel that its an outlet.  I can also understand that a lot
    of men may try to compare co-workers with his pinups.  I'd be delighted
    to be compared, but, again, I haven't had to put up with it in the
    past.
    
    If a person volunteers to have his/her hands cut off for whatever
    reason, he/she isn't being exploited because he/she volunteered
    for it.
    
    Spence
    
    BTW, this is what I meant by 'stirring up trouble'.  8-)
         

    RE .9
    	Spence, you said:
    
    >"Slavery was/is exploitation. ... Are *you* exploited
    >because someone of your own sex posed for a picture?"
    
    Hmm.   What comes to mind (despite some of its nasty stereotypes)
    is the effect that _Uncle_Tom's_Cabin_ had.   For the first time,
    many isolated southerners (and previously unaware northerners) became
    aware of what a really horrendous institution slavery was.   So,
    first I will point out that you and I don't know what exploitation
    is involved in pornography.    
    
    (Aside: who are the involved parties in porn (I don't mean the end
    buyer!).   For example, I would guess that the involved parties are:
    sellers, posers/photographers,and investigators.    What slant of
    information can we expect from them?   Investigators might be
    unbiased--but suppose they work for the government (porn has a strong
    special interest group).  There is at least one personal history of
    a porn star that have made big news fairly recently (Lovelace) that
    certainly suggests that porn *movies* are exploitations, but who
    knows?)
    
    "Slavery was/is exploitation."   If I were a free black in 1810
    living in Canada, would I be exploited because others just like
    me were slaves?    Well, you might say, but noone *chooses* to be
    a slave.   There is no arguing that.   The fact is, however, that
    southerners (and some northerners) did argue just that.    "Blacks
    need to be taken care of due to ..." those people claimed.   I am
    not sure that claiming that women pose for porn *completely of their
    own free will* is any different than what slave-holding southerners
    were saying.   BUT, *I just don't know*.   
    
    Tamar 

    re Spence:
    
    Exploited?  Not in the ususal sense of the word.  However, these
    women who pose have bought a line, I think.  I'm assuming here
    that the model *chose* to do this, and that she wasn't doing it
    because it was "just a job".  There are plenty of instances of that
    in the pornography world.
    
    If you tell a kid enough times that he or she is stupid and not
    to try to even do well, it will stick.  He or she will act stupid.
    Well, most girls and women are taught that they can use their bodies
    for men's pleasure and they'll be rewarded for it, which is a wonderful
    in a committed, caring relationship, but that's not what either one
    of us is talking about here, I don't think.
    
    	-Ellen

OK Spence,  I accept the challenge :-)

Lets begin with a definition of terms:
"exploit" : ..._to make selfish or unethical use of another person_ 
_an unjust or improper use of another person for one's own profit or advantage.


When our founding fathers said that we were all created equal they knew it 
was technically untrue.  We are not equal.  We are catagorized by the 
inherent condition of our lives.  Some of us are born into wealthy families,
some of us are born with debilitating physical or emotional handicaps, 
some of us are born with considerably more raw intelligence, ....there are
so many factors that effect us in various degrees.  Many of us who have 
managed to accomplish great things, to accumulate great money and power, 
to make major contributions to humanity are those of us who usually
had some kind of an advantage,... sometimes an intellectual advantage, 
sometimes being born to the "right family", sometimes just dumb luck 
(being in the right place at the right time).

The differences between us are frequently circumstances beyond our control 
and those difference cannot and should not ever be considered standards for
prioritizing us in degree of importance to the human family.  

Humanity values sentient life above all else.  We understand that all life,
human and animal is special, a reflection of the cosmos's highest achievement.

To judge one human being as more important than another and one human being 
as more deserving of respect and dignity than another is an insult to all of
humanity, to all sentient life.  

Our "voluntary" decisions are so often based on the conditions of our lives.
The poor, the emotionally battered, the mentally inferior, the depressed
all may allow society to treat them as if they were less important.  This
does not reflect on them, it reflects on all of us.  That the human race
even makes these distinctions based on conditions that could effect any
one of us denigrates the human spirit.

For the very least of us to be treated with any less dignity and respect then 
the standard we have set for the very best of us is unacceptable.  To tolerate 
the use of some of us for the sexual or financial gratification of others of 
us is to deny the beauty, the dignity, the intelligence, and the perception of 
the human spirit.

    (didn't we just have this conversation elsewhere?)
    
    
    Spence, I'm on your "team"-slavery was the exploitation
    of human beings against their will.  "Pornagraphy" (what
    an ugly word!) is not exploitation.  The individuals in-
    volved are not forced into the situation. By the previously
    stated definitions, fashion models are "exploited"-I don't
    see anyone campaigning to do away with Vogue or Glamour!
    
    For that matter, if I buy the definitions previously given,
    we are ALL being exploited!  DEC is 'using' us -buying our
    skills or talents or minds or abilities...
    
    Come on, people, give it a rest!
    
    

    Perhaps you should re-read those definitions.  They do not 
    cover the fair exchange of skill/service for the living wage.

    re .14:
    
    >The individuals involved are not forced into the situation.
    
    Granted, they are not "forced".  But they are *conditioned* to accept
    it.  I said that in my last reply.
    
    	-Ellen

    Which is my point precisely.  I'm really tired of people
    talking about women (and less often, men) being "exploited"
    by the pornography industry.  
    
    If non-exploitation is "the fair exchange of skill/service for
    the living wage", then indeed, pornography is NOT explotation.
    
    

    re .18
    
    perhaps the issue depends on how "fair" is defined within the larger
    societal context?
    
    /bruce

    Then I would assume the individuals who pose for these
    publications feel that they are being fairly reimbursed.
    
    "Fair" is defined by the individual.  How much do they
    feel what they have to offer is worth?  And how much is
    the market willing to pay?  
    
