Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    
      Since when did Playboy centerfolds become pornographic in nature?
     It's been a long time...maybe I should pick up a recent copy -).
     Seriously, offensive to some perhaps, but pornographic...not hardly.

    There is already a long discussion on this topic in note 181.
    
    Bonnie J
    moderator
    

    
    Hmmmmm....
                     
    True confession:
                                                 
    A friend of mine with a Mac has a copy of this program, and I'll
    be honest: I couldn't help wondering what it was like.  Also, computers
    are my thing, and practically anything poses an interesting problem.
    (All right, I sound like I'm saying I buy Playboy for the articles). 
    Anyway, I booted it up and let it go.
    
    It is considerably more explicit than a Playboy centerfold.  It is
    considerably more explicit than the average pornographic movie.  There
    are, uh, options for the display to appeal to fetishists.  Since we've
    had a flurry about how explicit we make our descriptions, I don't think
    I want to get any further into the details than that. There are
    multiple characters.  An assortment of props And there are sound
    effects, too.  Progress. 
    
    I do not find the pictures, nor the concept in the abstract, to be
    particularly offensive.  However, this particular example is pretty
    vile.  Its context depicts a woman who has nothing more to live for
    than the indulgence of someone's sexual fantasies.  Oddly, the depiction
    of two women in action is fairly realistic, (extrapolating on what I've
    been told and read) while the 'traditional sex' part features a
    caricature male.  The simulation is primitive and limited, but anyone
    with enough imagination to enjoy a comic book can give themselves the
    feeling that they are actually just toying with a woman, and she loves
    it.  It's the power of the computer put to a particularly disheartening
    use.             
    
    My description seems somewhat clumsy, but anyone who wants me to
    be more specific should contact me by MAIL.
    
    However, I have a dilemma.  While I have a right to my opinion that's
    it's pretty awful, I would not feel comfortable signing the petition
    in .0  It smacks of censorship, and interference with the author's
    rights.  The woman who volunteered her voice for the sound portions
    (she has a credit in the program title display) has a right to try
    and get the royalties for her work, too.  Maybe I'm spineless and
    sexist, but I never claimed to be perfect.
    
    Anyway, I posted this to give the community a little more information
    on exactly what is being discussed.
    
    DFW

    re .3 see .2
    

    I did read .2 but I think that this subject can stand it's own
    note.
    
    I was at MACWORLD yesterday and was surprised of find one color
    monitor vendor using a moving picture of a woman wearing a very
    small and loosely fitting bikini top walking past the camera.
    This image repeated over and over again.
    
    The question is:  Why to men feel it is OK to use these images to
    draw attention to their products when they can be sure that they
    will have a mostly male audience?
    
    It is almost as if they are giving lip service to woman's rights
    but as soon as they are sure that the women are not looking they
    will use whatever works best to attract the eye of a male audience.
    It leads men not to take women seriously. I was very disappointed
    that such a sexist display was being used.  It is one thing to have
    an attractive woman standing in a booth.  She may actually be an
    engineer.  Frankly if Apple or some other vendor were going to
    hire 50 people to talk to customers I would rather that all of them
    could talk to me about the products and I don't care if any of them
    look good.
    
    I did not see the MACplayboy booth.
    
    I suppose I should go back and read all 198 replies to 181.
    
    						MJC O->

    Any market which exists will be catered to, with or without
    approval.

    Re .5, .6, .7, in other words, all that really matters in this world
    is making money.
    
    Lorna
    

    re .8:
    
    That conclusion is not implied by those statements.
    
    You have every right to be offended by this piece of software, but
    do you have the right to force the creators of it to suppress it?
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    
    

re: .9:
    You have every right to be offended by this piece of software, but
    do you have the right to force the creators of it to suppress it?

Judge Bork would certainly think so.

Martin.

    re .9:
    
    >You have every right to be offended by this piece of software, but
    >do you have the right to force the creators of it to suppress it?

	The offended group/individuals have every right to bring to bear as
much public pressure, professional embarrasment, and economic sanction
as they legally can.

	Nobody is talking about taking away anyone's right to create or view
such stuff privately, only about its inappropriateness in a business
environment.
    
    

    re .6 

    >in a flash, replaced with Yoda, Kirk and Spock, or the Mandrill.

    Do you mean Kirk/Spock pornography?
    
    Sorry, couldn't resist.
    
    Elizabeth
    

    re .11:
    
    I have no objection to boycotting, etc.
    
    > Nobody is talking about taking away anyone's right to create or view
    > such stuff privately, only about its inappropriateness in a business
    > environment.
      
