Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    I sometimes wonder if I'm the only male human on the face of
    the Earth who isn't entranced by Marilyn Monroe. I never
    could figure out what the obsession with her was all about.
    
    --- jerry

    hmmm,....Jerry and Al...did you read the whole article :-)?
    
    If something that strong can be printed in Playboy maybe there
    is hope for the sexes learning to listen to each other's messages.
    
    Bonnie

    Yes Bonnie, I DID read it all.   I was just voicing my opinion.
    
    Letting people know that there ARE men out there that think the
    nothing of the bubble head.  I thought the article was great.
                                              @L

    I like Marilyn - not because of what she portrayed, but because
    of how strong (ultimately, not strong enough...) she was.  Her mother
    was insane.  She was raised in foster homes.  She was pretty and
    took advantage of it at the earliest point she could.  
    
    But she was insecure and scared - she felt insubstantial because
    she was afraid no one REALLY liked her for herself...just what she
    represented.  She took acting classes and tried like hell to get
    serious parts...and never did.  She sold too well as the typecast
    dumb blonde.  The same thing happened to Jayne Mansfield...who had
    an IQ of 140+.  They were demeaned at the hands of the same people
    who reveled in their ideal beauty...
    
    Listen to Elton John's "Candle In The Wind"...it tells the story.

    I, too, hate what she represented, and I hate feeling I must compete
    with women like that...must somehow struggle to keep my dignity
    when I find I am treated more like a "thing" than like a
    person...whether I am beautiful or ugly, I wish not to be taken
    at face value...I am intrinsically much more than the sum of my
    requisite parts...
    
    -Jody

    This was a great article!  Thanks for printing it here.
    
    I liked Marilyn;  I liked the way she "burlesqued" herself, and
    I see "her" many times over today.
    
    I'm amazed that this appeared in Playboy--maybe there IS hope for
    us.
    
    Jane

	I liked the article.  I had nothing to do with Marilyn Monroe.
	The author could have used the name of any actress to get 
	attention to get people to read the article so that her point
	could be made.  She did a great job.  Maybe the sexism she
	talked about isn't always as blatent as her description, but
	it's there.  It doesn't really matter whether you like Marilyn
	or not, the point of the article is the same.

	...Karen

    
    	I've never heard it explained so well...However, it does happen
    that many physically beautiful women are also smart enough to cash
    in on that "face value". It's become almost a cliche' to hear a
    friend say "Yeah, I couldnt *afford* a woman who looked like that!"
    There are many instances where his statement is absolutely true...I
    think its a shame that a perfectly fine, loving fella would end
    up pre-supposing something like that, because of his "lowly" tech
    salary. His sincere belief in it only perpetuates for him all the
    misconceptions outlined in .0 - And, He's not the only one I know
    of in this situation.                                  
    	He also has mentioned that women avoid him like the plague,
    or at least as soon as they find out "he wont dance for them" (not
    easily manipulated) when they wave this 'n that under his nose...
    They realize he's too smart for those tricks and just move on!
    	My only point is that there are two sides of a coin - I'm NOT
    trying to incite any debate about it, really.
    
    	Joe Jas                                  

        For those who expressed surprise at the article appearing in
        Playboy, I'd like to say that in many ways this was just a
        typical column for Cynthia Heimal. Her column and Asa Baber's,
        which contrasts with it in many ways, are the first things I
        read in each issue (Yes, I'll admit that I subscribe to
        Playboy). I find myself agreeing and disagreeing strongly with
        both of them. Both strive to make you think about things.
        
        In many ways, Playboy doesn't deserve the reputation that it
        often has. It is frequently used as the archtypical "girlie"
        magazine and as an example of rampant sexism. While it's
        pictorals are definitely a major feature of the magazine, they
        do not entirely define the magazine, which attempts to be a well
        rounded magazine for the "sophisticated man of the world". Their
        philosophy undeniably does contain some sexist baggage, and also
        some modern liberal ethics with which I am not entirely
        enthused. At the same time, however, they take strong stands for
        personal rights for men and women both and are willing to put
        their money where their mouth is with their defense funds, and
        other legal and social programs.
        
        The pictures and the element of sexism (which is I would
        maintain really no stronger than in virtually any popular
        magazine put out these days) are easily the first thing seen,
        but the magazine is multi-facetted and does present some
        interesting and thought provoking viewpoints.
        
        At times I think that a well rounded person in our society
        regardless of their religious, social and philosophical beliefs
        ought to subscribe to Playboy, the NFD (National Federation of
        Decency) Journal, Ms, Cosmopolitan, Omni, the Skeptical
        Inquirer, and Soldier of Fortune magazine (and Lear's from what
        I saw of it) just to be sure that they were up on the various
        ideologies and belief systems that are shaping all of our lives.
        (If I could figure out how to subscribe to some of these without
        their interpreting it as support of their position I would read
        all of them regularly.)
        
        JimB.

    Another view of this person is out on the market.  Gloria Steinem
    (sp) has written a bookon her.   I watched Nancy Merrill this morning
    and she was on promoting her book.  She stated something to the
    effect of "there are a few books out there on Norma jean, all written
    by men, I wrote this from a womans point of view."  
     Although I don't care about her (MM) so I will not purchase this
    book,  I love the song though. :-)  Would someone be willing to
    read (if noone has already)it and tell us what you thought?
                                                 @L

    re:.3
    
    Yes, Bonnie, I read the whole article. What makes you think I
    didn't?
    
    --- jerry
    
    (P.S. I have to agree with Jim about PLAYBOY. Because it is the
    most well-known men's magazine, it tends to get unfairly lumped
    in with other such magazines and used as an example of everything
    that is wrong with them.)

    
    You gents get no sympathy from me regarding "Playboy". In fact,
    to my mind "Playboy" may be the worst of the lot. At least the others
    *know* they're sleazy. "Playboy" pretends that it's simply good,
    clean fun: "Those aren't sex objects, they're just pretty girls without
    their clothes on; this is what real women look like; in fact, this
    is what real women will look like (and act like) in your bedroom
    when you follow the 'Playboy' philosophy." Well, I'm sorry. This
    is sickness masquerading as health and I don't care if every article
    is a pulitzer prize winner. I realise many if not all men, myself
    included, sink down into the slime occasionally; it's difficult not
    to in this world. But if things are going to improve, we have to
    at least recognize the slime for what it is and not buy into the
    "Playboy" cesspool.
    
    

    I guess sleaze is in the eye of the beholder.
    
    I enjoy reading Playboy, and have for a couple of decades. While its
    tone is sometimes too supercilious for me (the editorial "we" and all
    that), I have no difficulty separating the wheat from the chaff, and I
    think that the statement in .13 (concerning "I don't care if all the
    articles are Pulitzer prize winners, it's still trash") is very
    unrealistic. Do you always throw the baby out with the bathwater? 
        
    Look at it this way. If a bunch of kids are browsing through magazines
    looking for "dirty pictures," wouldn't it be nice if they could
    also stumble across something thought-provoking? They aren't likely
    to find such things in "Hustler." (Yeah, I read one of those too.
    Now *that's* sleazy.)

    -b

    Re .9, Joe, what a shame that your friend can't "afford" a really
    beautiful woman.  I guess he'll just have to be content with some
    average looking, pleasant woman who's not used to having men dance
    attendance on her.  Such a shame.  I think all men should be able
    to "afford" women who look like Marilyn Monroe, so they wouldn't
    have to bother with the rest of us.  :-(
    
    Re Marilyn::
    Personally, I don't think it takes much brains to realize that if
    you have a beautiful face and body there are men who will pay you
    a lot of money to pose naked.

    I thought the article in .0 was great.  As far as Playboy itself
    goes, I like its editorial content but find the "Playmate" attitude
    offensive.  (I always despise the thought of men drooling over photos
    of nude cuties.  It's pitiful.)
    

    Yeah - the "articles".  Isn't that the line every guy uses?  What
    about the Atlantic if you want some FABULOUS writing?  But beware, 
    that's ALL it has.  Even if you PERSONALLY don't prefer the Atlantic, 
    (or the New Yorker, or Yankee, or countless others), to a skin mag, 
    sales figures say men in general do - and by far.
    
    I think they should just publish one magazine every month, a thousand
    pages thick if they have to titled "Hot Babes" and be done with it.
    Then we can have our TVs back without the "lets-tittilate-the-men-now"
    element that makes up 75% of it.  We can have our milk and bread
    stores back without having to look at women pouting and rubbing
    themselves behind the checkout counters.  We can buy gas without being 
    leered at by some scruffy old guy or some pimply young kid jamming the 
    latest "Club" under the counter and smiling broadly at us.  The world
    in general can really BE for the world in general instead of "for men 
    only with women allowed at their own risk and no complaints tolerated" as
    it is today.
    