    If your prospective employer is not willing to pay what
    you think you are worth, you have option of declining
    the position.
    
    

Lucky me, I have many options. I could decide to do nude modeling if I
wanted to, or make big bucks as a computer engineer. My idea of what's a
fair price for a nude modeling session is influenced by my alternatives. I
somehow don't feel that a choice between nude modeling and menial labor or
clerical work is quite so free as a choice between nude modeling and
computer engineering.

Maybe this belongs in a separate topic?

Don.

    Actually, the choices could be between menial labor and computer
    engineering.  I assume you "choose" that path and then pursued it
    thru education.  Those who choose not to obtain an education, and
    instead to earn their salaries by alternate methods (I guess we
    could include professional athletes here also) have made their
    own choice.
    
    

    <--(.22)
    
    It's all well and good to talk about people "who choose not to obtain
    an education", but often the choice is foreclosed to them in both
    subtle and unsubtle ways.
    
    						=maggie

    re :22
    
    Does a person who is conditioned to take an inferior place in society
    *really* have a choice?  I agreed on the surface that a porn model
    who freely "chooses" to pose is not "exploited" in the normal sense
    of the word.  But if she has been bombarded with the "women as sex
    objects" mentality pushed in our society for all her life and found
    herself rewarded for it, then that is why she may pose.
    
    No person who is arguing the other side here has admitted that
    cultural conditioning has an influence in why a woman decides to
    do this.
    
    	-Ellen

    Cultural conditioning has an influence in everything that we do.
    By the same token, the men who pose for Playgirl are surely influenced
    by cultural conditioning.  I haven't heard any men complain about
    being exploited and I don't think that its necessarily inferiority
    that causes them to pose.  The money offered for the session is
    enough to make a lot of people take notice.  I couldn't do it because
    of what my friends would think of me.  I also don't think that they
    would accept me anyway.  If a person, male or female, doesn't have
    any qualms about being recognized, don't have religious hangups,
    or simply don't care, then they might do it for the money or just
    for the thrill.  I would do it if there was no way that I would
    be recognized.  Just for the thrill, the money would be nice, too.
    
    What I'm against most is the many people who try to control what
    *I* should see and what *I* should do.  All of the people who picketed
    7-11 are a good example.  They are forcing *me* to live my life
    the way that *they* see fit.  We can't have nude beaches because
    *they* don't think *I* should be lying around nude on a beach
    somewhere.  There are too many Jerry Falwells and the moron majority
    trying to control *my* life.  Too many people read the bible the
    way that they think it reads and try to force it on the rest of
    us who read it a different way.  There are even several different
    bibles in existance, which one is the correct version and how do
    we know exactly what it says.  
    
    Well, I guess that I just blamed it on religion.  Comments?
    
    Spence

        RE: .25 

        Spence, I agree in general with allowing people the right to pose
        nude, and others the right to buy "porn" magazines.  I'm only
        concerned that societies attitudes make pornography sexist. Witness
        the plethora of magazines for men versus those for women, and
        Playgirl's attitude is a case in point.  I'm also concerned when
        the financial aspects of pornography cause people to exploit
        others.  Child pornography is exploitive for example.  I also feel
        that just as female actresses were/are exploited (less money, asked
        to give sexual favors for jobs etc), a lot of women who do pose are
        exploited.  Sure, it might have been their choice of a "job", but
        maybe there were very few other choices available. 

        As to religion, please realize that it isn't religion that's the
        problem, but people who *use* religion for their own ends. There
        are several bibles because they are all translations, and in
        translating anything it is hard to get the true meaning.  I believe
        that the bible can not be taken literally, but there are some good
        messages there. 

        ...Karen 

    Re .20, what if the alternative to declining a job offer is to join
    the growing number of homeless people in America?
    
    I can't help but think that many of the women (and men) who pose
    for nude photos are people who have no other way to make a high
    salary.  I wonder how many people who have high paying jobs, or
    who are rich, would pose?  Famous people, such as Marilyn Monroe,
    Suzanne Somers, Madonna, Vanessa Williams all posed before they
    got their fame and money.  I once read that Hustler offered Linda
    Rondstadt (when she was younger) a million dollars to pose naked
    and she laughed at them.  She was already rich through her voice,
    why take her clothes off?
    
    As far as exploitation goes, sometimes it directly hits the people
    involved such as Vanessa Williams.  Men paid her a lot of money
    when she was poor to pose naked - because she's beautiful.  But,
    then when she became Miss America men made her give up her crown
    because the wasn't pure enough.  Probably the same men who drooled
    at her naked pictures took the crown away (at least some of them).
    
    But, some people see pornography as an exploitation of the human
    race in general and I can understand that, even though it doesn't
    bother me as much as it does others.
    
    Lorna
    

    re: .25 
    Spence, *please* do not fall into the trap that several others
    did in the Cheryl discussion. If I discuss why I think there are
    problems with the way pictures of naked women are viewed, produced, and
    used today, IT DOES NOT MEAN I WANT TO TAKE AWAY ANY OF YOUR RIGHTS.
    I'm shouting because I've said this before, and still don't feel I've
    been heard. 

    If I say that women being viewed as sex objects is more burdensome
    for women, than the same situation is for men, for tons of reasons
    that merely have to do with how society got to where it is today;
    it does not mean I want to stop 7-11's from selling Playboy.
    
    Am I belaboring an already understood point?
    	Mez

Re: .20  
> "Fair" is defined by the individual.  

No, fair is not defined by the individual.  That's why we have a minimum
wage, and a justice system.

Re: .22

>I assume you "choose" that path and then pursued it thru education.  Those who 
>choose not to obtain an education, and instead to earn their salaries by 
>alternate methods (I guess we could include professional athletes here also) 
>have made their own choice.
    
How about those who are born without athletic talent or intelligence?  Does
that not limit their choices?

