Conference turris::womannotes-v1

O.K., Bonnie, I'm reposting my reply in this basenote topic.
    
    
    Alan
        
                <<< COLORS::$2$DJA6:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES.NOTE;1 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 774.44                    Why I Hate Marilyn                       44 of 50
FDCV03::ROSS                                         21 lines  31-MAR-1988 14:52
                            -< To Each His/Her Own >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 

    Ah yes, soft porn.  I've ranted and raved about this topic before,
    in the Cheryl Teigs note (181?).
    
    All the same...
    
    I agree that Playboy has excellent stories and articles.  Many of
    the SF pieces collected in the "Best SF of 19XX" anthologies were
    originally printed in Playboy.  I wouldn't be suprised if some of
    the award winning pieces (Hugo, Nebula) were originally printed
    there.
    
    But I agree strongly with the concept that the excellent quality
    of the printed articles makes that mag all the worse.  It is indeed
    more insidious - even though I _am_ a nut about sf, I am not willing
    to shell out bucks and support the sale of women as sex mannequins.
    
    Despite the presence of good writing (even good feminist writing),
    I am extremely uncomfortable with the magazine.  Why is hard to
    say.  I think it has to do with separation: sex is super
    _in_its_place_; intellectual stimulation is super _in_its_place_;
    sex and intellect do not mix very well.  If I want to be reading
    and thinking, I do not need to be assaulted by sexual pictures -
    they are _distracting_!!  If I want erotica/porn, I do not need
    to have some wonderful literature or thought-provoking articles
    popping in - they are _distracting_!!
    
    Wouldn't it be *nice* if I could buy the magazine that has all this
    intellectual stimulation and NOT have to feel so uncomfortable and
    angry when I read it?  Why the heck do they have to put nudies in
    there?!?
    
    Most of the rest of my discomfort with Playboy and its ilk stems
    from how inane and degrading the roles presented for the girls
    presented in the pictorials.  No matter how many men protest that
    they "wouldn't mind if women did that to men", that if the roles
    were reversed they would not mind at all... well the roles are _not_
    reversed, and _I_ DO mind!
    
    Lee

    
    	Re .2 - you could always buy the braile version and learn to
    read with your fingers -
    
    	> ...support the sale of women as sex manequins
    
    You must mean, "support the sale of a woman's image as a sex manequin"
    They're really only images...I've yet to have a real one materialize
    from "those" pages.
    
    	Joe

    I've always found women to be aroused visually, but the difference
    lies in how men look at women and how women look at men.
    
    Culturally, men learn to objectify women, to think of them as sex
    things.  Even Playboy caters this menu, with its use of photo
    techniques, airbrushing, and even posing.  As Kilbourne says in
    "Killing Us Softly", these women don't even have pores.  A steady
    diet of Playboy photos will have a warping affect on your ability
    to appreciate the beauties of real women, who do have pores and
    freckles and moles and whose nipples aren't usually erect and who
    don't pout, because if that's what you associate your own arousal
    with, you're going to have a hard problem with real people.
    The women in these photos have had parts of their individuality
    sanded off, and don't be fooled by those cutesie little bios that
    go with the Playmate of the Month, either, because they're part
    of the whole voyeuristic trap.
    
    Isn't it interesting that Playboy can have popular authors published
    in it?  Didn't you know that they pay the highest going rates for
    fiction?  Why do you think it is--Hefner's just got this intellectual
    bug?  Could it be that Playboy sells well...to men, and so they
    can afford to maintain this image of cultural worth.  What socially
    redeeming value does the Playmate of the Month serve, and how does
    her bust relate to the articles?
    
    Women have been less conditioned to see men as sex objects, because
    this is, well, a Bad Thing: it attacks male self worth, just as
    women-as-objects is destructive to female self worth.  I do know
    women who do objectify men, but it hasn't caught on.  For one reason,
    women earn less and in addition have fewer dollars to spend on
    recreation, on the average.  Also, women are strongly conditioned
    to be supportive to men at all costs...why else do women feel pressured
    to stay with an abusive man?  Being supportive, emotionally supportive,
    means you cannot turn that individual into a piece.  Furthermore,
    female sexuality is often feared, and has been for a coupla thousand
    years, else we wouldn't have mention of it in religious and legal
    documents for that long.  So, down with female sexuality, unless
    it's something that can be _controlled_.  So now we get articles
    about feminism in Playboy, and advice, and all that: now men can
    be experts at feminism, charm the girls, and keep them in Awe.
    [I'm not putting down men as feminists, I'm delineating Playboy's
    ploys, but if you think you're a feminist based on what you learned
    in Playboy, I don't want to know.]
    
    No, you don't win a doll if you subscribe to Playboy long enough,
    but that's all you may come to idealize.  What I'm still amazed
    by (hey, I'm young) is the way men I know will persist in not listening
    to women who describe why they don't like Playboy or other magazines.
    It's voyeuristic, it's invasive: it's not my picture there, lying
    there acceptable on the coffee table, but it's one of my sisters.
    Yeah, she was paid; yeah, so what.  The Indians were "paid" for
    Manhattan too.  It's my self-esteem you've got there on your coffee
    table, all dressed up nice with learned articles, but you didn't
    pay me anything for my self-esteem.  It's my self-esteem everytime
    a woman gets objectified, just like it's everyone's self-esteem
    when a black man got called "boy".  You're lucky if you don't wince,
    but that doesn't mean you have a right to cause women to wince.
    
    On Bravo recently I watched a special on choreographer Pina Bausch
    and her dance company.  She's...well...she's controversial.
    (A tidy summary, that.)  One of the dances, I had to watch.  
    One woman, in a dress, was being poked, prodded, shaken, sniffed,
    put down, picked up, by every man in the dance company, all dressed
    in gray suits.  They were all moving around her, poking one part
    or another, and they took turns holding her up.  They stroked her,
    kissed her neck, wiggled her wrist, looked closely at various parts.
    Nothing violent or too invasive, nothing sexual.  She was mostly
    limp, her eyes downcast, she never looked at them, but she did look
    miserable enough as though she were about to cry.  They looked at
    her, dispassionately, expressionlessly.  It was horrible.  I knew
    exactly what was going on.  It was chilling.

    re .4  nice note Lisa
    
    re .3  if that was intended to be funny, ho-ho.
    
    You may not realize it, but soft porn bothers several of us (me
    for one) quite a bit, for a variety of reasons.  Please restrain
    your fingers when you want to make a funny about a touchy topic.
    
    If that was not intended to be funny:
�    	.2> ...support the sale of women as sex manequins
�    You must mean, "support the sale of a woman's image as a sex manequin"
    
    That's what I get for writing too fast.  While you are right in
    that Playboy sells pictures (oh yes, and articles) of women, it
    is my opinion that by selling the _pictures_, it sells an image
    of what women _should_be_ (sex manequins).  By convincing enough
    men (and women) that this is what woman _should_be_, it sells woman.
    
    Woman no longer has the choice: she must be a sex manequin or be
    deficient.
    
    Selling that image sells the woman and all women.
    
    Lee

    re .5
    
    Yeah, sure, dismiss feminism: it's all a bunch of womens things.

    Re: .2
    
    > ...even though I _am_ a nut about sf, I am not willing to shell out bucks
    > and support the sale of women as sex mannequins. 
    
    > ...sex is super _in_its_place_; intellectual stimulation is super
    > _in_its_place_; sex and intellect do not mix very well. 
    
    I don't know of any source of pornographic images that isn't mixed with
    something. I much prefer sex_mixed_with_intellectual rather than
    sex_mixed_with_violence or sex_mixed_with_child_molestation etc.
    I think that pornography fills a need for many men who have no other
    way to fill that need.  I don't think you can make the need go away
    by removing the vehicle that fills that need.  Removing the vehicle
    only makes people more desperate to fill the need and more willing
    to escalate the level acceptilbe damage done to fill that need.
    
    When you buy the products of this industry, you have to keep in
    mind that you are placing your "dollor vote" on the product that
    you choose.  I had a friend that thought it was just fine to buy
    a magazine that offended his sensibilities in many ways and later
    remove the offense by removing the offending pages.  I had to convince
    him that he was placing his dollor vote on the whole magazine even
    though he removed the offensive material.
    
    						MJC O->
                                                    

Re: .8

>   Re .2
>   > ...even though I _am_ a nut about sf, I am not willing to shell out bucks
>   > and support the sale of women as sex mannequins. 
>
>   When you buy the products of this industry, you have to keep in
>   mind that you are placing your "dollor vote" on the product that
>   you choose.

    I assume that you are agreeing with Lee?
    
>   I think that pornography fills a need for many men who have no other
>   way to fill that need.  I don't think you can make the need go away
>   by removing the vehicle that fills that need.  Removing the vehicle
>   only makes people more desperate to fill the need and more willing
>   to escalate the level acceptilbe damage done to fill that need.

    Of course it fills a need!  Else there wouldn't be a market
    for it!  But what's the need?  The need for a warm loving
    companion to have make love with?  It doesn't seem to meet
    that one.  The need for sexual stimulation and orgasm?  Quite
    possibly, although if that's the only reason "removing the
    vehicle" doesn't seem like it would cause people to get
    violently desparate--I'd think fantasizing and masturbating
    would be a lot easier than "doing damage to fill that need."
    The need to feel better than someone else by doing damage to
    them, by using them, humiliating them?  The need to degrade
    someone, anyone, especially women?  In that case, I'm not
    sure "removing the vehicle" would do any more damage than the
    fact of porn does to us right now.

    I'm not in favor of laws restricting pornography, although it
    may sound like it.  It comes too close to censorship for me.
    And I'd think making porn illegal would be about as effective
    as Prohibition of liquor was many years ago, it'd just force
    it underground.  I don't think this is a problem that can be
    solved unless society is different, somehow...By the same
    token, I don't expect society is going to "remove the
    vehicle" of porn until/unless there's no "need" for
    it--whatever that need is.

    -- Linda

        As one of the first people to have spoken positively of Playboy
        in this conference, I'm sorry if my doing so has offended
        anyone. There seems to be considerable heat expressed on this
        topic in the last few days. 
        
        In another note Jim Baranski spoke about the agendas we bring to
        our noting. While I'm not entirely sure why his agendas are or
        ought to be served by participation in WomanNotes, I do think
        that the basic notion of being open about our motives and
        agendas is a good one.
        
        My own agenda items, in so much as I can identify them, related
        to being in this conference are to participate in what I find to
        be extrodinarily candid and supportive discussions (which are
        admittedly not the only sort that go on here, but which this
        conference has in larger measure than any other), to expose
        myself to relatively extreme positions with which I do not
        always agree but which help me to learn, and to represent what I
        see to be a moderate position between the extremes.
        
        My own view on life is that life is extremely complex and that
        there is truth in many seemingly contradictory statements. It
        seems to me that most extreme positions although they have a
        nugget of truth in them, ignore the truth and values which are
        in other parts of the spectrum. Thus, while I acknowledge that
        there are definite problems with Playboy and with the philosophy
        that it represents, I do not care to dismiss it all as
        worthless.
        
        Personally, I find enough positive, enough enjoyble in Playboy
        to warrant subscribing to it. It does not reresent my philosophy
        on life. I am much more of a believer in marriage, family and
        commitment, than in the hedonism of the "good life". On the
        other hand, physical pleasure and material possessions can add
        to a well rounded life. There is a place for at least a few
        aspects of hedonism in my philosophy. 
        
        The pictures of women are often beautiful or at least pleasant,
        but they don't often match my own ideal of feminine beauty,
        which tends more towards women whose faces bodies show some
        character. Of late they've had more diversity in their image of
        beauty, including women well into their thirties and who have
        been mothers, and a paraplegic, but the range is still quite
        narrow.
        
        I thoroughly enjoy a number of the columns and interviews and
        some of the articles and fiction. I've also found some of the
        writing there to be repugnant--"The World According to Garp" I
        thought was really dreadful, for instance. 
        
        It is, I feel, completely reasonable for women, who have too
        often suffereed from sexism, and for people of very conservative
        philosophical and moral views to find the philosophy and the
        pictures offensive. In ways I share some of their views. Playboy
        supports a world view and an ideal of female beauty to which I
        don't subscribe and which is more dominant in our culture than
        my own views. 
        
        The only thing that I wanted to say about Playboy is that, like
        much of life, it is not as simple a thing as it is often made
        out to be, and that in the richness of its reality there are
        elements that people of good conscience can find valuable. I do
        not mean to say that anyone is wrong for disliking Playboy for
        what it is. I just wanted to say that it isn't quite what some
        make it out to be, and that some of us who read it are not quite
        the sort of people that you might think of as "the sort of man
        who reads Playboy". Jerry Boyajian and Beth Ravan seem to
        confirm that.
        
        JimB.

    RE: .6  "Lee's ho-ho comment re: .3 `braille version'"
                                                         
    What's so funny about there being a braille version of Playboy?
                                                         
    A couple of years ago, somebody tried to force the cessation of funding
    the cost of having Playboy magazine published in braille.  I'm not
    certain, but I believe this was part of the Library of Congress budget. 
                                                         
    While many people may have thought this was some kind of joke, it was
    really just another example of the way some non-disabled people feel it
    is up to them to decide what's right for disabled people. 
    
    The reaction from the visually-impaired is also an indication of the
    value of the editorial content.  You see, there really are people
    who don't get it for the pictures.
    

I'm a little confused at the negative reactions to Playboy (speaking as a
subscriber!). Here's how I feel on the subject, including a couple of 
questions:

 It features pictures/pictorials of women designed to inspire low-key sexual
fantasies in heterosexual males.  (?do lesbians also find such pictures erotic?
I have always wondered???). So, by definition, it is pornography.  But it is 
_good_ pornography (well done, high production standards, tasteful)
 Playboy has articles in it which are well-written and generally of some 
interest in my opinion.  Maybe I'm getting old, but I enjoy reading the articles
at least as much (if not more) as looking at the "naughty" pictures.

 I disagree strongly with the premise that reading/looking at pornography
reduces all women to the status of "sex object". In my opinion, this is 
just plain false.  It is similar to suggesting that watching the "Nashville 
Cable Channel" would convince me that all Southern women were country and 
western singers!!!

 I see nothing wrong with having such low-key pornography available to people
who want to spend their money on it.  It is not my place to force you to either
read this stuff or _not_ to read this stuff; such a choice is yours, all yours.

 Which brings up two interesting points that perhaps are outside the context of
this note string:
	a. There is currently no market for low-key pornography designed to
	appeal to heterosexual women. (Maybe this is a marketing opportunity
	for some of the entrepreneurial types reading this file). "Cosmo" 
	started in this mould, but seems to have degenerated into a more 
	"fluffy" 'How to satisy your man...' magazine of late.

	b. As has been noted, the low-key male-oriented sexual fantasies 
	promoted by Playboy (among other magazines) are not restrained to
	such magazines, but are flagrantly promoted across modern US society.
	Women are forced to watch semi-clad women in "erotic" clothing and
	poses sell everything from after-shave to Girling Brake Pads. THIS IS
	APPALLING. I would feel very uncomfortable if everywhere I turned there
	were images of male organs, and half-clad men (99.44% of which would be
	infinitely more attractive than me) desporting themselves for the 
	pleasure of women. But the solution to this is NOT to ban male-oriented
	pornography in the belief that this would take the T & A out of 
	advertizing�.

				Nigel

�No, I don't know how to solve this problem.  Logically, one could refuse to
buy any product which contains advertizing which one finds offensive. Could this
tactic be used against 70% of the marketplace??? Could such a campaign be 
started without being confused with various campaigns to ban ALL pornography
EVERYWHERE?  I don't know.

Re: .9    

>>   Re .2        
>>   > ...even though I _am_ a nut about sf, I am not willing to shell out bucks
>>   > and support the sale of women as sex mannequins. 
>>
>>   When you buy the products of this industry, you have to keep in
>>   mind that you are placing your "dollar vote" on the product that
>>   you choose.

>    I assume that you are agreeing with Lee?

    Lee has the right to place her dollar vote to match her own
    sensibilities.  I would not dream of coersering her to do anything
    different.  I doubt that she and I would always vote the same when
    we select things from the magazine stand but I'd guess that we would
    agree more often than not.
    
>    But what's the need?
    
>    The need for sexual stimulation and orgasm?  Quite
>    possibly, although if that's the only reason "removing the
>    vehicle" doesn't seem like it would cause people to get
>    violently desperate--
    
    When I speak of "doing damage" I don't mean that I expect that
    many men will do violence directly.  I do expect that if you
    force pornographers underground, the materials that they produce
    are much more likely to be tainted by violent means in the production
    process.  A pornographer who operates legally is less likely to
    risk criminal production methods.  The customer need not support
    criminal actions to buy legal pornography.  He may have to turn
    a blind eye to purchase illegally produced product.

    Pornography also serves another use.  It shows that sexuality is
    normal in both men and women.  When sexuality is forced underground
    anything sexual is viewed as wrong.  It is much easier to conform
    to a standard that show's the right and wrong ways to be sexual
    than it is to try to conform to a standard in which all that is
    sexual is wrong, just some more wrong than others.
    
>    The need to feel better than someone else by doing damage to
>    them, by using them, humiliating them?  The need to degrade
>    someone, anyone, especially women?
    
    God, I hope not!  I don't know of any men who use it for this purpose.
    
>    In that case, I'm not sure "removing the vehicle" would do any more
>    damage than the fact of porn does to us right now. 
    
    I agree!  I hope that we can change it so that this need is not
    served.
    
    					MJC O->
                                                      
    

    re .12
    
    Nigel, I don't thinking any of us are advocating censorship of
    pornographic material (with a few possible exceptions regarding
    kiddie porn or extremely violent porn).  Personally, I'd rather
    that there were no market for the kind of uniform, unimaginative
    soft porn we see everywhere.
    
    I know of some lesbians/bis who find some of the low-level hetero male
    porn to be somewhat erotic (and many who don't), but with the same
    objections as I have: it is dull, it portrays a woman who does not
    exist, who is made of plastic, and is too, too young and unbelievable. 
    
    I agree that the non-sexual content is excellent.  That does not
    mean I want to buy the thing!  Hell, there was an article reccommended
    by a friend at work.  I wanted to read it.  He was uncomfortable
    with xeroxing it, so lent me the magazine (in a plain envelope).
    In his position, I would have done the same - no matter how respectable
    much of the content, he was not thrilled with trotting over to my
    office carrying a Playboy.  I was no more thrilled with trying to find
    a time/place to read this stupid article.  Just a pain in the neck,
    all around, and entirely unnecessary.
    
    Lee

    I don't consider that Playboy gives an accurate picture of female
    sexuality, thank you.
    
    (Yes, I thought this one up all by myself!)

    FYI: there's a note about Pornography here.  See 22.*

    RE: .16
    
    Lisa, I just read Note 22.*, and the topic is about "having a
    cooling off period" before a person writes a note in anger.
    
    Is there another Note to which you're referring?
    
      Alan

    Re: .15
    > I don't consider that Playboy gives an accurate picture of female    
    > sexuality, thank you.
    
    I agree.  I also think that if you take away playboy and don't replace
    it with something better, the picture will get less accurate.
    
    						MJC O->

RE: .2

Lee, you start to get off on a tangent about the place of sex and sf... I
If I may extend that tangent, where would you say sex/erotica's place is?
What format would you place it in?

RE: .4 'a steady diet of Playboy women is malnutrition'

agreed...  real women are so much better.  I can tell the difference.

I don't believe that enjoying pictures of women is objectifying women, making
them into sex objects.

RE: .9

"Of course it fills a need!  Else there wouldn't be a market for it!  But what's
the need?  The need for a warm loving companion to have make love with?  It
doesn't seem to meet that one.  The need for sexual stimulation and orgasm?" 

I believe that that is indeed the need that most men buy Playboy.  I know
that it falls short of fullfilling that need, but I feel most men feel that
that 'Playboy' is better then no sex at all.

"I'd think fantasizing and masturbating would be a lot easier than "doing damage
to fill that need." The need to feel better than someone else by doing damage to
them, by using them, humiliating them?"

In order to fantasize, you must have some mental material to fantasize about. I
feel that whoever you fantasize about you are humiliating, objectifying, etc...
just as much as Playboy.  Worse, you are doing it without their consent!

'If you *think* about having your neighbor's wife, you are just as guilty as if
you had had your neighbor's wife.' 

Jim.

    I'm responding to something in the following note.  To help make
    it less convoluted, I typed in the initials of the writer (BB,HH).
    The ### mark my most current responses.
    
    ====================================================================
    
                <<< COLORS::$2$DJA6:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES.NOTE;1 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 774.43                    Why I Hate Marilyn                       43 of 54
IPOVAX::BARBER "Skyking Tactical Services"           67 lines  31-MAR-1988 14:00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RE .36
    
HH:     
>    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. 
   
    
BB:      
    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.
   
HH:                                                                         
    ###Bob, you said person, that's true, and women are a subset of
       the category 'person', so I responded to you based
       on what I know about women I have met.  My biggest objection
       was your casual correlation of '250 lb.' with 'someone who doesn't
       take care of him/herself'.  If you had just said 'as opposed to 
       a person who doesn't...', I would have nodded.  
    
             .
             .
             .
             .
HH:   
 >   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.
    
BB:   
     Ah, but you do admit that you do look. Thank you for being honest.
    
HH:   
### Bob...what?   Where do you get this?  How do you know I am not
    
      a) happily involved with such a wonderful, handsome man that
         I have eyes only for him
      b) a member of a religious order who has taken a vow of celibacy
         which I interpret to include 'no leering'
      c) a lesbian, and therefore a disinterested party
      d) asexual due to some painful early experiences  
      e) too busy to have time to think about such things
    
    ###(There are women in this file, or who read this file, who fit into
        each of the above categories, by the way.)   
        
    ### Some women enjoy looking at lots of men.  Others enjoy looking
        at familiar men.  Others don't look (or enjoy looking) at men
        at all.
    
    
BB:    
    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.
                              
    
HH:
    ###Thanks for re-wording that.  I say some women look.    
         .   
         .
         .
         .

    Re .19, I never thought of fantasizing about people as "humiliating"
    or "objectifying" them before.  I can't imagine calling someone
    up and asking, "May I have your consent to fantasize about you
    tonight?"  :-)   (I guess I've inadvertently humiliated a number
    of rock stars down thru the years!)
    
    Lorna
    

    Last fall, I was driving in Maynard with a fellow Womannoter.  We
    stopped at an intersection, and there, jogging on the other side
    of the road was a bare-chested man.
    
    We stared.  She finally said, "Nice pecs." as I managed to get the
    car in gear.
    
    Did I lust after this man?  No.  Hunh? you say.  Look, even if
    tigers were as harmless as butterflies and as common as dirt, I'd
    still stare at them every chance I got -- because they look terrific.
    *That* is why I stared at the guy -- his upper torso looked great.
    Even I am surprised that there was nothing sexual about it, yet
    I do not doubt it.  It puts me between <A>, who was disconcerted
    to discover that that mass of luscious red-brown hair was growing
    from the head of his new [male] roommate, and <B>, who insisted
    on getting out of the car before me, so she could admire my legs
    as I clambered out.  (Let's face it; there are approximately
    5,000,000,000 weirdos in this world.)
    
    Did I objectify the jogger?  Well, I know that I know nothing about
    the *person* beyond that he is someone who takes good care of his
    bodily health, and I've never thought of him in any other context,
    so I think I did not.  Did I smile a certain smile?  No, no smile
    at all.
    
    							Ann B.

Note 782.18     Mike Carlton
    
someone said:

    >> I don't consider that Playboy gives an accurate picture of female    
    >> sexuality, thank you.
    
and you answered:

    >I agree.  I also think that if you take away playboy and don't replace
    >it with something better, the picture will get less accurate.
    
    Um, Mike, what are you thinking of?  If you take away Playboy and
    just don't replace it, the picture of female sexuality will get far MORE 
    accurate!  Think about it.
    
In this society "good" women are not supposed to indulge their sexuality, (or 
even admit to having any at all), and I believe most American females were 
raised pretty much the same way differing only in degree.  And it just doesn't 
seem fair that man's kind of sexuality can be celebrated everywhere while 
woman's kind is taboo unless of course she doesn't mind a derogatory label.

It seems the only sexuality "decent" women are allowed to express is to be 
objects for men's pleasure.  We are allowed to pose FOR men, but we're not 
supposed to drool AT them.  We're allowed to "entice" but we're not expected to 
grab for ourselves. 
    
In short, it seems that female sexuality can be expressed only to fullfill
the desires of men.

I really believe that if women were raised without the sex taboo
that comprises 90% of their upbringing, (what she wears, where she
goes, how she talks, how often she washes her hair - all these things
are monitored in general by society for their betrayal of female
sexuality), then they would have less problem with BEING sexualized.
    
It just doesn't seem fair that women are admonished to "keep their knees
together" while men get to play peek-a-boob openly and often.  I
think it's an issue of perspective.  If both men and women deviate from an 
assumed "norm" but in different directions, the distance between them is
far greater than the distance to normal for either of them.
    
And I think this aspect comprises most of the misunderstanding whenever
men and women are discussing men's skin mags.  Women seem to be
arguing how different men are from women in their "enjoyment" of the 
opposite sex but men seem to be arguing that they're not that far from 
normal.  I believe neither sex in this culture is routinely raised
to be "normal".  Sex is anathema to a "good" girl and not being
a raging, rip-snorting, red-blooded horny teenager is anathema to
being a "real man".  Our cultural mistake is in assuming that sexuality 
is ANYTHING other than response and a need as common to every human being
as the need for water.