    Marilyn is a big deal because she was one of the first biggest sex
    toys of the media.  Every year we get a new one or two for the boys
    to enjoy.
    
    And I'm glad someone ELSE said women are judged according to their
    "sex-quotient".  I've said it many times here in notes and been
    blasted for talking so "generally" about men.  Now this article
    in Playboy says the same thing.  How DARE they be so "general" about
    men!  In fact, how dare they be so general about women?  
    
    Men's bodies in our culture are considered basically to be for the
    pleasure of men.  That's why men find it difficult to be physically
    appreciated.  They always tend to nervously camp some gay act because 
    they really don't think of heterosexual men as being interesting,
    beautiful creatures for women's pleasure.  The pleasure is supposed
    to go ONE way.  FROM her, TO him.  In skin mags, you don't have
    the two way street required in real life.  The bimbos want nothing,
    ask for nothing, expect nothing, say nothing, are nothing.  The
    woman who DOES is a toughie for men to deal with.
    
    But in our culture, though men's bodies are for men's pleasure,
    women's bodies are not for WOMEN'S pleasure, but again for men's.
    The woman who is in tune with her sexuality and comfortable with
    it has traditionally been considered on the fringes of our society
    - she's "different".  Men say they want this type of woman but what
    I think they really mean, (and I said I THINK it, ok?), is that
    they want the woman they get to BECOME like that once she is safely
    theirs.  
    
    I don't believe they'd particularly like it if this was pretty much
    the ONLY kind of woman out there.  As long as the most prevalent kind
    of woman is all give and little take in terms of sexuality, then women 
    comfortable with their sexuality can be considered just a nice little 
    side dish a man can enjoy safe in the knowledge that he doesn't have
    to really ever "contend" with her kind or fashion a harmonious life
    with her.
    
    I read once that men didn't like women who played hard to get but
    they didn't like women who played easy to get, either.  They liked
    women who played easy for THEM to get but hard for everyone else.
    They want women virtuous but not a challenge.  Enter Marilyn.  Being
    dumb to the power of your sexuality makes you both.  
    
    I used to hear a lot of guys say that if they were a woman they'd
    be the richest pig around.  Men know the power of a pussy but do
    not expect women ever should.  They have coined several derogatory
    phrases for women who use their bodies to their OWN end instead
    of a man's and because of our traditional dependence on men, we've
    accepted those labels and taught our daughters to avoid anything
    that would get us one because once labelled our chance for marriage,
    which was traditionally the only career allowed a woman, would be
    gone.
    
    But Cher doesn't care about a man's financial support so she's not
    afraid of their labels.  Most rich women aren't.  And their bodies are 
    their own to enjoy because of it.  Her lover is an ex bagel baker.
    I'm sure he does nothing but keep Cher happy now.  Lucky her.
    Financial independence gives you your own sexuality, too!
    
    And I love the male comment, "I couldn't afford a woman who looked
    like that".  I suppose I'm not supposed to infer from this common
    statement that the traditional trade between men and women is her
    looks for his cash?  If not, what is the man trying to "afford"?
    And worse, what does that say for all us non-cover girls?  That
    the men who sleep with us are settling because of their financial
    status?  That we'd be gone in a flash if they could only better
    themselves?  In my cynical view of the world I tend to think so.

     "I couldn't afford a woman who looked like that".
    
    Heck, I couldn't afford a man who said things like that!  My time
    is precious: none for bozos.

    This reminds me of a newspaper article I read a short time ago,
    that started something like "I loved Cher the most the night she
    showed up at the Academy Awards dressed like a tarantula."
                    
    I recently saw an magazine ad, alas I have forgotten for exactly
    what brand name, that had a woman in a "teddy" crawling around on the
    floor, so that everything was on the verge of falling out.  She
    was, as I recall, looking for the shoe that the ad was trying to
    sell.  This has to be the most brainless ad imaginable.  99.999%
    of the people buying women's shoes are women, and 99.999% of women
    would be annoyed as the devil at that ad.
                  

    re:.14 re:.13
    
    Even if it wasn't for the "thought-provoking articles", I'd rather
    have a child thumbing through PLAYBOY than any other men's magazine.
    Putting aside the content of them for just a second (I won't try
    to argue whether men should or should not get kicks out of seeing
    photos of "nude cuties"), at least the photos in PLAYBOY are
    artistically *executed*. People (of both sexes) who want to see
    them in that light are able to do so. As Beth says, sleaze is in
    the eye of the beholder. I don't find the photos in PLAYBOY sleazy.
    The "crotch shots" in the other men's magazines are repellant.
    There's no art in those. Dirty sex is the *only* thing those are
    "selling". Whether PLAYBOY panders to the same type of audience
    is quite debatable.
    
    re:.16
    
    �Yeah - the "articles". Isn't that the line every guy uses?�
    
    No, it isn't. I won't deny that I look at the pictorials in the
    issues of PLAYBOY that I buy. But the (occasional) issues I do
    buy I buy for science fiction short stories. Laugh if you will,
    but it's the truth. If you don't believe me, you are free to look
    at my collection for yourself.
    
    �What about the Atlantic if you want some FABULOUS writing? But
    beware, that's ALL it has.�
    
    Not true. It has some dreadful writing in it as well. But that's
    neither here nor there. If, say, Ray Bradbury had a new story
    published in ATLANTIC, I'd buy it. But the fact is that he usually
    has his stories appear in PLAYBOY, so I buy PLAYBOY.
    
    �Even if you PERSONALLY don't prefer the Atlantic, (or the New
    Yorker, or Yankee, or countless others), to a skin mag, sales
    figures say men in general do - and by far.�
    
    Not entirely true. Generally speaking, men's magazines sell to a
    pitifully small audience. One the other hand, PLAYBOY has one of
    the largest circulations of any magazine in the US. Far larger
    than any of the others you mention. PENTHOUSE does, too. Now, a
    lot of this circulation is no doubt of the type who figures it's
    "worldly" or "trendy" to read PLAYBOY, but determining just how
    much of that is true would be difficult at best.
    
    I think that one thing regarding the status of PLAYBOY, as opposed
    to the other "skin mags", that should be pointed out is that many
    public and university libraries in the US have a run of the magazine
    on file (obviously not in the open stacks!). Some may also have
    PENTHOUSE, but not many. Not HUSTLER, not GALLERY, not any of the
    others. Just PLAYBOY. And it's obviously *only* because of the articles.
    
    (PLAYBOY is also, with the possible exception of PENTHOUSE again,
    the only one of the men's magazines that I believe is indexed by
    one of the major periodical indexes. Again, this is because of the
    articles, many by major writers.)
    
    --- jerry

    
    	Re .15.16.17 -
    
    My friend can be quite the cynic too. Your supposition about his
    statement is "true" - in his mind. My point was that he *believes* 
    that, and that belief serves to perpetuate all the other misconceptions 
    outlined in .0 for *him*. I dont know who he'd be content with,
    or, who would be content with him. I do know that it would be very
    unlikely for a woman looking to cash in on her "face value" - she
    could do much better than him in the terms she's looking for. A
    different woman looking for a relationship with different "Terms &
    Conditions", if you will, might find him very attractive for all I
    know.
    
    Now, how did he come to believe his statement? What examples has
    he seen, both supportive and contradictory, of this in our society?
    What's the density of occurrance of each example_type, considering the 
    various media inputs and what *they* want men to believe? People
    believe that stuff that gets shown on the 'tube and there are many
    who cant even *consciously* differentiate between real reality and
    TV reality. On Saturday mornings, Charlie's Angels comes on after
    the Stooges, at which time the TV sound gets turned down to zero
    and an record album or CD gets put on. It's just as entertaining
    (for "us") to just watch the pictures - no sound needed. Why?
    Sometimes, his roomate asks to watch candlepin bowling instead...
    
    	Joe Jas

    Re .20, but what bothers me the most about your friends beliefs
    is that it sounds like the most important thing he's looking for
    in a woman is good looks.  Doesn't this strike you as shallow?
    (I mean, who is this guy - Rob Lowe?)
    