    Although I've never been to one, I believe MACWORLD to be a convention
    for manufacturers to display their products as related to the MACINTOSH
    and other APPLE products. As the MAC et al are not exclusively business
    products, I do not understand why this is being discussed as to
    its "inappropriateness in a business enviroment".
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    Re: .14: I strongly contend that MACWORLD is a business environment.
    I attended the show (along with the rest of my group) due to the 
    suggestion by my management for investigative purposes. I am a software
    developer and I was there to view Macintosh software currently on
    the market.

    It is true that MACWORLD is held to exhibit non-business related products
    (such as games), as well as business related products (hardware, software, 
    and peripherals) but even games are marketed and sold in as much a
    business-like fashion as a computer terminal.

    I have read 181.0 - .198 and I know that there are other Deccies that
    agree that the MAC-Playmate booth is offensive, in poor taste, and/or 
    inappropriate at MACWORLD. It is for those persons that I chose to
    open this issue once again. Maybe no conclusion was reached in 181.*,
    but I hope this lets people know that there is one thing they can do 
    to stop sexism in the business world. It may be a small step, but I
    believe it's a step in the right direction.

    Stacey

    Wasn't there a SF story like this a few years back - about a kid
    who used his parent's home computer with a graphics program to
    create a porn 'masterpiece'. As i recall, he ends up making a lot
    of money. The kicker - he was 8 years old ;-)  Anyone remember
    it ? The future is now, unfortunately sometimes.

    A two paragraph article in the Information Processing section "Bits and
    Bytes" from the Aug. 10 *BusinessWeek* makes it fairly clear that
    *Playboy* via Macintosh is a dying product.  It's appearance at
    MAC-world was in all probability its swan song. 
    
    

    

    
    	I've recently seen an ad for sunglasses by the JS&A company.
    They had a picture of some baseball pitcher wearing these glasses
    and an attractive woman in the next frame. The writer for the ad
    explicitly stated that the woman had nothing to do with his sales
    pitch-story, the baseball pitcher, or the sunglasses. He did say
    that they sold a lot of whatever they were advertizing when her
    picture was in the ad.
    
    	You see, money IS all that matters to some...I'm sure there's
    been a lot worse things done to get a bigger share of the pie!
    
    	Joe Jas
    

    If you're talking about bathing suited models as eye-grabbers in
    ads and complaining about it--that's not censorship but instead
    pointing out a bad or unfruitful business practice.  If many people
    are offended by an ad and will refuse to consider the product, then
    pointing this out to the advertiser will help them.  This extends
    to complaining to the exhibit director of a convention about the
    content of the advertising in booths, because offensive advertising
    also reflects upon the convention.  Advertising, I believe, is not
    subject to freedom of the press (although it is subject to civil
    rights amendments).
    
    I complained once to IEEE and the responsible company about an
    inappropriate ad for a compiler.  IEEE was quite nice; the ad manager
    for the company was not and was frankly rather snotty with her claim
    that despite the feelings of feminists, "sex sells".  (Basic compilers?)

    Electronic magazines also show cheesecake to sell products - take
    for instance the leotard-and-wing-clad-blonde who perches neatly
    on a large-scale version of the product: Guardian switches.  Guardian
    angel, indeed....a trademark of theirs for several years, but I
    haven't looked recently to see if they've changed their tune.
    
    -Jody
    

    If you want to see a high concentration of cheescake in ads, look
    in magazines and catalogs that cater to the automotive repair
    business!
    
    My view is if the manufacturer finds it necessary to use a scantily
    clad woman in the ad, the product itself is probably not worth much.
    
    					Steve

    re .22:
    
    	Everyone must know the RIDGID TOOLS calendar...
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    one thing that surprised me....the Pirelli cable company
    sends a calendar to some of the people who tend to buy their cable
    in quantity.  Oh, sure, it's artistically done with neat photo effects
    (fiberoptics et al), and lighting (mostly blue or silver)....but
    the naked women are sure the same...

    now....when do we get our beefcake?  hmmm?  (actually, I noticed
    on the cover of this months Penthouse they have a couple on a
    beach...and she's squeezing HIS buns for a change).
    
    

    Well, my mechanic only has pictures of naked automobiles on his
    walls (at work anyway, I have no idea about elsewhere).  I don't
    patronize mechanics that have pictures of naked people looming over
    the service desk.  My meager experience shopping for estimates or parts
    has led me to believe that those who do have cheesecake pictures are
    neither capable nor reasonable.

    RE:.0

    Actually, I just thought of it as rather risqu�,
    not pornographic.