Is it any wonder there's going to be a little conflict in the sexual 
arena between men and women?
    
I believe that both men are women are WAY too far from normal.  We live 
in a very prudish culture.  In America,  where we can't admit that sex is 
a normal, healthy human response, (we can only admit it's a MALE one), we 
can sustain an industry selling a fantasy image of female sexuality.  If 
we admit the reality of female sexuality, then the fantasy would look 
rather forced and silly, (like it does to women who live with the reality 
of female sexuality every day).  

It's the refusal to see the reality of female sexuality that is REQUIRED 
before you can appreciate the fantasy of it that I believe women object to.  
In the movie industry it's called a "willingness to suspend disbelief".  If 
you can't create that willingness in your audience, you cannot present them 
with a fantasy they will buy because they simply won't be willing to indulge
in the disbelief.  So conversley, if our cultre is presenting men with 
enjoyable fantasy that they are willing to pay for, then they must have first 
suspended their disbelief.   And most guys are VERY willing to do that, no? 

Our culture makes SURE that breasts, (one reality of women), are considered 
verboten and women must keep them well hidden at all times.  As a society,
we become appalled when we see a woman using her breasts for their intended
purpose.  In our culture, breast "mystery" must be maintained.  Breasts 
thought of as mere adipose tissue containing milk glands for the nourish-
ment of the woman's infants is not going to sell magazines because that 
reality is everywhgere - why pay?  But fantasizing away their function and
seeing them instead as "creamy globes spilling out of a strapless dress"
WILL sell.

The function of breasts, (and women's bodies in general), takes a back
seat to the fantasy of them and it's this part of it that I for one have a 
problem with.
    
Women who live in a culture where the fantasy of their bodies is considered
preferable to the fact and function of them are going to grow up trying to 
deny the fact and function naturally in favor of the fantasy.
    
No one is an island.  Not even a woman.   All humans want to be liked and 
be accepted and we all will use what we have at our disposal to achieve 
those ends.  Women in a culture laden with airbrushed images of non-functioning 
female bodies grow up with a suspicion of the functions of their own bodies.  
And that suspicion can and does grow into a hatred of the reality of them be-
cause that reality is very far from the airbrushed fantasy that we women have 
to look at day in and day out.  We hate our adipose and milk-gland tissue
and try our damndest to make sure men see only "creamy globes" instead.

Many men think that their "buying into" this doesn't in and of itself
put women down and that's a tidy little bit of rationalization.  Because
the truth is, the message of these kinds of images causes women to put 
THEMSELVES down and I believe that's the worst part of it.  The damage is
insidious.  Because women flog themselves over men's fantasy images men 
once again believe they can get off scott-free in the responsibility for the
effects of porn.  Because in truth, no one is actually TELLING women 
that they can't have moles, pores or adipose tissue, right?

Wrong.  A culture full of airbrushed images of non-functioning female bodies
(and a culture where women have had to please men to survive),  simply causes
real women to learn to HATE their "real-ness".  Women are loathe to expose 
their reality because in this culture the NONREAL woman is the one most wanted
by men.  The woman with no pores, no sweat, no gas, no blood, no feces, no 
heart, no insides at all.  Just gossamer and powder, silk and satin, pearls 
and pee-pees.

And whether women hating their real functioning bodies is the intent of the 
porn is immaterial.  The effect is a society of women who know they cannot 
simply "be" because that's not good enough.

Don't forget the joke that Farrah doesn't fart - she just goes to heaven and
rings a little bell.  "Realness" is below her.  We're real.  We're below her. 
We're below miss nanosecond.  We're below all of  them.  One big bowl o' chili 
will prove that!  ;-)

I challenge any man to spend one WEEK denying his reality and trying to
be, oh, say, Donald Trump for us.  Don't TELL us about your low-level job,
and that you can't take us out for dinner yet again because we don't 
really want to know your reality.  Try to keep up the illusion that you 
are or can be what we women most want a man to be and if you can't, that's
ok.  You don't really HAVE to pander to our fantasies but if you don't, 
we'll turn to our magazines for solace and keep looking.  If you knew we 
had tons of magazines as well as tv, movies, commercials ad nauseum 
taunting us with images of care-free men who have tons of money and time
to spend it, you might be doing a little running around tucking in the 
corners of your own reality.  And you can't blame us for it because we won't
ever actually TELL you what you have to be, we're only going to react to
what you are.  And the men who most exemplify our fantasies will get our money
our bodies and our time - lots of it.  The rest of you will get dated as time 
allows.

And that's what male porn does to women.  It has us running around trying hard
not to let our humanness show.  It's not an easy job, but the competition  
is fierce.  Genetic perfection dressed in expensive attire, coiffed, 
painted and lighted by the best in the business and then having one moment
of that perfection frozen in time is tough stuff for a "mere" living woman
to compete with.  No we don't have to, but we're not going to be praised
for refusing to compete, we'll be suspect.  Remember the Cathy comic where her
long skirt caused men not to praise her for not competing in the race for male
favor, but caused men to suspect her of simply not being good enough.  The atti-
tude satirized by the comic is a common one whether you personally hold it or 
not because if it weren't, you'd see a lot more women in comfortable shoes 
than you now do.  Porn keeps us dancing.  Not all of us dancing, but all of us
dancing faster and longer than we otherwise would. 
  
But whether men care about the effect of porn or not is the point I'm  
really interested in.  Many men, who don't really care that the effect of 
porn is a culture full of women depressed at being "only" human and hating
their realness, can and do deflect the knowledge in many ways.  They can 
label the woman who is trying to explain the effect.  Call her "uptight",
or "misguided", or "militant" or whatever. 

Another way to avoid hearing about the effect of porn on women is to hide 
behind the government which of course is and always has been "pro-male".  
This is the "constitutional right" argument.  It's your right to have and 
enjoy porn, yes.  But it's also your right to copulate and defecate.  Why 
don't men do THAT openly and rage at or insult or label anyone who com-
plains?  If you're over 21 drinking beer is your right.  But try doing it 
at your desk.

It may begin to dawn that just because you have a "right" doesn't mean you
have carte blanche.  In porn however, as in most aspects of our culture, 
men as a group tend to believe they have carte blanche over women as a 
group and so they tend to feel they have no obligation to listen to the 
complaints and those who DO listen tend to feel they are doing women a 
favor since they know they don't really HAVE to listen.  

I'm sure many men feel that women can dislike Playboy all we want.  I'm 
getting that feeling from some of the male replies right here who seem to 
be taking a stand by proudly announcing their participation in the porn 
industry, (even as they include the disclaimer that THEIR porn isn't 
REALLY porn).

They don't feel any obligation whatsoever to the women sharing the planet 
with them and that's an interesting point.  It seems like many feel, "If 
you don't like it fine.  That's your right.  Now excuse me, the latest issue
just arrived.  See ya!"
    
The idea that what men want goes no matter WHAT women want is what I really
believe is at the basis of this argument.  If someone I cared about told 
me something I did bothered them, I doubt very much I would waste a whole 
lot of time on their right to be bothered or my right to engage in the be-
havior - unless I DIDN'T care.  
    
Caring is the key.  Since many men's reaction is to argue with  women's 
right to be bothered by the images, or women's right to rain on men's
cottontail parade I can't help but suspect they just don't really care.  

And why should they?  Would YOU walk out of a guy's apartment because he 
had a stack of skin mags on the back of the john?  Because we've been con-
ditioned to think that "boys will be boys", (another self-serving myth men
want women to believe), and to bear our pain at being "only real" silently,
most of us wouldn't.  We might cringe, try not to look, the more outspoken 
among us may try to start a dialogue about it, (even knowing we'll probably 
get nowhere!), but the average woman would probably sigh and stay.  Maybe 
that's what needs to change.  
 
We need to put our bodies where our mouths are.
    
As long as men still get what they want from women, what motivates them to 
stop treating women any way they please?  This notesfile?  

We have the power in this but we can only exert it the only place women have 
any influence and that is over owr own men.
    
Words in this notesfile by faceless women are not going to change the 
behaviors of the faceless men who read them.  There is simply no moti-
vation that is stronger than the fantasy of women.  Especially not the
reality of women.  But on a one-on-one basis, (pun intended!), women have all 
the power.
 
Even happily deluded guys who consider themselves "sophisticated" because
they read porn occasionally have to have a real woman.  We all have the power 
to dictate our terms.  Since we no longer have to settle for whatever men want 
to dish out, we really have less to complain about than our mother's generation
did.
    
If women only slept with men who had pink cars, pretty soon you'd
see a lot of pink cars on the road.  As long as we tolerate an industry
that tells and shows both men and women that "real" women are inferior 
specimens because they have pores and adipose tissue and other "yucky" 
things like men do, we have only ourselves to blame.  And by accepting it 
in the men we sleep with we are "tolerating" it by giving them what they want
without getting what we want - respect as a human.

We're going to be the generation caught in the middle of this one too, but
somebody's gotta do it.  We're going to be labelled by our male peers 
whose fathers maintained a paper harem and whose mothers had to shut up and
still get them dinner.  It's no surprise that men who were brought up to believe
that objectifying women is not only their right but one of the main measures
of maleness are going to be rather annoyed that the rules have changed.
The truth is that it never had anything at all to do with "right" but that 
their mother's generation of women were simply bulldozed into accepting it
by economic inferiority.

Nothing but women will motivate men to change.  The status quo is just too 
"lovely", too "tasteful" too "artistic" for them.  Real women can easily be 
written off as just boring whiners and complainers who have moles and pores 
and adipose tissue anyway.  Sort of like the way we've been written off in
this issue every time we've discussed it here.

    Someone mentioned that Playboy is ok porn because it's well done (high
    production values and that sort of thing). I don't think that that's a
    justification for it. All I can think of is a scenario like, "Well,
    yes, we're going to kill you, but we're not going to hack you to bits,
    we'll just kill you quickly and quietly. It'll be a murder well done."
    That doesn't quite cut it for me. It doesn't matter how it's packaged,
    it is dehumanizing.

    What does Playboy present? Women with "perfect" bodies. Well, no one's
    really like that. It shows women who are always there for the reader's
    sexual/fantasy use. That's not realistic, either. 
    
    Don't people learn from what they are exposed to? Isn't that how people
    pick up speech patterns, or preferences in fashion, or moral outlooks?
    Is it right for this magazine to present men with this ENTIRELY false
    view of women, so that this is what they learn? 
    
    What do 15-year old boys learn when they walk into a Store 24 and see
    dozens of different "girlie" magazines behind the counter? That there's
    a lot of good science fiction to be read, or that there are a lot of
    good bodies to be stared at? Spend some time each month staring at the
    women in these magazines, and see if you don't find yourself staring at
    REAL women in the same way. That's not a good foundation for building
    relationships with real people, or even for dealing with strangers.

    					-- hs

    re: 774.46
    
    > 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.
    
    You seem to think that I did not understand that this was the point
    you were making. On the contrary, I understood it perfectly. I just
    happen to disagree with it.
    
    re: 774.39
    
    > I dislike Playboy and all it represents and anyone who says they
    > buy it for the articles are fooling themselves.
    
    Does that include the heterosexual women who have mentioned in this
    very topic that they read PLAYBOY? Assuming not, I'd agree with
    this, if it was slightly ammended. Anyone (male, anyway) who says
    they buy it *only* for the articles are *probably* fooling themselves.
    
    The point I've made a couple of times already is that there are
    some magazines that present nothing but pornographic images, and
    one (PLAYBOY) that presents the same images along with articles
    about diverse subjects. The fact that the latter has a much larger
    audience that the former would seem to indicate that the articles
    do significantly contribute to men picking up PLAYBOY rather than
    any other men's magazine.
    
    And again, I only buy PLAYBOY when there's a science fiction story.
    How am I fooling myself? Why don't I buy it *all* the time if I
    just want to stare at nude women?
    
    re: 782.2
    
    > If I want to be reading and thinking, I do not need to be assaulted
    > by sexual pictures - they are _distracting_!! If I want erotica/porn,
    > I do not need to have some wonderful literature or thought-provoking
    > articles popping in - they are _distracting_!!
    
    Very true --- for *you*. It's also true for a number of males. I've
    no doubt that the audience that buys and reads, say, BEAVER, doesn't
    want to be distracted by articles on automobiles and interviews with
    politicians. PLAYBOY certainly isn't for everybody. Anyone would
    have to be a fool to claim that. They are aiming for the audience
    that *does* want a little of everything, spice alongside substance
    (or substance alongside spice).
    
    At no point have I ever claimed that no one should be upset with
    PLAYBOY's implicit philosophy. At no point have I ever told anyone
    that he or she should read PLAYBOY. The only point I've made is
    that the average reader of PLAYBOY does not have the same lascivious
    mindset that the average read of the other men's magazines do.
    
    re:.4
    
    [nothing specific to quote]
    
    I strongly suspect that there are far fewer men that "buy into"
    the PLAYBOY image than is popularly believed. OK, I read PLAYBOY
    occasionally. Now you know me, and you know at least one of my
    SO's, and you know well that she didn't fall into the Playmate
    image. Doesn't that suggest that I'm not fooled into thinking what
    women "should" look like? That men find a certain type of image
    aethetically pleasing doesn't mean that they cannot distinguish
    fantasy from reality.
    
    Who knows, maybe you're completely right, and I'm just a one in a
    million kind of guy that just ignores the implicit attitudes and
    just takes everything on face value.
    
    re: 782.24
    
    > What do 15-year old boys learn when they walk into a Store 24 and see
    > dozens of different "girlie" magazines behind the counter? That there's
    > a lot of good science fiction to be read, or that there are a lot of
    > good bodies to be stared at?
    
    If we're talking about 15-year old boys, then the answer is that
    "there are a lot of good bodies to be stared at". I can't speak
    for the other noters, but I for one am not talking about 15-year-old
    boys.
    
    > Spend some time each month staring at the women in these magazines,
    > and see if you don't find yourself staring at REAL women in the
    > same way.
    
    I've done the former. I haven't found myself doing the latter.
    
    --- jerry

    RE: 782.23
    
    Sandy,
    
    I'm kind of confused-you don't like the image of female sexuality
    as defined by a man, but I'm not real clear on what *your* opinion
    of what the reality of female sexuality should be.  Could you explain
    that?  
    
    In regard to breasts, yes they are glands for the purpose of nurturing
    offspring.  That is their function.  I do not intend to ever have
    childeren, but here I am stuck with these useless appendages on
    my chest.  So does the reality of their function imply that since
    I have no desire or use for that function that I should then perhaps
    have a masectomy because I will not use my breasts for the intended
    function?
    
    My personal feelings about Playboy aren't negative.  I don't feel
    objectified or dehumanizied.  I don't think that every man who
    buys this magazine says to himself"Gee, I feel like humiliating
    and objectifing women today.  I think I'll go buy Playboy".  Maybe
    I'm just lucky, but I am very secure about myself, that is who I
    am and what I am.  I'm even satisfied with my body (GASP!).  I don't
    feel I have to live up to the images portrayed on those pages, nor
    do they cause me to hate my realness or feel inadequacy because
    I'm only human.  Furthermore, in my opinion, I feel that many of
    the women who pose for these pictures know exactly what they are
    doing.  They know they have what some men want to see and they know
    they will get more money posing that working 40 hrs a week at a
    secretarial job.  I don't feel that men are taking advantage of
    them-they choose to do this.  Nobody forces them.  It seeems to
    me that if Playboy offends your sensibilities, then you don't read
    or buy it.  Is that too simple?  I know there are many hot and heavy
    romance books that women enjoy reading that also in my opinion give
    and inaccurate image of romance/love and that many men I've spoken
    to feel that they are silly, but you don't see them complaining
    and telling everyone it's wrong.  They just don't subscribe to the
    material.
    
    Finally, you say caring is the key, but remember that it is a two
    way street.  If women want men to care about what they want, women
    should be willing to care about what men want.  Someone is probably
    going to respond that in effect women have always cared what men
    want.  In a sense that's true in that many women haven't wanted
    to complain about major issues in the woman vs. male oriented world.
    However, women can't expect men to change all their "bad" habits,
    nor can women expect men to readily agree to whatever it is they
    dictate in our enlightened society.  There must be give and take
    on both sides and I think communication is just as important as
    caring.
    
    Christine

    Er, I can't type: I meant note 45 (not 22; but note 45 has 22 replies).
    
    re .-1
    
    I think you'll hardly find a woman who objects to Playboy who also
    isn't proud of her body.  The image of a feminist as a woman who
    hates herself--why do we continually have to debunk these nonsensical
    implications.
    
    The reason romance books aren't objected to is that they do describe
    an accurate picture of romance, which is an imaginary concept anyway,
    and largely reinforces the Masterly Male stereotype.  (And the
    eroticism is quite meager, frankly; if you want something more
    interesting go to the science fiction section and look up Lillian
    Stewart Carl).
    
    Yes, you can get paid more money if you bare your breasts.  Hinting
    at them can even do you some good on job interviews.  Is this a
    good thing?  Yes, you can be conscious of using your breasts on
    interviews, but do you really want to be valued more for the fantasies
    in your interviewers minds than in your own work abilities?
    
    What is real feminine sexuality?  Well, in my case, it doesn't wait
    at home, just as Coco Taylor says.  But then it doesn't parade around
    in notesfiles, either.

    Lisa,
    
    I did not say that a feminist hates herself-I was responding to
    Sandy's saying that because of Playboy women hate their realness
    and feel inadequate for being only human (relating to the conversation
    where men imagine all women are/should be like the models and because
    of this we shouldn't sweat, pass gas, etc).  I did not say that
    no woman should object to it.  I stated my personal opinion that
    I don't have any problem with Playboy and I just don't agree with
    what much of yourself and Sandy and others have said.  Different
    perspectives-that's all.  I wasn't under the impression that to
    respond to a note you had to be in total agreement with the majority
    of the writers here.  Guess I learned a lesson.
    
    Christine

    I have fought with several men on the porn issue. My ex kept St.Pauli
    girl posters on his wall that showed more tit than beer. One night,
    I and several female guests made a consensus decision and ripped
    them to shreds. Vandalism , yes, but I'll never regret it. I made
    him throw out the skin flicks the day I found them. He nearly cried,
    but did so. I remember finding one in the apartment of someone I
    dated VERY briefly. I threw it in a dumpster.
    
    Anyone who is getting the real thing has no excuse for keeping those
    magazines around. I'm better because I'm real. And this is part
    of the price for dating me. Most men haven't really complained.
    
    However, I also recognize that men are "supposedly" more visually
    stimulated, and there is a market for these magazines. Well, if
    you can't like 'em, join 'em. Why not create a magazine of real
    women. Call it "Real Women". And have real women, in all ages, sizes,
    colors, photographed "in situ". Not posing, but captured in motion.
    Not air brushed, "skinnied" or compromised. But presented as we
    are. After all, real women have appealed to men for years. It shouldn't
    be so hard to show the "inner" beauty or REAL women. I think if we 
    don't replace the image, we're not doing anything but complaining.
                                                      
    Let me know if this doesn't make sense.
    
    LKF

    re .29 Ren's "Real Women" Mag
    
    Oooooh, I love it!  We'd find the women _we_ think are beautiful,
    those some of our best men-friends think are beautiful, and show
    them as they _are_, in all their glory.
    
    I can think of so many womannoters I'd nominate...
    
    Lee

    Christine, are you saying you don't like it when people disagree
    with you?  Thanks for the clarification on my misunderstanding,
    but good grief, cut out the paranoia:
    
    > I wasn't under the impression that to respond to a note you had to 
    > be in total agreement with the majority of the writers here. 
     
    I also believe you're misunderstanding Sandy, but probably she's
    better at clarifying that.

    
    	RE: to Sandy
    
    	 Sandy, so what is your opinion on male models?  I mean
    	very few REAL MEN that I know have every single hair in
    	place, always have the correct amount of sweat on their
    	bare chest, etc.   Should I feel less than a man because
    	each time I look at a rag I see ads with these perfect men?
    
    	 I don't read Playboy or any of the other mens rags, but I
    	don't read into it what you do. What in there would lead me
    	to think "now this is a real woman, and every woman I see
    	other than a skin mag is unreal"?
    
    	 Oh well, I guess I just learned I'm not a real man because
    	I don't look like the males pictured in ads, sigh... Darn,
    	after 41 years of thinking I was a man, now I'm really
    	depressed..
    

    This is ridiculous-no I'm not paranoid and resent the implication
    of such a statement.  My impression when I read *your* note was
    that you didn't like someone who disagreed with your views.  The
    reason I don't participate here much is because often times I don't
    agree with things, and through reading past notes, there seems to
    be an intolerance of differing opinions here.  

    Re .32, but, you can turn on your TV and newscasters, and TV stars
    and even rock musicians who do look like real people.  Male politicians
    look like real people.  Last week I bought a copy of Preview or
    Premier (I forget which is the name), but it's a magazine about
    movies.  On the cover of this magazine are Robert Duvall, Sean Penn
    and Dennis Hooper.  As I looked at the photo of these three famous
    movie stars I realized that all three of these men are homely!!!!
     But, yet they're famous stars on the cover of a national magazine.
     When would you ever see 3 homely women on the cover of a national
    magazine????  It seems to me that the media is full of gorgeous
    women and average to homely looking men (with a few minor exceptions).
     But, when I look around me on the street or at work most of the
    men AND women I see are high-average to downright ugly looking.
     That's real life.  But, in magazines, movies and TV women are all
    supposed to be beautiful.  This means that in order for a woman
    to be valued as much as a man in our society she has to be better
    looking than a man does, and it's not fair!
    
    I'm sorry, but I just don't understand why some of you people don't
    get what Sandy has been saying all along.  She's right.
    
    Lorna
    

    re .34, I meant to say you can turn on your TV and see MALE newcasters,
    etc. who look like the average man on the street.  Their female
    counterparts, however, are usually far better looking than the average
    woman on the street.  To me it is clear that it is more important
    in our society for a woman to be good looking than it is for a man.
    
    Lorna
    

    Lorna, picture a magazine with Bette Midler, Cher, and Meryl Streep
    on the cover. Three "famous movie stars" who could be considered
    rather homely. Or "real". 
    

    in re .33 It looks like a bit of mutual misunderstanding here.
    Let us all try and remember that a expressing a different opinion
    is everyone's right. We should all be careful to distinguish between
    honest disagreement on a subject and intolerance of differing opinions.
    
    Bonnie J
    moderator
    

    re .33
    
    I never said I didn't like you!!
    Heck, I post my opinions, my own thought-out opinions, and then
    I get told by someone else I read too many things by women with
    problems.  Talk about "intolerance".  At any rate, I may not agree with
    you, but I never said I didn't like you, and I've also never implied
    that your opinion isn't tolerated here.  I never even said it wasn't
    tolerated by me!

    
    re .23
    
    No one I know would feel the least bit outraged at the sight of a
    mother nursing.
    
    Also, on the one hand you tell us how prudish we are about sex,
    yet on the other hand you bash men for having a sex drive. 
    I certainly wouldn't want my sex drive to be yours or any woman's
    problem. On the other hand, I cannot relate to all the Puritan
    ethic you say we have. 
    
    Seems to me you want it both ways...

    Re .36, Dana, well, many people consider Meryl Streep to be beautiful!
     As to Cher, I, personally, think she's very attractive.  She has
    a lot of style.  I agree Bette Midler is one famous woman who is
    not conventionally pretty.  That's good.  But, I haven't *seen*
    the 3 of them on the cover of a magazine together, anyway!!
    
    The point I was trying to make is that the only time we see collections
    of totally gorgeous men is in the ads for designer clothes or in
    Playgirl, but elsewhere in the media average looking and homely
    men often make it big.  But, conventionally beautiful women are
    plastered all over the place!  
    
    Lorna
    

    Christine, I agree with you 100%!  
    
    I'm don't see anything wrong with Playboy.  Why should I when Cosmo
    has pictures of beautiful models that show large breasts!  C'mon...and
    how many women have I seen with scantily clad guys in their lockers
    or office or homes....how about those Male model calendars of the
    month!  
    
    If you like it there is nothing wrong with it - it's an opinion!
    
    We are all individuals!  If you don't like it - don't buy it, watch
    it or do it!  It's up to the person.
    
    Christine is right when she said those girls know exactly what they
    are doing when they are posing for nude pictures....just as men
    do when they do it.  
    
    I know this is a hot button for a lot of woman.....but realize to
    you can't change people by yelling at them or forcing them to see
    your viewpoint.  
    
    Alot of men I know that read playboy don't treat woman in a
    dehumanizing way or look at them as just objects.  
    
    My opinion,
    
    Bobbi
    

    > Christine is right when she said those girls know exactly what
    > they are doing when they are posing for nude pictures....just as
    > men  do when they do it.  
    
    It's WOMEN who pose.  Or if you must patronize, it's boys who pose.
    

Re: .23

Sandy,

	I enjoyed your note very much, thank you for taking the time.  Your
note goes a long way toward the goal of articulating women's negative reaction
to pornography.

This is not to say, of course, that I agree with all of your analysis or
assumptions.  I don't know how many of your ideas I can address without
talking too much about what men have to go through to fill the other
side of the role imposed by the same society.  I think I could use some
parts of your argument to support my own picture of the reality of male-female
relationships in our society.