    Lorna
    

    There has been a special running on Public Television (at least
    in the Midwest) about Marilyn's (Norma's) life.  I don't particularly
    like or dislike her, but the special helped me to understnad how
    she got her reputation, why she posed nude, and what her family
    history was all about...included the loss of her parents and her
    mother being institutionalized for irrational behavior.
    
    There are always two sides to every coin.  Some people perfer "heads",
    others, "tails", but two sides, nonetheless.

    This Special is about Norma Jean turning into Marilyn Monroe.  It is
    an excellent documentary about her career and her life. It is
    not at all sensationalized.  I highly recommend it.

Note 774.19  AKOV11::BOYAJIAN 

>I'd rather have a child thumbing through PLAYBOY than any other men's 
>magazine.

And I'd rather have a child run over by a Volkswagen than a cement truck!
The point is the limited choice itself is what's wrong with this picture.
You compare Playboy to Hustler and say "it's good".  We're comparing it
to something else and saying "it's bad".  It's all perspective.

>(I won't try to argue whether men should or should not get kicks out of
>seeing photos of "nude cuties"), 

No one is discussing whether or not men SHOULD get kicks out of it.  Of 
course they should.  Statements like this always make me wonder what men
think about women's objections.  Do you think we object to men being
human and having a normal sexual response???  We object to the world being
one-sided - the world allowing men to have and exercise their normal sexual
response and women being raised to ignore theirs, deny theirs, pretend it
doesn't exist.  That extends to out media which titillates men 100 times
for every time it makes a feeble attempt to excite women.  We object to 
the fact that your normal lacivious desires are not kept to yourselves
but forced down OUR throats every day of our lives.  How would YOU like
to live in a world filled with naked men, rich good-looking naked men,
all over your tv, your magazines, your harware stores, your American
Legion Post bars, etc.  There is a time and a place for everything, and
that includes sexual fantasy.  One sex simply does not have the right
to constantly tyrranize the other sex by forcing us to live among your
sexual fantasies.  You wouldn't like to live in a world that was full
of only female fantasy and we don't like living in a world full of only 
male.  It has nothing to do with men being sexual and women being uptight.
It is simply people don't really get thrills seeing their own sex ob-
jectified.  It's basic human nature.  That's all.

>at least the photos in PLAYBOY are artistically *executed*. 

Yeah.  And a Volkswagen engine in a Carerra body is STILL a Volkswagen
to me.  (I don't know why I'm picking on Volkswagen today!)

>If you don't believe me, you are free to look at my collection for yourself.

No thanks.  I've seen tits before.
    
>Generally speaking, men's magazines sell to a pitifully small audience. 

I don't believe it.

>I think that one thing regarding the status of PLAYBOY, as opposed
>to the other "skin mags", that should be pointed out is that many
>public and university libraries in the US have a run of the magazine
>on file (obviously not in the open stacks!).

How does the fact that men in universities like it to have anything to
do with its "respectability"?  Men the world over like to look at pictures
of naked women.  And if it's so "normal", "healthy" and "right", why did
you say "obviously not in the open stacks"?  Why "obviously"?  Why do
men deny that women have any right to object but at the same time hide it?

>And it's obviously *only* because of the articles.
 
Yes, of course.  That's very obvious.   
 
>(PLAYBOY is also, with the possible exception of PENTHOUSE again,
>the only one of the men's magazines that I believe is indexed by
>one of the major periodical indexes. Again, this is because of the
>articles, many by major writers.)
 
Well there you go!  I'm convinced that because we have a magazine that com-
bines pornography with first-class writing that pornography, or at least
the pornography in this particular magazine, is itself, first class.  Using
your analogy, we could publish poetry by Edna St. Vincent Millay in Soldier
of Fortune and then no one would have any right at all to gripe about any-
thing about that magazine, yes?  All we have to do is create the proper
"association" and we can make the unacceptable acceptable.  We can make
toothpaste seem "sexy" and we can make pornography look just like Disney-Land 
for Big Boys - so much so that not even the BOYS know it's pornography anymore. 
"Let's sell it everywhere!" they say.  "Who CARES if women don't like it?!"
"They're just uptight and objectifying women is our constitutional RIGHT!"

Go for it.   We are, after all, yours for the objectifying, no?  ;-)

    re .24
    
    Yeah!
    
    The only thing I can add is that a child thumbing through Playboy
    will get a peculiar picture of female sexuality.

    re: 24
    
    .19 is right...have you ever read playboy?  I have and I'm a
    woman...and I'm not 'gay' either.  My husband gets it and I find
    the articles in playboy very well done.......I just got finished
    reading one about exercising...it's very interesting.  I don't think
    they do woman's bodies as pornographic - I think they do it very
    artisticly...maybe it's how you look at it.  I'm a photographer
    and to me the human body isn't something to be ashamed of.
    
    It's two sides though....some women just look at men for their body
    and looks and sexual harrassment works both ways.  Granted woman
    have put up with it for along time.....but we can't let what Marilyn
    Monroe or what any other sex symbol did say we 'hate them' maybe
    we should say "we hate that era of time which made women have to
    sell themselves to get somewhere"....now it's different.....we don't
    have to do that now.  So anything in Playboy or other magazines
    or movies is because women want to do it and not because that's
    the only way the can do it.....
    
    I hope I made sense it's hard to think and write everything down...
    I tend to type faster than I think !  :-)
    
    Bobbi
    

    I don't think anyone is even saying the human body is shameful.
    
    It just typifies the one-sidedness of sexuality in this culture.
    Fun for men, consequences and responsibility for women.
    
    And I'm not so sure we've come far from the days when ambitious
    women could do nothing for big bucks except be sex toys.  Sure there
    are now token women in high places but I still believe this culture
    rewards women far more lavishly and often for displaying mammaries
    rather than brains.  One token, after all, is enough.
    
    The change in Jessica Hahn's lifestyle over the past year is NOT
    due to her having gone to night school and taken a degree!  Paulina,
    a junior high drop out, makes far more in a week than most of us
    make in a year.  If you're female and you've got brains, good. 
    Use them and you MAY get lucky.  If you're female and you've got
    mammaries, using them will practically GUARANTEE you entry into
    the big game.  I really don't think it's much different today. 
    A little, but not much.
    
    And that statement, "I don't think they do woman's [sic] bodies
    as pornographic" bothers me.  It suggests to me that some people
    feel pornography has nothing to do with WHAT you're doing but HOW
    you're doing it.  Because this premier skin mag uses photographic
    techniques and props rather than just plain, flat, daylight shots
    does not detract from the inherent message or elevate it from the
    rest despite it's loyal following.
    
    My dictionary defines pornography as "Written or pictorial matter
    intended to arouse sexual feelings".
    
    Now go ahead.  Let's argue that arousing men's sexual feelings is
    NOT the intent of this skin mag.  I think someone actually did say
    something like that way back in the Cheryl Tiegs note.

    Re .27:
    
    I certainly can't deny that one of Playboy's objectives is to "arouse
    sexual feelings" in its male readers. Another is probably to arouse
    sexual feelings  in its female readers; after all, Hef's in this
    to make money, and a woman's cash is as good as a man's. (OK, so
    it ain't high-minded, but we are a capitalist society!)
    
    Another objective is to arouse the intellect; heck, those brainy
    people have money, too. Publishing science-fiction stories might
    bring in some folks who wouldn't be caught dead with the mag otherwise.
    Publishing political interviews and commentary might justify the
    mag to another sector; and so forth.

    Since the overall objective is probably more "let's get rich" than
    "let's change the world," I wouldn't put Playboy up for "humanitarian
    of the year"; on the other hand, it has put a lot of good information
    into the hands (yes, even the hot, sweaty hands) of people who might
    not have gotten it otherwise. Not just info about sex, but about
    current events, etc. Sure, this is all a side effect of the intention
    to make money, but does that mean we write the whole thing off?

    Yes, I *know* it should be possible to convey the same info *without*
    also pushing the "playboy lifestyle." But would it reach as many
    people? 
    
    Enough. I read Playboy as a pre-adolescent, titillated by the nudes
    (especially the cartoons; the photos of naked ladies just sitting
    there didn't interest me much, but those with captions and a hint
    of a story were intriguing). I also read those ghastly things that
    used to appear in barbershops, the mags with the drawings of bikers
    in Nazi regalia and half-dressed women about to be whipped. (Well,
    "read" is too strong; I never bought one, but used to sneak in and
    peek at them when the proprietor wasn't looking.) Was I getting
    turned on at the thought of victimized women? Gad, I don't think
    so... What's more interesting (to me) is that I never once identified
    with *any* of the women in those magazines, not as victim, goddess,
    sex object, or anything else. 
    