    
Re: .18

>If non-exploitation is "the fair exchange of skill/service for
>the living wage", then indeed, pornography is NOT explotation.

What skill/service are they performing other than physically existing?    

Please don't misunderstand me,..the premise is not to outlaw pornography as 
such, but rather to recognize the arrogant and patronizing attitudes within 
our society that foster the unethical use of one human being by another.

    I think the saddest scenario comes about when young women are flattered
    into thinking that doing some porn modeling is their key to a big
    future in modeling or show business.  They do a little in the hopes
    of making contacts, and then end up making a living on the edge
    of the combat zone while waiting for the big break that never comes.
    
    I always think that if young women had better self esteem (=were
    encouraged to have and taught to have better self esteem) they would
    be less vulnerable to this kind of thing.

    re Spence/censorship:
    
    No where in this conference or elsewhere have I (or anyone else,
    as I remember) said or implied that I think we should stop anyone
    from producing/buying/looking at porn.  I very much believe in
    education of people rather than making up new laws to limit people.
    
    	-Ellen

    Interestingly, some of the most positive comments I've seen on
    the Meese Commission report (not enthusiastic, but not entirely
    negative, either) were in _Clothed_With_the_Sun_, the publication
    of The Naturists, which is the leading American advocacy
    organization for free / nude / clothing-optional beaches (and
    other recreational opportunities).  They see pornography as being
    an intrinsic part of a clothing-compulsive culture, and completely
    at odds with the sort of freedom that they are fighting for.
    
    There is a group of activist feminists in the naturist movement
    (Nikki Craft, Michelle Handler, Nina Silver, and others) who have
    actively and vocally opposed pornography (for example, organizing
    civil disobedience to protest the sale of _Hustler_ magazine), even
    while attempting to promote greater body-freedom (for example,
    organizing civil disobedience to contest the New York
    anti-toplessness law and the Cape Code Seashore anti-nudity
    regulations).
    
	-Neil 

    re .26
    I agree that there are many fewer (1) magazines for women to buy,
    but I think that it stems from the fact that its new territory and
    nobody wants to break ground.  Men's magazines are many and they
    have been around for a long time so the ground is broken.  I was
    hoping that Playgirl would be the stimulus for others to evolve.
    What my wife and I would like to see is a magazine of couples. 
    Then the only issue would be the morality of it and not whether
    its males or females doing the posing.  Besides, I think its more
    sensuous to see a man and a woman together than just a woman.  Besides,
    we would only have to subscribe to one magazine instead of two.
    
    I definitely agree that child porn is exploitation.  Children don't
    have enough knowledge to be able to make a rational choice.
    
    The only adult, rational models that I feel are exploited are the
    ones who posed years ago and then became famous to find their photo
    layouts shown to the public.  Ex: Suzanne Sommers, Vanessa Williams,
    and Don Johnson.

    re .27
    Sorry, I'm writing this as I go through them so it might seem out
    of order.
    
    Why does one have to make a *high* salary?  Granted, its nice, but
    is it so important that it takes precedence over your morality?
    Hookers make good wages.  Another immoral profession.  If morals
    are strong enough then they won't be swayed by waving a dollar (pound?)
    bill in front of your face.  But, assuming that you meant simply
    'a job' and not a *high paying* job, the temptation might be great,
    but I still hold that their morals should be enough to prevent taking
    that step.  If a person has high moral values, s/he would have to
    get awfully hungry to step over the line.  S/he would probably end
    up in a soup kitchen first.  I see it as more of a quick way to
    make a lot of money.  If it crops up in the future, well, you took
    a chance and lost.
    
    I don't read Hustler because they get carried away and go too far
    with a good thing.  Playboy is at least tastefully done.  Penthouse
    comes in somewhere between the two.  If I were rich and Hustler
    approached me, I'd laugh at them too.  I *would* pose for Playgirl
    for a million dollars.  Money is a big incentive to those of us
    who aren't rich and especially to those of us who are poor.  If
    I were rich I wouldn't clean houses either, no matter what the pay
    is.
    
    re .28
    No, I don't mind if people don't like the issue, I *do* mind people
    telling me that *I* shouldn't do it.  Some people don't think that
    men should wear beards, but don't try to make me shave mine off.
    Some people don't think that we should buy Japanese cars, but don't
    try to *make* me buy American.  By people picketing 7-11's, I am
    forced to go elsewhere to buy Playboy, and that affects my life.
    I think that everyone should wear seatbelts but I wouldn't try to
    *make* anyone do it.
    
    re .29
    What is ethical to one person may not be ethical to another.  My
    ethics wouldn't prevent me from photographing another nude person.
    If the other person's ethics allow them to pose, then so be it.
    And if the consumer's ethics don't allow them to look at the photos,
    then they don't have to buy it.
    
    re .30
    I agree with that (young women are flattered into it).  Most of
    the models in Playboy are early 20's.  Perhaps there is a little
    exploitation here in the fact that they are convinced that its the
    right thing to do and a gate to higher things.  Good point.  I'll
    tuck this one away for further study. ;-)
    
    re .31
    True, it hasn't been brought up here (censorship), but it seems
    to be rampant in society.  I would think that the same attitude
    would be existing within DEC.  I guess I'm trying to draw it out.
    Maybe I'm squeezing a turnip here.  OK, I'll drop the censorship
    bit and just try to understand why its wrong to pose nude in a
    magazine.  
    
    re .32
    *Finally*.  I've got to read more and keep up.
    