I'd like to address the issue that women's views on porn have been written
off.  I can't speak for all men, but for me, you must show that you understand
the male side of the sex roles in our society before I can trust your judgment
on how things should be changed.  I don't get the feeling that you do
understand from your note (although you may think that you do).

An example of this kind of problem can be seen in the case of India and its
"Cow culture".  A group of scientific men decided that they could help out
the people in India by providing them modern western Cows that had been
bread to produce more milk.  Their limited understanding of the Indian Cow
Culture made this action look like a desirable change.  The reality was
quite different.  The western cows did not fit into the system at all
and ended up doing much more harm than good.

I get the same feeling when I read your ideas about changing our society.
You have to show me that you understand how men fit into the system and
show how your change in the system is workable for men.  Part of the
reason I read and write here is to make sure that I understand how the
system works (or doesn't work) for women.

Addressing most of your other points would require that I explain my own
view of the would.  I'm not sure that this is the right form to go into
too much depth on the male role.

Re: .25 Jerry
                         
If you examined the circulation figures for both sf magazines and Playboy
I would bet that you would find that the circulation of the sf mag was very,
very much smaller than that of Playboy.  The two top selling magazines bought
by men are Playboy and Penthouse.  You must conclude that the reason for
this is because of what they have in common rather than some other factor.
If the top sellers were an sf mag and Playboy and the latter's sales varied
based on the sf content, then I would concede your point.

Re: The lack of good looking men in advertisements
    
    Advertisers know that they can manipulate men by showing pictures
    of great looking women.  They can manipulate some of the women with
    the same images because of the reasons that Sandy talked about in
    .23.  The reason that you don't see as many great looking guys is
    because advertisers know that a man's looks don't carry much weight
    with either men or women.  It is abundantly clear that men are much
    more visually oriented and, therefore, vulnerable.  You can see this
    is true even if you factor out sexual preference.  There is much
    more visual pornography directed at gay men then there is for gay
    women.  In fact, if it wasn't for the business of gay men, Playgirl
    could not break even.
    
        				       	MJC O->

    

    re: "hunks & pieces" in the media (sort of a digression from the
    Playboy/porn discussion, but I'm feeling irresponsible. . .)
    
    When I think back over the last 20 years or so, it seems to me that
    the general trend over the last few has been towards more "real"
    people.  While it's true that many men, women, and children presented
    by the media are, in some fashion, "pretty", I think that it's becoming
    increasingly more possible to be (media) successful with less than
    cover person looks.
    
    One standard of measurement I use in forming this opinion is how
    the "romantic lead" looks.  There was a time when neither Walter
    Mathau (sp?) nor Sally Field would have been considered for a 
    romantic leading role.  This isn't to deny that, in general, the
    media presentation of women has been more lopsided (towards "pretty")
    than that of men; simply that things seem to be changing somewhat.
    
    Personal aside: the fact that Phil Collins can make it big in the
    (rock) entertainment industry fills me with hope; usta be if ya
    didn't look like Fabian, Frankie, or Bobby, particularly tonsorialy,
    well, tough luck pal.  On the women's side Nancy Wilson (of Heart)
    ain't doing so bad, either.
    
    Steve
    
    

    re:.43
    
    �If you examined the circulation figures for both sf magazines
    and Playboy I would bet that you would find that the circulation
    of the sf mag was very, very much smaller than that of Playboy.
    The two top selling magazines bought by men are Playboy and
    Penthouse.  You must conclude that the reason for this is
    because of what they have in common rather than some other factor.
    If the top sellers were an sf mag and Playboy and the latter's
    sales varied based on the sf content, then I would concede your
    point.�
    
    Yes, the circulations of ANALOG and ISAAC ASIMOV'S SF MAGAZINE are
    much smaller than PLAYBOY. So what? So are the circulations of
    ATLANTIC, NATIONAL REVIEW, and CAR AND TRACK. And more importantly
    (I wish I didn't have to belabor this point): SO ARE THOSE OF THE
    OTHER MEN'S MAGAZINES. Doesn't this tell you that there *has* to
    be something more than photos of large-breasted women that get
    people to buy PLAYBOY?
    
    OK, so what do PLAYBOY and PENTHOUSE have in common? The first,
    obvious response that comes to mind is "feelthy peectures". But
    that isn't all. PLAYBOY and PENTHOUSE publish a *variety* of
    material on diverse subjects. It's the cumulative effect of these
    different interests that boosts the circulations of those two
    magazines to where they are.
    
    If the readership of PLAYBOY was interested in nothing more than
    tits 'n' clits, the circulation figures of PLAYBOY and CAVALIER
    would be the reverse of what they are now, because the latter
    would give them more of what they wanted than the former.
    
    --- jerry

    re: better looking women appearing in ads, with average looking
    men....
    
    I once heard someone remark..."Men can just settle for being clean,
    women have to go and try to be pretty..."
    
    It made me think.
    
    Also, not to spin off another fireball from the flamage machine,
    how (if in any way) does the Playboy Channel on Cable TV change
    this discussion.  Now that any-and-all men who have the money and
    desire can not only have pictures of these beautiful naked women,
    but they can watch them move in the most curious ways...(I don't
    watch it, but perhaps someone else out there can tell me
    what goes on if they have ever watched it)

    I also heard, somewhere around 1983, that male centerfolds posing
    for beefcake magazines earn about twice as much per "layout" (pardon
    the pun) than women centerfolds in the cheesecake mags.
    
    -Jody
    

    RE: .46
    
    > I also heard, somewhere around 1983, that male centerfolds posing
    > for beefcake magazines earn about twice as much per "layout" (pardon
    > the pun) than women centerfolds in the cheesecake mags.
    
    Jody, that's because it's twice as *hard* to keep *up* the good
    work. :-) :-)
    
      Alan

    I had Playboy Channel in a package deal when I first got cable.
    
    *YAWN*  *STRETCH* *YAWN* *ZZZZZZ*
    
    BORING, BORING, BORING
    
              and
    
    SEXIST, SEXIST, SEXIST
    
    Everything totally male-oriented: black garter belts, etc. positions
    were either (George Carlin's favorite ;-) ) missionary, or
    male-oriented variety. Women under the desk of male exec, secreatry
    brings coffee and gets...er....well, you know...
    
    All female body parts in living color - no male body parts shown.
    <ahem>
    
    ...just regular ol' garden-variety B-grade dirty movies on TV...
    
    *SNORE*
    
    --DE
    

    re: -.2
    
    That's another difference between softcore pornography for males
    and females.  Men get to see the pictured women in a full state
    of arousal.  A man in a "full state of arousal" would qualify as
    hardcore porn, hence Playgirl et al. must show the men "nearly there"
    and looking disinterested, or must hire extremely well endowed men
    so it looks large enough to evoke whatever feelings it is supposed
    to evoke.
    
    Pardon the euphemisms, and hope nobody's offended
    
    -Jody
    

    Re: .10
    
    Don't apologize!  You presented an honest opinion.  I don't believe
    you intended to offend anyone.  You haven't done anything to apologize
    for.  You are not responsible for the way other people react to
    your honest opinions.
    
    Re: 774.46
    
    Ah, the all-or-nothing view of the world.  If it contains *some*
    pornography, it is *all* pornography - even the interviews and articles
    and fiction, which contain no pornographic content.  Guilt by
    association, I guess.
    
    That kind of intellectual laziness really annoys me.
    
    Re: in general
    
    Men admire attractive women.  Women admire attractive men.  Right?
    Ogling is a natural phenomenon.  Right?  So what exactly is offensive
    about men ogling women in magazines?  The ogling is natural.  So,
    is it the women that are offensive?  Is it the idea of a woman saying
    (in so many words - or actions) "Hi, ogle me!" that is offensive?
    Is it the idea that men deliberately find women to ogle, rather
    than waiting for an ogling opportunity to cross their paths, that
    is offensive?
    
    (For clarity's sake, let's define "ogle" as a lingering and
    appreciative examination with no attempts at interaction.  A "leer"
    is like an "ogle" except it has the interactive element of expressing
    appreciation/interest/lust.)
    
    The women presented in Playboy and other magazines aren't necessarily
    what everyone finds attractive.  Right?  But sales are good - so
    they must be attractive to a large number of people.  Well, no one
    ever said that the American buying public was a good judge of real
    quality.  Chacun a son gout.  De gustibus non est disputandum. 
    When it comes to quality, there is no final authority beyond personal
    taste.

I can hardly wait to let me greedy little fingers do the typing here.

First off, Sandy, thank you for the time, effort, thought, emotion, study you 
put in to your note.  It's obvious that a lot of you went in to it; a lot of 
thought over time.  I understand what it is like to look at a group of people 
(in this case, women) and want to save them from what you perceive as a threat 
to them.  But, they have to want to be saved; the most you can hope for, is to 
save yourself, and if you gain support along the way, rejoice.  Considering 
your belief system and values, I would say that it's the women, not the men, 
who are your biggest enemy; the women who allow what you abhor.  We have to 
allow it in order for it to happen.

Now.  Let's talk population percentages and media.

Last I heard, the number of women in our country was one-third more than the 
number of men.  Think about it from a competitive standpoint.  Because there 
are more women, there will be more women who do not end up in a happy 
relationship.  Therefore, women will be prone to use more competitive 
techniques to get a man; men can be more choosy, because there's more from 
which to choose.  Women will be more prone to preen.  Women will be more prone 
to go to great lengths to acquire the one-on-one.  Women will put up with more, 
because the odds are less.  That's the competitive standpoint, sans emotion and 
other issues.

Now, for the media.  I'm going to stretch my neck w-a-a-y-y-y out here, and say 
that, contrary to belief, the media does not represent society, nor does the 
media represent society's viewpoints, to the extent for which we give it 
credit.  We give the media too much power when we accept its renditions of our 
lives.  (This, coming from a woman who spent 5 years in the media.)  When we 
give the media that much power, the media laps it up like a hungry dog.  Go 
beyond checking out what they're saying.  Check out how they say it, as 
measured by subjectivism and size-of-ego.  Media is still male-dominated.  
Those cutsie-pies that you see on TV, in the magazines, et cetera, have all 
been hired by males.  You can *count* on it.  You bet your life that the women 
are better-looking than the men.  They were hired by men.  What man really 
wants to be threatened by a man who is better-looking than he?  How many John 
Candy's do you know who actually have four adorable, bikini-clad women around 
them at all times?  The man is a self-painted sex god.

(Aside;  Want a good idea of who's views the media represents?  Watch Election 
Coverage.  Hint; Many media representatives are Democrats.  That's the tip of 
the iceburg on what you can observe during Election Coverage.)

One-third more women than men...yet, a male-dominated media...the picture of 
society that we get from that media is *not* accurate, but there are many who 
are silent, and because of this silence, do not get represented.

    Years ago I read "Thy Neighbor's Wife" by Gay Talese (I think that's
    right).  If I remember correctly, it covers the history of pornography
    (for lack of a better word) in the US.  I recommend it to anyone
    participating in this discussion because it discusses Heff's
    motivations for Playboy and particularly the reasons for its title
    and format.  Warning the book contains explicit sexual language.
                                            
    I'm sorry I can't provide more details.  I'm pretty sure that's
    the right title, but just in case, the book I'm referring to begins
    with Harold Robbins buying (or sneaking a peak at) a "girlie" magazine.

    
    
    I think the one third more women than men figure is a "tad" off.
    
    As to all the rest of this...  I am one (of many, thank Goddess)
    who really believes that there is a link between objectification
    of women (both in the media and in real life) and mistreatment
    (from unequal pay to violence) of women.  Unlike the author of
    .51 (Genral::Daniel), I think we almost always underestimate the
    power of the media over our (presumably personal) attitudes.
    For example,  a couple of weeks ago, I went to a gathering
    of all the women in my work area.  While we were there, someone
    started asking some "tell the truth" questions, and one of the
    questions had to do with how many of us were unhappy with our
    bodies.  I was shocked to find that I was the only one who didn't
    raise her hand.  These women are beautiful, and not one of
    them was happy with her looks.  I personally feel that the
    false images of beauty that the media shower upon us have
    a lot to do with how women see themselves.
    
    I really appreciated Sandy's considered analysis of this topic, and 
    while I think that the issue of the treatment of women has to be 
    addressed in a number of ways, I think Sandy's appeal for action on 
    a personal level has real merit.  I certainly would never (knowingly) 
    invite into my home a man who looked at (read?)  Playboy or any of
    those (what I consider to be) awful magazines.  
    
    Imagine:  A real "Boy"Cott?
    
    I wish everyone  who's ever considered this issue could have
    a chance to hear Jean Killbourne speak or to see her film, "Killing
    us Softly."  I first heard her give a presentation on the topic
    of Images of Women in the Media in 1979; it really changed my
    mind about the importance of the media.
    
    Justine
                                                 

RE: .23

Sandy, I believe you are correct when you say that, in the past, in
America, "nice" girls were brought up to not feel - let alone express - 
their sexuality.

And even when they were married, women were made to feel that they
shouldn't want/enjoy/initiate sex, for fear that their husbands might
think them "sluts" - the old "Madonna/whore" syndrome.

But I guess, in today's cosmopolitan American society, I'm less aware
that this message is still being imparted to females (of any age), other
than, perhaps, by religious institutions (which also admonishes boys
that *their* lustful desires are sinful and wrong).

How do you see the repression of women's sexuality being manifested in our 
society nowadays? What would *you* like to be able to do, that you feel
you cannot?    

Also, you've mentioned that you feel women are not allowed the freedom
to "see" men as sex-objects. 

I'm repeating, below, a comment I made in the last paragraph of my response 
in .1 of this Note:

   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" establishments that have sprung up around the greater
   Boston area (and others regions of the Country).
    
   Perhaps the day of equal-opportunity-ogling finally has arrived.   

     Alan
           

    in re .53
    
    As to knowingly inviting men to my home who read those magazines.
    
    I have men friends who read 'those' magazines and I have invited
    them to my home.
    
    Also when I found out that my teenage son had bought several of
    them, I just asked him if I could borrow them and read them. (He
    was kind of embarassed and as far as I know didn't buy them again.)
    
    Bonnie

    I agree with Justine. Sandy has put the case quite well. Everyone
    on affected by how men percieve women and the cognitive dissonance
    they must experience when the "default media woman" is a)so far
    from the norm , b)always so "available" and c)totally for the man's
    pleasure.
    
    The prevasive idea that women are here to augment in some/all/many
    ways, the lives of men HAS to be perpetuated by media that portray
    women as such. Else it would have crumbled long before now.
    
    --DE
    

    re:.46
    
    Well, Jody, though I've been defending PLAYBOY (the magazine) here,
    as far as the Playboy Channel goes, I have to say thumbs down. My
    household subscribe for a month or two some years back, and I found
    it not only to have none of the positive features of the magazine,
    but the negative features were far sleazier than in the magazine.
    
    --- jerry

    
    	One thing I think never got addressed, the male dancers.
    	Did anyone ever see an "ugly" male dancer? Come on, what
    	woman would pay to go to a club to watch "Mr. Average"?
    	Don't tell me they don't go over big, every one of the clubs
    	that I know that feature male dancers are packed... and BTW,
    	the crowd isn't males as a rule. :^)
    
    	As for the media, I don't think Liz Walker is anything to look
    	at, nor is the one on channel 5 (here in Boston). In both cases,
    	at least to my eyes, they are at best "average" looking.
    
    

    
    1. Does anyone have reason to believe that the number of women going
    to see male strippers and the number of women reading male "skin"
    magazines  are anywhere near the number of men engaging in those
    activities?   
                            
    2.  I think Liz Walker is absolutely lovely.  


    Justine              
    

    Re .59, in regard to male strippers, I think a lot of women who
    have gone do so out of curiosity only.  I know when I first heard
    of them a few years ago, I went 3 or 4 times with friends out of
    curiosity.  I thought it was funny because men have been going to
    watch women strip for years and now women could watch men.  But,
    I found it completely boring.  I found it so boring that, had the
    room been light enough, I would have pulled out my paperback book
    and read.  I can't get excited about seeing a bunch of strange young
    men, who don't know me or care anything about me, whom I am never
    going to meet and get to know, take off their clothes in front of
    me and a few hundred other women.  I couldn't understand the women
    who did get excited. I found myself imagining that they must have
    had pitifully dull sex lives if this stuff could get them going.
     But, that's just my opinion.  Nudity doesn't turn me on anyway.
     If somebody is going to turn me on they're going to turn me on
    with their clothes on.  X rated movies do nothing for me either.
    I guess I have to be a participant or I just can't get interested.
     That's why I, personally, don't know why either men or women enjoy
    looking at nudes either in magazines or on the stage.  I find it
    a bore.
    
    Lorna
    

    RE: .61
    
    Lorna, you had to go 3 or 4 times to *really* make sure you
    found it boring? :-) :-) :-)
    
      Alan

Before we go much farther, the ridiculous statistic that there are a 
third more women than men needs to be corrected -- in America, the 
population is roughly 52% women.  

Almost all of the representations of women that I see in our culture are
synthetic.  Women's sexuality as it has been defined by our culture is
almost completely a function of the male imagination.  Pornography is an
extreme manifestation of that, but ironically enough I had a jolting
"click" on that idea while watching a play considered a piece of "high
art".  

The fembots of our modern media -- poreless and will-less and taking
delight in exhibiting themselves for the pleasure of men, do not in fact
exist. If you were to truly talk to the real woman who served as the
origin of that image you would find alien creature there, one at odds
with the artificial creation bearing her resemblence. The gap between 
the artificial male-defined models of women and real women is enormous.
Many women attempt to stuff themselves into one of the available models, 
believing them to define true women: sex kitten, whore, virgin, mother, 
frigid spinster, castrating bitch-- but I've got to believe the effect is 
a kind of schizophrenia.  

The truth of women's reality and sexuality is not taken into account by
any of the male-dominated instituitions -- doctors, psychologists,
artists, writers, advertisers, pornographers.  They share similar
characteristics of inventing women, and then trying to get real women to
believe the inventions.  I think most women secretly feel they are not
really any of these imaginary women, and the gaps cover an awfully wide
stretch of territory.  The fact that almost any woman you may know is
probably on a diet because her body isn't good enough, or that few will
confess that they aren't "married to a wonderful man and have n lovely
children" are symptoms of the way that women are told that their true
reality isn't allowed. 

The hoopla over the latest Shere Hite book seems a case in point -- most 
of her survey indicated a deep dissatisfaction by women with their 
relationships to men -- most are frustrated by lack of communication and 
sensitivity, don't really enjoy sex, etc. etc.  There was such a hue and 
cry that this couldn't possibly be a representative sampling, and lots 
of women jumping up to say that of course THEY had wonderful 
relationships... but I have wonder what those same women would say in a 
room alone together.  Women's private talk has always been quite 
different from their public pronouncements...  Reminds me of black
slaves smiling and shuffling for massah, while the secret reality of
these "happy darkies" was quite different.  I expect there is a similar 
relationship between the media image of women's sexuality -- a 
totally artifical, male-created, and male-owned thing -- and the true reality.

    RE: .59
    
   > 1. Does anyone have reason to believe that the number of women going
   > to see male strippers and the number of women reading male "skin"
   > magazines  are anywhere near the number of men engaging in those
   > activities?   
                            
   
    Justine, regardless of the absolute numbers involved, do you have
    any reason to believe that those women who engage in those activities
    are exhibiting aberrant behavior?
    
      Alan

    
    I wasn't making a statement about right or wrong, but about numbers.
    I was responding to what I see as an unfair tactic, that is,
    taking a behavior that many men engage in and suggesting that it's
    "ok" because women do it, too ... when very few women (as compared
    to men) do it.  It's like responding to the issue of wife abuse
    with a story about a man who was beaten by his wife.  Pornography
    is a male industry... by, for and about men, as far as I'm concerned.
    
    Justine  

    
    re:.23
    wow! almost too much good stuff in one note!

    Of course, even if the percentage is 52%, I imagine not all of those
    women bother to have any intimate relationships with men.  No one
    here's trying to imply that women who complain about pornography
    are unhappy dissastisfied women who wouldn't complain if they were
    made happy by a good ____, are they?  :-)
    
    Anybody remember the magazine "Viva"?  It was relatively explicit.

    in re .67
    Justine,
    While I appreciate the answer you did write you actually didn't
    answer the specific question that you were asked...which was if
    you felt there was anything wrong/abnormal etc with women who do
    like to read playboy. My impression is that in this string of notes
    the women who have said that they don't object to/or actively like
    soft porn are being considered unfeminist, etc etc.
    
    Bonnie

    
    There is a publication called "Yellow Lace", published out
    here, that has erotica for and about women. 

I think a main glitch in communication here is one of perspective.  I'm
speaking about our society as if I didn't belong to it.  Sort of how a
historian might at some point in the distant future or how Mork would
observe it and explain it to Orson at the end of the show.

I think some people are dealing with this issue on a personal level and
as such it's easy to take a detatched observation as a personal affront.

Unless I've specifically stated so in the text, my observations are just
that and have no bearing whatsoever on how I personally have DEALT with
what I see.  What I do or what I have done about any of the issues I discuss
here in notes is usually not part of the narrative unless explicitly stated. 
My approach on this and most subjects is strictly academic.

If someone said, "Gee, those Italians sure like their pasta", would any-
one actually think that every person born in Italy absolutely loved pasta?
I sure wouldn't, but I would STILL understand the meaning behind the stat-
ment that Italians like pasta.

I'm making the same kind of general observations here and they are in NO
WAY meant to imply that every single person in this culture feels only one
way.  Because that kind of logic seems ludicrous to me I just assumed we
all understand that of course there will be exceptions.  But it still seems
like we're getting mired in the same old scenario where someone believes that 
the presence of an exception is enough to disprove any rule.

Maybe you don't flog yourselves over the constant imposition in our lives of 
men's wishlists and maybe I don't either.  What we as individuals do about 
this issue is not something I was attempting to address but rather in which 
direction a culture can be and does get pulled by this issue.

On the miniskirt issue I took a feminist stand because I believe that's the
right stand EVEN as I know I personally have a few of them in my closet and
love to wear them.  But I believe that my personal opinion on miniskirts has 
absolutely NO bearing on the cultural implications of the new fashions.

For all anyone knows, I might have the issue of male porn under complete
control in my life and have no personal axe to grind at all but that doesn't 
mean then that I have no right to address the issue and the larger picture
of the societal implications of one sex dictating sexual behavior to the other.

I like to look at societal behaviors and attitudes and their implications for 
the entire society and have no intent, by any means, to address the motives of,
behaviors of or affects on all of the individuals within a society.


Note 782.54   FDCV03::ROSS


>But I guess, in today's cosmopolitan American society, I'm less aware
>that this message is still being imparted to females (of any age),

Yes, Alan, and I'm glad you said this because it's a major point.  Many
men are "not aware" of the pressures women are still under.  Because
"equality" has been a buzzword now for a couple of decades many men tend
to think it's here and repression was something housewives in the 50's
and before had to deal with.  

I watched Urban Cowboy for the first time not too long ago.  The climactic
scene had the actress entering a bar in an extremely revealing vest, (natch).
In the scene, NOT ONE MAN in that bar even NOTICED what she was wearing!!  In 
real life she would have been leered at, insulted, maybe even grabbed once or 
twice on the way to her table.  Once seated, some guys having a good time at 
the bar might start trying to shoot straws or ice down her vest.  At the very 
least the men in the bar would have made her painfully aware that her "sexu-
ality" was showing and further, she would KNOW, (without any man having to
tell her that night and "oppress" her directly!), that the men of her culture 
might easily tend to think she was "inviting" contact.  You know - if she gets 
raped that night it's somewhat her own fault - that kind of thinking.  And
when I say her fault, I don't mean how the police will treat her but how the
man who intends to rape or assault may well think.

This is one of the kinds of sexual oppression men don't seem to understand.  
If you personally wouldn't act so obnoxious, don't believe for a minute that 
the average "annonymous" guy wouldn't or that women don't really live among
average, annonymous men.  

And whether women react with bravery, as in, "I'm wearing it anyway!", or with
acquiescence, "I couldn't wear THAT!",  I'm discussing the fact that a woman 
is not expected to be sexual in her own right, but only as the object of a man 
or men and we've been raised to know that.

The few clips I've seen of the big glamour shows, (Dynasty and Dallas, et al),
always seem to have the actresses exposing their sexuality with narry a nod 
from the men they encounter.  No one ever talks to THEIR chests. This is not 
real life.  Most women pay just by being female.  FLAUNTING your femaleness is 
to invite trouble by those who believe the trouble will be your own fault be-
cause you're letting your sexualilty show.  

If I raise you to believe that once you grow up, stepping over this imaginary 
line will get you killed, (and my warnings have been backed up by you having 
seen some of your peers step over the line or seen it in the media), when you 
DO grow up, no one is going to have to stand over you with a whip.  You will 
oppress yourself.

And women who oppress themselves never HAVE to be told by men that they can't
do this or that because they're doing FOR men.  Women who DON'T oppress them-
selves on the other hand, hear plenty from men AND also from women who might 
feel they've been a little foolish oppressing themselves all these years in 
order to be a "good" girl for men.  The reasoning goes, "If I have to stay
behind this line then so do YOU!".  No one is telling EITHER of these women
to stay behind the line but BOTH know very well the line exists and that men
are watching very closely to see which side of the line each woman has CHOSEN
to be on.  One is "virtuous", the other a "man-hating bitch" but hey - they're
both free to choose, no?