    I don't know what that says about all this, but there it is.

    -b

    the impression i am getting here is that it is okay for women to
    look at playgirl but it is not okay for men to look at playboy.
    frankly i would prefer to read playboy as i find playgirl extremely
    dull.
    
    i dont think we(women) give men credit for having brains enough
    to realize that most women dont look like that and that playboy
    does retouch the pictures.i also dont think we dont give men credit
    for relizing that it is what is inside of a woman that makes her
    attractive.
    
    i dont suppose that it matters that playboy is being run by a women
    
    kelly

RE 774.16   -< You tell 'em Cher>-  Tell us what ????

>    Yeah - the "articles".  Isn't that the line every guy uses?  What
>    about the Atlantic if you want some FABULOUS writing?  But beware, 
>    that's ALL it has.  Even if you PERSONALLY don't prefer the Atlantic, 
>    (or the New Yorker, or Yankee, or countless others), to a skin mag, 
>    sales figures say men in general do - and by far.
 
    Nope, I'll admit that I also look at the photo layouts as well as 
    read the articles. I will admit to finding the nude female form,
    of a woman that takes care of herself astedicaly pleasing to look at,
    as apposed to a 250 lb person that doesn't. As someone else pointed out 
    all these other "class" magazines have both good and rotten reading in 
    them also. So that the fact that they aren't a "porn" book doesn't 
    automatically place them as literary giants above Playboys. Besides
    in earinest, how many of this file have actually read a Playboy?
    Occures to me that a number of you chastised a few others for
    commenting on certain writings when they had not actually read it.

    I prefer the material in Playboy for its earnest gutsy flavor vs the
    catering to the yuppie/muppie crowd of these other magazines. I am 
    surprised (but I shouldn't be considering the general attitude that 
    prevails in here,) over the fact that so may women are unaware that such 
    authors such as Cynthia Heimel has been writing this type article in 
    Playboy for some time now. She is a regular, and has her own monthly 
    column. What also might be a shock would be the fact that Hef isn't the 
    editor anymore. His daughter took over the reigns about two years ago.

    And of course I don't see anyone chastising Playgirl or other women's
    magazines of the like. Again the one sided coin discussion prevails. 
    The sad part of it is that I scanned a copy of Playgirl one time at a
    lady friend's place. I found the articles in it offensive to the extent
    that they were written to the intelligence level of a high school drop 
    out. Upon comment, my hostess agreed.

  >  We can buy gas without being 
  >  leered at by some scruffy old guy or some pimply young kid jamming the 
  >  latest "Club" under the counter and smiling broadly at us. 

     And there isn't a woman alive that, doesn't herself, look at certain men
     and smile a similar smile. But just because she doses it more on the sly,
     make it OK by comparison...RIGHT .
 
  >                                                             The world
  >  in general can really BE for the world in general instead of "for men 
  >  only with women allowed at their own risk and no complaints tolerated" as
  >  it is today.
    
     Your speaking here as if all men are criminals who would put women at risk 
     if they so much as say word one. It would be nice if you eliminated 
     your paranoia that all men are out to get you. Were not. 
     
 >   Marilyn is a big deal because she was one of the first biggest sex
 >   toys of the media.  Every year we get a new one or two for the boys
 >   to enjoy.

     And every one of them has made a fortune doing so and laughed all 
     the way to the bank, including Cher and Madonna !! So spare me the 
     Oh poor them routine. Any one of us could live extremely comfortably 
     off the interest from what one of these starlets make for one film.

>    Men's bodies in our culture are considered basically to be for the
>    pleasure of men.  That's why men find it difficult to be physically
>    appreciated.  They always tend to nervously camp some gay act because 
>    they really don't think of heterosexual men as being interesting,
>    beautiful creatures for women's pleasure.

     I can't speak for all men, but in the society and accepted norms
     of the culture I was raised in, it was not considered normal for a 
     man to look at another man and state" I like your or think you have
     a nice body. Men who said or even thought such things were very 
     quickly ousted from the group. But on the other side, I have never 
     had a problem receiving such a comment/complement from a woman.

>                                           The pleasure is supposed
>    to go ONE way.  FROM her, TO him.  In skin mags, you don't have
>    the two way street required in real life.  The bimbos want nothing,
>    ask for nothing, expect nothing, say nothing, are nothing.  The
>    woman who DOES is a toughie for men to deal with.
    
     And again Playgirl and the like don't exist. Sure the stereotype
     of the brainless dumb blond has been with us for some time. It 
     has been perpetrated by BOTH men and women, but contrary to your
     popular belief, it appealed to a very small percentage of men.

>    But in our culture, though men's bodies are for men's pleasure,
>    women's bodies are not for WOMEN'S pleasure, but again for men's.
>    The woman who is in tune with her sexuality and comfortable with
>    it has traditionally been considered on the fringes of our society
>    - she's "different".  Men say they want this type of woman but what
>    I think they really mean, (and I said I THINK it, OK?), is that
>    they want the woman they get to BECOME like that once she is safely
>    theirs.  
 
     Ahhh Bullpuppy !! It would appear, based on what you are saying, that
     all the men you (and any woman you have talked to) have had intimate
     contact with, has been selfish enough to solely think of his own 
     pleasure with total disregard for yours. And since this is the extent
     of your beliefs, that, therefore all men are this way, that none of us
     wants or is comfortable with a sexual woman. Just because it has been
     your misfortune to have only known one way men, does not mean that all 
     of us are like that, and I take GREAT exception to being labeled as such.
     For that matter I have found that MOST women I have met, AREN'T  
     comfortable with their own sensuality and sexuality, but I do not hold
     that against them or women as a group.   
   
>    I don't believe they'd particularly like it if this was pretty much
>    the ONLY kind of woman out there.  As long as the most prevalent kind
>    of woman is all give and little take in terms of sexuality, then women 
>    comfortable with their sexuality can be considered just a nice little 
>    side dish a man can enjoy safe in the knowledge that he doesn't have
>    to really ever "contend" with her kind or fashion a harmonious life
>    with her.
 
     Again I can't speed for all men, but in my own personal experiences
     I have always felt that it is just as important to give pleasure and
     be attuned to a woman's needs, her sensuality and sexuality, as I would 
     wish her to be with me. What you fail to recognize or acknowledge, is 
     the truth of fact that there exists BOTH men and women that are one 
     way people. And that BOTH men and women that are givers and receivers 
     have been their victims. This one side of the coin scenario is getting 
     real old and tiring.
   
>    I read once that men didn't like women who played hard to get but
>    they didn't like women who played easy to get, either.  They liked
>    women who played easy for THEM to get but hard for everyone else.
>    They want women virtuous but not a challenge.  Enter Marilyn.  Being
>    dumb to the power of your sexuality makes you both.  
 
     Its a great act that many one way women have perfected and used to 
     get what they want for years now.
   
>    I used to hear a lot of guys say that if they were a woman they'd
>    be the richest pig around.  Men know the power of a pussy but do
>    not expect women ever should.  They have coined several derogatory
>    phrases for women who use their bodies to their OWN end instead
>    of a man's and because of our traditional dependence on men, we've
>    accepted those labels and taught our daughters to avoid anything
>    that would get us one because once labeled our chance for marriage,
>    which was traditionally the only career allowed a woman, would be
>    gone.
 
     Well it doesn't take long to determine what caliber and class of 
     men you have been hanging around. No wonder you have all the bad
     perceptions of who and what we are. But then again, don't birds 
     of a feather hang around together ??
   
>    But Cher doesn't care about a man's financial support so she's not
>    afraid of their labels.  Most rich women aren't.  And their bodies are 
>    their own to enjoy because of it.  Her lover is an ex bagel baker.
>    I'm sure he does nothing but keep Cher happy now.  Lucky her.
>    Financial independence gives you your own sexuality, too!
 
     Yup... Cher, real good role model for the young women of today.
     Has lived a self proclaimed life of sex and drugs and rock and roll.
     Changes her lovers as often as she changes her clothes. Just the
     life style I would want my daughter (if I had one) to emulate.
     I guess I must be out of touch with the sentiments of the new 
     woman, for I wouldn't want my son (if I had one) to live like 
     that, let alone my daughter.

>    And I love the male comment, "I couldn't afford a woman who looked
>    like that".  I suppose I'm not supposed to infer from this common
>    statement that the traditional trade between men and women is her
>    looks for his cash?