    Nudism, at least American nudism as I know it (I'm a closet nudist)
    is the promotion of freedom of the forces that require us to wear
    clothing.  Hustler magazine displays nudity in a horrendous manner
    that I personally find disgusting.  Playboy, however, shows nudity
    in a beautiful and graceful way that I personally find very attractive.
    Nudists aren't a bunch of twits who have sex 14 times a day.  They
    are just fun loving people who prefer to live the way that God made
    us, without clothing.  They freely admit that it is sensuous and
    have guidelines to prevent it from being an orgy.  They also believe
    that, given time, the sexual urge will go away.  We are so sensitive
    about nudity because we are not allowed to be free about it.  We
    are taught that we should cover up.  If everyone was allowed to
    go about their business, with or without clothing, then the thrill
    of seeing a nude body would slowly go away.  The lure of a bikini
    is the fact that you have to imagine what's underneath.  You can
    almost see it, but not quite.  If there was nothing left to the
    imagination, then the thrill would subside.
    
    Nudists object to Hustler because of the disgusting way that nudity
    is portrayed.
    
    
    There, I think I've covered everything.  I'm tired of typing and
    my brain is squishy.  See you later.
    
    Spence

    Spence,
    
    It's very hard to explain what I (we?) find wrong with pornagraphy,
    even the fairly innocuous mags such as Playboy.  After all, sensuality
    _is_ great, erotica _is_ erotic, and the women in Playboy (sometimes
    even the women in Penthouse :-)) _are_ quite attractive and sexy.
    For me, nude beaches are heaven (I won't _go_ to a "normal" beach)
    because, well bodies are nice just they way they are.
    
    So what is wrong with soft core pornography???
    
    [bear with me, this may seem a bit circuitous]
    
    Every day in the life of every woman, at least one man will remind
    us of our status as a sex object.  If we are not conventionally
    attractive, we will be reminded of our status as deficient sex objects.
    If we are scintillatingly attractive, we will be reminded of what
    _good_ little objects we are.  We will be harrassed in the street
    in broad daylight, whether or not we are perceived as attractive.
    
    [anecdote: I have very hairy legs.  One summer day I was wearing
    shorts on my way to get something at the store.  One man walked
    by, stopped and said, "why don't you f***ing SHAVE your f***ing
    legs?!!  Before I even got to the store, a group of men passed by,
    calling me "gorilla", "jungle mama", and the like.  WHY?  What did
    it matter to them?!  I was not being a good little object, shaving
    my legs to make myself attractive for papa...]
    
    We run the risk (almost every day) of having one (or many) of those
    men remind us that *as* objects, we are _property_.  They will want
    to remind us that _property_ must do like massah say (such as get
    raped), and like it, too.
    
    While the men with whom we work and the men we love are not usually
    stupid enough to act this way with us, it remains that women are
    _objectified_ in this world.  Every day (even now, even here) someone
    will remind us that despite all our advances and personal acheivements,
    we are no more than chattel.
    
    And that a number of women _believe_ that hooey makes it all the
    worse.  Yet another object "properly trained"...
    
    Even soft core porn presents women as objects.  Playgirl used to
    present _men_ as objects (at least it did when _I_ last saw one
    a few years ago...).  Does that make it any better?  NO!!  People
    are PEOPLE, and _not_ objects.
    
    When we see spreads of that sort, we see the objectification of
    ourselves, and we see women objectified for everyone, our children
    in particular.
    
    Gotta go, the computer's going down.
    
    Lee
    

    
  re:  < Note 248.34 by NRLABS::TATISTCHEFF >   
    
    > Even soft core porn presents women as objects.  Playgirl used to
    > present _men_ as objects (at least it did when _I_ last saw one
    > a few years ago...).  Does it make it any better?  NO!!  People
    > are _PEOPLE_, and _not_ objects.
    
       Are you saying now that the *men* have a pair of briefs or boxers
    on, that they are not *objects* anymore?  We could *really* take
    this *object* thing a long way....
    
    bns
    
    

    	RE:  people as objects
    
    			What if our society was female-dominated
    		and women had grown accustomed over the centuries to
    		looking at men purely in terms of the sizes of their
    		sexual organs.  A man with a small sexual organ was
    		considered to be of "less value" than a man with a
    		large sexual organ.  But -- on the other hand -- a
    		man with a large sexual organ was valued *only* for
    		that (and was generally thought to be an "airhead"
    		in the business world and was hardly ever taken
    		seriously.)
    
    			A man seeking employment would go into the
    		interview *knowing* that his prospective employer
    		was making mental (if not written) notes of the size
    		of his organ (*and* was making assumptions about the
    		man's worth as an employee *based* on those observa-
    		tions.)
    
    			In a society like this, men would be in a
    		no-win situation.  Having a small sexual organ would
    		mean having to work twice as hard as women in order
    		to *prove* worth.  Having a large sexual organ would
    		mean having to overcome the stereotype that well-endowed
    		men are stupid.
    
    			How would you feel if you were well-endowed
    		(and had worked hard all your life to prove that you
    		were *more* than just a body, and had a brain as well)
    		and then discovered that you could have made *FAR* more
    		money by *SELLING* that body or allowing it to be
    		photographed in the nude.

    			How would you feel if you were well-endowed
    		(or *NOT* well-endowed) and had worked hard all your
    		life to see strides made for men in the workplace --
    		and you had seen things get to the point that, although
    		women were *still* obsessed with the sizes of sexual
    		organs, at least they had stopped letting that obsession
    		dominate the workplace.  Men (big and small) were now
    		being given opportunities -- and although men were *STILL*
    		not making as much money as women, at least things were
    		better with much hope for the future.
    
    			With that hopefulness in your heart, how would
    		you feel if you walked into a woman's cubicle and saw
    		pictures of semi-nude male bodies (with large sexual
    		organs) all over her wall?  What if she said to you,
    		"I don't discriminate against men.  I just happen to think
    		that large penises are nature's work of art.  If you
    		don't like these pictures, there must be something wrong
    		with you."
    