>How do you see the repression of women's sexuality being manifested in our 
>society nowadays? What would *you* like to be able to do, that you feel
>you cannot?    

The fact that Whoopie Goldberg CAN'T tell the joke, "Every time I see a
hot looking guy I just s-l-i-i-i-d-e across the floor".  That joke's great!
It exemplifies how casual men can be about their sexuality, (jokes about male
physical reactions are common and considered hilarious by society), and how 
"nasty" and "dirty" it seems when a woman is casual about hers.

I'd like to be able to wear what I want within the few limits men have.  I'd
like to able to just get cleaned without having to get "detailed" every single
time.  I'd like my government to guarantee me equal protection under the law
that it now guarantees to every man in my country.  I'd like to be asked my
opinion on the abortion issue before laws are passed and I'd like my opinion
to count as much as a man's does.  I'd like skin mags out of the corner milk
store and into stores labelled "Porn Shop" or something.  I'd like to see
words used that mean exactly what they should.  I'd like to see only adult
entertainment called adult and strictly one-sex entertainment called so.

Stuff like that.

>Also, you've mentioned that you feel women are not allowed the freedom
>to "see" men as sex-objects. 

Not quite that direct.  Women are raised with a fear of a manless life.
To that end, women don't dare allow THEMSELVES the freedom to see men as
mere sex-objects.  We've been raised to believe men are too important to
us to trivialize.  It's the upbringing right from the start that teaches women
to beware because her culture is sexist, that she will get nowhere on her
own so she'd better toe the line and try to find out what men want and try
to fill that need or else.

Grown up women don't HAVE to be directly oppressed by men to be oppressed
in their culture.  Just teach them, (and prove it to them!), that the life
they try to fashion for themselves will be difficult and probably unsuccessful
if they don't spend most of it denying their reality and instead painting
and fashioning themselves into male images.

>   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" establishments that have sprung up around the greater
>   Boston area (and others regions of the Country).

Because that's another subject.  For right now, I believe most women are
attending these things more with the mindset of, "FINALLY I can make them 
feel like they've made ME feel", than, "I just LOVE looking at naked dancing
guys".  That is my opinion on a trend and not my pronouncement on the 
reasons every woman goes to a male strip show or keeps a beefcake calendar.
I believe the biggest reason is retaliatory and not lustfull.  The tension
level is extremely high compared to the quietly serious atmosphere in many 
female strip clubs.  I believe the women are mostly nervous but determined 
to take this one small chance at equality.  The screaming and the 
over-reacting I believe is a manifestation of this nervousness and is also 
intended as an emphatic statement to men that "Women are just like men.  See?
We like watching the opposite sex strip too!"  I really believe most are
basically bored with the show but excited about the freedom and female
comaraderie that men have always had when they banded together and ob-
jectified women.
 
I may be wrong, but I was asked what I thought.

Note 782.51  GENRAL::DANIEL 


>Considering your belief system and values, I would say that it's the women, 
>not the men,  who are your biggest enemy; the women who allow what you abhor. 

No, I applaud the women.  Who's smarter, me going to college or Jessica Hahn
going to bed?  She lives in a mansion in LA.  I don't and probably never
will.  That some women have found what it takes to be financially successful
even within the limits men have placed on them is admirable.  I still
focus on the limits imposed, not the fortunate few who have succeeded dis-
pite them.  As long as our society tells women, "boobs bring more money than
brains", how is a woman who wants more money going to plan her strategy?

These women are highly paid objects.  The rest of us are just objects.

But just because some women have said, "OK, jerk, here ya go.  Gimme the mink"
doesn't let men off the hook for imposing the limits in the first place.

>Last I heard, the number of women in our country was one-third more than the 
>number of men...  Therefore, women will be prone to use more competitive 
>techniques to get a man; 

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?  Have we always outnumbered men?
Women have always had to use "competetive techniques".  Cleopatra's Kohl eye-
liner was a "competetive technique".  I believe such "techniques" have little 
to do with ratios, although ratios COULD in and of themselves cause competition.
Rather, the techniques are more a response to male dictates by women who are
raised to fear, (and with good reason!), a manless life.

>Women will put up with more, because the odds are less.  

They also put up with more because of economics and the male idea about money
disbursement.  Few rich women put up with much unless they're basically 
neurotic.  When women are truly financially equal, I believe more than half
of them would choose NOT to play sex-toy for big bucks.  The women in the skin
mags will dwindle to a collection of confirmed exhibitionists.  Right now, 
many of them are flattered and sweet-talked into it and the paltry pay for 
other kinds of "woman's work" helps make them vulnerable to the flattery and 
the sweet-talk.

Most of them are fairly young, don't forget, and don't have a powerhouse of
job experience behind them.  It's tits or typing for many and waht about the 
ambitious ones so not want to type?  I abhor the society that offers women 
choices so limited and so self-serving compared to the choices given to men.

Few men oppress women directly.  Few really have to.  The societal machine
that raises women plants the male party line clearly in their heads, (get a 
man to marry you or you will be lonely, poor and the subject of ridicule), and 
they see the sexism in their society and learn very well to either accept the 
male party line or suffer the consequences.  And men get to sit back and look 
at the adult women, (in who's upbringing they've had NO hand), and say to 
them,  "Well, you DO have a choice, you know!".

>I'm going to stretch my neck w-a-a-y-y-y out here, and say that, contrary to 
>belief, the media does not represent society, nor does the media represent 

All of a sudden it hit me!  We, (men and women), are basically saying
exactly the same thing except we're using different words and placing 
different values on those words!

Some of us women are saying porn is offensive because it denies the 
reality of women in favor of men's fantasy of them.  And Playboy
specifically is no better than the rest and maybe even worse.

Some men are saying Playboy IS definitely "better" than the rest.  But
what is one of the reasons they are giving why this rag is considered 
"better"?

"Photographic technique".  The pictures are more "artistic" in Playboy
than in the others.  And what actually are these "techniques"?

The "photographic techniques" are exactly what erases female pores, moles,
and those other "yucky" things real people have.  Dare I say that the "lesser"
magazines may be considered "lesser" by many men because they are somewhat 
more real in their depiction of women?   The women in the "lesser" mags some-
times DO have pores, sometimes are NOT plastic skinned lolitas but real live 
adult women?   Dare I say that some of the women in these "lesser" magazines 
even  occasionally display a little sexuality of their own perhaps?

Dare I conclude that these "lesser" magazines are considered somewhat "raw"
by many men and are therefore considered "inferior" to the magazine(s) that 
takes away the reality of sometimes the very same women?!

How "sophisticated" is a man who does not really like looking at real women
and who basically admits it even without realizing it?

Yes, I believe Playboy is the elan of men's mags and I always felt I 
understood why.  Now I know for sure because men have finally made me under-
stand.  Playboy airbrushes the reality of female sexuality away better than 
any other porn mag and replaces it with pearls and lace and hair and makeup,
pink lighting and shoes and peek-a-boo clothing; all the  "props" men have 
come to respond to INSTEAD of real, human female sexuality.

Many women try to live their lives carrying around these "props" for men 
because we know they respond powerfully to them.  And, simultaneously, many 
women live their lives replacing their own sexuality entirely in favor of
the "props".  That's the message of the airbrushed images.  "I have no 
sexuality of my own.  I won't leave you, I won't demand anything of you and I 
won't look at any other guys.  I'm just here for you and I'll moan when you 
want me to, shut up when you don't.  I don't have pores, hair does not grow
on my legs or in my armpits and I have no hormones influencing any desires in
me.  My only desire is to turn YOU on.  That's what pleases me."

So I can state again that this denial of femaleness in favor of men's 
fantasies of what they'd LIKE femaleness to be has a profound impact on the 
females of the culture.  They end up trying to please men by denying the 
reality of what they and their bodies really are and that takes and enormous 
amount of constant attention and monitoring.  Shopping, making up, giggling 
instead of displaying sexual response, dieting, playing dumb, buying FDS, 
shaving, (for men shaving is still a choice - for women it's a cultural norm), 
"doing" their hair - many, many of the things women do are considered by 
society to be done for our OWN pleasure.  The truth is, it's really done to 
deny the reality of ourselves in hopes we'll attract a man.

If the non-real woman is preferred by men, and their images tell us constantly
that that's true, then becoming that of course is going to make us feel 
"better" than if we can't.  But it's not seen as women "dancing" for men, it's 
self-servingly seen by men as the "vanity of women".  Damned if you do, damned 
if you don't.

Even one of Don Henly's songs says "don't you know that women are the only 
works of art".

It's tough to be art when you're a living thing.  And many men say that's ok.
You can be merely real if you want to.  I have Playboy and the rest of the 
media to give me the "art" I crave.

Nice life, this culture.
    

    re Note 782.70 TWEED::B_REINKE 
      >>in re .67
      >>Justine,
      >>While I appreciate the answer you did write you actually didn't
      >>answer the specific question that you were asked...which was if
      >>you felt there was anything wrong/abnormal etc with women who do
      >>like to read playboy. My impression is that in this string of notes
      >>the women who have said that they don't object to/or actively like
      >>soft porn are being considered unfeminist, etc etc.
   
   First of all, I can't say I see anything wrong/abnormal with women who 
   like to read Playboy?  I'm uncomfortable with judgements like that
   generally.  I do feel, however, that reading a magazine like playboy
   does conflict with feminism.  For example, even though the article
   about Marilyn Monroe (from 774) might be described a containing an
   essentially feminist analysis, the conclusion of that analysis
   led to "hatred" of Marilyn.  Most of the feminists I know would
   call that kind of analysis victim blaming.     

   I am unwilling to criticize a woman as "unfeminist" for any choice
   she might make (whether that's reading Playboy, voting Republican,
   etc.)  However I am willing to say what I think about those behaviors
   and what I think they mean for women and for men.  

   Justine                                         

    There is another side to having Playboy style mags around.  They
    trigger responses in men because they show certain things, or describe
    certain things.  If a woman does her hair or makeup a certain way,
    or wears her skirts or heels or blouses a certain way, it doesn't
    necessarily mean she is "ripe for the taking" or "hard up and looking
    for sex".  
    
    Likewise, I've been embarassed more than once by walking when it's
    cold and having men notice that a certain part of my anatomy responds
    when I get cold...it has nothing to do with sex.  I know of a few
    young men who worked in a restaurant who rejoiced in finding reasons
    to send a buxom young lady to get things from the freezer - just
    so they could gawk at her when she walked out...and they felt perfectly
    justified in doing so - there was nothing wrong with staring at
    this part of her anatomy for long periods of time, nothing degrading
    about it, right?
    
    Magazines like this give some men the idea that there are certain cues
    that show women want it - and the fact that the women in these mags
    obviously want it ALL THE TIME isn't too realistic either.  The
    women in these magazines show NO discrimination over WHO, WHERE,
    WHEN and HOW.  This is unrealistic, too.  They might as well have
    made a movie called "sex crazed bimbos from hell who are so gorgeous
    you have to loosen your jeans and who want it all the time from
    anyone with three legs."  Life isn't like this.  But some women
    are getting the impression that that's all some men want from their
    women, so much so that there are studios near any major town that
    will make women feel/look gorgeous and take cheesecake shots of
    them with their hair all teased up, wearing revealing lingerie,
    with all the fuzzy backgrounds and satin backdrops and fade-out
    filters and such so they can give them to their menfolk.
    
    My objection is that too much focus on sex, or thinking other people
    must be that focused on sex, is unrealistic, and can create highly
    uncomfortable situations.  Sex is a component of life, it is not
    the sine qua non.  Everything in moderation.
    
    -Jody
    

RE: .75

  > First of all, I can't say I see anything wrong/abnormal with women who
  > like to read Playboy?  I'm uncomfortable with judgements like that
  > generally.

From some of the statements made in the replies to this basenote, the
opinions of some of the women respondents seem to be that there is
something inherently "wrong/abnormal" with men who read or look at
the pictures of the "perfect, plastic" women there.

Can it be assumed, then, that *you* see nothing wrong/abnormal with men
who like to read Playboy?

  Alan 

    RE: .77
    
    ...er...excuse me...may I butt in here? 
    
    RE: seeing men who read Playboy as "wrong" or "abnormal".
    
    In this society, men who read Playboy are NOT "wrong" or "abnormal".
    
    And...
    
    
    
    THAT'S THE *PROBLEM*!
    
    --DE
    

    .76:  Hi Jody!  Your first paragraph reminded me of something
    surprising I heard a few years ago.  A friend of ours said he found
    it hard to look at a woman eating a banana or even an ice cream
    cone without putting some meaning into it.  I don't know how typical
    he is, but he *is* the first person who comes to mind when I think
    of the people I know who are into porno.  
                      
    Brenda

		Everything is either
		    concave or 'vex.
		So whatever you think,
		    it's always about sex.

				-- Piet Hein.

        I wrote this rep[ly a couple of days ago and then couldn't get
        at the file due to network problems. If it seems unresponsive to
        the last 10 or 20 replies, it's because it was written before
        them.
        
        RE: 782.50

        I'm sorry, but I think that I DO have to apologize. (I just
        couldn't resist wording it that way. Sorry. Tee hee.)

        Really, though, while it is true that I did not intend to offend
        anyone, it is also true that I knew, or at leasted suspected
        that people would be offended by what I wrote. Given that, it
        seems to me that a certain amount of contrition is called for.

        As 782.53 illustrates, my conduct in reading and in admitting
        that I read Playboy, in some WomanNoters eyes makes me unfit for
        polite company. If a willingness to read Playboy is so offensive
        as to cause me to be unwelcomed in some noters' homes, then it
        seems only reasonable to approach the subject as considerately
        as is possible.

        That being said, I really would like to respectfully disagree
        with some of the specualtaions as to the reactions of men to
        reading Playboy and their brand of erotica, pornography or
        "naughty pictures" or however you care to view it. Although it
        is entirely reasonable to assume the images presented in Playboy
        will condition a boy's or a man's view of women and beauty, it
        does not appear to me that that is the actual affect.

        Personally, although I do enjoy the pictures in Playboy, and
        have for 20 years, and am completely willing to admit that the
        pictures are one of the reasons I buy the magazine, I don't
        believe that their views on sex, women, or standards of beauty
        have had a very strongly affect my own. 

        As I said in another note, my own standards of beauty run much
        more to faces and bodies with character. Mature women are far
        more beautiful and sexually attractive than picture perfect
        nubile girls. A face without smile lines is a face that has not
        smiled very much. I shall leave out the details of what bodily
        features I find sexy as I am not convinced that they are
        necessary or appropriate here. Sufice it to say that they are
        more earthy and functional than the Playboy/media image.

        Similarly, I do not buy the Playboy philosophy any more than I
        buy their image of female beauty. The whole sexual revolution
        strikes me as a step backwards in that it attempts to divorce
        sexual pleasure from love and commitment. Likewise happiness, in
        my experience, is not tied to grand mansions, the latest
        fashions, the acquisition of material goods, or being surrounded
        by people valuable only in terms of their looks.

        Now, whatever I say about myself being an exception to the
        stereotype of the "man who reads Playboy" (either Playboy's own
        image of the man of the world, or the feminist's image of the
        learing sexist) doesn't really prove anything. After all, for
        any general statement there are always exceptions. My existence
        does not prove that Playboy is completely benign. I'm not saying
        that it does. All I'm saying is that in my experience a LOT of
        men and women who read Playboy are rather like Jerry Boyajian,
        Beth Ravan, me, and the other people who have spoken positively
        about aspects of Playboy here.

        At the very least the ill-effects of Playboy would not seem to
        be unavoidable. More than that it seems at least possible that
        the effects are more imagined than real. In any event, my main
        thrust here is to suggest that absolute statements about what
        boys learn from Playboy or the desiability of people who read
        Playboy should perhaps be tempered a little.

        I don't read Playboy to demean or offend Playboy, and I am sorry
        if my reading it or the thought of my reading it is offensive.
        On the other hand, I don't really feel that the fact that I am
        willing to read the material despite the fact that some people
        object to it makes me a terrible person, or is indicates that I
        don't value women.

        JimB.

    RE: .78
    
    > In this society, men who read Playboy are NOT "wrong" or "abnormal".
    
    > AND THAT'S THE PROBLEM.
    
    So, then, it sounds as if you're stating that it would be less of
    a problem if men who read Playboy were condidered to be "wrong"
    or "abnormal". 
    
    Yet, Justine stated that she thought there was nothing "wrong" or
    "abnormal" with a woman's reading Playboy.
    
    What I'm getting from these statements is the message that there's
    no problem (at least it's not "wrong" or "abnormal") for a woman to
    read/enjoy Playboy. 
    
    But the problem comes from the fact that it's not considered "wrong"
    or "abnormal" for a man to read/enjoy Playboy.
    
    Have I missed something?
    
      Alan
          

    
    Alan,
    
    I think what I'm getting from this exchange is that I'm not answering
    your question in the way that you are asking it.  "wrong" and
    "abnormal" are not words that I introduced into this discussion,
    but I'll use them now so that you understand what I mean.
    
    I do not think that men who read Playboy are wrong or abnormal.
    I do not think that women who read Playboy are wrong or abnormal.
    	No inconsistency there.
    
    However, I think Playboy (and magazines like it) are part of a
    larger problem where women are treated as objects of male
    fantasy.  This is how I feel.   
    
    Justine

Re .74
        
> Dare I conclude that these "lesser" magazines are considered somewhat "raw"
> by many men and are therefore considered "inferior" to the magazine(s) that 
> takes away the reality of sometimes the very same women?!
    
    I see the lesser magazines as "raw" not in the sense that they
    use a clear lens and don't airbrush the layouts, but in the sense
    of how they portray women.  The further down the line you go the
    more women are portrayed as "only good for sex."  I expect that many
    men are more like me in that they would like to be able to fantasize
    a relationship with the women in question instead of thinking of
    her as only a sex object.
    
    This is not to say that Playboy does a good job of exploring all
    of woman's potentials.  Far from it.  It does portray women as
    being sexual creatures, as opposed to the chaste women portrayed
    in other media.
    
    I also can agree somewhat with Sandy.  I think men are threatened
    by sexually able and demanding women.  These are more likely to
    be seen in the "lessor" magazines.  Men would rather be in control
    of their partner's sexuality.  He can have that in a women who's
    sexuality blooms at his touch, and his alone.  A woman who is
    fully sexual on her own is free to demand that the man perform.  If he
    does not, she moves on to the next man.  Yes, I can see how that could
    be threatening.

    						MJC O->
                    

RE: .75 and so on

I started to write this before Justine replied, and since reading what 
she has written and others have misunderstood about what she has written,
I've decided to go ahead and add my opinion to the question, "Is a woman 
"unfeminist" if she reads Playboy?"

I think there can be no doubt that porn, however "soft", has as its 
purpose the objectification of women.  The objectification of women is 
in no way consistent with feminism -- it is the antithesis of feminism.  
It is an attemp to "digest" feminism into patriarchy (to use a term from
Bonnie Mann's very provocative lecture) to suggest that women can 
be "liberated" by participating in the male privilege of objectifying 
women.  It seems to be that there can be no question that participating 
in or subsidizing the porn industry is anti-feminist.

Although I am uncompromising about the meaning of this kind of behavior, 
I also do not presume to decide for any other woman whether she is a
feminist or not.  All women alive today are survivors of patriarchy --
one in four are incest survivors, one in three are rape survivors, and
all are survivors of woman-hatred. Given this base of experience, I
think we women need to be careful about attacking each other for the
correctness of our politics.  That any of us are alive and struggling to
be free and whole is a miracle and a source of hope. 

I admit that the patriarchy has affected me -- I have internalized 
misogyny.  I have to face it down and fight it in order to become more 
and more feminist, and more and more a woman at home in her own being.
I confess to secret political incorrectnesses in my heart, but I do not
pretend that it is really ok if in any way I participate in the
objectification and oppression of women.  If any woman really is 
sneaking a peek at Playboy in the bathroom, she should at least do away 
with the illusion that it is at all "feminist" or "ok".

I like to believe that there must be some way of dealing in a heathy way 
with erotica, and the sexuality of human beings.  Given that the history 
of pornography has been totally exploitive of women, I'm afraid I don't 
know what healthy erotic discourse might be like.  An imitation and 
participation in what we have already isn't it, though.

  I think pornography is more fantasy than science fiction.  And I see
  nothing wrong with fantasy, in and of itself, whether it be Playboy
  pictorials or Harlequin romances.  Indulgence in and enjoyment of
  fantasy have little to do with the problem being discussed here --
  that problem is the inability to distinguish between fantasy and
  reality.

  I suspect that the human male gender (in its entirety) wants more sexual
  stimulation than the human female gender (in *its* entirety) wants to
  provide and that this difference in attitudes and behavior is based in
  real, physiological difference between men and women. 

  Recently, a friend told me about a study on the frequency of sex across
  humanity.  The gist of it was that on one end of the spectrum you had
  male-male homosexuality, with the number of encounters as high as
  hundreds per week, and on the other end you had female-female
  homosexuality, with encounters as seldom as once per month for
  monagamous couples.  It seems to me that this difference cannot be
  explained by anything other than genetic hard-wiring as expressed in
  brain chemicals that affect behavior. 

  I can't speak for all men, but my own brain has been simmering in a
  testosterone broth since I was fourteen or so, and I think I'm fairly
  typical in this.  Remember the PMS joke that goes "PMS is a condition
  in which, for about three days before menstruation, women act the way
  men do all the time."  It wouldn't be nearly as funny if it weren't so
  *true*.  And here's another funny story from an old Jean Shepherd show:
  "There you are at the buffet, making small talk to a gorgeous woman and
  saying things like, "Of course, the trouble with Sartre was that he never
  matured..."  And every instinct in your body is screaming "GRAB HER!"

  Not funny, huh?  I think it's a riot, as long as you remember that the
  intellect can (and often must) override those instincts.  That doesn't
  make those instincts bad or even invalid -- they are feelings and as has
  been said many times in this file, "your feelings are as valid as anyone
  else's and you are entitled to them."  (That applies to men as well,
  doesn't it?) 

  And speaking of genetic hard-wiring, let's talk about those "creamy
  globes" Sandy mentioned a couple of replies back. The females of most
  mammalian species manage to nourish their young without anywhere near
  the amount of breast tissue the human race, um, enjoys.  And it is well
  known that for humans, breast size has nothing to do with the ability to
  breast feed.  So why is all that extra adipose tissue on display? 

  The explanation I've read (and it seems plausible to me) is that it is
  indeed a display, and the size and color of the nipples/aureolae are
  secondary sexual characteristics and serve to remind the male of the
  species of the female's primary sexual characteristic.  Is that bad? I
  dunno.  Is it surprising?  Only if all your thinking is the wishful kind.
  
  But understanding what is going on is how you begin to understand *why*
  things are the way they are.  And the reason you need to understand that
  is so that your intellect can be brought to bear on those instinctual
  urges and feelings. 

  I think that the basic problem has to do with the fact that our genetic
  predispositions are thousands upon thousands of years old while the
  society we live in is brand new, relatively speaking.  Men and women are
  physically capable of having children for five or ten years before
  society is ready to let them have children.  By the time people indulge
  in those behaviors their bodies have been urging upon them for a decade,
  their psyches are pretty much screwed up, possibly beyond repair.  That
  suppressed male sexual energy shows up in inappropriate places should not
  surprise anyone.  The question is, given today's society, where would
  you like to see that sexual energy go?  Be careful when you think about
  closing an existing outlet for that energy, because it *will* show up
  somewhere else... 

  JP

    Re: .23
    
    I'm a mostly reader of this conference; normally it moves to fast for
    me to keep up with.
    
    However, on reading .23 I found it to be very thought provoking and an
    interesting insight into one side of the world I know nothing about.
    
    Pete.

Note 782.85  VINO::MCARLETON
    
>I think men are threatened by sexually able and demanding women.  

I think so too but heaven help me if I had said this.  You even said
"men are".  Not some, not many, but implied ALL men.  We women get flamed
severely for committing the indescretion you just tossed off here so
casually.  But I think you've hit it!

And there's a hint in your sentence that makes me wonder if men tend to 
equate sexually able women with sexually demanding women.  Don't men EVER 
see a happy medium?  Must women either be repressed or demanding?  Isn't 
there some middle ground where men can imagine a world of sexually able 
women who are ONLY as demanding as men are?    ;-)  

>Men would rather be in control of their partner's sexuality.  

"Men" would?  Who wouldn't rather be in control?  Sex makes us ALL vulnerable.
Why do men see their desires as any different than anyone else's?

This I believe the absolute CRUX of the entire problem.  Since the fragile
male ego has never really been able to deal with fully sexual women, men
have as a result created laws and "traditions" that intentionally repress 
the sexuality of the women of the culture.  Skin mags are just one way of 
making the fully sexual, fully-functioning woman seem "inferior" by creating
an ideal that is basically child-like and pre-pubescent.  I believe this
"child-like", non-threatening ideal is the main reason women are expected to 
shave regularly in this culture.  Pre-pubescent women don't have hairy pits and 
legs.  It's so conditioned in men now that the normal hairiness associated with
puberty and beyond is no longer considered a natural sign of the sexually
mature woman.  It's difficult to imagine a time when it ever was, isn't it?  
This is probably the most obvious example of the denial of real-life femaleness.

>A woman who is fully sexual on her own is free to demand that the man 
>perform.  If he does not, she moves on to the next man.  

So then are you admitting that perhaps there is just a tad of truth to the
idea that men are horribly insecure when it comes to women and rather than
deal with that insecurity and deal with women on an equal basis they have 
instead copped out and put chains around women?