     Yes, the point and case is exactly this. I once knew a woman that
     made the statement "it is just as easy to fall in love with a rich
     man as it is to do so with a poor one." Many ( not all but many )
     good looking to beautiful women will not go out with nor associate
     with middle class to blue collar working class men. Therefore it
     almost became a set standard amongst men, that if she were beautiful
     she was unapproachable for fear of rebuff that you weren't good enough.
 
>     If not, what is the man trying to "afford"?

      Its a real bear trying to compete with a guy, that when you take a
      date out on an evening that would cost your weeks paycheck when the
      same date to him is pocket change. and believe it or not, it more
      prevalent than you think. Woman X has been courted by both Tom and
      Harry. Both are good men and truly care about her and she them. 
      The only difference is that Toms a Lawyer and make 100 K a year.
      Harry on the other side, is an Electronics Tech and makes 20 K a 
      year. which way do you feel miss X is going to go, given all 
      the other things are equal ??

>    And worse, what does that say for all us non-cover girls?  That
>    the men who sleep with us are settling because of their financial
>    status?  That we'd be gone in a flash if they could only better
>    themselves?  In my cynical view of the world I tend to think so.

     No and if thats what you think you've missed some of the point.
     What it says were not settling on you or any one else for that 
     matter. Its just that certain women have placed themselves in a 
     "unless your rich, hands off" status, and it shows. But on the 
     other side you applaud Cher who picks and chooses and swaps men
     around at her will. Appears to me that that one sided attitude
     is showing again. What you condemn men for doing, you turn around
     and applaud a woman for doing.

      I've probably wasted my time and disk space by replying to this,
     but if I've reached out to just one woman to let her know that 
     not all men are, "one way son's a bitches," then it was worth it.
     To the rest, well, sorry, you wouldn't get it no matter how I tried.
     
                                      Bob B

    

    Bob,
    
    Your voice is certainly welcome here. And your point that "not all
    men are bad" is valid. But could you please restrain yourself from
    personal attacks on other members of the community?
    
    Thanks
    Liz Augustine

    Minor points that may be of interest:
    
    While I have found myself titillated (nice word, that) by pictures
    of nudes (male and female), I have seldom found myself aroused by
    them; nor do I seek them out for images upon which to build a fantasy.
    
    I recall knowing very early that there was something vaguely "not nice"
    about nude pictures - I don't remember my folks getting after me for
    it, so maybe I picked it up from my peers, but this all happened very
    early in life. I mean, at age seven or eight I'd feel secretive and
    "naughty" for sneaking a peek at the anatomical transparencies in the
    encyclopedia, for heaven's sake! 

    But for visual... stimulation... I tend to prefer clothed men for
    some reason. Maybe it's because I would feel embarrassed imagining
    myself in the presence of a nude stranger - I don't know. 
    
    What brought this to mind was a recent commercial (for Chunky
    chocolate, if you can believe it). The theme song goes, "A good hunk is
    hard to find," and the commercial switches to different shots of three
    rugged-looking guys - yeah, they're hunks (especially the dark-haired
    one walking along the railroad tracks!). While I may not be leering at
    them to the same degree that many men are thought to leer over a
    centerfold, I'll admit that I'm not concentrating on how interesting
    the photography is. Am I thinking about those guys as human beings
    with their own thoughts and feelings? Nope. I'm building a fantasy
    on a visual image. 
    
    What does this have to do with Marilyn Monroe, or sexism, or
    pornography? Beats me. I think all people will choose their own
    fantasy-fodder, and folks who guess right about the "preferences
    of the majority" can make a lot of money by catering to them. If
    we can just teach people not to make assumptions about *real* people
    based on fantasies and photographs, we'll have done something worth
    talking about.

    -b

>>I'd rather have a child thumbing through PLAYBOY than any other men's 
>>magazine.
> And I'd rather have a child run over by a Volkswagen than a cement truck!
> The point is the limited choice itself is what's wrong with this picture.
> You compare Playboy to Hustler and say "it's good".  We're comparing it
> to something else and saying "it's bad".  It's all perspective.
    
    Yes, it is indeed all perspective. That's my point. What I'm getting
    from your side of the argument is that you want to write off PLAYBOY
    as being a skin mag just like all of the other skin mags, and I'm
    saying that there is a large degree of difference between them.
    
    It's like saying that, oh, say PLATOON is the same as RAMBO because
    both take place in Vietnam.

>>(I won't try to argue whether men should or should not get kicks out of
>>seeing photos of "nude cuties"), 
> No one is discussing whether or not men SHOULD get kicks out of it.
    
    That was actually a reference to a comment from someone else (I
    think it was Lorna, but I'm not sure) wondering why men get kicks
    out of seeing photos of "nude cuties".
    
> We object to the world being one-sided - the world allowing men to
> have and exercise their normal sexual response and women being raised
> to ignore theirs, deny theirs, pretend it doesn't exist.
    
    And well you should! I'm not saying you shouldn't. I still don't
    see how anything I said contradicts that. Men's magazines exist
    because there's a market for it. PLAYGIRL was started to supply
    the same sort of material for women. Considering that it doesn't
    sell all that well, and has not been imitated, there apparently
    doesn't seem to be an audience among women for that type of
    material. Is that Hugh Hefner's fault?
    
> We object to the fact that your normal lacivious desires are not
> kept to yourselves but forced down OUR throats every day of our lives.
    
    Well, I keep *my* "lacivious desires" to myself (well, I suppose
    my SO's get *some* measure of them, but then, I get some of
    theirs in return).
    
> How would YOU like to live in a world filled with naked men, rich
> good-looking naked men, all over your tv, your magazines, your
> harware stores, your American Legion Post bars, etc.
    
    I wouldn't. I don't think having naked women all over the tv, in
    the magazines, etc., etc. is particularly wonderful, either. But
    that's a whole different argument altogether. I'm talking about
    the difference between PLAYBOY and other men's magazines, and
    you're talking about women in lingerie selling toothpaste.
    
    Do you want an analogy (without Volkswagens in it)?  I'm trying
    to argue that Communism is different from Socialism, and you're
    arguing that they're the same because the Soviets invaded
    Afghanistan.
    
>> at least the photos in PLAYBOY are artistically *executed*. 
> Yeah.  And a Volkswagen engine in a Carerra body is STILL a Volkswagen
> to me.  (I don't know why I'm picking on Volkswagen today!)
    
    And Michelangelo's "David" is just a statue of a guy with his
    dong hanging there for everyone to see. No, I'm not trying to
    say that PLAYBOY is equal to the works of Michelangelo. What I'm
    saying is that you're looking solely at *content*, and to me,
    what makes "erotica" different from "porn", what makes "literature"
    different from "hack-writing", what makes "art" different from
    "scribbling" is style of execution, not *just* content.

>>If you don't believe me, you are free to look at my collection for yourself.
> No thanks.  I've seen tits before.
  
    That wasn't what I meant. When I've told people why I buy the
    occasional issue of PLAYBOY, they just smile and say "Right..."
    just as you say, "Sure, for the articles." I meant that I can
    show you that the only issues of PLAYBOY (or any men's magazine)
    I have contain science fiction stories as evidence that that's
    the reason I buy them.
      
>>Generally speaking, men's magazines sell to a pitifully small audience. 
> I don't believe it.
    
    As you wish. Circulation figures don't lie, though.
    
> How does the fact that men in universities like it to have anything to
> do with its "respectability"?
    
    Note that I said *public*, as well as university, libraries. The
    point is that the libraries that maintain files for PLAYBOY do so
    for academic reasons. Wouldn't it seem to you that if, say, someone
    wanted to do a paper on Jimmy Carter for a political science class
    that they might want to use the PLAYBOY interview with him as a
    source? And that it might be nice to be able to go to a library
    to find this rather than haunt second-hand shops in the Combat
    Zone?

> Men the world over like to look at pictures of naked women.  And if
> it's so "normal", "healthy" and "right", why did you say "obviously
> not in the open stacks"?  Why "obviously"? 
    
    Because the average parent would not want his or her little Johnny
    having easy access to it. Even respected academic texts on human
    sexuality are kept off the open stacks in public libraries. There's
    always someone who's going to find it offensive, no matter what
    it is.

>>And it's obviously *only* because of the articles.
> Yes, of course.  That's very obvious.
    