    			Wouldn't there be a part of you deep down inside
    		that would resent the fact that (after all the progress
    		men had made in trying to achieve equality), it *STILL*
    		all came down to the idea that men are valued for the
    		sizes of their organs (and that women still ultimately
    		saw men that way?)  Wouldn't you wish that women would
    		just leave reminders of their penal_size_obsessions
    		*OUT* of the workplace so that you wouldn't have to
   		be reminded of how those obsessions had affected your
    		life (so that you'd had to struggle to even come *CLOSE*
    		to equality with women)?
    
    			Is it really that hard to imagine what it would
    		have been like to be on the other side (and have a long
    		history of being the "objects" in our society)?
    
    							Suzanne...

    
         HEY SUZANNE!!  That's scary.
    
                 Bubba
    

    re:Lee,Suzanne
    
    thanks for putting it so well

    re:36
    
    I am afraid to some men it would not matter....as their brains seem
    to be located in that particular region of their bodies.

    
    
    re. .36
    
    That was great....
    
    Any male that reads this conference should have a copy of your
    note over their terminal and they should
    read it before they respond to
    notes written by someone who does not like their
    personal taste in "photos."
    
    _peggy   (-)
    	      |

    	RE:  last few
    
    			Thanks.  I hope when men read .36 that
    		they understand that I'm not suggesting that a
    		female-dominated society is what I would like
    		to see (or anything like that.)
    
    			I wonder sometimes if many men understand
    		what it would *really* be like to live in a culture
    		that is dominated by another sex.  In that regard,
    		I would like them to try to understand -- *not* just
    		"what it would be like to be a woman" -- rather, "what
    		it would be like to be a *man* in a society where men
    		were treated with the same sort of regard that *women*
    		have traditionally been treated in *our* society."
    
    							---------->
    
    							Suzanne...

			Imagine (once again) that we are still
		living in a society dominated by women (and men
		are still engaged in the struggle for equality.)

			It is now 1987.  You are a man who works
		for an enlightened company (DEC) that is committed
		to giving equal opportunities to men.  You are in
		a professional job (working side by side with women
		as peers.)  The women still vastly outnumber the
		men (and you have some catching up to do in the
		area of salary), but all in all you are pleased with
		your achievements.  You are working with many, many
		"enlightened" women and you are optomistic about the
		future.

			One day you walk by the coffee machine and
		you hear women talking (they are unaware that you
		have walked up behind them.)  Some of the enlightened
		women that you like so much are in this group.


    		   LINDA:  "Did you get a look at the new clerical??
			   He's *got* to be at least 10 inches!!" (*You*
			   notice that she didn't say his organ was 10
			   inches, she said that *HE* was 10 inches --
			   as if she did not differentiate between the
			   man and his organ.)

		    CATHY: "No kidding!!  I walked by his desk 5 times
			   this morning just to get a better look!!"

		    MARY:  "Yeah, he came over to my desk this morning
			   and tried to tell me something.  I was so
			   bowled over by his bod that I didn't hear a
			   word he said.  I asked him to send me a memo.
			   He's a FOX!!"

		    LINDA: "Say -- let's eat lunch out on the lawn this
			   noon.  I've heard that some of the clericals
			   go out jogging without jock straps.  Let's go
			   take a look today!!  NO HARM IN LOOKING, right?"


			You hear this and sort of sigh to yourself.
		You think about the way things are in this society and
		you feel frustrated.

			You think about the billions of dollars per
		year that are poured into the soft and hard core
		pornography business.  The majority of the people
		of your sex can barely afford to support themselves,
		and yet women (the dominant sex) can afford to throw
		away billions of dollars for the pleasure of looking
		at photographs and videotapes of nude and semi-nude
		members of your sex.

			You realize that there is one small token
		magazine that features naked women (for *your*
		enjoyment) -- but having the option of regarding
		the dominant sex as objects is small comfort to you
		after having been the *OBJECT* for so long.  You
		don't bother buying the magazine filled with women.

			As for the men that pose for soft and hard
		core porn -- you realize that they have adopted the
		attitude that if we are in a society that values
		sexual organs over people, then why not make a fast
		buck by selling the one commodity they own that has
		real value:  their bodies.  The men appear in films
		that clearly show men being humiliated and raped
		(and apparently *loving* it.)  The men who appear
		in these films think that the women who buy them are
		suckers -- and they also think that any man who tries
		to work his way up through the system (along side
		women) is a fool.

			You think about prostitution -- the idea that
		female leaders of organized crime are making a fortune
		off the backs of men.  You think about the female pimps
		who take most of the money from the male prostitutes
		(and then abuse them if they don't obey the pimp's
		rules.)  And then -- whenever arrests are made in
		connection with prostitution -- it's the men who are
		arrested (not the clients, the "Janes", or the pimps
		or the organized crime leaders.)

			So when women at work ask you how you feel
		about photos of men in bathing suits being hung on
		their walls -- you just slowly shake your head and
		walk away.

			It's not the pictures themselves.  The pictures
		are not the problem (nor do they *cause* the problems.)
		They are merely a *SYMPTOM* of a bigger sickness in our
		society.

			It's not the pictures that make you sick to
		your stomach.  It's the rest of it.  The pictures
		only serve to rub salt in the wounds.

			Realistically, you know that women will never
		understand.  How could the other sex *imagine* what it
		is like to live in a society  (dominated by the
		opposite sex) that sees your *value as a person* determined
		by the level of your sexual appeal?  

			How could the other sex imagine what it is like
		to be held back economically by the way your sex is
		regarded by society (and what it is like to have to
		struggle against tremendous odds to achieve any real
		level of success.)

			It makes you wonder...

							Suzanne...

re: the mirror society
Of course, men's pants would be tighter, and, in the equivalent of the
50's, codpieces or jock straps would have stood out and come to a point.
In the liberated 80's, men would get flack for letting their organ just
hang around (too titillating). It has to be bound for all to see...
:-(. Gosh Suzanne, it's so depressing.
	Mez

    	RE:  .43
    
    			Just think of the market there might
    		have been for "male falsies"...
    