And further, do you believe that one of the biggest chains is porn which
forces upon women a male ideal which they cannot possibly ever reach, not even
the models themselves, because they are all real, living, breathing, sweating
beings with needs and wants of their own?

Isn't dangling a carrot in front of someone a cruel thing to do?  Especially 
if you know there's no way in hell the person's ever going to reach that 
carrot?  This is how porn is misogynistic.  By making most women chase the 
carrot they'll never catch.  You wouldn't treat your best friend so cruelly
yet in our society treating women this way by default is not only accepted 
but encouraged by skin mags and the entire media.  Maybe when men are sitting
there smiling at miss bunny-of-the-nanosecond they are far too self-absorbed
to realize how nasty the image appears to real women who sweat.  Try denying
some of the natural features of your own bodies and you might begin to see how 
nasty and hopeless and depressing it is to be given impossible standards to
try to live up to.

>Yes, I can see how that could be threatening.

And what threatens men is cause for action, isn't it?  What threatens women 
however, like trying to live up to photographically contrived perfection for 
instance, is not even cause for alarm.  When women feel threatened just jolly 
them around, right?  Smile patronizingly.  Call them "uptight".  Believe they're
really just miffed that they didn't get to be in Playboy!  Trivialize them
and their silly feelings.  But heaven forbid a woman should make a MAN feel
threatened!  That's enough to get laws on the books!  Get notes set hidden!  
;-)

Women have a few threatening things of their own to deal with from the opposite
sex, y'know.  And theyre REAL threats like rape and murder and abandonment -
not just silly little threats to our egos.

But porn was created to assuage male fears and since nothing has been done 
about the same fears in women, (can we even ADMIT women have them?), it's ob-
vious that our society believes that MALE fears are of course, worse - 
more important - more serious - harder to bear - more worthy of relief.  
Another reason why porn is misogynistic.

Note 782.87  MYCRFT::PARODI

>I suspect that the human male gender (in its entirety) wants more sexual
>stimulation than the human female gender (in *its* entirety) wants to
>provide 

CAN provide.  Don't forget that unlike men, women get pregnant, vaginal in-
fections, and "reputations" from sex.  This is enough to make a young girl 
curb her natural appetites.  Women just get good at it because they have to.
I don't think women "want" sex any less than men.  Women have just always had 
far weightier consequences from it and therefore are forced to think twice 
where a male doesn't have to.

>and that this difference in attitudes and behavior is based in real, physio-
>logical difference between men and women. 

Most men I talk to really believe this drivel.  If sex for YOU meant the
things it does for women, you'd be far less "at the ready" too dispite your
raging male hormones.  Here's another myth you men get to believe only by
ignoring the the reality of women.  

Men are biologically driven to mate with as many women as possible in order to 
spread their genes as far as possible.  To that end, many men feel that phil-
andering is natural for men.  Since women only have a finite number of off-
spring they can bear in their lifetimes, (and since bearing them puts them in 
a more dependent state), women must be more choosy when they mate.  That's all 
very nice and it serves the male ego well IF you stop right here which is what 
our culture does.

In real life, however, what is denied is the female cycle and its relationship
to her behavior.  When ovulating, female primates are rabidly sexual, mating
with males again and again to the exclusion of everything else.  Female chimps
in heat leave the clan and go off by themselves with many of the males and
don't return for days.  Offspring are ignored, food is sometimes ignored.

Human females too experience heights of desire concurrent with certain times
in their cycles.  Therefore, both men and women experience intense degrees
of sexual desire but traditionally, women's has been ignored at best, denied
at worst.  Males may have a desire for high frequency but only females have 
both the desire AND the capacity for it.  I believe this female capacity is the
real basis behind the male fear of female sexuality.  Women can and do outlast
and exhaust men routinely.

Because men tend to measure manliness by the ability to bed and "satisfy" 
women, men cannot have a culture full of women taking lover after lover at 
their own whims.  So to keep men feeling "manly" and good about THEMselves, 
women are repressed sexually and made to feel lousy about THEMselves.  As part
of that repression of women, (and the concurrent buildup of males as the TRUE
sexual creatures of the planet), women are continually bombarded with pictures
of women who are basically children with breasts, hairless, cool, non-sexual 
and detatched, and made to feel inferior for being hot-blooded adult women.  
Nice guys - or should I say, nice boys.  And we shouldn't be angry about it?

>The females of most mammalian species manage to nourish their young without 
>anywhere near the amount of breast tissue the human race, um, enjoys.  

I dunno, cows got quite a bit there...

>And it is well known that for humans, breast size has nothing to do with the 
>ability to breast feed.  So why is all that extra adipose tissue on display? 

So men can fantasize about it.  There fantasies have nothing to do with their
ability to breast feed.  I don't see how you are connecting these two things.

>By the time people indulge in those behaviors their bodies have been urging 
>upon them for a decade, their psyches are pretty much screwed up, possibly 
>beyond repair.  That suppressed male sexual energy shows up...

What about the supressed female sexual energy?  Where does that fit in your 
explanation?  I didn't see anything in your note talking about the repressed
female sexual energy.  Don't you believe it exists?  Or do you believe it exists
but just isn't worth talking about?  Is this omission significant in a dis-
cussion that is centering around the fact that female sexuality is routinely
denied in this culture?

>The question is, given today's society, where would you like to see that 
>sexual energy go?  

Full tilt between consenting adults.  What's so difficult about this?

>Be careful when you think about closing an existing outlet for that energy, 
>because it *will* show up somewhere else... 

I have a feeling that again you're only speaking about male sexuality.  No
one seems to worry about closing women's sexual outlets.  We're just told to 
keep our knees together and no backtalk.  Apparently there is no fear that it 
will show up somewhere else.  Unless you count the neuroses that are many times
more common for women than men.  Or you think about depression which strikes 
MANY more women than men.  Or a negative self-image - low self-esteem - self-
loathing, etc.  

Why aren't these kinds of results seen as something we need to be careful about
before we just go and tell young girls with raging hormones to just stay home 
like "good girls" and wait for men to pick them out to marry?  Women and their 
lives can be tossed on the trash heap so easily.  When dealing with men and 
their lives, however, one must "be careful".

Heavy sigh.

>  I suspect that the human male gender (in its entirety) wants more sexual
>  stimulation than the human female gender (in *its* entirety) wants to
>  provide and that this difference in attitudes and behavior is based in
>  real, physiological difference between men and women. 

I disagree that these observable differences between women and men are 
necessarily the result of genetic hard-wiring.  As a female, my hormones 
have been sizzling most of my life.  I realize that a single sample does 
not invalidate the statistically signficant behavior of a group, but I
really don't believe that the root problem is that men want it and women
just don't want to give it. 

Men have been taught (the line between biology and culture is very vague 
here) to want to F**K as much as possible.  This behavior seems to have 
very little to do with the other person involved, except insofar as s/he 
is a source of sexual stimulation.  Whether s/he can play Bach and reads
Sartre is quite irrelevant.  What most men call "sex", most women would 
barely qualify as more than a slight genital irritation.

Women are subject to so much contradictory conditioning about sex, it's 
amazing they can have any at all, or enjoy it at all.  There are 
centuries of conditioning that nice girls just lie back and think of 
England when forced to perform their duty.  In these sexually
"liberated" times,  women's sexuality is still defined by the male
imagination.  A woman is expected to be little more than an animated
party doll.  She still gets told that a lot of the sexual behavior she
may like is "immature", and she should get her greatest satisfaction
from whatever most satisfies the man.  Add to this the pressure that
causes most women to dislike their imperfect bodies and their "yicky"
genitilia, and it's not a wonder than many women are walking around with
mental clitoridectomies. 

Since women aren't encouraged to explore their sexuality on their own,
few have a strong sense of what they want, that it is legitimate, or
that they can ask for it from their partners.  A lot of what women may 
consider the best part of sex, to a man is just "foreplay" -- something 
he has to do in these sensitive times to get the woman's cooperation.
This doesn't mean for a second that women's desire for it is any less 
than men's!  If anything, women go around with an intensely higher level 
of frustration because they have such a hard time getting it.  A man can 
"meet his needs" with a porno mag, but that isn't enough for many women.

As for the lower frequency of sex between monogamous lesbian couples, 
that's another and longer story which I won't elaborate at this time.
But basically lesbians are women, and have all the difficulties any
woman has with developing a satisfying sex life. There isn't a model of 
an aggressive partner setting a sexual agenda (for the most part), and 
a new model of true women's sexuality has yet to emerge.

    
    There are plenty of men who can and would go for real women who
    sweat and who arent threatened by pores and other real features.
    
    Unfortunately the real women are too busy slapping us for looking 
    at them out of turn. The papers ones, at least, don't glare hatred 
    at us.
    
    I have great difficulty believing that women want anything to do
    with men unless they are rich, charming and beautiful. 
    
    Yeah, women have urges too, although (in my experience) it's been
    to dash hopes and crush egos.

    
    re: .73
    this is fantastic!!
    

re: .89 (Sandy)

 I just finished watching the "Oscar Awards" which were sponsored in part 
by Revlon Cosmetics.  I would argue that the makeup industries are probably
doing more to "put women down" than any pornographic magazine.  You want to
look at women that don't sweat; look at almost any makeup advert (either on
TV or in magzines). In fact, not only do these women show very few of the 
qualities of "real women", but they advocate products which will prevent you
from sweating, aging, showing your own skin colour...

			Nigel

ps: when I commented on "Playboy"'s higher production standards, I was thinking
about technical things such as colour registration, colour purity, separation,
paper quality and so forth.  I was not thinking directly of the soft pastel
tones of the flesh in the photographs and whether it showed any signs of 
realism.  (-:

    
    re: .87
    
    Although, Mr. Parodi may not, in fact, have said this, I utterly
    reject any sort of notion that it is 'natural' for men to react
    to the degrading display of women they way they do in our society.
    

> "Photographic technique".  The pictures are more "artistic" in Playboy
> than in the others.  And what actually are these "techniques"?
>
> The "photographic techniques" are exactly what erases female pores, moles,
> and those other "yucky" things real people have.  Dare I say that the "lesser"
> magazines may be considered "lesser" by many men because they are somewhat 
> more real in their depiction of women?   The women in the "lesser" mags some-
> times DO have pores, sometimes are NOT plastic skinned lolitas but real live 
> adult women?
    
    When I say that PLAYBOY is more "artistic" than the others, I mean
    actual, real parameters of photographic art. The same standards that
    I would use to judge a photograph (or even a painting) of *any* subject.
    Lighting, camera angles, poses, etc.

> Dare I say that some of the women in these "lesser" magazines 
> even  occasionally display a little sexuality of their own perhaps?

    Perhaps, if you want to call a woman sitting in a chair with her
    legs spread as wide as possible, and her hands holding her vaginal
    lips open as "displaying a little sexuality of her own".
    
    If you think that photos of "real" women as opposed to "plastic
    dolls" is a good thing, then you might want to look up the magazine
    GALLERY. One of their standard features is "The Girl Next Door",
    in which men send in "provocative" pictures of their wives, lovers,
    friends, whatever. You can't more real than that.
    
    --- jerry

    Oh, come on, guys, how about let's not read quite so much politics
    and nasty intentions into the expression of human sexuality?????
    It's quite natural to want sex, but the tone of these replies as a
    whole is that there's something unliberated about a woman who
    wants to have sex with a man and something exploitive and
    power-hungry about a man who wants to have sex with a woman. 
        
    Well, what are we supposed to do?  What am I supposed to do? I
    don't get turned on by women, so going lesbian wouldn't do much
    for me.  I get lonely by myself. It's much more fun with a man
    there.  Preferably my man. I don't see anything to be ashamed of
    in this. 
    
    When I look at Playboy, I see pictures of [pretty] women who look
    like they're hot for sex.  I like looking at women who look like
    they're hot for sex; it makes me feel hot too.  And it makes me
    feel good about being a woman, good about being a sexual being,
    good about the potential for excitement and good about the
    fulfillment. 
    
    I'm having a hard time seeing what is wrong with, or political
    about, pictures of women who want to have sex.  
    
    It's something I want myself, and in fairly large doses.  I've
    lost track of the number of times I've been in a meeting and have
    stopped paying attention to the schedule or the functional outline
    because my innards were too busy melting over the gorgeous rear in
    the tight blue jeans writing the proposed delivery dates on the
    board . . . If JP's been simmering in testosterone since he was
    14, I guess I've been simmering in estrogen for just as long.

    But this society and its Puritanical roots has done its best to
    deny that we feel anything sexual outside the narrow confines of
    marriage and the narrow limits of male predation.  It's no wonder
    we turn to pornography, build up resentments and hatreds for each
    other, and fall into the trap of thinking that all sexual feeling
    has to be expressed in intercourse.  (Witness the note about
    relations on the job.)  
    
    --bonnie

Hey, the reason us guys want gals with no pores is cause we was all
brought up playing with Barbie dolls.

M.

    re .96
    
�    It's quite natural to want sex, but the tone of these replies as a
�    whole is that there's something unliberated about a woman who
�    wants to have sex with a man ... 
    
    Hmm, I didn't quite read it that way, bonnie.  My impression is
    that it is "unliberated" for a woman to be willing to alter her
    whole body (and make it into that of a pre-pubescent) in order to
    "please her man".  Feeling that one _has_ to become something she
    _isn't_ in order for her to be desirable... that seems pretty
    constricting to me.
    
    I think those of us who have been lucky enough to locate a man (or
    several men) who finds us MORE desirable _with_ all our hair, _with_
    all our bodily odors/tastes, who _enjoy_ our normal, adult bodies...
    well I have always found it "liberating" - I am free to feel desirable,
    to revel in my sexuality.  I am _not_ limited to hiding my hair,
    trying desparately to cover up the smell of my sweat, to brushing
    my teeth before kissing, to slinking into the bathroom to "make
    myself presentable"; these are things I have felt I had to do with
    "some men", those who preferred a woman to look like a centerfold.
    
    Seems to me that a truly liberated woman, freed from the constraints of
    a misogynistic culture, is the woman who has been lucky enough to find
    a person (person: man or woman) who prefers the real, sweaty, hairy,
    smelly, tasty woman to a child-woman, even if that child-woman were to
    appear in real life, wanting sex. 
        
�                                    and something exploitive and
�    power-hungry about a man who wants to have sex with a woman. 
    
    I think there _is_ something wrong with a man who wants to have sex
    with a child, who will try to turn a woman into the "pet of the
    nanosecond", who _doesn't_ prefer _real_femininity_ (as opposed to our
    culture's idiotic definition of femininity=childhood).  I think such a
    man has been brainwashed. I think such a man is participating in the
    exploitation of woman. I am not at all sure it is his fault; overcoming
    such societal training is pretty damned hard to do. 
    
    I _don't_ think there is anything wrong with a man who wants to
    have sex with a woman.
    
    Lee

    How unimaginative!  Just think where you'd be if you extend this
    analogy to women wanting men who resemble Ken dolls.

    re: .98
    
    Lee, I guess my problem is that I don't think the average Playboy
    model looks childlike.  Most of them look like women to me.

    Some of them may have different ideas about what pleases them and
    about what they're willing to do to attract a man, and there are a
    few who are trying to look like teenagers when they're 30, but the
    majority of them are grown women with minds and sex lives of their
    own.  Women like Wendy O. Williams and Brigitte Neilsen and Grace
    Jones who I admire and respect for things other than their bodies. 
    
    Last month's centerfold was a 33-year-old single mother of two.
    (Yes, I subscribe . . . in part because they're one of the few
    magazines actively defending free speech right now.)
    
    Isn't there something between keeping my body totally natural and
    "hiding my hair, trying desperately to cover up the smell of my
    sweat"?  Can't I get a new hairdo and put on makeup in order to
    signal my interest in having sex with someone without being
    branded as "pre-pubsescent"????  Can't I have a leisurely bath in
    foamy flowery bubbles as a prelude to walking into the bedroom to
    seduce my partner without being accused of denying my body's
    natural condition?
    
    I revel in my body, too, but I don't want to be limited to
    keeping it in the exact state nature provided!  
    
    --bonnie     

    Re Bonnie and Lee, I don't feel as extreme as either of you.
    
    Looking at naked women in Playboy doesn't make me feel hot for sex.
     (It makes me wish I had bigger tits.)  Looking at a Billy Idol
    or Bruce Springsteen video might, however, make me feel hot for
    sex.  Great looking guys with clothes on performing great rock'n'roll
    have always turned me on.
    
    I do understand with what a lot of women here find wrong with
    pornography and I, sort of agree, but if I want to read an article
    in Playboy I'll buy it and read it.  My impression is that there's
    good and bad in almost everything, so I rationalize it that way.
    
    On the other hand, I'd rather take my chances at being exploited
    by a man than to go around "sweaty, hairy and smelly"!
    
    Lorna
    

    > And I see nothing wrong with fantasy, in and of itself, whether 
    > it be Playboy pictorials or Harlequin romances. 
     
    It is a mistake to equate Playboy and Harlequin romances, and this
    mistake is of more depth than the differences between media.
    
    The mistake is in assuming that they are equivalent choices, of
    equivalent moral and political natures.  This is not correct.
    Playboy pictorials dehumanize women, perhaps less so than Hustler,
    but it is still dehumanizing.  The subject, also, is entirely sex
    (supposedly) and the models fall within a fairly restricted age
    range.  Harlequin romances, on the other hand, do not dehumanize
    men (nor women).  Men are not presented as merely desirable objects,
    with far wider range in age and appeal.
    The subject is also not limited to sex, but deals with a range of
    life choices, although admittedly, most of these choices do not
    push any radical frontiers.   To be less mealy-mouthed, they do
    not threaten patriarchal institutions, but instead lovingly dwell
    on happy choices and internalizations of the patriarchy.
    
    While both support a patriarchal organization of politics and personal
    life, Playboy does this by promoting a non-human picture of women
    and proposing a subset of women as desirable; Harlequin champions
    men as people to be cherished.
    
    These are not equivalent choices and should not be considered to
    have equal weight.  They are separate, not equal, and both promote
    the same politics.

    well i see a lot of things that harlequin romances and playboy
    have in common...
    they both have the same things over an over an over an over  again...
    
    the playboys pictures are the same and harlequins story lines are
    the the same 

    re: .102
    
    I disagree totally.
    
    I find the depiction of men in Harlequin romances to be almost
    entirely unrealistic, romanticized, glossed over, and literarily
    "airbrushed" to remove all the moles and hollow chests of real,
    living, vibrant men.
    
    And the women are worse -- they're women who so gladly accept
    the patriarchal role model they don't even want to have sex
    with anyone but the one domineering "macho" man they fell in
    love with because he mistreated and belittled them.
    
    Sorry, I'd rather be a Playboy bunny; I'd at least get some
    pleasure along with my dehumanization into a housewife.
    
    --bonnie

Re:        782.89  Sandy CSSE::CICCOLINI

> >Men would rather be in control of their partner's sexuality.  

> "Men" would?  Who wouldn't rather be in control?

The problem is that since female sexuality is repressed by the society, the job
and responsibility for sex falls to the man.  Because of her internalized sexual
repression she can't sexually enable herself.  That job is left to the man.  If
he does not have control you end up with the "All the responsibility but none of
the authority" problem. 

>Since the fragile male ego has never really been able to deal with fully sexual
>women, men have as a result created laws and "traditions" that intentionally
>repress the sexuality of the women of the culture. 

Whoa. You are awful quick to blame this all on "fragile male ego."  Later
in your reply you say:
	
        > Don't forget that unlike men, women get pregnant, vaginal in-
        > fections, and "reputations" from sex.  This is enough to make a young
        > girl curb her natural appetites.  Women just get good at it because
        > they have to. I don't think women "want" sex any less than men.  Women
        > have just always had far weightier consequences from it and therefore
        > are forced to think twice where a male doesn't have to.

It sounds like women have a reason to suppress their own sexuality.

> Skin mags are just one way of making the fully sexual, fully-functioning woman
> seem "inferior" by creating an ideal that is basically child-like and
> pre-pubescent.  I believe this "child-like", non-threatening ideal is the main
> reason women are expected to shave regularly in this culture.

I don't think that most men like hairlessness because it it "child-like".
It is more likely  because hair is seen as a secondary MALE characteristic.
Hairy woman may be seen as more masculine and hairlessness as more feminine.

> >A woman who is fully sexual on her own is free to demand that the man 
> >perform.  If he does not, she moves on to the next man.  

> So then are you admitting that perhaps there is just a tad of truth to the
> idea that men are horribly insecure when it comes to women and rather than
> deal with that insecurity and deal with women on an equal basis they have 
> instead copped out and put chains around women?

I don't think men think in terms of chains.  It is more the idea of
co-dependantcy rather then just dependantcy.  I believe that it is true
that women's sex life is repressed by this society.  I also believe that
a man's emotional life is also repressed in this society.  The only place
that men and women are allowed to express this socially repressed side of
their nature is within a relationship with the opposite sex.  A man will
shun a relationship with a sexually enabled women because in such a relationship
he would be dependent on her, for his emotional needs, but she would not
be dependent on him for her sexual needs.  All this talk about "fragile
male egos" and "insecurity" is really just the flip side of "frigid" claims
that men throw at women.  They both blame the other sex for not being able
to do the things that society has demanded that they repress.

> Isn't dangling a carrot in front of someone a cruel thing to do?  Especially 
> if you know there's no way in hell the person's ever going to reach that 
> carrot?  This is how porn is misogynistic.  

This seems a little self centered to me.  Why do you insist that pornography
exists because of something that men are trying to do to women.  Is it not
possible that men view pornography for reasons that don't have all that much
to do with any women other than the models?  I think that the negative 
side-effects that you document are very real, but they are side-effects,
not the intended purpose.

> But porn was created to assuage male fears and since nothing has been done 
> about the same fears in women...
> Another reason why porn is misogynistic.

The problems of the those with full wallets will always draw a host of
business people willing to trade-off whatever to get their money.  We
already see changes in the economy as it tries to sell to the new women of
means.  Could a product to address women's fears be far away?

>>and that this difference in attitudes and behavior is based in real, physio-
>>logical difference between men and women. 

> Most men I talk to really believe this drivel.  If sex for YOU meant the
> things it does for women, you'd be far less "at the ready" too despite your
> raging male hormones.  Here's another myth you men get to believe only by
> ignoring the the reality of women.

err...The ability to get pregnant is a "real, physiological difference between
men and women".  It sounds like you are in raging agreement.

> When ovulating, female primates are rabidly sexual, mating
> with males again and again to the exclusion of everything else.

Female chimps, yes. Female primates in general, no.  The gorilla is the
negative example.  Totally at the other end of the scale.

> I didn't see anything in your note talking about the repressed
> female sexual energy.  Don't you believe it exists?

The society helps the female repress her sexual energy.  A repressed
female is not seen as abnormal.  A repressed man is.

					MJC O->
    
        

I just can't see anything wrong with anyone reading Playboy/girl magazine. 
Heck, even my mother reads playboy if she sees it sitting around. I 
certainly don't consider it pornographic (if I did I wouldn't leave
it hanging around for my mother to see). If my SO wants to subscribe to it
then it's his money and his business. I do like to thumb thru it and see
if there's anything good to read, but to me, the highpoint is trying to find
the hidden playboy bunny on the front cover. I can only guess that what goes 
on in the minds of men when they're wading thru it is pretty much the same 
as what goes thru my mind when I see a picture of, say, Indiana Jones all 
sweaty and dirty and fresh from a fight. But if my SO gets all hot and 
bothered by it then it certainly works to my benefit ;-). I do give him
and most men credit for knowing the difference between fantasy and reality.
They know it the same as I know Indiana Jones isn't real...sigh. I'm getting
the impression that some folks would like to see men suppress their feelings
and desires. Seems to me it ought to be worked from a different angle and we
should be informing the world that we have feelings and desires of our own.

Jenna

    First of all, we're not talking about sex.  We're talking about
    porn.  Sex is not a spectator sport.  Porn is.  Um, usually.  But
    that's just one difference between the two.
    
    Geez, I certainly don't think there's anything wrong with men and
    women desiring each other.  That's what I advocate over ignoring
    each other in favor of a skin mag or a romance novel or a "Doc Johnson
    kit".
    
    I don't think women ignore the reality of men and live instead in as
    much of a dream world of fantasy that men routinely do.  Women learn
    early to see the person behind the pores because there just ISN'T
    any sex-fantasy for them except what they may, (guiltily), create
    in their own minds.
    
    Boys however begin a diet of Playboy before they even reach puberty
    and when they do they are already accustomed to fantasy as an outlet
    for their urges.  Women's fantasy usually centers around WHEN they
    will get an outlet for their urges and traditionally that's been
    marriage.  You know, Snow White's old lament, "Someday my prince
    will come".  Till then she cooks and cleans and tries to keep her
    mind off IT.
    
    Even Cinderella "slept" until Prince Charming selected her.  She wasn't
    out enjoying her newfound sexuality in any way at all.  Prince
    Charming, I'm sure, was back in a tree house with his buddies and
    a skin mag in a circle jerk.
    
    The feelings of early adolescence are powerful and associations
    run strong.  In this culture women traditionally learn to associate 
    their powerful feelings with marriage and the ever elusive "someday".
    Men, on the other hand learn to associate their powerful feelings
    with "pets" and "bunnies" and the easy cheerleader if their school
    has one.  For the most part I doubt they even think the majority
    of their female peers even HAVE any similar feelings.
    