    Yes, it is. Why is it only PLAYBOY that's collected at libraries?
    Why not CHERIE and HUSTLER and CAVALIER, and that ilk? Obviously
    because there's something about PLAYBOY that sets it apart from the
    rest. So what makes it different from the rest? Well, it has articles
    on all sorts of subjects, political, social, economic; fiction by
    major authors; interviews with important world figures. I don't think
    it takes the powers of Sherlock Holmes to deduce that they are the
    reason that libraries keep files of PLAYBOY but not the other men's
    magazines.
    
>>(PLAYBOY is also, with the possible exception of PENTHOUSE again,
>>the only one of the men's magazines that I believe is indexed by
>>one of the major periodical indexes. Again, this is because of the
>>articles, many by major writers.)
> Well there you go!  I'm convinced that because we have a magazine
> that combines pornography with first-class writing that pornography,
> or at least the pornography in this particular magazine, is itself,
> first class.
    
    The point that I'm making is that the academic community sees
    that there is there is an academic value to PLAYBOY that doesn't
    exist for the other magazines of its type. Whether this academic
    value balances or outweighs the negative aspects of the magazine
    is for each person to decide. But it's unquestionable fact that
    that value is there.
    
    I don't find anything wrong with you objecting to the porno-
    graphic aspects of the magazine. That's your opinion and you are
    welcome to it. What I'm objecting to is the assertion that PLAYBOY
    *is no better than any of the other magazines of its kind*. That
    suggests that there's no other value at all to the magazine, and
    I think my arguments above indicate that that isn't true.
    
> Using your analogy, we could publish poetry by Edna St. Vincent
> Millay in Soldier of Fortune and then no one would have any right at
> all to gripe about anything about that magazine, yes?
    
    No. You can gripe about whatever you want. No one is denying you
    that right. If each issue of SOLDIER OF FORTUNE contained some
    poetry by Millay, it would still be a mercenary magazine. If,
    however, that poetry, combined with political commentary of
    various ideological bases, articles about classic automobiles,
    interviews with Dustin Hoffman, and so on, took up at least half
    of the editorial content of the magazine, then I'd be hard pressed
    to say that it was the same as GUNG HO!, even if the rest of the
    magazine was taken up with pictorials of attack helicopters,
    reports on the mercenaries convention in Bodunk, Utah, and articles
    on what automatic weapons are best in steaming jungle climates.
    
    The salacious material in PLAYBOY takes up about (as an educated
    guess; I don't have a copy handy to check) half of the contents
    of the magazine. With other men's magazines, it takes up at least
    95% of the contents. That, to me, is a significant difference.
    
    --- jerry

    You like nice bodies ? Artistic layouts ? Try some of the 'muscle
    mags' on your local bookshelf. See what a *really* developed body
    looks like - as opposed to the plastic princesses in Playboy.
    And those posing bikinis ! WOW ! Nudity gets old so quickly, just
    a scrap of cloth, and the imagination *must* be engaged.
    Added bonus - both sexes in one magazine. Diet and excercise
    information. 
    
    And if you want 'articles' and SF, buy OMNI. 
    

    Dana

    re. 31
    
>    read the articles. I will admit to finding the nude female form,
>    of a woman that takes care of herself astedicaly pleasing to look at,
>    as apposed to a 250 lb person that doesn't. As someone else pointed out 
     
    PLEASE ...  There are 250+ lb. women who take excellent care of
    themselves and put a great deal of energy into grooming, and there are
    120 lb. women who take poor care of themselves and couldn't care
    less. 
    
    
>     And there isn't a woman alive that, doesn't herself, look at certain men
>     and smile a similar smile. But just because she doses it more on the sly,
>     make it OK by comparison...RIGHT .

        
    Please don't generalize.
    
    I don't look at any men and "smile a similar smile".  I keep my
    sexual energy very private and restrict it to safe, familiar
    circumstances.
    
    I don't think the lesbian women in this file do that.

    I don't think the women among us who have been sexually abused probably
    do it either.
    
------
    
    I think Sandy's points about Playboy are well taken.  It's easy
    to overlook the way that tasteful pornography objectifies women.
    It is tasteful.  Sometimes it's pretty.  And it makes me sad.
    
    I've always wondered why the models are named 'Bambi' and 'Suzi'
    and 'Tiffani'.  Why not Jane or Elizabeth or Barbara or Jennifer?
    
    If the articles are really the drawing card, Playboy should do a
    little feasibility study just to see how much of the draw they are
    responsible for.  Any guesses on what would happen to their circulation
    figures in 6 months if they dropped the photos and concentrated
    on more writers (since that's the main reason people read it!)...
    
    If I liked tasteful pornography, though, I'd probably be quite open
    to some good articles.  I could read the articles and keep looking
    at the pictures for a much longer time.   Skillful marketing.
    

  Thanks to Sandy Ciccolini for providing a thought-provoking piece about
  why things are the way they are.

  Thanks to Jerry Boyajian for maintaining his cool and making his point
  under pressure.

  Thanks to Bob Barber for taking yet another philosophical/societal
  discussion as a personal affront (hey, I admire consistency).

  JP

    Re Jerry B., I agree that Playboy is of a higher caliber than any
    other skin magazines I've ever seen.  I've even bought it on occasion
    to read the interviews.  (And you thought we'd never agree!)
    
    You mentioned Playgirl.  But did you know that Playgirl has really
    boring, mindless, non-intellectual written content?  It's really
    an insult to any woman with half a brain.  It's even worse than
    Cosmopolitan :-)!
    
    However, I do agree with everything Sandy has had to say about the
    far reaching affects of pornography.  (and that's why I hate to
    think of men drooling over "nude cuties"!)
    
    I haven't read Bob's response yet and (maybe I shouldn't) :-).
    
    Lorna
    

    I dislike Playboy and all it represents and anyone who says they
    buy it for the articles are fooling themselves.
    
    _peggy
    
    	(-)
    	 |
    
    		The David is art - Fifi on a rug with her legs spread
    		is not.
    
    

    It would seem that the reason a girl's body is a successful
    marketing tool is that the market segment being reached is 
    the one with the purchasing power (the male market segment
    has for a long time had the power of the whole dollar).
    

    My mind is so muddled on the issue of whether Playboy is
    "good," "bad," or "just better than the *really* bad stuff"
    that I'd better not comment on it.

    On Playgirl, however...I bought an issue once to see what it
    was like.  I agree with Lorna in .38--the articles were
    *terribly* condescending.  As if the editors believed a woman
    who "sells herself" (as in Cosmo--which I occasionally buy
    for the giggles) has more brains than a woman who enjoys
    looking at men's bodies. 

    To my own surprise, I also found the pictures boring.  I like
    men's bodies a lot and find them quite arousing--at least, I
    enjoy my SO's body, and previous lovers'.  But pictures of
    nude strangers didn't do anything for me.  Maybe I'm just not
    as "visually oriented" as our culture claims men are.  Now,
    give me a good romantic/slightly-pornographic *story*...but
    the pictures are boring.  They're not someone I know.

    For me, I guess the arousal is part of the relationship, it's
    not just the body that's arousing. 

    Whatever the reason, I can well believe Jerry's statement in
    .34 that Playgirl doesn't have much of a market. 

    -- Linda

    
    I read Gloria Steinem's biography of Marilyn  recently, and found
    it to be very sensitive and interesting.   I enjoyed the photographs,
    and it was nice to take a break from the more serious reading I
    usually am into.   I think Marilyn could have used some more *real*
    friends in her life, and it's a shame she found nothing but repression
    and exploitation.   She did have something special though, a talent
    that made her very vivid and rememberable on the big screen.  I
    think I would have liked her, but I find the photos of the men 
    stumbling around her and leering at her, disturbing.
    
    	As for porno mags;   this is the effect of repression in
    society.   I remember looking at the anatomy transparencies
    in the encyclopedia, many years ago, but those didn't answer 
    as many of my questions as finding my older brother's stash
    of Playboy magazines.   The lure of the magazines for sexual
    release is based on the constant repression of sex and openness
    in our society.   I think the *real* problem here is caused
    regimentation, separation of the sexes in school, and lack of
    real human contact for kids going through puberty, etc.   Playboy
    *is* better than the other mags, but they would *all* vanish
    if society were actually sane and open.    I'm glad we have
    freedom of speech and the press, though.    I believe that we
    may be slowly being released from the repression handed down
    for countless generations, and that *some* of these magazines
    have served a basically good function, although this is arguable.
    