    .0
    
    If you find something offensive, then by all means speak out! 
    
    Whether any of us agree with you or not, it is anyone's right, whatever
    the opinion, to speak out. But, just because YOU don't like something,
    don't try to keep it from the rest of us. Give us the credit (or
    at least the chance) to view something and make up our own minds.
    
    Yes, I think I would find displays like that offensive (this, of course
    is without having seen the display - not all of DEC lives in the New
    England area :-) ... just reading about it here) and I would probably
    tell the booth so. But I am realistic enough to realize that if
    the product didn't sell, or an "ad" didn't bring in more business,
    it wouldn't be used. I attended a federal computer conference several
    years ago and was amazed that one booth had the cliche "woman in
    scanty evening dress" hawking the product - but I did also note
    that it had the biggest audience listening to it  (until DECtalk
    started to sing....hehehe). 

    So, if you don't like something, speak up and don't buy the product,
    but don't make that decision for the rest of us....
    
    janet b.
    

	RE: .28

	AAAaaaggghh!  I hate that response.  Paraphrased: "If the
	ad works, use it no matter how many people you offend."
	TV shows that show women being raped and murdered also
	get a lot of viewers.  That doesn't mean it's okay.

	Sigh, I'm just too frustrated to say anymore without flaming.
	...Karen

    re .28, .29:
    
    And here's what I hate:
    
    Someone enters a note saying she or he finds pornography (no matter
    how sublte) "offensive".
    
    Someone else yells at that person about censorship.
    
    Someone please tell me - how do we always make that leap?
    
    	-Ellen

    re .30:
    
    .0 did not just say that she found pornography offensive. .0 _is_
    an active attempt at censorship. And I quote:
    
    > I found the presence of such material at an exhibition such as 
    > MACWORLD to be extremely offensive and out of place. [all well
    > and good]...                 
    > I am writing to inform him of the highly offensive material being 
    > presented at this booth, and to request that MAC-Playmate be denied
                                   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^^^^^^^^^
    > exhibit space at future MACWORLDS.
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
        
    
                 

    
    Well, the leap is pretty simple, actually, although I can see your
    point.
                   
    Calling something pornographic has often been an excuse for censorship,
    i.e., book-burnings.
    
    I freely admit that I do not have an objective viewpoint on this.
    It is my feeling that nothing, no matter how lurid, licentious,
    or vile, is low enough to be subjected to censorship.
    
    Some of the things done to get some of the pornographic media made
    are and should be against the law, but that isn't the same thing.
    
    DFW

    
    
    Imagine that you are a vendor.  You are selling an object that I 
    (a customer) find offensive.  Now imagine these 2 different courses
    of action that I might take.
    
    1. I get some people together and form a coalition to lobby congress
       to pass legislation to ban the "offensive" object from the market.
    
    2. I write a letter directly to the vendor and encourage others
    to do the same.  In the letter I say something like this.
    
    Dear Vendor,
    
    I have been a customer of yours for xxx years, and I found your
    xxx object to be highly offensive to me because ....  As long as
    you keep this object on the market, I will not buy anything from
    you and I am encouraging others to do the same.  I am also writing
    a letter to the owner of the local newspaper and will ask them to
    stop running your ads that show the object.  I hope that when you
    realize that this object is causing you to lose the business of
    your most loyal customers that you will reconsider your position
    and discontinue the sale of this object.
    
    
    Now which of these situations sounds like censorship to you?  Using
    our power as consumers does not constitute censorship!!!
    
    Justine
                             

    re: .33
    
    Very true, but what your (2.) suggests is not what the base note
    suggests.
    
    DFW

    (first (and I apologize) just a quick digression - in defense of .28)

     from .29   
    |	RE: .28
    |
    |	AAAaaaggghh!  I hate that response.  Paraphrased: "If the
    |	ad works, use it no matter how many people you offend."
    |	TV shows that show women being raped and murdered also
    |	get a lot of viewers.  That doesn't mean it's okay.
    |
    
    That's not what .28 said, nor was it what was intended (if that's
    how it came across, then I apologize).
    
    what I did write:
    <......But I am realistic enough to realize that if
    <the product didn't sell, or an "ad" didn't bring in more business,
    <it wouldn't be used....

    What I was trying to say is that advertising is very competitive and
    very goal oriented. If something doesn't work, it gets pulled....
    quickly. Ads that offend "lots of viewers" most likely don't stay
    around long (if those offended let it be known that they are offended).
    But, as long as something keeps getting results, then it will be
    used. I'm NOT saying I agree with this, just that this seems to
    be reality.