    			That really *is* depressing to think
    		about (but maybe brings the whole thing a tad
    		closer to home for those that can't imagine
    		what it might be like...)
    
    						Suzanne...
    

    re .33
    
    Spence, I always enjoy your replies.  It appears you put a lot of
    thought into them.
    
    What I write here may be unpopular, but here goes:  I do not feel
    that it is "wrong" that women pose for or men look at nude
    pictures/soft porn.  Saying something is "wrong" is subjective (and
    reminds me a little bit of organized religion's saying something
    is "sinful").  I just want men and women to look at *why* things came
    to be this way and understand why women feel dehumanized.  And, of
    course, I *really do not* want to look at them at work.

    The difference between nude beaches (or possibly naked pictures of
    couples, I don't know, I haven't seen any) and pictures of unclothed
    women is that at nude beaches (and possibly pictures of unclothed
    couples) is that at least I feel there is equality (because there
    are both males and females unclothed).  Still inappropriate at work.
    
        	-Ellen

Re .36: ... 	and then discovered that you could have made *FAR* more
    		money by *SELLING* that body or allowing it to be
    		photographed in the nude.

    	    
		Whilst I appreciate what you are trying to say, and also
        not wanting to start a rat-hole, "*FAR* more money" is a gross 
        distortion of the models life. Most if not all of the readers here
        will probably earn more in their life than most if not all Playboy
        centerfolds earn during their modeling career.
        
        	The average model is not very well paid, nor do they have
        a long career. Few indeed remain in the profession past their
        mid-thirties (though a few do, indeed there are jobs for models
        well into the golden years of retirement). The higher paying jobs
        are generally in fashion modeling or advertising work. Whilst I
        admit that the stereotype these models project is not always the
        most desirable for women in general (gee, you don't look like Twiggy)
	it is also *totally* different from the models used by pin-up
        magazines. 
        
        	Inevitably the women who follow a career as nude models for 
        these magazines have *failed* in the modeling or acting career (though
        they may subsequently get a lucky break). If they remain as models
        they have a very short career indeed. If they earn spectacular fees
        in a few cases, it still leaves their life-time earnings absurdly
        low.  
        
        	I must say though that the three models I have known who
        did this sort of work *all* did it because they *liked* the idea
        that men would see them: two of them were heterosexual exhibitionists
        and the third was a lesbian who described it as "her revenge on
        men". I have also known many models in the advertising field who
        would work nude or topless if they liked the overall layout of the
        ad: none of these were prepared to do "pin up work" (one of them
        successfully sued a photographer who sold some stock pictures to
        a magazine). It was one of the more educational experiences of my
        career to be "interviewed" (together with the art director and
        advertising Campaign Manager) by a prospective model concerned that
        the ad would be tastefully photographed (she also got a contract
        allowing her to inspect the art work and supervise any required
        retouching).

        /. Ian .\

    	re: .47
    
    			Yes, I realize that my descriptions of
    		a society that oppressed men were brutal.  When
    		I wrote the first part, I watched a man in my
    		office literally squirm as he read it.  It hit
    		well below the belt (no pun intended.)
    
    			That's entirely the point I tried to make.
    		Being judged for sexual attributes is *not* pretty
    		or fair.
    
    			When I think of all the men I've known in
    		my life and what they would have been like if they
    		*had* been raised in a society that dehumanized men
    		-- it stuns me to realize how much of their gifts
    		and their talents might have been lost to the world.
    
    			In the same way, many *MANY* of our gifts
    		and talents as women have been lost to the world
    		because of the way our society has "seen" us.
    
    			Thinking of what it could have been like for
    		men (if *they* had been the victims of sexism instead
    		of women) is a sobering thought.  I'm glad with all
    		my heart that they haven't had to live through it.
    		
    			I also hope that maybe the concept is a little
    		easier to understand (after seeing things in another
    		perspective.)
    
    							Suzanne...

    Suzanne, et al,
    If this is the way that women in general feel about it, then I can
    certainly see why you are bothered by it.  If this is the way that
    men are reacting, then its no wonder that so many women *hate* men.
    I can sympathize with you.  And thanks for the enlightening story
    (story sounds like fairy-tale, but I couldn't think of a better
    word for it, story does *NOT* mean fairy-tale).  It did help to
    see the situation from the other side.  I like to try and put myself
    into the other role and see how it would feel to me.  
    
    I guess I've had a sheltered life or I just avoid men with this
    type of attitude, although I can recall myself in the conversation
    by the water fountain.  I would never think to judge a woman by
    the size of her breasts.  They may be nice to look at but their
    roots don't start in her brain.  If a woman came up to me and told
    me that I had a nice tush, I'd be flattered, but I wonder how I
    would feel if it happened every day and if she was drooling when
    she said it.  In '69, I was a Junior (17 years old) and on 2 different
    occasions, I had girls tell me that I was cute.  OOOOO, I liked
    that.  Then, 2 girls together told me that they would like to get
    me in bed.  I wanted to run and hide just because of the way they
    said it.  I also had some girls tell me that I wasn't worth their
    time and that hurt more than anything else.  On TV, I see construction 
    workers leering and whistling at women and I loathe those men.  I'd 
    always assumed that it was the grunts, non-educated, and low payed 
    men who do that.  It sounds like the educated, highly paid men do 
    it too.
    
    I mentioned that I have pictures of women in bikinis on my desk,
    but they are in a corner behind a wall where a person would almost
    have to be sitting in my chair to see them.  To openly display them
    where anyone could see them would be forcing them onto someone who
    didn't want to see them.  One day, one of the engineers brought
    his 12 year old daughter into my office to introduce me to her.
    Boy, was I glad that she couldn't see the pictures.  Maybe you all
    ought to try this and embarrass the men into putting the pictures
    somewhere where they aren't so obvious.  But, I suppose some men
    wouldn't give a darn.  Also, how many would want their daughters
    to see it in the first place.  OK, bad idea.
    