    	I never saw a woman breast feeding *anywhere* in public, here
    in the USA, the whole time I grew up, once I was beyond my own
    infancy.    It's like whole parts of our natural animal functionings
    are denied and repressed, and this causes havoc for both men and
    women.   The problem is not *men*, it's not *women*, it's not
    magazines, or religion...   it's repression.   The problem is the way 
    we all grew up without any real access to self-knowledge, the way
    we have turned every element of our world, our lives, into commodities 
    to be exploited.
    
		Alan.

RE .36
     
>    PLEASE ...  There are 250+ lb. women who take excellent care of
>    themselves and put a great deal of energy into grooming, and there are
>    120 lb. women who take poor care of themselves and couldn't care
>    less. 
     
    I concur. I have known a number of heavier to over weight women 
    that are that way through no fault of their own (thyroid ect).
    And for the most part they are exceptionally nice people. But to 
    make a nit in reply to yours, the statement reads :

    " as apposed to a 250 lb person that doesn't"
                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    In this case I deliberately used the word PERSON to denote, that there
    are BOTH MAN and WOMEN that DON"T take care of themselves. For that
    matter for those of you that remember the "Bridiget" and the "Bridiget
    and Burney" calendars and posters, that were the camp thing to have back
    ten years or so ago. I always thought that they were amongst the crudest
    obnoxious expioitations of people I have seen.
      
 >    Please don't generalize.
   
      OK, I'am wrong by generalizing here. If we all would stop generalizing
      about each other I believe it would be a lot less problems here.

 >   I don't look at any men and "smile a similar smile".  I keep my
 >   sexual energy very private and restrict it to safe, familiar
 >   circumstances.

     Ah, but you do admit that you do look. Thank you for being honest.
    The point here is that although women don't leer or the like, does
    not take away the fact that they do look. I was getting a very strong
    indication from Sandy note that women don't look, which is not the case.
    I have known a number of women that admit that they look at men with,
    Oh, should I say, a discerning eye. The difference is in the way its done
    and eachs reaction to it. Your right, though in that I should have said
    many but not all women look.

    I had a unique experience a few years back. An old friend was part of 
    a staff of women that ran and published a book each year of "The 100
    most eligible bachelors in Boston." After the book was published,the 
    listed men in the book were expected to attend a number of charity
    events that would raise money by charging the public to meet these 
    people.

    At one of these events she was short handed and asked me to help her 
    run it. As it turned out the crowd was approximately 90 % female, there
    to check out and meet the men in the book. It was very interesting to 
    see the shoe on the other foot where as the men were the objects of 
    being ollgled at. After the evening was over, she inquired if I wanted
    to be considered for the next years book. After observing what went on
    at that event, I declined.

 RE .37

>   Thanks to Bob Barber for taking yet another philosophical/societal
>   discussion as a personal affront (hey, I admire consistency).

   If you can't recognize a swipe at men in general...Oh well, its like
   I said, some won't ever understand. But you are within your rights to 
   totally agree with the author, that men are one way slime. Its just
   that I don't agree with those ideas and am willing to say so in a 
   forum by which its not real popular or readly accecptable to do so.

                                        Bob B 
    

I believe it was Alfred Kinsey who did a study many years ago that
found that men were more sexually stimulated by looking at pictures 
of nude females, than were women looking at photos of nude males.

This might help to explain why magazines like Playboy (or Penthouse 
or Hustler) have a wider circulation than does Playgirl, regardless
of each's editorial content.

I subscribe to Playboy and occasionally buy Penthouse. I read some of
the articles and look at some of the pictorials; I enjoy both aspects
of these magazines. I also admit to looking at the nude bodies of some 
of the women I see at suit-optional beaches.

I'm somewhat surprised that nobody has yet brought up a more recent trend:
the scores of women-only audiences flocking to the various "beefcake" estab-
lishments that have sprung up around the greater Boston area (and other areas
of the Country).

Perhaps the day of equal-opportunity-ogling finally has arrived.

  Alan 

re .27

>    ...  If you're female and you've got brains, good. 
>    Use them and you MAY get lucky.  If you're female and you've got
>    mammaries, using them will practically GUARANTEE you entry into
>    the big game.  

Bazooms > Brains?  Not True.  I need only consider the 350 women who
finished high school with me in 1963.  No contest. The statement is just
plain wrong.  In fact, many of the kids who were interested in
demonstrating their impressive bazooms have not fared well. Forget theory
and look at real people over a twenty year period. 

Marilyn and Elvis 

People do get odd and passionate notions about these two.  Here's my
theory. They are ganzfields.  A ganzfield is a visual field that is fuzzy
or undefined in such a way that the viewer looks at the ganzfield -- a
snowy TV screen, clouds, ink blots. and 'sees' images that they themselves
project.  What makes them ganzfields is beyond me, but they are. 

It's handy though. If you want a fast peek into someone's psyche, bring up 
Marilyn or Elvis and listen to what comes out.            Meigs

    
    re:.34
    The point I was trying to make a while back was that "Playboy" was
    in fact *worse* than other 'skin mags', largely for the reasons
    you seem to be using to justify its 'superior' quality. To my mind,
    "Playboy" is pornography. There is no room for argument. More
    importantly, through the use of 'well written articles' and
    'artistically valid photography', it allows people to suggest, as
    you have, that somehow "Playboy" is only slightly pornographic or
    that it is somehow not so bad because it's only 50% lascivious instead
    of 95%. This is a slippery slope if ever there was one. At what
    magical level of 'lascivious content' does a magazine (or a movie
    or an advertisement or...) become acceptable? "Playboy" is particularly
    insidious in the way its brand of scum is taken to be acceptable. But
    the bottom line is that "Playboy" actively promotes a view of women
    that is oppressive beyond belief; it is not acceptable. If men were
    to stop reading it I'm sure Bradbury's stories would turn up elsewhere.
    
    re: throwing out the baby with the bath water
    
    This implies that there is something of so great value (the baby)
    that one should suffer a minor unpleasantness (the bathwater) to keep
    it. While I'm perfectly willing to grant that some articles in
    "Playboy" have value, it is also completely obvious to me that that
    value is not nearly great enough to justify the major sliminess
    that "Playboy" perpetrates against humanity every month.

    As the poster of the base note, I have a request to make. Would
    the discussion about the appropriateness/inappropriateness of the
    reading/burning/ignoring Playboy by feminisits/MCPs to some other
    note?
    
    The fact that the original appeared in Playboy is peripheral to
    the thesis presented by Ms. Heimel. I think that a discussion of
    those ideas would lead to an interesting exchange of ideas and maybe
    even some understanding.
    
    PK

      As a moderator may I second Phil's request... I think that the
    whole issue of Playboy and related magazines and how we all react
    to them is an important one *but* we really have hardly discussed
    the original issues raised in the basenote at all.
    
    I will start a note to move the Playboy discussion to...and may
    I request that everyone go back and read the basenote and try
    to adress the particular issues raised there in.
    
    Thankyou
    
    Bonnie Jeanne

    	RE: .37
    
    	>  Thanks...  Thanks...  Thanks...
    
    	Thank *you*, John Parodi, for understanding and appreciating
    	the value of philosophical/societal discussions about "why things
    	are the way they are."
    
    	Thank you very much!
    

    	The only movie I've ever liked with Marilyn Monroe was "The
    	Misfits" (what I can remember of it.)  As I recall, she
    	wasn't playing up the sex symbol as much as she usually did
    	(and portrayed some honest emotions.)
    
    	I haven't seen the movie in a long time, but I remember thinking
    	that it was her best.  (I know that it was written by her husband
    	at the time, Arthur Miller, and was her last completed film.)
    
    	Does anyone else remember this film (and care to comment?)

    Well, my thoughts about Marilyn are various.
    
    1. She was a product of her time. I fervently hope the phenomenon
    could not happen today.
    
    2. I believe she (on some level) was "laughing all the way to the
    bank". I believe this woman had had it hard, in great degree because
    she was female - and I believe she decided "to h**l with this; I'm
    gonna do what I have to." Many of her fellow actors tell of her
    great talent for comedy, which she hid behind the facade, but which
    helped make her movies successful.
    
    3. She was *playing* Marilyn Monroe. It was the greatest role of
    her life. I heard a female impersonator say once that "doing Marilyn"
    was so common because it was so easy - "Marilyn" *was* an
    impersonation.  (done by Norma Jean. For years.)
    
    4. While I agree in part with the article, it makes me uncomfortable
    to read the words "I hate" applied to a woman whose choices and
    hard times were created and affected by the very fact that she was
    a woman in a patriarchy. It makes me *very* uncomfortable to read
    these words from another woman, who presumably understands this.
    