   <end of digression - again I apologize for getting off-track.>
    
    The current debate seems to be is .0 represents censorship or not. 
    
    In my opinion, letting the vendor/organizers know that something is
    offensive to you is using the power of the consumer. But, asking them
    to never have that booth again, starts to stray into the grey area of
    censorship/not-censorship. (of course, just when I think I have my
    opinions sorted out I start to think of this in the context of a book
    and would I be as willing to ban it... and the issue gets confused
    again...oh well) 
    
    Does anyone know how well the booth did? If it didn't get much business
    then that might also decide it's fate, too. 
    
    janet b.
    
    ps - did anyone catch a news article about 3 weeks ago about a Florida
    police department that was burning its confiscated pornographic
    material, when someone noticed that one of the "pictures" was
    autographed..... by Pablo Picasso himself. It seems that this
    "pornography" was a sketch of a larger piece of work that he did
    and is valued at approximately $10,000!  What's the old saying...
    "one person's trash is another person's treasure"!

	<digression> - It seems that defenders of freedom (speech and
	otherwise) always end up having to defend the rights of slimeballs.
	I felt this way when the big argument was over HUSTLER magazine
	which is perhaps the most tasteless publication I've ever seen.
	I have to say that we are better to err towards too much freedom
	than too little but I still hate the filth that is put out. The
	frightening fact of all this is that if there was not a market for
	it this stuff wouldn't exist. 

	Vendors using pinups to sell technical items are hardly in the 
	class of HUSTLER and well I might hope that no one buys software 
	based on sexual images it does not particularly upset me. I can't
	say I don't look at sexy men and (horrors) think sexual thoughts
	but I'm not sure I'd buy anything because of it. I don't believe
	that men are any more likely to buy something because of a sexual
	image than a woman is. It's just that in business the ads are geared
	to what men find sexy because in business more of the buyers are
	men and , let's face it, sexy ads work to get your attention. liesl

	P.S. in case you are wondering, there's lots of sexy guys at DEC.
	It's amazing I get anything done at all :*)

on "is the base note censorship?":

It is within a persons legal rights to insult and degrade a handicapped 
person, but that doesn't make it right. Yes, freedom of speech says a 
person can, legally, do that, but it is a cruel thing to do. 

There are already laws that state that rape and murder are illegal.
If I man rapes a woman, he can be brought to trial, and if found
guilty, sentenced to life, death, a fine, or limited imprisonment.

If someone goes around using all of his/her power to convince
others to rape and/or murder; s/he is still within the law.
Imagine that s/he uses his/her freedom of the press to advertise
on (say) instructive courses on how to successfully rape and
murder; and uses his/her freedom of speech to declare the
greatness of this course; and even gives out the weapons to
make it all possible; this person is 'merely' exercizing his/her
constitutional rights, right? 

Well, where does it end? What if the above scenerio was extended
to include people giving speeches at all public and private 
schools, to all grades, praising and encouraging children to go
out and rape and/or murder. Isn't this extreme? Are these people
still just exercizing their constitutional rights? Who, then, is
to blame when these children grow up and begin to commit these crimes?

Do you, who claim I'm attempting to impose censorship, believe it is
right and good to have for each "Say 'No' To Drugs" commercial, a "Say 
'Yes' to Drugs!" commercial? If you had children, would you want them
to see such a commercial? If you think this would be bad, please think 
about why. Actually, it's just a legal example of using ones freedom 
of speech.

Well, the pamphlets at the MACWORLD show depict women, bound at the
wrists and ankles with chains, gagged, and being manipulated by objects
controlled by a realistic hand. She is shown is the position a rapist 
would put her in to perform his act. This is not beautiful love-making. 
This is torture. It is illegal to harm any person in this manner. 

Yet these pamphlets, however subtley, are espousing rape and torture 
of women. The effects of this are not concrete, but do you think it's
worth the risk? 

No one knows what will happen to a young mans mind (for example) if
he sees this. Maybe he finds it exciting. And somewhere deep in his 
subconscious he stores it as fact that it is right, good, and 
justifiable to abuse a woman in this way. Maybe a year or two later,
things begin to go unfairly wrong in his life, and he wanders the streets,
lonely and depressed. He sees a solitary woman walking. And he wants sex. 
And then that long-ago image from the innocent pamphlet at a tradeshow is 
recalled. And he remembers how he felt when he saw it. And he rapes 
the woman. Maybe he even kills her so she can't go to the police. And a 
week later they find her body in an alley. But there is no evidence of 
who inflicted this horrible act on this woman. What do we do then?
Nothing. There is nothing we can do. 