    Is it any wonder that when they grow up and realize that most of
    the women they "get" are just people after all it's got to be somewhat 
    of a letdown that keeps them running to Playboy all the days of their 
    lives?  
    
    This same sort of delusion manifests itself in the common sentiment
    I hear that goes, "The girls are GORGEOUS there"  wherever "there"
    is.  If you live in Pennsylvania, the girls are gorgeous in Maine.
    If you live in Maine their gorgeous in Nebraska.  The underlying
    feeling is that "these" girls, the ones the men actually know are 
    inferior to the imagined qualities girls elsewhere possess.  Men
    don't realize that other place is only in their minds and females
    are females the world over.  Except in parts of Europe where they're
    allowed to grow hair.   ;-)
    
    And puleeze let's get off the tangent that "real" women prefer being
    sweaty and disgusting to bathed and scented.  We're discussing men's
    images of women and compared to that a normal CLEAN female is inferior
    because of her body hair, her functions and her sexual desires.
    
    Geez.
    
    PS:  Mr Smarmy, you are a prince yourself!!  Please have lots of
    kids and bring them up just like you!  :-)

    I musta read a different 5 Harlequins...in at least 2 of them, the
    women had
    
    <gasp>

    				PROFESSIONS!
                                                           
    
    That were, of all things, completely unrelated to sex!  Think of it!
    So did the men!  It was preposterous!

At the risk of boring everyone else with what appears to be our domination
of this string...

(Perhaps we should continue this discussion in mail and let others get some
disk space here!)



Note 782.105  VINO::MCARLETON 

>The problem is that since female sexuality is repressed by the society...

This is all I wanted to hear a man say because mostly they disagree
vehemently.

>If he does not have control you end up with the "All the responsibility but 
>none of the authority" problem. 

No, he thinks if he does not have control he ends up with no sex.  Maybe a
few of my peers in these enlilghtened times are beginning to be sensitive
to women but in traditional society men do not have sex with women to "do
them a favor" or to "help them" even though these lines are often used to
get women to cooperate.

It sounds like women have a reason to suppress their own sexuality.

I don't think so.  Pregnancy is not a problem anymore now that women have
reliable birth control.  Vaginal infections too can be taken care of.  Repu-
tations, (labels), are not female creations and they women need to be manipu-
lated by them any longer.  These "hazards" of sex for women were MADE to
be hazards by a sexist society that just doesn't want to allow women the same
full sexual freedom it will allow men.  We're slowly removing the stigma of
pregnancy, thank heaven.  Doctors are now less likely to peer over their 
glasses at you if you show up in their offices for yet another dose of Flagyl 
or tube of Monostat.  They're not likely anymore to advocate marriage and 
pregnancy as the answer to all female sexual or reproductive troubles, either.
They used to!  And it all comes from the cultural idea that every woman should 
be controlled by some man at all times - never free.

>I don't think that most men like hairlessness because it it "child-like".
>It is more likely  because hair is seen as a secondary MALE characteristic.
>Hairy woman may be seen as more masculine and hairlessness as more feminine.

And are European men then less masculine because they don't reserve "hair"
for themselves?  Do you think cave men were disgusted at cave women and that
women have been shaving since the first cro-magnon bunny looked into the
still water and said, "What the heck is THIS stuff - I look like a guy!"?  

WHY is hairlessness seen as "more feminine"?  And more important, WHAT on 
earth is "more feminine" than a woman anyway??  Male imagination, that's 
what.

>I don't think men think in terms of chains.  

I know.  Even when women tell them it feels just like chains they still don't.
How do we GET them to think in terms of chains?  How do we get them to 
believe?

>It is more the idea of co-dependantcy rather then just dependantcy.  

"Co-dependency"?  As in "If I have to crave you then I'm going to force you
to need me.  You will work, but you won't get paid.  You must dance for ME
to get money."  That kind of co-dependency?  Cuz that's what I think it 
really is.

>I also believe that a man's emotional life is also repressed in this society. 

I believe that too.  But the difference is I believe most men prefer things
this way.  They'd rather be sexually free and emotionally limited than the
other way around.  So I don't think you can compare the two.  Would that NO
one were repressed ANY way, but I believe men are willing to sacrifice their
emotional "allowance" in order to have repressed and waiting women and to get 
a bigger sexual "allowance" for themselves.

>The only place that men and women are allowed to express this socially re-
>pressed side of their nature is within a relationship with the opposite sex.

Not true.  A relationship can be even MORE constricting for a woman.  Take
the common scenario where man falls for sexy woman.  Once she becomes "his" 
he starts to squirm when he sees her leave the house in a tight dress.  There 
is the opposite where a woman doesn't want to see a man's weaknesses, but I 
believe more women allow their men freedom to explore their "repressed" side 
than men allow women to express their repressed sexuality.  And that's simply
because women have always lived only in the real world populated by real
people.  There isn't much "diversion" for women from the pores and weaknesses
of other people.

If female repression is the result of male insecurity, (and we've admitted it
is), then a man's likely going to be MORE insecure with a woman he depends on
for emotional sustenance, no?

>A man will shun a relationship with a sexually enabled women because in such 
>a relationship he would be dependent on her, for his emotional needs, but she 
>would not be dependent on him for her sexual needs.  

Is that the only trade-off men can think off?  Are you as a man content 
with getting all your emotional needs met through one person?  Why must women
be culturally forced into getting all their sexual needs met through only
one man?   (or at least as few as absolutely necessary to find a mate).

Do you think it's a sick society that represses aspect A in men and aspect
B in women so that their coupling can then center around "allowing" the other
to express what society does not?  Sounds pretty sick to me although I agree
that this is basically what our culture does.

>All this talk about "fragile male egos" and "insecurity" is really just the 
>flip side of "frigid" claims that men throw at women.  They both blame the 
>other sex for not being able to do the things that society has demanded that 
>they repress.

No.  I don't think men feel nearly the same amount of anguish over their
emotional repression that women feel over their sexual repression and further
I don't believe men believe that women are responsible for men's emotional
repression but rather other men are.  Women on the other hand, know very
clearly that they are being repressed by men for male reasons alone.  And also
there's one other point.  Men are allowed many "outlets" to channel anything
that may be repressed so while I believe they feel less "limited" by their
repression than women do, they also have more outlets and channels and 
diversions for whatever minute frustrations they may experience.

>Why do you insist that pornography exists because of something that men are 
>trying to do to women.   

You're confusing cause and effect.  Because of what men HAVE done to women,
ignored their sexuality out of fear of it and invented instead soft, little,
fragile, non-threatening ones now considered as common as real women and
as right as rain, this one-sided pornography is allowed to permeate every 
aspect of our culture and indeed take its place as the dictator of standards
in the minds of the people of the culture.  Were Playboy sold only in the 
local "porn shop" along with the rest of the porn, I'd probably never see
it at all and that would be fine with me.  I don't believe it should go away
or that it ever will.  I believe it should be called what it is and exposed
for WHY it is and that men who wallow in fantasy should not puff themselves
up with pronouncements of "sophistication" but should recognize that a flight
INTO fantasy is also a flight FROM something else and that real live women
are NOT silly, obtuse creatures who have no idea what men are fleeing from.

>Is it not possible that men view pornography for reasons that don't have all 
that much to do with any women other than the models?

OK, Ill bite.  Like what for instance?

>I think that the negative side-effects that you document are very real, but 
>they are side-effects, not the intended purpose.

Boy, I don't like what I just read here.  Women say they don't like the
side-effects of porn.  You just said you believe these effects are very real
Yet you STILL go run behind your "right" to engage in the behavior.  You
admit the side effects are there and they are negative yet you're willing
to brush them off like most men are.  The "negative side effects" are ONLY
so for women, aren't they.  And that's what makes you able to say and really
believe "Yes, BUT".  

"Yes I know you women don't like it, but..."

"Yes maybe it does make women feel creepy, but..."

"Yes, maybe it does subvert healthy relationships between real men and
real women but..."

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.  They buy you nothing.
Try getting out of court with "But I didn't INTEND to rob the store..."

No one is going to let you off on your intentions alone.  Actions speak
louder than words and they drown out intention completely.

>We already see changes in the economy as it tries to sell to the new women 
>of means.  Could a product to address women's fears be far away?

Like Cinderella, women are once again told to "wait".  Happiness for women
WILL come - but at some point in the future.  Gag.  Tomorrow is no good.

>err...The ability to get pregnant is a "real, physiological difference between
>men and women".  It sounds like you are in raging agreement.

Nope.  The ability to stay UNpregnant is now a physiological similarity 
between men and women.  In context, I was saying that pregnancy is no longer
a default "hazard" of sex for women and can no longer be used as a reason 
they must always "keep their knees together".

>Female chimps, yes. Female primates in general, no.  The gorilla is the
>negative example.  Totally at the other end of the scale.

And female humans?  What do you know of them?

>The society helps the female repress her sexual energy.  A repressed
>female is not seen as abnormal.  A repressed man is.

Exactly.  And a non-repressed female is seen as "abnormal".  And Playboy
only shows "normal" women in "normal" situations, i.e. repressed and willing
to satisfy men.  Porn is offensive for playing a large part in continuing the 
misogynistic idea that a "normal" woman is, (or should be), repressed.

    re: .109 
    
    Don't worry about it, Sandy, Lisa and I have our own little
    argument going here, and we're getting plenty of disk space!
    
    :) :)
    
    re: .108
    
    Two out of five?  What a wonderful ratio.  
    
    In about 90 per cent of the Harlequins I've read, the woman's
    profession is stereotypedly feminine -- the raciest profession
    I can recall is archaeologist. 
    
    And in about 90 per cent of them, the heroine, no matter how
    competent and independent she is otherwise, crumbles in his
    masterful arms and lets him take total control of their sex life. 
        
    In perhaps 80 per cent of them, the heroine will give up all or
    part of her career so she can be with her man, often with a
    moralizing statement that love is better than power or success --
    a conclusion it's hard to argue with. 
    
    But then why doesn't *he* ever give up his ranch or his African
    estate and move to Manhattan to help her promote her law career? 
    
    The hero is always always always older (I've never read one in
    which the heroine was older than the hero), nearly always taller,
    and nearly always richer (except for the occasional rich-heroine-
    and-noble-but-poor-boy variation, in which love never starts
    unless he thinks she's poor to begin with).  He's always masterful
    and confident, always knows how to protect his woman.  Even
    Hell's Angels don't mess with him.  Well, maybe Hell's Angels,
    but not her nuisance ex-boyfriend.

    <tongue in cheek>
        
    I suppose thousands of men have been permanently damaged by
    knowing they don't measure up to women's standards as portrayed so
    clearly in the literature they prefer.  At least if I were a man
    who wasn't tall, handsome, or domineering, I'd be real careful
    about a woman who reads this kind of stuff because she's obviously
    going to be constantly comparing me to the men she reads about in
    these books, and I'm going to either come up short or else have to
    remake myself to be the kind of man I know she wants.
    
    <tongue out of cheek>
    
    What amazes me isn't so much that there are problems and frictions
    between the sexes as that with all the stereotyping we're all
    steamrollered with every day, we manage to get in touch with each
    other at all. 
    
    --bonnie

    This is a whole bunch of random comments on this general subject:

    Some years ago (1983) I attended a women-only seminar given by William
    Rotsler.  He gave his credentials:  He took pictures of naked women
    for men's magazines.  Lots of pictures of lots of women.  He
    estimated that he had seen between two and three thousand women
    with their clothes on, then their clothes off, and then their
    clothes on again.  (~And because of this, God has given me the
    ability to see through women's clothes.~  [That's a joke, son.])
    He then stated, firmly and sincerely, that NOT ONE of those women
    was perfect; each had some physical flaw.  He had never, even
    with his special talent, seen a perfect woman.

    So, my fellow women, take the comfort he meant to give with that
    assurance.

    		*		*		*

    Now, men, you may have been wondering, how can I oppress women at
    work?  No one ever explicitly taught me how, you complain, and at
    least some of the women have gotten wise to some of the more obvious
    tricks.  Well, here's one I've had done to me:  When I go to the vending
    machines to buy a snack, a man I don't know may warn me, "You'll
    get fat."  Now, admittedly guys, you too see this sort of thing as
    rude, uncalled for, and Not How You Were Brought Up, but if you're
    going to oppress women -- and get away with it -- you have to
    stop seeing women as people who are entitled to the same courtesies
    as you expect for yourself.

    		*		*		*

    When we speak in generalities, we are customarily referring to people
    in the middle of the bell-shaped curve -- whatever attribute the curve
    is describing.  When Sandy or Lee suggests that many men may believe
    <x> as a result of <y>, remember that the men referred to are basically
    those with an I.Q. of 110 OR LESS.  Do not feel that statements like
    "I sometimes <y>, but I would never believe <x>", where the speaker
    clearly has an I.Q. of at least 130, are at all pursuasive.  (Yes, I
    think the typical noter has an I.Q. of at least 130.)

    Reading, as I have, the statements made by the murderers of women,
    makes me believe that there are many, many men out there who believe
    that women are plastic dolls for them to mold, or poke, or whittle
    and carve.
    
    		*		*		*

    Some man claimed that there were now many strip joints that catered
    to women, and that they were doing a land office business.  He used
    this as a justification for his point of view.

    In my area, there is one such place.  It is called The Golden Banana,
    and is up in Danvers.  Now, Danvers is not near me; it is over half
    an hour away, in light traffic.  It is the only such place I know
    of in all of New England.  (Are there any others?)  Even so, it only
    offers a male strip show on Monday nights, and Monday is traditionally
    the slowest day/night of the week for restaurant-like places.  One
    place for one night a week for all the women in eastern New England?
    Does this make a decent justification?

    (Have I ever been there?  No.  I had a chance to go with friends,
    but I turned it down, feeling that it would be tacky and depressing.
    My friends reported back that I had guessed correctly.  Now,
    Chippendales is supposed to be a lot of fun.  It is also woman-owned,
    so I wonder....)

    		*		*		*

    The statement that men are more visually oriented that women bothers
    me.  We are talking about that sex containing many people who
    believe that turquoise is a shade of green, right?  People who won't
    distinguish between electric blue and royal blue, who think that
    peach is orange, yes?  *That* is what bothers me about the claim.

    Or are they "more visual" in the sense that George Bernard Shaw (?)
    spoke of, ~... men can see better than they can think.~  (Pause while
    assorted readers snigger and think snide thoughts.)

    		*		*		*

    Some man claimed that he didn't know anyone who would be "outraged"
    at a woman breastfeeding in public.  I'm glad that there's someone
    in this world who knows exactly how every person with whom he is
    acquainted will behave.  I do not know how my mailman would react,
    or any of the clerks at the market I frequent, or even any of my
    neighbors.  Also, there are many reactions between outrage and
    placid acceptance.  Embarassment, ostensibly of the ~I don't want
    my kids to see this~ variety, is the first reaction that comes
    to mind.  Yes, I think, this is a reaction that would softly,
    gently force a woman into the back stall of a filthy rest room,
    "for the good of the children".

    						Ann B.

    Re: .98
    
    >lucky enough to locate a man (or several men) who finds us MORE
    >desirable _with_ all our hair, _with_ all our bodily odors/tastes
    
    I was told by a male friend in college (no, there was nothing sexual
    between us) that I shouldn't shave because the hair catches the
    "woman's scent."
    
    Re: pornography
    
    The impression I'm getting is that appreciation of the persons of
    the opposite gender (or even same gender) is okay as long as it
    just sort of "happens" - passively accepting whatever opportunities
    come one's way and not playing any kind of active role.  But to
    be active in the process of appreciation - to either seek out
    attractive bodies or to present oneself as a body for others to
    appreciate - is not okay.
    
    Re: Harlequins
    
    I have read lots.  Mostly because they're short and cheap, especially
    at second-hand bookstores.  A lot of them, especially the older
    ones, are really frustrating.  The fun part is to fantasize about
    how *I* would handle that domineering so-and-so.  Most of the women
    who have professions of some sort (usually secretaries) automatically
    give up their jobs.  Nothing inherently wrong with the idea - some
    people are happier as housewives - but it was too automatic and
    too common ("Oh, great, here we go again").  The women let these
    jerks walk all over them without protest, maybe because women are
    supposed to be polite.  They get frustrated by the double standards,
    but when they argue, they never point them out.  They attack on
    other, flimsier issues and usually have the error of their ways
    pointed out.  They 'win' through weakness - if she submits to his
    love, he'll indulge her and make her happy.  They pay lip service
    to some feminist issues, but it's not carried through.  He might
    love her for her intelligence and admit that she can do a great
    job at <profession>, but he's still sort of giving her permission
    to be a separate person.  He does it because he loves her and he
    wants her to be happy, but he's still the dominant and protective
    figure.
    
    There is a marked difference between the "Harlequin Romance"/
    "Harlequin Presents" lines and the "American Romance" line, as well
    as between Harlequins and Silhouettes (an American publisher). 
    In fact, there's often a difference if a book in one of the more
    traditional lines is set in the States.  Women are more likely to
    have real careers and to deal with men on more equal terms.  Men
    are less likely to be corporation presidents or brilliant authors.
    The settings are less exotic.  All in all, they're less "fantastic"
    and more realistic.

I PROMISE THIS IS THE LAST THING I'M GOING TO SAY ABOUT THIS SUBJECT.
I'm sure this is a relief for some of you!

I think this discussion is getting somewhat derailed and is confusing 
sexuality and pornography.  Men's sexuality is being given as an excuse for 
the validity of pornography, and consequently we have gotten off onto a 
tangent that seems to indicate than anyone against pornography is 
somehow against sex.  The key to a feminist analysis of pornography is 
the purpose it has served in the objectification of women.  

A little objectification would be harmless if it were limited to a 
casual appreciation of the attractions of a person of the appropriate
sex.  However, given the history of men and women and the nature of
patriarchy, the objectification of women is at the very heart of their
oppression.  The very first time a woman was thought of as a thing to be
used by men for sex and reproduction, to be traded as "wives" between
tribes, women lost a little bit of their humanity. Patriarchy has
continued to erode that humanity every since.

Different strategies have been used at different times through history. 
The brute force approach of rape, impregnation and physical enslavement
has given way to more sophisticated techniques.  Religion has been used
to justify the objectification of women and the rule of "law" has been
used to enforce it.  Real women continue to resist their creation into
objects, but their thoughts and experiences are continually erased from
history. When all else fails, there are the basics of sexual
intimidation to keep women in their place.  The rape does not even have
to be performed if the woman can be reminded that she is fundamentally
only a object for a male sex organ to use. She can then be grateful for
"nice" men who restrain their "urges" to take what they are, after all,
really entitled to. 

What is amazing is the slave mentality that develops in women that
makes them value themselves in terms of their "objectness".  They
compete with each other to be more valuable objects!  They internalize
large doses of self-hatred in their failure to be perfect enough
objects, and then are delighted when they get a response indicating they
have object value! 

Without the history that grounds the objectification of women in the 
source of their enslavement, women might not have to mind being a sex
object once in a while.  Gay men seem to have successful, well-adjusted
lives that separate recreation, friendship, love, and life partnership
into different categories.  Sex may fall into any of those 
categories.  The recreational kind usually means cruising/being cruised 
as a potential hot trick in the bars, bushes, restrooms, etc.  For a
woman this could be terribly demeaning, but although it may not be to
all gay men's taste, few seem to find it terribly oppressive.  I think
this is because as men their personhood is still whole, and they can play
at "objectness" without a serious threat to their humanity.  The game is
completely upfront, and all involved are playing it as equals. 

When women ogle men it is a similar kind of thing -- a person without 
power appreciating the object value of a person with power is harmless.  
Her "objectification" does not carry with it the threat of 5000 years of 
rape and enslavement. Many men think it would be "cute" to be whistled 
at by women, but they wouldn't if it were a constant reminder that they 
are objects, objects whose humanity is irrelevant because they can be
f**ked without any thought for their personal human existence. 

The root of the pornography question then, is not sex, but power.  Male 
power happens to be based on being able to use sex for power, but the 
two should not be intrinisically confused.  Being opposed to pornography 
is not being opposed to sex, it is being opposed to its use as a tool
to enable men to enjoy power over women by objectifying and dehumanizing
them.  No one who loves women can consider this an acceptable goal.
I would suggest that this male "need" for power is more the secret 
agenda behind pornography than the male "need" for sex.

I would love to see a discussion of new modes of sexuality that do not involve 
dehumanizing objectification, but I think that is altogether another 
topic than this one.

    Re: .113
    
    >When women ogle men it is a similar kind of thing -- a person without 
    >power appreciating the object value of a person with power is
    >harmless.
    
    If objectifying is wrong, then it's wrong regardless of harm or
    lack of harm.
    
    Reminds me of an exchange with a male friend.  I commented on another
    male's anatomy and he asked (half joking, half serious), "Isn't that
    sexist?"  I riposted, "I'm female, I'm *allowed* to be sexist."
    
    I can see it now:  "Exactly.  The male-dominated society is permitting
    you to have your little fun, because it's harmless."  Unfortunately,
    "male-dominated society" is something I have no personal feeling
    for, so I don't tend to think in those terms.  To me, "society" is
    such an abstract that I don't associate *people* with it, let alone
    gender.  "Allowed" didn't mean "permitted" so much as "socially
    acceptable" - which reduce to pretty much the same thing, but have
    different connotations.
    
    I certainly hope your comments about men, women, power, and
    objectification were to explain a *factor* that influences the male
    psyche, rather than to explain the male psyche.  I don't believe
    that anything about the human condition is so simple that it can
    be reduced to one factor.
                           

    (.114)
    
>    Re: .113
>    
>    >When women ogle men it is a similar kind of thing -- a person without 
>    >power appreciating the object value of a person with power is
>    >harmless.
>    
>    If objectifying is wrong, then it's wrong regardless of harm or
>    lack of harm.
 
    I'm afraid you missed a key passage from an earlier part of the
    note you're replying to.  Catherine specifically acknowledges
    that it is not objectification per se that is the problem:
    
> A little objectification would be harmless if it were limited to a 
> casual appreciation of the attractions of a person of the appropriate
> sex.  However, given the history of men and women and the nature of
> patriarchy, the objectification of women is at the very heart of their
> oppression.  The very first time a woman was thought of as a thing to be
  
    -Neil

    Re .111, Do you really believe that people with average
    I.Q.'s are more likely to treat other people badly (more likely
    to be sexist, racist, dishonest, violent, etc.) than people with above 
    average I.Q.'s?
    
    Lorna
    
    

Re: .109 Sandy
    
Maybe we should try to pull the sexual/emotional repression argument
out to mail.  I might choose to continue parts of the pornography argument
here.

>>If he does not have control you end up with the "All the responsibility but 
>>none of the authority" problem. 

>No, he thinks if he does not have control he ends up with no sex.

I think men are looking for more than just sex.  If the offer from the
woman is "I'll give you love if you give me sex" a man can deal with
that.  If the offer is  "I'll give you sex if you'll give me sex" a
man looking for a little love will decline.  You seem to assume that
men only want sex.

>>I also believe that a man's emotional life is also repressed in this society. 

> I believe that too.  But the difference is I believe most men prefer things
> this way.  ... but I believe men are willing to sacrifice their
> emotional "allowance" in order to have repressed and waiting women and to get 
> a bigger sexual "allowance" for themselves.

I don't think that you qualify as an expert on what men prefer.  I find it
very hard to believe that men would impose the kind of suffering I have
seen on themselves.  I can see why the society might do so for the good of
everyone.

> I believe more women allow their men freedom to explore their "repressed"
> side than men allow women to express their repressed sexuality.

I don't think that either men or women allow their mates to express
themselves outside of the relationship.  This is one of the reasons
for the double standard for extramarital affairs.  A woman may allow
their man to play around as long as it is only sex.  The woman is not
really threatened until he starts to get part of his emotional support
from the "other woman".  A man is immediately threatened by a sexual affair
by his wife because that it threatens the sole support basis for his
relationship.

> If female repression is the result of male insecurity, (and we've admitted it
> is), then a man's likely going to be MORE insecure with a woman he depends on
> for emotional sustenance, no?

I've admitted that females are sexually repressed, I have not admitted that
it has anything to do with male insecurity.  Don't put words into my mouth!
I very much don't like your insistence that men are defective if they
choose to ignore a woman's show of interest in sex.

>>All this talk about "fragile male egos" and "insecurity" is really just the 
>>flip side of "frigid" claims that men throw at women.  They both blame the 
>>other sex for not being able to do the things that society has demanded that 
>>they repress.

>No.  I don't think men feel nearly the same amount of anguish over their
>emotional repression that women feel over their sexual repression and further
>I don't believe men believe that women are responsible for men's emotional
>repression but rather other men are.

WHAT BASIS DO YOU HAVE TO KNOW WHAT A MAN'S ANGUISH IS LIKE!?!?!?!?!?
I DON'T BELITTLE WOMAN'S ANGUISH -- WHY MUST YOU BELITTLE MEN'S?

Most of the "walking wounded" men I have known do not have much problem with
going without sex.  Emotionally, they are in bad shape.  I would not
want you to have to walk in their shoes.  Basically this is an "I hurt
more that you hurt" type of argument that is not worth fighting.  Tell
you what, I won't pretend what I understand woman's anguish if you won't
do the same with men's.

> You admit the side effects are there and they are negative yet you're
> willing to brush them off like most men are.