    --DE
    

    
    
    I would like to re-claim Marilyn as person, as a woman not as an
    object.
    
    I could not read all of the article because the author 
    was using anti-female attitudes to express the point.
    
    That is most distressing to me when the author is a woman.
    
    _peggy
    
    

	RE: last 2

	Well go back and read the article!  The author said that she didn't
	really hate Marilyn.  She hated the image, the way women are 
	used and objectified and required to act naive.

	...Karen

    RE: .53
    
    I READ the article.
    
    I also READ the title.
    
    The title says "I Hate Marilyn".
    
    And I re-iterate: to see the word "hate" applied to this woman by
    another woman - one who has an at least rudimentary understanding
    of the pressures on Marilyn - makes me uncomfortable.
    
    It may well have been a writer's ploy to get men to read the article,
    but that doesn't mean I am any more comfortable with it.
    
    I also do NOT think that the author dealt with Marilyn-the-person.
    That may not have been her intention; but I don't have to like *that*,
    either.
    
    I said in my previous REPLY that I agreed with most of the article;
    please don't imply that I didn't *read* it when I stated clearly how
    I had *percieved* it. 
    
    Dawn
    

RE: Article

"Men are bigger and stronger than we are, and if we act like we know about sex
and like it, we're asking for rape."

I wonder...  is this *really* true that women who project that they are concious
of sex and enjoy it are more likely to be raped?  Now that I think about it, it
smells very much like an 'urban myth'.

RE: article: men's alleged anger at women

I've heard a lot about how men are angry at women.  What do men have to feel
angry about?  Is their anger (not it's symptom) valid?  If men are supposedly
angry at women, is the claim that certain women hate men any less valid? 

"Instead of expressing his anger at a woman directly a man will make adolescent
remarks about her tits or write a demeaning sexual fantasy about her."

How might a man express his anger at a woman directly?

RE: 774.5 Jody GNUVAX::BOBBITT

I've always liked that Elton John song...

RE: 774.10 Jim BRONS::BURROWS

'how to read what you don't want to support'

How about visiting your local library?  You should be able to get some of those
magazines there.

RE: Lorna 774.15 MSD24::STHILAIRE "Food, Shelter & Diamonds"

"I guess he'll just have to be content with some average looking, pleasant woman
who's not used to having men dance attendance on her." 

Your NOTES personal name betrays you.  What makes you think that average women
aren't as manipulative, as needing of 'dancing attendance' as any woman, and
don't require their monetary '''reward'''? (*barf*) 

RE: 774.16  Sandy CSSE:: CICCOLINI

'Why don't you read "Atlantic"?'

I've read Atlantic, New Yorker, & Yankee... boring if you ask me, but Yankee
does have it's highlights.

"The world in general can really BE for the world in general instead of "for men
only with women allowed at their own risk and no complaints tolerated" as it is
today."

Do you *really* believe this???

"Men's bodies in our culture are considered basically to be for the pleasure of
men.  That's why men find it difficult to be physically appreciated."

Now I'm *really* confused!!  Is this what I'm supposed to be like???  I guess I
missed the boat; I don't even understand what you mean! 

"In skin mags, you don't have the two way street required in real life.  The
bimbos want nothing, ask for nothing, expect nothing, say nothing, are nothing."

Untrue... it *is* a two way street!  You pay your $8.95, and get back probably a
value of about $8.95.  Not exactly a meaningfull relationship, but then I
wouldn't expect one.

"The woman who is in tune with her sexuality and comfortable with it has
traditionally been considered on the fringes of our society - she's "different".
Men say they want this type of woman but what I think they really mean, (and I
said I THINK it, ok?), is that they want the woman they get to BECOME like that
once she is safely theirs."

I have to agree with you...  There are a lot of men out there are want a woman
to become sexual once they are safely *theirs*.  I will just mention that there
are a few corresponding properties women want from men once the men are safely
*theirs* as well.  What I dislike about both attitudes is the complacent
proprietorship of people! Neither sex as cornered the market on this attitude!
 
"I read once that men didn't like women who played hard to get but they didn't
like women who played easy to get, either.  They liked women who played easy for
THEM to get but hard for everyone else. They want women virtuous but not a
challenge."

Women want similiar things from men as well...  

The way I precieve your writing is that men definitely should watch out for self
confident women, because when they run up against one, they are going to lose
big time. Is that what you are attempting to write?  Is it helpfull to write
like that? Would a 'just think of how much nicer the world would be if only...'
style be better? 

"Men know the power of a pussy but do not expect women ever should.  They have
coined several derogatory phrases for women who use their bodies to their OWN
end instead of a man's"

Do you believe that sex should be a tool for women to use on men?

"I suppose I'm not supposed to infer from this common statement that the
traditional trade between men and women is her looks for his cash?"

I believe that you are *supposed* to infer that.  On either end, it sucks. 

"That the men who sleep with us are settling because of their financial status?
That we'd be gone in a flash if they could only better themselves?  In my
cynical view of the world I tend to think so."

In my experience, lots of women have 'expenses' (not necessarily $) which men
must pay.  If men don't pay up, they're gone in a flash.  Ultimitely it's a
question on any side of whether the good things of a relationship are worth the
downers. 

RE: 'disgusted with pornography'

I wonder if we are taking the most productive tack with pronography.  It seems
very likely that if I scowled at someone I came across reading Playboy, I would
be percieved as being disapproving of *sex*, not of Playboy.  How could one be
percieved as approving of sex, but disapproving of Playboy?

RE: 774.24 Sandy CSSE::CICCOLINI

"Do you think we object to men being human and having a normal sexual
response???"

Yes, obviously as above, I do think that your writing makes that objection. I
will not presume to assume what you believe.

"We object to the world being one-sided - the world allowing men to have and
exercise their normal sexual response and women being raised to ignore theirs,
deny theirs, pretend it doesn't exist."

So where did all this sex suppression stuff start?  Wasn't it *Victoria*n
England?  I hardly see how it is in men's interests to suppress sex in either
men or women.  It sounds more likely to me to be a tool of women. 

JMB

    re .55, Jim, you said, "Your NOTES personal name betrays you."
    
    What on earth do you mean?  "Food, shelter & diamonds"  - this is
    from a sign that I saw in a jewelry booth at an antique show -
    "Food, shelter & diamonds, all the rest are luxuries"  - I like
    it because I happen to love jewelry.  I collect antique and vintage
    jewelry, Jim.  I only have one diamond and I bought it myself with
    my own money.  So, all my personal name "betrays" about me is that
    I love jewelry and some of life's luxuries but as long as I buy
    them for myself and don't expect a man to buy them for me, what's
    your problem?
    
    As far as average looking women not manipulating men as much as
    beautiful women, I don't think they do, and I think it's because
    they can't get away with it as much.  Beauty can open doors for
    people that would otherwise have required personality, brains or
    hard work.
    
    Lorna
    

    re: .56 
    
    By assuming that a very pretty and very charming woman in my group
    could get away with manipulating men more because she was pretty
    and feminine, I very nearly missed knowing one of my best friends. 
    
    She got where she is because she has brains and she works hard.
    She has too much personal integrity to stoop to using her not
    inconsiderable sexual charms to manipulate men.
    
    --bonnie

    p.s.  I'd rather have emeralds!

    Re .57, I realize that not all pretty or beautiful women manipulate
    men.  It is my opinion that beautiful women are *more likely* to
    manipulate men than average looking women are - because they *can*
    - because it's so important to *most men* what women look like that
    I think most men are likely to put up with more grief from a beautiful
    woman than an average looking woman (because the good looking woman
    is more desirable).  That's all.  It's just my opinion, Bonnie, and
    not meant to be a slur on your pretty friend.
    
    Lorna
    
    

    re.58
    When people adhere to the opinion that pretty or beautiful women
    are *more likely* to manipulate men they reinforce the myth that
    an above average-looking women have no confidence intheir own
    intelligence and therefore they prefer to manipulate others rather
    than use their brains. This opinion is regretable as it used to
    alienate women from their peers as the assumption arises such as
    "oh, she'll get what she wants even if she were incompetant."
    I think this causes pretty women a great deal of difficulty in
    that it almost becomes that their looks are a handicap rather
    than an asset.
    People who can manipulated will be manipulated no matter who
    does the manipulating. People who are masters at manipulating
    will do so even if their nose is on the middle of their
    forehead.  A pretty woman does not automatically know the
    art of manipulation and several that I know are extremely shy
    and often play down their looks in hopes that someone will
    see beyond the prettiness.
    
    Fran