I think a singer named Judy Small says it best in a song:
"We are foolish people, who do nothing, 
because we know how little one person can do." 

    It *is* a crime to encourage another person to commit a crime or
    to know that a person has committed a crime and refuse to cooperate
    with the police in the matter. I believe it is referred to as
    an accessory either before or after the fact.
    

    I see now that the graphic description was given that
    I would agree with doing something. Somewhere in DEC people
    are making contacts with Apple. Anyone know who? 
    Take one of these ads to them and write a letter expressing
    the feelings as this ad being porn.
    Maybe this way at least DEC/Apple ads won't turn out his way.
    

    
    re: .39
    
    Apple has nothing to do with this product, or the way it was
    advertised.
    
    re: .37
    
    I suspect we will not come to an agreement on this point.  You think
    this case warrants censorship because of possible harm.  I submit
    to you that we could counter-example each other to death over whether
    or not this is true, and what could be harmful and what could not.
    
    I have my position, and you have yours.  That's just the way it
    is.
    
    DFW

    Bonnie (.38) is correct about accessory before/after the fact.
    There is also accessory to the fact and another whole category
    of legal charges called "conspiracy".  For some felonies, 
    (e.g. murder) a conspiracy conviction can carry a punishment
    that is as severe as that given to the principal felon.
    
    Come to think of it (reflecting on .37), there *is* a limit
    to how severely one may verbally attack an individual, but
    I confess I'm not well schooled in the parameters of slander
    laws.
    
    I personally think that the expression of customer outrage
    is a better way to go from a pragmatic point of view - I
    think it works better.  Litigation, particularly on something
    as fuzzily defined as "pornography" can take a long time with
    very uncertain results.  Hit a company in the profit line and
    things will happen real fast.  It was amazing how quickly the
    billboard (bruised, scantily-clad woman in chains) hyping the 
    Rolling Stones "Black and Blue" album disappeared when the
    public started howling to the record company.
    
    It seems to me that if you could convince the Fortune 500 that
    solving "____" (insert your favorite social issue) would produce
    gobs of profit, social change would happen a lot quicker than
    appealing simply on the basis of ethics.  You know, capitalism
    as dumb machine - like a computer it may be very powerful, but
    it's a slave to it's "operating system" which reads approximately
    "Make money and lots of it."
    
    Steve 
    

    
    
    
    
    If someone doesn't like it don't stop at the booth.  Don't try to
    call a naked human body of either sex porno. Push for a Playgirl
    booth next year!

        It seems to me that part of the reason for confused reaction to
        this topic derives from a discrepancy in the description of the
        base note and what the author was actually trying to describe.
        
        In 442.0 the pamphlet was described as "pornography" with
        the further description that stated that
        
            The drawings are computer graphics print-outs of a very
            explicit nature; similar to a Playboy centerfold.
        
        In the later note 442.37 we get the further description
        
            the pamphlets at the MACWORLD show depict women, bound
            at the wrists and ankles with chains, gagged, and being
            manipulated by objects controlled by a realistic hand.
            She is shown is the position a rapist would put her in
            to perform his act. This is not beautiful love-making.
            This is torture. 
        
        The problem is that this is nothing like a Playboy centerfold.
        True, both portray women nude or semi-nude, but the aspect of
        torture, S&M, manipulation and force--the things which make the
        pamphlets most objectionable--are not shared by a Playboy
        centerfold.
        
        It is not unusual to hear Playboy centerfolds described as
        pornographic or demeaning of women. However, many of us who have
        read or enjoyed Playboy tend to dismiss such claims as being the
        prejudice of the ill-informed or the puritanical. On the other
        hand, the second description does convey an impression of
        something truly pornographic, something truly demeaning of
        women.
        
        The first description just didn't capture the reality. It is not
        compelling. It leaves one with the impression that a person who
        was heated up over the product was over-reacting. The second
        description, on the other hand, does convey the reasons for
        one being upset. Even if one does not believe in censorship,
        one can see the reasonableness of wanting to see such things
        removed.
        
        JimB.

	I must concur with Jim. When I wrote my reply saying a Playboy
	type picture was not so bad I had the same vison Jim did of the
	standard centerfold. What has since been described is disgusting.
	maybe for the next campaign they'll have a child in the picture
	or a man or maybe animals, that way they won't miss any potential
	audienence. liesl

    
    Well, at least the brochure accurately reflects the software.
    
    I know, I know, that's hardly the point...
    
    DFW