I was not brushing them off.  I was responding to your assertion in
the previous note that seemed to insist that the side-effects were
the only conscious and intended effects and all other purposes were a
cover for the real intention.


Re: .113

> I think this discussion is getting somewhat derailed and is confusing 
> sexuality and pornography.  Men's sexuality is being given as an excuse for 
> the validity of pornography...

Yes, we are insisting that pornography and sex are connected.  Sex has
been and, for the most part, still is the exclusive responsibility of
the man.  Sexually repressed woman were not allowed to take an active
role.  It is easy to understand why women might not understand how
pornography fits in.

I picture a man and a woman in the basement of their home arguing over
the pole in the center of the basement.  She comes up with many reasons
why the pole should be removed, since it is in the way of some of her
plans.  Since he built the house he understands that the pole must be
there to hold up the rest of the house.  It can be removed but not without
making radical changes to the way the house is built.  Since she does
not have an understanding of building structures she fails to see why
the pole just can't be removed and refuses to believe that the house
will fall down without it.

I get the same feeling when I hear some of the arguments here to remove
pornography.  Somehow you are not seeing that it is there to hold up
the rest of the house.

> Being opposed to pornography is not being opposed to sex, it is being
> opposed to its use as a tool to enable men to enjoy power over women by
> objectifying and dehumanizing them.

Am I a fool or what?  I would like to take the stand that the objectifying
and dehumanization is, to some extent, necessary.  I think I can defend
that position but I have to decide whether I want to be that fool hardy.

It would be easier, of course, to claim that the objectification does
not exist, but I don't feel right about arguing something that I don't
believe.

						MJC O-> 




                                                   

    Re: .117
    
    .    I picture a man and a woman in the basement of their home arguing over
.the pole in the center of the basement.  She comes up with many reasons
.why the pole should be removed, since it is in the way of some of her
.plans.  Since he built the house he understands that the pole must be
.there to hold up the rest of the house.  It can be removed but not without
.making radical changes to the way the house is built.  Since she does
.not have an understanding of building structures she fails to see why
.the pole just can't be removed and refuses to believe that the house
.will fall down without it.
.
.I get the same feeling when I hear some of the arguments here to remove
.pornography.  Somehow you are not seeing that it is there to hold up
.the rest of the house.

    I *really* missed something here! Are you saying that pornography is
    what holds sex in place for men? I hope not! Are you saying that
    pornography is a FORM of sex for men, i.e. a passive one? Are you
    saying that viewing pornography is a substitute for or supplement
    to the physical act of sex? More importantly, are you trying to
    say that its NECESSARY? What do you feel will fall apart without
    pornography besides a very sick and exploitative, though profitable
    industry? This sounds like the tobacco companies trying to justify
    smoking! 
    
    I know of entire continents and civilizations that did not have
    the written word for CENTURIES. So men have existed without
    pornography. Unless the archaeologists aren't really telling us
    what they're finding in those caves! At the same time, the fact
    that we're here means that men aren't going without sex. So, why
    does there have to be a connection.
    
    LKF

I know Playboy has "great articles," but I've always considered
it a skin mag.  The only issue _I_ ever bought for an article
was the one with the Jimmmy Carter interview, and I'm not sure I
even read it.  I've only bought one skin mag since then; I just
couldn't resist the  Playboy issue with "the women of Mensa!"
("oboy!" I said... finally women in Playboy who I could imagine
having breakfast with!... but somehow the magazine turned the
women of Mensa into the typical Playboy sex toys.)

My feeling is that the Playboy "philosophy" is just conspicuous
consumption, with plastic woman toys thrown in among the fast
fast cars and expensive stereo.  

I think that Playboy et.al. are a symptom, albeit a self-reinforcing
one, rather than a cause of the repression of women's sexuality.

Regarding the repression of women's sexuality,  I'm under the 
impression that this repression is less a result of sexual insecurity 
than of economic insecurity, that is, a desire to ensure that one's 
progeny (and therefore one's heirs) are truly one's own (something 
of which the mother, of course, is never in doubt).  I thought that 
this was the primary reason for atrocities such as clitidorectomy 
and cultural objectification. 


	bruce
    

    re: .118
    
    Not to argue with your basic point, but there are very few
    cultures, literate or not, that did not have visual
    representations of sexual organs or sexual acts of one sort or
    another, often sculptured.  
    
    It is an archaeological custom to interpret these as "religious"
    figures of some sort, but all that is really known is that they
    show big mammary glands and large erect <favorite-euphemism>s and,
    frequently, copulation (oral, anal, vaginal, and other).  There's
    a note about Venus-figurines elsewhere in the file, but the male
    and the copulating figures are nearly as widely spread. 
    
    I don't know whether you want to consider those "pornography" or
    not.  This discussion seems to have accepted a working definition
    that pornography is a visual representation of nude figures that
    weren't intended to go in a museum art gallery, and by that
    definition they'd be pornographic. 
    
    --bonnie

    	  The string of "Women of _" features reminds me of the Maidenform
    	commercials.  Both attempt to show that whatever a woman has
    	accomplished in life, underneath it all she is a sexual being.
    	  This reduces all women to a common denominator, or for those
    	that applaud Playboy's contribution to "sexual freedom", I guess
    	it shows that all women have a sexual side.
    	  Linda
    		  I think it stunk that a U.S. president did an
    		interview for this magazine, thereby endorsing it.

    Re: .115
    
    Ah, there's Neil again, acting as if there were an "R" in the
    middle of his name.
    
    							Ann B.

    	  I don't have a problem with someone reading Playboy as long
    	as they realize that it is fantasy, and that they don't expect
    	me, a "real" woman, to act like the women in that magazine,
    	ready and willing, or to be like them, a purely sexual being.
    	  I think that the act of looking at Playboy pictures, where
    	the model invites you to look, is very intrusive and offensive 
    	when translated into ogling actual people, who are usually
    	not interested in sharing their sexuality with a stranger.
    		Linda

    re: .120
    
    I must take exception to:
    
    'this discussion seems to have accepted a working definition that
    pornography is a visual representation of nude figures that weren't
    intended to go in a museum or art gallery'
    
    Though, no doubt, "Playboy" would fit this definition of pornography,
    most of the people in this discussion have been fairly rigorous
    in stating that nudity does not in and of itself imply pornography.
    In fact, no one, as far as I can recall has even suggested that
    material of a sexual nature in and of itself implies pornography.
    Rather, it has been presented and argued, rationally and
    convincingly, that the representations in such media as "Playboy",
    "Hustler", Revlon ads, etc. ad nauseum are demeaning and exploitative
    of women for a number of reasons (q.v.). If you personally do not
    feel demeaned or exploited, fine; you are either very wise or very
    foolish. But you do a disservice to our sisters and brothers who
    are grappling with this issue in good faith by such trivialisation.

    

    Re: .115                             
    
    No, I read the whole thing.
    
    >it is not objectification per se that is the problem:
    
    And I'm not talking about what is or is not "the" problem (I don't
    believe in "the" problems, anyway).
    
    > A little objectification would be harmless ....
    > However, given the history of men and women and the nature of 
    > patriarchy, the objectification of women is at the very heart of their
    > oppression.
    
    The argument appears to be that it is wrong for men to objectify
    women in the present because of what has happened in the past. 
    That sounds a lot like "the sins of the fathers are visited upon
    the sons," which is not an arrangement I happen to like.  If something
    is wrong, it's because it *is* wrong, not because lots of people
    have done it.

    re: .119 -- Bruce, are you sure it was the women of mensa in playboy?
    Isn't that a trifle oxymoronic?

    Someone mentioned not going to the Golden Banana on male-stripper night
    because she thought it would be depressing. That made me remember going
    to a bachelor party for a college roommate. It would up being at a bar
    with some female strippers. Depressing is a good word to describe that.
    What a way to have to make a living.

    RE: .126
    
    I remember the issue featuring the pictorial on some of the women
    of Mensa.
    
    It was legitimate. They *were* "Mensa women" - at least some of
    those who did not mind appearing in the nude in a periodical such
    as Playboy, nor (you should pardon the pun) the exposure they knew
    they would receive.
    
    I assume they also didn't mind the money they were paid for their
    appearance (read that any way you wish) in the magazine.
    
    Playboy has done pictorials like this quite often: there have been issues
    featuring "The Women of Harvard", as well as other universities
    noted for their high intellectual standards.
    
      Alan
          

       The only thing Mensa members have in common is an ability to
       achieve high scores on standard IQ tests. Everything else is
       variable. I do not find it so strange that amongst the multitude
       of Mensans there were enough willing to pose for Playboy for the
       usual fees.

       After the Mensa issue appeared I, together with some of my fellow
       local group comittee checked that they were indeed all members in
       good standing at the request of one of the members who was quite
       outraged by the matter).

       /. Ian .\
       (member and former officer of Mensa, Intermensa and Supermensa)

       PS I would be more curious if they did a special of members of
       Densa - mainly because I'd wonder if they thought to ask for
       their fee :-)

    re: .124
    
    Excuse me.  I thought I had made it sufficiently clear that I DO
    NOT see Playboy as pornography (I can't speak for _Hustler_, not
    being familiar with it) and have not been convinced that the
    pictures in it are demeaning to anyone. I see pictures of
    partially nude women who appear to want sex.  I fail to see what's
    wrong with that. 

    I also fail to see why my disagreeing with the prevailing view
    means I'm belittling the concerns of others.
    
    Someone mentioned that the "women of" series showed that all
    women are sexual beings underneath, and I thought, "Yeah, wow,
    that's right!  We've been sexually repressed all these years
    and now we're reclaiming our right to be horny and flaunt our
    sexuality if that's what we want to do.  And not only that,
    there are women with brains who enjoy their sexuality!  Wow,
    it's a whole new era for us!"
    
    And the next sentence said that women being sexual underneath
    meant we were being reduced to a common denominator.  As if
    admitting our sexual side meant we could only be sexual and not
    anything else.  Of course the women of Mensa are sexual
    underneath.  So are software engineers, truck drivers, waitrons at
    Friendly's, and taxicab drivers of whatever gender and sexual
    orientation.  It's not the total life of any of us, but neither
    can that aspect of our personality be denied.  
    
    I have to wonder if some of the people who are so violently
    opposed to having these pictures even exist are projecting their
    own feelings of insecurity and objectification onto what they see,
    rather than observing what's really there.  Which isn't much,
    if you'll pardon the expression.
    
    --bonnie

|    Someone mentioned that the "women of" series showed that all
|    women are sexual beings underneath, and I thought, "Yeah, wow,
|    that's right!  We've been sexually repressed all these years
|    and now we're reclaiming our right to be horny and flaunt our
|    sexuality if that's what we want to do.  And not only that,
|    there are women with brains who enjoy their sexuality!  Wow,
|    it's a whole new era for us!"
|

WELL SAID, Bonnie. 

 There should be nothing wrong with women (or men!) flaunting their 
sexuality if they want to IN THE RIGHT PLACE.  I suggest that there
should be places where such behaviour is acceptable (one of them is 
NOT the office, for either men or women!).  one of those "places" may 
well be the pages of your local equal opportunity skin mag.

 			Nigel

Bonnie, I think you're missing a major point here.  Of course women
can be sexual.  They have always been allowed to be sexual. In skin
mags, on the stage of the Pussycat Lounge, in red-light districts,
rainy mornings in Paris on business trips, anyplace the male imagination
cares to wander.

But real women in real life displaying real sexuality of their own on their
own terms and in their own time is quite another matter and I don't think 
anyone can really argue with this.  Real women in this culture are tra-
ditionally aloowed to be sexual when and only when their men are ready to 
reap the benefits of it.

It's no wonder that real men occasionally get bored with real repressed
women and turn to fantasies of women who appear to NOT have been raised
the way these same men have raised/will raise their daughters and/or
expect their wives/sisters/mothers to act.

The women in these magazines are only "special" because of the artifical
creation of "real" women into repressed and limited roles.

If sexuality for women is good then it is good for all women and not just
good for "some" women "some" of the time and only in male-sanctioned
situations.

    I fully believe that if women were unleashed from the mental bonds
    their culture places on them, or were never repressed in the first
    place, Playboy magazine in particular would seem laughable by
    comaprison with its awkward, sterile, antiseptic attempts to guess 
    at what hot femaleness really looks like.  But then men might get a
    little more than they bargained for.
    

    RE: .131
    
    Sandy, I know I can't speak for all men, but I've always far more
    enjoyed being with women who were not sexually repressed, and who
    were open about their own sexual desires and needs.
    
    When I have been with women who did not feel comfortable with
    their own sexuality, I felt (for want of a better word) frustrated.
    
    Frustrated that *they* thought *I* might pass judgement on them
    for being sexual. 
    
    Hell, if I don't think of myself as being "deviant", why should
    I think she is for having her own set of "wants"?
    
      Alan  
                                                     

    Sandy, I don't disagree directly with anything you said.  
    
    I think your remark about the women in "these magazines" only
    being special because real women are repressed probably has at
    least a certain amount of truth to it. 
    
    But I don't think the answer to repression is to repress ourselves
    more. 
    
    I think the answer is to reclaim our sexuality for ourselves,
    to flaunt our bodies if that's what makes us feel sexy, to
    wrap ourselves in ecru satin and lace indiscreetly flowing
    open to fire our lover's imagination if that's what we like,
    or to revel in furry legs and the natural musk of our bodies
    if that's what we like.  
    
    --bonnie

    re: .132
    
    Sandy, if women AND men could reclaim even half the psychic,
    emotional, and sexual energy that we repress, this whole SOCIETY
    would seem laughably cheap, pathetic, cold, and silly.
    
    --bonnie
    

    Re: .135
    
    >if women AND men could reclaim even half the psychic, emotional,
    >and sexual energy that we repress, this whole SOCIETY would seem
    >laughably cheap, pathetic, cold, and silly.
    
    If women and men lost their culturally-imposed repressions, society
    wouldn't last a week.  (Inherent selfishness rears its ugly head
    and what you get is survival of the most brutal.)

    re .135 (Bonnie Randall)
      >>But I don't think the answer to repression is to repress ourselves
      >>more. 
    
      >>I think the answer is to reclaim our sexuality for ourselves,
      >>to flaunt our bodies if that's what makes us feel sexy, to
      >>wrap ourselves in ecru satin and lace indiscreetly flowing
      >>open to fire our lover's imagination if that's what we like,
      >>or to revel in furry legs and the natural musk of our bodies
      >>if that's what we like.  
    
    Bonnie, I would agree with everything you said IF I believed that
    women were really free to choose how to express their sexuality.
    I suspect that this is where you and I disagree.  I think that
    most of the models of female sexuality (such as those that appear
    in Playboy, Hustler, TV, Movies, and almost all advertisements)
    are defined by and FOR men.  So since I believe that, I see
    nothing liberating about women being photgraphed in sexy (as
    defined by men) poses.  Not because I think it's wrong for
    women to look sexy to men, but because I think that what is
    defined as "sexy" actually contains images of violence, of
    submission, of existing ONLY to please men.  The woman we see
    is not a woman who happens to have a lovely C*nt; she is a
    C*nt.  And that's what I object to.  

    So I guess that where we disagree is not over the question
    of should women be sexy, but is what we see really sexy?

    Justine
    

        Just a thought, but I find that there are one or two writers
        here whose input, valuable though it might be, I find I am
        totally dismissing as worthless because of their continual
        pronoucements about what it is like to be a man without having
        ever been one. Over and over I read "I know what men really
        want" or "I know what men really feel" or "I know why men do
        this", and it has absoluteley no bearing at all on what my
        personal experience of being a man is, nor with what I know
        about my friends who have been men.
        
        To be honest, I have come to stop even listening to what these
        people who have never been men have to say about subjects which
        they know--like what it's like to be a woman. I don't do this
        because I doubt that they know what it is to be a woman, or
        because I think I know better, but because I come to see them as
        people willing to make absolute statements about subjects which
        they demonstrate they have no knowledge, and I come to suspect
        that they have ulterior motives or are the kind of people who
        just naturally lie about things or something.
        
        I know this is completely unjustified. I know that in fact there
        are some real lessons for me to learn about what it is like for
        them to be women. I know that. I try to make myself listen. I
        try to see the point. But then one of these know-it-all
        promouncements upon the nature of masculinity shows up and
        before I notice it I find I've skimmed 5 more paragraphs without
        really absorbing what I was reading.
        
        It is no doubt my failing, but I CANNOT read these notes and
        take them seriously. I try to, but they are so obviously
        nattering about that which they do not understand, that I just
        dismiss the whole note--valuable parts and drek alike.
        
        Maybe if the men here tried not to tell the women what it is
        really like to be a woman and the women tried not to tell the
        men what it's really like to be a man. Maybe if we wrote about
        what we have experienced and what we have felt, rather than
        trying to descrtibe it the way someone from Mars would interpret
        it we could get at some of the real essence of what it is like
        to be men and women in the late 20th century and even at how it
        could and ought to be in the 21st.
        
        JimB.

    If men and women lost their culturally-imposed repressions, society
    wouldn't last a week?  Why?  What would happen?  Are you confusing
    "we won't oppress anyone" with "thou shalt not kill"?
    
    The only result would be men not ever being able to be sure of the
    the fathers of all the babies and men not being able to make a woman
    "blossom at his touch and his alone" as one male noter said men
    like to believe.
    
    I fully agree the entire society as it is today would look pathetic
    - sort of like it looks to me right now.
    
    And Bonnie, yes it looks like we agree more and more.  I believe
    100 percent that women should be free to be sexual in the way THEY
    want to be and not limited to the way MEN want them to be.  Playboy
    just seems to represent the expression of female sexuality in ONLY
    the way men want.  Women in Playboy do not have a choice of whether
    they personally prefer musky, hot love in a Chevrolet or cool, detatched
    "servicing" in designer sheets.  They ALL must disply the kind of
    sexuality men want.  If they didn't, men wouldn't buy the magazine.
    The final fantasy image is the product.  The woman is merely one
    of the props used in the creation of that image and whatever her
    sexuality is has nothing whatsoever to do with it.  I don't think
    any model gets to walk into Playboy's photographer's studios and
    tell the photographers what kind of sexuality she wants to portray
    in the final image.  She is only an actress and the script is written
    before she even gets the casting call.
    
    I state again as I did once in another string.  Skin mags are NOT
    a peek into the world of women.  We really don't as a group engage
    in much jewelry chewing or mirror-gazing or lazing around wearing odd 
    pieces of clothing and staring into what could be a great camera
    angle if only there was one.  No, skin mags are really just a big 
    window on the male mind.  A "what if" tease when real women are
    right next to them feeling "well, why was I told not to then?"

    re: .137 and .139
    
    I don't happen to think that because SOME women are not free
    to choose to be sexy, that means ALL women are not free and
    ALL 'sexy' pictures are invalid.
    
    The only way we could make this judgement is to be inside the
    head of each and every woman in each and every picture to find
    out whether she is honestly sexual.  
    
    I would also conclude, perhaps unfairly, that you would both say
    it is never valid for a woman to dress, pose, or present herself
    in a way that fulfills a man's view of sex, that the only form of
    sexuality that would not be pornographic is a totally
    woman-defined picture.  (If this is wrong, please correct me.)
    
    This sounds to me like it's slighting the realities of sex.   You
    want to please each other, fulfill each other's fantasies. 
    
    Certainly sexual pleasure has not in the past been shared evenly;
    certainly many men have not and will not do anything to please
    their partners; certainly many women are so busy fulfilling their
    man's fantasies that they forget their own. But I don't think any
    of this means either the fantasy or the representation of it is
    inherently bad. 
    
    --bonnie

    Jim, you've just gotta mean me.  You're doing very well with your
    use of "they"!  :-)
    
    If you're really interested in why some women believe they know
    quite well how most men think I'll tell you.  But I suspect you're
    really just getting antsy that this string is making progress in 
    shedding a little natural light on a subject that has been airbrushed 
    for too long and that you personally want to see continue to be
    airbrushed.  Remember this sentence started with "I suspect".  I
    am not declaring that you do feel this way.
        
    In ANY power imbalance, the powerless know far more about the powerful
    than the other way around.  The ones with power have no need to
    attempt to understand those below them in the power structure and
    every power imbalance operates the same way be it master/slave,
    boss/worker or male/female.
    
    Their power allows them to see things any way they please and simply
    demand that those below in the power structure comply.  Those below may
    not always simply comply but we're not discussing the reactions
    of the powerless but rather the actions of the powerful and their
    basic assumptions that prompt their actions.
    
    That's one reason.
    
    The second reason is that just to live in this world is to learn
    a lot about men.  Many men I've talked to admit they have no idea what 
    is considered sexy to women.  They have some vague notion about buns
    and money but women have absolutely clear details about what men
    find sexy in women.  Why?  Men's desires are displayed everywhere.
    Women's are hidden away.  If you just spend one day in this culture
    chances are everything you see will be a male creation.  Banks,
    stores, work hierarchies, car designs, grocerystore layouts, housepaint
    colors, steakhouses, etc.  It's big news today that industries are "be-
    ginning" to take the woman consumer seriously.  Why is it big news?  What
    have they traditionally been doing?  Turn on the tv and I know how
    men like their burgers cooked, their shirt collars to look, their
    lawns to be mowed, their cars to handle and their women to look.
    You'll see very little about what women really want or are like.
    You'll most often only see women acting out more of what men want.
    
    That's another reason.
    
    And the fantasy of porn itself is still another reason.  Adolescent
    boys do not spend a whole lot of time trying to "understand" adolescent
    girls.  "Girl-ness" is anathema to adolescent boys.  "Objectness"
    takes its place.  The girl who displays all the "props", "cues"
    and "symbols", (i.e. the cheerleader with the big hooters and the
    Farrah hair), is exempt however from the general wariness and general
    fear, suspicion and/or distrust of girls that adolescent boys have so 
    much of.   She's exempt because she's more than just a "girl" she's
    a male's girl.  So are the females in skin mags.  
    
    Men are drawn as a knee-jerk reaction to artifice and symbols and
    cues.  Skin mags work by displaying these things.  The models are
    merely used as a backdrop.  Who they are and what they want matters 
    naught.  They merely are there to display all the right sex cues,
    which are created not by the model but by the makeup person, the
    lighting person, the wardrobe person and the photographer.
    
    So even if I grew up an only child and you grew up with sisters
    I would still know far more about men than you would know about
    women.  But I grew up with two boys and all their friends as a
    completely accepted member of the male "clan".  They shared ALL
    their thoughts with me always.  I stood right with them and declared
    women silly, stupid and irrational beings who had to be tricked
    into bed for their own good.  And when I talk with men today I am more
    often right than wrong in second-guessing their motives and desires.
    
    Men who don't fall in with the "general male party line" always
    do surprise me when I meet them but we're not discussing individual
    approaches to life here.  We're discussing porn in general and its
    general effects on a culture.  In general.
    
    Please try to step outside of "This is how I feel so therefore I believe
    this is how everyone else feels too or at least had better not make
    me feel too different" for a minute and look at this subject in terms
    of its larger context.  But I suspect you may have already done that
    and are starting to feel antsy about what you see.  Hense your attempt 
    to derail the discussion in progress. 
    
    I always answer these accusations with "Ok, then, YOU tell me what
    men are like".  But no man in notes has ever taken me up on that.
    So, Jim, why don't you tell us what the average male is like without
    going into where you fit on the scale.
    

    Sandy, I think the problem is that "the average male" simply doesn't
    exist. There's a billion guys out there, all of whom are more or
    less "average", but if you look closer, they're all individuals.
    Your notion of "the average male" is exactly that composite used
    by the Madison-Ave. ad-men who design Budweiser commercials and
    Playboy magazine formats. A "lowest common denominator" used
    to sell the greatest number of copies of Playboy, or the most
    six-packs, cars, whatever. You could get a lot of demographic
    figures and "create" the "average male", the living embodiment of
    that LCD, but *you will never *meet* that man*. He doesn't exist.
    Any man falls in different places on different scales, there are
    many different qualities that could be measured, and everybody 
    is two sigmas off the norm on several scales, at least. And
    that is just as true for women. Trying to understand "women"
    based on "the average woman" is an excercise in futility.
    A better approach is trying to understand one person at a time.
    Even if it is a heckuva lot of work, the rewards are greater.
    
    Observations of "a culture" don't help understand individuals, they
    just put a lot of stereotypes between you and understanding a
    single person. 
    
    Dana

    
    re .140
    
    Bonnie, I'm not sure how you got from my note to yours.  I was
    trying to find our area of disagreement.  It strikes me that when
    you look at say, pictures in Playboy, you (at least sometimes) see
    a "sexy" image, and as such you see nothing wrong with it.  When
    I look at a magazine like Playboy, I see trivialization,
    objectification, and sometimes violence.  
    
    I don't think that I think that any image that pleases men is 
    inherently wrong, but then men and I don't spend a lot of time
    together comparing our images of female beauty.  I know that 
    my sense of what is beautiful is different from the "norm," though.  
    For example, you know how advertisers for cosmetics often post 
    "before and after" photos to show you how much their product will 
    "improve" your looks?  Well, I almost always find the before picture 
    more attractive.  Perhaps there are some men who do, too.  But I doubt 
    they're seeing that kind of beauty in Playboy.  
    
    Justine               
    

    If "averageness" did not exist or could not be ascertained, then
    there would be little use for marketing studies or advertising.
    But whole industries devote tons of money to finding out what most
    men DO have in common.  Do you think they don't really come up with
    anything?
    