    I know of one engineer who is just cuter than a bug's ear.  She
    is a pleasure to look at.  She is also very smart and knows her
    job.  I found out that she took a course so that she could better
    understand what the technicians are up against.  That impressed
    me.  I like her for both reasons, she is nice to look at, but I
    admire her for what she is.
    
    Another engineer is the type who expects men to do everything for
    her, she's irresponsible, she's very nice when she wants something
    but otherwise wouldn't give me the time of day.  She is also nice
    to look at, but that's her only redeeming quality.
    
    I don't mind Playgirl and my wife liked it before they started to
    cover up all the men.  She was/is upset by it.  I remember her comment
    when she first found Playgirl, "Its about time."  I agreed.  
    
    I can't apologize for other men, I just hope that I am not judged
    by the ludicrous actions of them.  Anyone who believes that a woman
    should be judged by her body probably uses his brain for a door
    stop.
    
    Last week, I needed to talk to
    a female technician about a business matter.  I walked up to her
    and said "Hi, good looking".  She gave me a look that made me think
    that she is sick and tired of hearing that.  I thought that we were
    good enough friends that she wouldn't mind and I was hurt.  When
    I came back to my office, I sat down and thought about WOMANNOTES
    and some of the things that have been said here and I realized that
    what I had done was very sexist and I shouldn't have said it.  I
    felt like a complete jerk for saying it.  I betcha I won't do it
    again.  Maybe this conference should be required reading. ;-)
    
    As far as prostitution goes, I don't like pimps and I think that
    the Johns should be arrested right along with the hookers.  It takes
    two to commit *this* crime.  I believe that it should be legalized
    and taxed like everything else.  (Tangent alert)
    
    Spence

    I just went over and apologized to the technician that I mentioned
    in .-1.  She said that it was a bad day and she was mad at someone
    else.  Otherwise, she liked the comment.  Gee, I feel better now
    and apparently she does too.  She apologized for making me feel
    that way.  I just *love* communication. 8-)
    
    Spence

    	RE:  .49
    
    			In my "story," the criteria that the 
    		imaginary society used to judge men was the size
    		of sexual organs.  I just wanted to point out that
    		I wasn't trying to draw a perfect parallel between
    		that idea and how the real society treats women.  I
    		*don't* honestly feel that breast size is the primary
    		criteria by which women are judged.

    			The point I was trying to make is the fact
    		that women are being judged by the level of their
    		sexual appeal (which includes a *variety* of elements.)
    		What's worse is the fact that our earning potential
    		has been affected by the way society has "seen" us
    		(and that it has been a double-edged sword:  It is
    		just as bad to have *too much* sexual appeal as it
    		is to have *too little*.)
    
    			In my story, you might have noticed that the
    		man *did not* hate women and *was not* angry in general.
    		He was frustrated and saw soft & hard porn as a symptom
    		of a bigger problem.  Surely, it can't be any accident
    		that the vast majority of the money spent on soft &
    		hard porn comes from the sex that is dominant.  I *do*
    		honestly feel that if women were dominant, *we'd* be
    		the ones spending billions on pictures of men.  What
    		does that tell us about soft & hard porn?
    
    			I appreciate your comments about this issue
    		(and your willingness to try to see things from a
    		different perspective.)  I almost feel guilty for
    		making the imaginary society as cruel as I did --
    		but I had to find the type of discrimination towards
    		men that would carry the same sort of emotional impact
    		that the *real* discrimination towards women has had
    		on us.
    
    			In my opinion, it *isn't* just the pictures.
    		It *isn't* just the stares, the comments and the fact
    		that female body parts are "public domain" (instead
    		of being private to each woman and her husband/lover/SO.)

    			What's worse to me is the fact that women are
    		seen *less* as people than as a collection of various
    		interesting (or non-interesting) body parts.  It is
    		this attitude that has long labeled us as "property"
    		in the history of our civilization (and has succeeded
    		in holding us back economically.)
    
    			As Ian pointed out, it is *not* the owners of
    		the interesting body parts that make the big bucks for
    		posing nude or semi-nude.  So while women struggle to
    		support themselves, billions of dollars change hands
    		so that the dominant sex can appreciate the beauty of
    		the female form.  And *some* men at the coffee_machine/
    		water_cooler can while away their breaks by commenting
    		on the quality of the female forms that populate their
    		offices (telling themselves that there is no harm in
    		looking...)  :-}
    
    			By the way, the conversation I wrote about in
    		the one note (that took place by the coffee machine)
    		is a TONED DOWN version of an actual conversation I
    		once heard by men in our very own DEC (they were dis-
    		cussing *other* DEC employees who happened to be women.)
    
    			Like I said before, it makes you wonder......
    
    							Suzanne...

    Suzanne,
    You shouldn't feel at all guilty about showing something the way
    it is.  If it was a gross exaggeration, that's different.  Maybe
    what you felt is apprehension?  
    
    I've given this a lot of thought and I seriously didn't realize
    that men act that way, at least not to that extent.  I'm not a sociable
    person and I have few good friends.  I'm a loner (hmmm, before I
    corrected it, it said 'lover'.  Freudian typo???).  I don't associate
    with people enough to have seen the problem.  I have a better view
    of the problem now.  Perhaps it is worse in different parts of the
    country.  Maybe that's my cop-out.  I'm probably just blind.
    
    However, as far as pornography goes, I still enjoy it and I will
    continue as long as my wife doesn't object, and we communicate very
    well.  Being a woman, she is my first line of input.  If something
    bothers her, she lets me know and I'll change.  If she is not bothered
    by Playboy, then I will continue to subscribe.  But, I will continue
    to be discreet around other women, even more now that I know the 
    situation.  My wife's only complaint is that Playgirl no longer 
    provides a magazine for her to enjoy.
    
    I have an idea for a story of my own, in an attempt to explain why
    I (we) feel the way we do about it, but I got off at 6:30, typed
    2 term papers for Kris (my wife), and have been battling my puppy
    all evening.  I think I'll do it tomorrow.
    
    Good night,
    Spence

    	RE:  .53
    
    			The reason I felt guilty about part of the
    		story was because I chose to describe a form of
    		discrimination against men that was particularly
    		distasteful.  I don't think my story was any sort
    		of gross exaggeration -- I just felt that it *may*
    		have been unpleasant for men to contemplate (i.e.,
    		being judged by society on the basis of sexual
    		organ size.)

    			I hope that you didn't get the impression
    		that I am enraged or even really upset about any
    		of this.  It's amazing how adaptable humans are --
    		we get so used to society having certain attitudes
    		that we often barely notice them (even though many
    		of the attitudes that society has towards women are
    		so distinctly unfair.)
    
    			In most of the arguments *in favor* of so-
    		called "soft porn" (such as Playboy), you hear the
    		comments about how there is nothing wrong with
    		nudity and that the women were not forced to pose
    		(and that women *also* have the option of buying
    		photos of nude men.)  It makes it all sound sort
    		of harmless and *equal*.
    
    			Except that we all know that things are
    		*not* harmless *nor* equal for women in our society.
    		
    			To be honest, when I was married, my husband
    		subscribed to Playboy, too (and I didn't raise a single
    		objection.)  The last thing I wanted was to nag him
    		about something that is so prevalent in our society
    		among men -- it would have been like spitting into the
    		wind.  It wasn't worth the fight (to me!!)

    			Compared to the *rest* of what happens to
    		women in our culture, soft porn probably *is* harmless
    		(if not exactly equal.)  I certainly would be the last
    		person to try and physically stop someone from buying
    		a publication that they want to buy.  
    
    			The only point I was trying to make (with my
    		story) is that soft porn is not a simple matter of
    		a bunch of pretty bodies.  There's a lot more to it
    		than that in the eyes of *some* women.
    
    			You don't need to explain to us *why* you like
    		to look at Playboy centerfolds (et al) ...  I think
    		we all know why soft porn is such a big business.
    
    							Suzanne...

    Suzanne, I think you were justified in engaging in a bit of hyperbole
    in order to make your point.  Your story had a lot of impact because
    it is capable of making men and women see something most of us are
    "used to" in a very different light.  I felt like I was reading
    good science fiction while I was reading what you wrote.
    
    Have you considered working it up into a short story, or better
    yet, a novel?

    re "women as beautiful works of art":
    
    I neither wish to be degraded *nor* put on a pedestal.  Either one
    of these things dehumanizes me.

    	-Ellen

    I believe that the "mirror society" has already been written up as
    a novel.  About 10 or 15 years ago I read a book called "5 to 12"
    by Leonard Wibberly.  He is the same person who wrote "The Mouse
    That Roared" and other books about that mythical country.  I just
    barely remember anything about it other than the sex roles were
    reversed by the ratio of men to women (5 to 12).  I read it as
    science fiction at the time.  I checked out of the college library.
    As far as I know, it never came out in paperback.  Perhaps someone
    else can confirm my hazy memories.

    Mike

Or you could try the classic "The Left Hand of Darkness" by Ursula LeGuin,
in which the society has no gender-related dominance roles at all, simply
because (most of the time) the people are neither male nor female.  When
the right time comes, they become one or the other (not always the same,
either).  After the baby is born, the parents go back to their neutral
states, both biologically and emotionally. 

    I no longer have the time or energy to continue the discussion.
    Please forgive me.
    
    Spence

re .42
    
Lots of good points which I agree with ..., but only to a point.  I think
that the article is much to extreme in describing the problem of women as
sex objects.  I also think that it is a two way street.  Women look at men
with the same curiosity about the sexual challenge.  What is it that 
initially attracts anyone to the opposite sex?  It is their physical appearance.Man to woman or woman to man.  After the initial attraction and you start to
get to know a person you should start to emphasize the intrinsic worth or
more important characteristics.  In many cases, women victimize themselves 
in allowing themselves to be portrayed as sex objects.  Also, if you check
the statistics, women far outnumber men.  If they begin to refuse to do
demeaning and degrading jobs and start to exercise their tremendous power
they'll start to get closer to that equality they so justtly deserve.   An
attitude change is in order on both sides..., not just men's.

    Not to change the subject, but to get back to the ORIGINAL subject:
    
    I subscribed to Playgirl many years ago.  My mother was against
    it, my father thought it was a way to explore my sexuality.  My
    first, second, and third glance at the nude pics caused the same
    response, "ICK".  After a while though, the repulsion wore off and
    I was able to look at them as any experienced nudie mag reader would.
    As far as Playgirl, the magazine, the layouts are cheap looking,
    the quality of the pictures is poor, and the paper the magazine
    is on has lots of imperfections (at least it did then).  I decided
    then that one of the things I would do when I made my fortune would
    be to start a respectable equivalent (or surpasser) of Playboy.
    
    Playgirl did do some good though, I don't say "ICK" when I see a
    naked man now...
    
    

    Playgirl magazine, starting with the October '87 issue, is back
    to their old format, total nudity, by popular demand.  It seems
    that the majority of women writing to the editors expressed a feeling
    that they had been cheated.  The majority wants total nudity and
    they've got it back.  I tip my hat to the editors.  My wife never
    got around to cancelling her subscription and decided to let it
    run out.  Now she is going to continue it.
    
    I apologize if this is mentioned elsewhere, I haven't kept up since
    May.
    
    Spence

re: .62:
    I apologize if this is mentioned elsewhere, I haven't kept up since
    May.

Perhaps now that Playgirl's back to its original format you'll be able
to keep up more.

M.