    If your idea, that you cannot ascertain "averageness" but must take
    each individual separately were true, we'd spend most of our time
    reinventing the wheel.  If you learn how to drive a Chevrolet, can
    you make a few assumptions about how to drive a Porsche or must
    you take the Porsche at face value and begin again with "the key
    goes in here"?
    
    The Porsche and the Chevrolet are worlds apart, true, but there
    are many more things they have in common.  Things so routine we
    can fail to notice them.  Things that do not make the Porsche any 
    less "special" because it shares them with Chevrolets.  Are we
    "stereotyping" cars here or are we making intelligent assumptions
    about them?
    
    I believe you can make some basic assumptions about people too such
    as most of them probably don't like to drink dirty dishwater.  Is that 
    stereotyping them?  Is it wrong to make ANY kind of assumption at
    all or is it only common sense?  Is it really, which I believe, just
    a question of the DEGREE of assumption or the TYPE of assumption
    you are attempting to make?
    
    When any man in this string says, "that is not the intent of the
    magazine" is that not an assumption too?  Isn't everything here
    just our assumption?  Do any of us really KNOW?  And if we don't
    then do we have a right to say anything at all?
    
    I just don't understand why conversations progress nicely, chock
    full of assumptions on every side, indeed the entire content of
    discussions in notesfiles being theoretical in nature, and then
    sometimes someone derails a string with "that's JUST an assumption".
    
    I can only notice when and by whom these derailments occur and draw some
    conclusions, some more assumptions, from their similarities.

    
    re: .129
    
    I fear you missed my point. You say you are unconvinced that "Playboy"
    is pornography. Fine. Many people have made eloquent arguments that
    "Playboy" is pornographic because *it is demeaning and exploitative*.
    You did not say, "I don't think it's demeaning/exploitative because..."
    You said (paraphrase), "people in this discussion seem to think
    anything having to do with nudity or sex is pornographic". *No one*
    has suggested that either sex or nudity *per se* is pornographic.
    If "Playboy" only presented nudity or items of a sexual nature, I do 
    not believe many people in this discussion would call it pornography 
    (certainly not I). Instead, "Playboy" presents as true an image
    of women that is false. (the subject of 'the women of...' has come
    up; surely this is an attempt to suggest that these are *real* women
    but somehow they look just as airbrushed as the 'regulars' don't
    they?) It suggests as normal an attitude towards women (namely sub-
    ordinate sex-toy) that should be abberant. 
    
    I'm not sure how to refute the notion that those of us who are opposed
    to "Playboy" and its ilk are perhaps (paraphrase) 'projecting our
    own feelings of insecurity and objectification'. I can speak personally
    and say that, last I checked, I was not especially insecure, I strive
    to not objectify anything, especially women, (and since this also
    seems to be implied by your remarks, a healthy sex drive). Somehow,
    however, this sounds like the same old 'prude' argument in sheep's
    clothing. Am I mis-reading you?
    

    Re: .139
    
    >If men and women lost their culturally-imposed repressions, society
    >wouldn't last a week?  Why?  What would happen?  Are you confusing
    >"we won't oppress anyone" with "thou shalt not kill"?
    
    No, I think you're confusing culturally-imposed repressions with
    "we won't oppress anyone."  The latter is a subset of the former.

    re. .145
    
    I didn't miss your point, I simply disagreed with it. 
    
    I will agree that Playboy presents both an idealized and  a
    parital view of women, and of life.  It's also oriented to what
    men find desirable, no question.  I don't think it follows that
    that view is either false or inherently undesirable. 
    
    It's true that no one has said in so many words that nudity or sex
    per se is undesirable.  However, when some notes, perhaps even
    many notes (and I don't think I'm referring to any of yours,
    although without going back to check all 146 of them I can't be
    sure) talk about what they think men want out of sex and what
    women want, they talk in terms that make it *sound as if* they are
    not comfortable with the idea of sex per se. 
    
    The answers since then have not convinced me otherwise.  At least
    some of the answers show considerable discomfort with the idea of
    basic animal sex between men and women.  
    
    And I suppose that if I believed that in this society all
    relations between men and women are power relations in which the
    man has the edge, I wouldn't be comfortable with the idea either.
    
    But I don't believe that.  The Madison-avenue image of the
    'average man' that has been presented as the real man doesn't
    match any man I've known.  My hubby doesn't think like that,
    my brother doesn't, my father doesn't.  
    
    Look, why are we so willing to believe that Madison avenue
    knows what the average man is like and wants when we know how
    badly wrong they are about women????????? 
    
    --bonnie

  Sorry for the long delay.  Back in .87 I suggested that the differences
  in sexual behavior between men and women might be rooted in
  physiological differences, as expressed through brain chemicals. 

  I'm puzzled because Sandy and Catherine, two people whose opinion I
  value, both rejected this suggestion out of hand.  Sandy called it
  "drivel" (which was neither kind nor what I'd call a rigorous
  refutation).  Catherine had the grace to say that her disagreement was
  based on on a single data point. 

  In the absence of proof one way or another, how can anyone suggest the
  converse: "differences in the sexual behavior of men and women *cannot*
  in any way be caused by physiological differences as expressed through
  brain chemicals." 

  Did I say something that was politically incorrect?

  JP

    
    re:.147
    sorry if I'm hassling you, but let me pick just a couple nits...
    
    Your use of the word 'idealized' is somewhat telling. Idealize
    means 'to show as perfect or more nearly perfect than is true'
    (webster's new world). I cannot accept the view that it is
    innocuous that the Women of Playboy are properly considered
    ideal; fantasy, perhaps (and a sick one at that)...but it saddens
    me that reasonable people should accept this kind of 'idealism'.
    
    Second, I would be interested to read even one note that clearly
    suggests the uncomfortableness with sex you describe.
    
    Third, I guess it seems obvious to me that the relations between
    *all* people are power relations. In most, no doubt, the 'amount
    of power' involved is trivial, but it definitely exists. And is
    it also not obvious that in most of these same situations men have
    the edge? it is to me.
    
    Finally, I am very willing to believe that the Madison Avenue types
    have a far more accurate view of the man in the street because,
    last I checked, the man in the street made a dollar for every 70
    cents made by the woman in the street. What more incentive would
    they need?
    
    

    Just to attack this from a slightly different direction:
    
    Appearance is one characteristic of a woman (or a man). Intelligence
    is another, degree of professional skill/experience yet another.
    A person as a whole is the integration of these and other
    characteristics. 
    
    Picture MensaMan Magazine, which concentrates exclusively on
    the IQ scores of its featured subjects. Appearance is ignored,
    as is golf skill, or professional accomplishments. So what if
    s/he's a garbage collector; with an IQ of 180, s/he has clearly
    made that choice for good reasons... The magazine has mapped
    out a domain in which to concentrate its interest, ignoring
    everything outside of that context. If your interest is the same
    context (IQ scores), you'll get what you paid for.
    
    Is this significantly different from the skin mags that concentrate
    on epidermal topography? Would such a magazine have any more
    reason to exist (ignoring problems of finding subscribers) than
    Playboy (note the last three letters of the magazine title giving
    away the nature of its intended audience)?

    re: .150
    
    I would agree that such a magazine would present an equally
    incomplete view of the people in it, and would be equally valid
    for the people who enjoyed it.  
    
    re: .149
    
    I didn't realize "idealize" was a dirty word.  I'll have to
    think about that.
    
    Beyond that, we're never going to reach any kind of agreement
    because I flatly disagree with your belief that all relationships
    between people are power relationships. 
    
    Given that belief, I don't see how you could not believe what you
    believe.

    And if one believes all relationships are power relationships, I
    don't see how one could have a healthy give and take relationship
    with anybody.  A balance of power, that's all.  Everyone of either
    sex as a potential rival and competitor for the good things of
    life.  That's sad. 

    Maybe in the Darwinian jungle competition was the only way to
    survive, but I honestly believe that the reason human beings
    became the dominant species on the planet is that we learned to
    cooperate, to share, to help each other, to feel responsible for
    and care about all the members of our own species, to help them
    rather than fight with them. 
    
    And I think much of recent civilization has taken us away from our
    strengths and returned us to the jungle. 
    
    --bonnie

re: .148

I feel that it is extremely difficult to separate what parts of male/
female sexuality are caused by physiological/biochemical differences, 
and what is shaped by the culture in which particular humans find 
themselves.  We are all willing to accept that a drive for sex of some 
kind or other is biologically innate, but being a species that 
relies so heavily on cultural software rather than biological hardware, 
we can only view any expression of human sexuality through the interface 
our cultural software has created for us.  

Linking the culturally shaped manifestations of human sexuality to 
biology is dangerous, I think, since it allows culture to masquerade as 
divine/evolutionary/biochemical destiny and hence to pass as immutable.
It has been used to justify the culturally imposed inferiority of women 
(which in the past has seemed so inexorably linked to biology), 
so any woman has to get a tad nervous when "physiological differences" 
are used to justify any social institution -- and pornography is a 
social institution.  

I do not deny there are real physiological differences, nor that there
are cultural ones so deeply engrained that they are almost inseparable
from biology.  That men and women may be naturally inclined to express
their sexuality in different ways may be a very interesting and valuable
line of inquiry, and one which could produce some startling results.
I just don't think the degree to which culture has shaped that
expression can go unexamined by letting it all slip by as biological. 

I dislike the biology is destiny argument.  From a feminist point of 
view, this could end up meaning that men are biologically (perhaps from 
testosterone poisoning) unfit to be allowed to run around loose -- they 
are inclined to aggression, dominance, rape, violence, exploitation of
women and children, the creation of hierarchical institutions, abuse of 
the natural environment, warfare, and are a threat to life on earth.
It would displease me as much to say these things about my son as it 
would to say my daughter is intended by nature to be only the helpmeet,
sexual provider, and reproductive property of men. 

Since objectification is a step in exercising control, power, and
dominance over someone else, one must be careful about the context in 
which it occurs, and I think one must be careful about saying how 
"natural" it is for one sex to engage in that kind of behavior.  One can 
end up with the reverse of the traditional Christian view that females 
are more polluted by original sin than males and hence more prone to 
"evil".

re: some previous note

When I point out the evils of objectification, and how it has been used 
to justify the less-than-humanness of women (and people of color, in 
other contexts), and the extreme caution that must exist when dealing 
with an institution whose purpose is such objectification (pornography),
I do not mean that it is necessarily and always evil to engage in any
objectification whatsoever.  This would make it almost impossible to
think, for one thing.  And for another, I do not think it necessarily
evil to notice that a complete stranger has nice eyes, a cute smile, a
sexy laugh, and to feel... LUST! that isn't based on any knowledge of
that person's deep psychological workings or opinion of existentialism. 

The role objectification plays in institutionalizing the exercise of 
power over another (in this case that of men over women) is evil, 
however, and since pornography plays a significant part in that
institutionalization, I do not think objections to it can be analyzed as
a simple matter of censorship or prudishness over human sexuality.
Human sexuality, by itself (whatever that is), is of course "natural"
and "innocent", but the shape it has been given and the uses to which it
has been put in our patriarchal society are not. 

       I really don't know what the original intent of Playboy was, but
       I suspect it was to make money for the publisher. At one time I
       was a session photographer for the British magazine Mayfair
       (which is very similar in format to Playboy) - I had a number of
       portfolios published, and apart from the first they were all by
       invitation of the editor. I had a lengthy "guideline for
       publication" document that ran to over fifty pages of what was,
       and was not acceptable, on the grounds of editorial policy, legal
       requirements and marketing needs.

       The magazine had originally been a text-only "Gentleman's
       magazine" with not the slightest hint of salaciousness. During
       WWII special editions were published for the British armed forces
       with a few extra articles and a few line drawings. After the war
       the mag moved to its present format of several photo-features,
       several short stories (often about military history - a link with
       the past) and humourous articles, reviews etc.

       The editorial guideline says that the photos exist to give the
       magazine marketing impetus and that the primary guideline of
       whether a picture is acceptable is as follows: the photographer
       should consider that the magazine may be exhibited in a high
       street newsagents shop where it may be perused by a minor, or by
       an adult unaware of its typical content. True the magazine is not
       usually exhibited like this, but it certainly doesn't need to be
       shrink wrapped to avoid legal action for obscenity as some
       magazines do.

       /. Ian .\

    
    re:.151
    
    No doubt, thinking of all human interactions as power struggles
    must seem cynical and/or cruel. On the other hand, I guess I think
    we're better off recognizing the truth of the situation and trying
    to control it or redirect it than to wish or pretend it were otherwise.
    It reminds me of a line from the old Star Trek (what a citation!):
    'yes, we're killers...but we're not going to kill...today' I would
    hope that we could say, 'yes, life is an unending series of power 
    struggles, with myriad opportunities to take unfair advantage of
    my fellow humans...but I'm not going to do it...today'.
    
    Ah well, let us agree to disagree Ms. Randall...many thanks for
    an extremely interesting discussion.
     

    Catherine put quite nicely.
    
    I am not a prude yet it bothers me to go into a store and see
    skin mags behind the counter, reminding me that after all "I
    am only a female sex toy" whether I feel I am or not.  I really
    enjoy seeing the human body in all its many forms in the flesh
    and I imagine that I "lust" after the more pleasing forms from
    time to time.  BUT I do not, in my wildest dreams, think that
    that beautiful body was intended to JUST please me and that I
    could ever own it, control it or treat it anyway I please.  This
    is what I see skin mags doing to women, and not just the ones on
    the inside but the partners, friends, co-workers, and woman-on-
    the-street.  We are portrayed as being available all the time and
    in any manner.  This is what I find objectionable in Playboy - the
    turning of real women into blow-up dolls.
    
    _peggy
    		(-)
    		 |
    			If smoke makes you sick would you sit next
    			to a smoker at work?
    			Porn makes me feel ill do I have to be 
    			exposed to it all the time?
    
    
    			

Re: .152

> The role objectification plays in institutionalizing the exercise of 
> power over another (in this case that of men over women) is evil, 
> ... pornography plays a significant part in that institutionalization ...

I see the objectification of women, as seen in pornography, as being
connected to the repressed sexuality of women.  Why would sexual repression
require objectification?  I'll try to explain.

It idea behind sexual repression is to limit the expression of a woman's
sexuality to within a relationship.  Whenever a growing woman lets part
of her sexual nature show she is quickly reprimanded by those socially
close to her.  The only way that she can have sure control of her sexual
self is to internalize the control that society imposes from the outside.
This internal control may be so strong that she is unable to be sexual
without help from a lover.

From the man's side this internalized control looks like resistance or
sexual rejection.  He expects negative feedback even though the woman may
not be aware that she is sending negative signals. In order for a man to
seduce such a woman he has to somehow believe that what he wants (sex) is
more important than the fact that she appears not to what the same thing.
He must somehow feel that he has the right to impose his will upon her. 

Throughout history people don't impose their will upon equals.  They first
objectify and dehumanize the target.  They are then free to impose their
will because the other is just a "Jap", "Gook", "Jew", "Hun", "Bourswazee"(sp?),
"Kid" etc and therefore less than fully human like themselves.  They
do the same with woman, of course, and pornography helps.  I think the
major part of the objectification comes from the peer group support
of the "locker room" environments were men get tougher to talk about
women.

It is clear that a man who fails to objectify will fail in his relationships
with women.  If a man is too sensitive to the negative feedback he will
be unable to overcome the woman's internalized resistance.  Women know
this and therefore shun the "Sensitive 80's kind of guy."  Many women
end up in a relationship with an insensitive MSP because the need to
overcome her internal resistance directly conflicts with her need for
a sensitive man.  She chooses the insensitive man for a lover and
stays "just friends" with the sensitive ones.

Objectifying is not easy.  It is easy to see the humanness of the women
around you.  If a man finds himself succumbing to this he will loose his
nerve and be unable to impose his will, to take the initiative, to ask
her out.  If you read the MENNOTES notes file you will find a very long
string on the subject of "Why don't woman ask men out?".  These men
want women to take on part of the burden because objectifying is hard
work and it is easy to fail.

So, if you buy this, the objectification is required to overcome the
internalized resistance women have to being sexual.  Is it necessary
for women to be sexually repressed?  Is society dependent on the
fact that women are sexually repressed and men are emotionally repressed?
Is it possible for men an women to form long term relationships if we
all are free to express our full selves with anyone we choose?

			   		MJC O->


 

    RE: 782.156
    
    Help me out here-this isn't a flame, but I think I'm confused by
    the point you are making.  You said that objectification is required
    to overcome the internalized resistance women have to being sexual
    and that a woman will chose a man who can impose his will over hers
    as opposed to the "sensitive eighties kind of guy".  Are you saying
    that a woman never wants sex and will only submit to it because
    a man who's will is stronger will make her bend to his will, imposing
    his own wants and needs over any negative vibes he gets from her?
    Are we talking force here or consenting adults?  I'm not flaming,
    I just don't think I understood your note.
    
    Christine

    
    > Are you saying that a woman never wants sex and will only submit to it
    > because a man who's will is stronger will make her bend to his will,
    > imposing his own wants and needs over any negative vibes he gets from
    > her?
    
    I'm saying that because of the internalized repression, the woman will
    be sending out negative vibes despite the fact that she may really what
    to be sexual with the man.  She may be able to tone down the negative
    vibes or try to send some positive ones but the negative vibes will
    still be there.  Ignoring some of these negative vibes is routine for
    men.  In order to ignore these vibes he must somehow believe that he
    has some kind of right to ignore her resistance. 
    
    I also think that most men want to be able to open up emotionally.
    I think men send negative vibes out to woman who try to help
    them open up.  They want to be open but their own internalized
    emotional repression stops them.
    
    I don't think a good lover has any need for physical force to sexually
    enable a woman. I like the phrase "There aren't any frigid woman, only
    poor lovers" 
    
    					MJC O->

    re.158
    >>I'm saying that because of the internalized repression, the woman will
    >>be sending out negative vibes despite the fact that she may really what
    >>to be sexual with the man.  
      
    I imagine that terminals all over the net are smoking right now,
    but I have to pose this question:
    
    Do you see anything dangerous in such a statement?  Who is fit to
    determine what the woman "really" wants when she is "sending out
    negative vibes?"
    
    >>Ignoring some of these negative vibes is routine for men.  In order 
    >>to ignore these vibes he must somehow believe that he has some kind 
    >>of right to ignore her resistance. 
      
    
    Am I missing something here?  Is what's being described significantly
    different from date rape?  
    
    Justine

Re: .159

> Do you see anything dangerous in such a statement?  

Sure.

> Who is fit to determine what the woman "really" wants when she is "sending
> out negative vibes?" 

There is a definite ambiguity for the man.  I don't think the man every really
"knows".  He has to be willing to risk rejection.

> Am I missing something here?  Is what's being described significantly
> different from date rape?

No more than in the way a mother dominating over her children is different
from child abuse.  She must believe she is more human than her children
in order to exert her will upon them.  This power balance can lead to child
abuse but usually doesn't.

						MJC O->

    re: .160
    
    A mother has to believe she is MORE HUMAN than her children in
    order to EXERT HER WILL over them????? 
    
    Holy sh--- er, 'scuze me, moderators, I almost got carried
    away. 
    
    My children ARE fully human, thank you.  They may be younger than
    the average and they may have some growing and learning to do, but
    then we all have some growing and learning to do. We never stop
    doing that!
    
    Furthermore, while it is sometimes necessary to exert one's
    will over children -- to keep them from running out into the
    streets, for example -- in general the goal of motherhood is
    to raise another competent, healthy, happy adult who is capable
    of making her own decisions, facing her own problems, and dealing
    creatively with the reality she faces.   
    
    Dominating the child with the force of the mother's will may
    produce an apparently docile child, but it won't produce a
    healthy one.
    
    You are right about one thing, though -- a mother with that
    attitude toward her children is guilty of emotional child abuse
    even if she never lays a hand on the child.
    
    --bonnie

    	RE: .156
    
    	Mike, have you been out of the dating scene for a while or
    	have you just recently finished high school?  :-)  (No offense!)
    
    	What in the world makes you think that it is still "in vogue"
    	for grown women to need to "appear" to be seduced by men (while
    	feigning rejection)?
    
    	Hey, if the woman appears to be rejecting a sexual advance,
    	it would be wise to BELIEVE HER!  ;-)  (She may know karate.)

    	If a woman appears to reject at first, then become interested
    	later, then just MAYBE it takes her some time to warm up to
    	men enough to want to sleep with them.
    
    	I can't tell you how outdated your note sounds (about men feeling
    	that they must "impose their wills" on women who pretend that
    	they don't want sex.)  Outdated and dangerous.  (No offense!)

  Re: .152 (Catherine)

  I really like your cultural sofware / biological hardware metaphor.
  And I think we're pretty much in philosophical agreement, though
  perhaps not in agreement about how evil pornography is.

  I don't think that physiological differences can be used to justify
  institutions or behavior, either.  But they might be used (along with
  cultural/societal conditioning) to explain behavior.  I agree that
  the "biology is destiny" argument is bogus but it seems clear that
  biology is involved in destiny to some extent.  That's all I was
  trying to say.  

  Linking cultural manifestations of sexuality with biology certainly is
  dangerous if you are doing that in the absence of research and
  knowledge.  But if it turns out that said link is a fact, then it is a
  lot more dangerous to deny it.  Knowledge itself is dangerous, as is
  life, but not as dangerous as the tyranny that is inherent in an
  attitude of "you are permitted to know X but forbidden to know Y." So,
  to deny the involvement of biology is to guarantee that we will never
  fully understand the problem and so will be unlikely to come up with any
  solutions.  It's a lot harder to solve a problem if you don't know what
  you're doing. 

  Of course the "immutable destiny" argument is bogus.  Lots of behaviors,
  (for example, slavery) that were once thought to be "natural" are now
  forbidden.  It was not that long ago that lynching a black man was
  thought to be great weekend sport in some parts of this country. That
  has changed, but not as a result of appealing to the sweet reason of
  rednecks.  It changed because federal marshalls got involved and murder
  convictions were forthcoming. 

  Similarly, it is plain that there are some men who do not understand
  that "no" means "no" (some even post notes in this file!).  The point is
  that some men will *never* understand this, no matter what resources you
  bring to bear.  So the attempt to convince them is a hopeless (and
  indeed unnecessary) task.  

  Furthermore, I hope we never arrive at a point where we can convict --
  or even deny opportunities to -- an individual for having a bad attitude
  or natural inclination (this touches upon a point you made about locking
  up males because they are inclined toward agression, etc.).  I no more 
  accept this than I would accept the statement that a woman should not 
  be president because of PMS-related problems.  Given the mindset of
  the majority of Americans, if they ever enact "bad attitude" legislation,
  you and I would undoubtedly be in jail before the ink dried...

  I'll settle for being able to convict on the basis of unacceptable
  behavior.  Therefore, the approach I would take would be to develop the
  political clout needed to be able to define what unacceptable behavior
  is.  Just for an example, if and when rape is defined as a violation of
  civil rights, and federal marshals are involved when those rights are
  violated, behavior will start to change.  To extend your metaphor, I
  think this would be an example of upgrading the cultural software. 

  JP

  P.S., Catherine, at one point you expressed concern about monopolizing
        the discussion here.  For my part, I will listen respectfully to
        anything you have to say on any subject whatever...

    Re: .161 
    > My children ARE fully human, thank you.  They may be younger than the
    > average and they may have some growing and learning to do, but then we
    > all have some growing and learning to do. 
  
    But you admit that you have the right to exert your will upon them
    in your example of keeping them from running in the street.  I'd
    be willing to bet that you would not grab the arm of some full grown
    woman who wished to run into the street.  In the case if kids it
    is had to say that it is dehumanization because children are not
    seen as having all the rights of a full human till they reach the
    age of 18.
    
    > You are right about one thing, though -- a mother with that
    > attitude toward her children is guilty of emotional child abuse
    > even if she never lays a hand on the child.
    
    That's not the point I was trying to make. Maybe "Dominating" was
    too strong of a word.  The point I was trying to make is more on
    the lines of a women having the right to keep her child from running
    in the street.
    
    RE: .161
    
    >	What in the world makes you think that it is still "in vogue"
    >	for grown women to need to "appear" to be seduced by men (while
    >	feigning rejection)?
    
    I think that many younger women expect men to take control of her
    sexuality.
    
    >	Hey, if the woman appears to be rejecting a sexual advance,
    >	it would be wise to BELIEVE HER!  ;-)  (She may know karate.)

    My theory requires that you except the concept that women sometimes
    send out mixed signals.  I realize that this is in direct confrontation
    to the "NO means NO" doctrine of the date rape rhetoric that says
    that woman's signals are never ambiguous.  It is the standard
    transmitter -receiver problem.  If the signal does not get received
    it is impossible to tell whether it is a bad (ambiguous) signal from
    the transmitter or a failure in the receiver without using another
    known-good receiver.  The "NO means NO" doctrine says that it is
    always a failure in the receiver.  I'm not really interested in
    starting another date rape note here.  I will try one argument for
    the source of the ambiguous signal and then drop this.  As I said
    this theory requires that you accept that women's signals could
    be ambiguous.
    
    A human's reaction to sexual simulation is unconscious.  Never the less,
    the society requires that the woman repress even this unconscious
    reaction.  It is nearly impossible for a human to consciously repress an
    unconscious reaction.  By the time the conscious sees it is already too
    late. The only way to to repress the reaction is to internalize a
    mechanism to suppress the unconscious reaction while it is still
    unconscious.  Most women are successful in building in this repression.
    
    The mechanism that does this not only sends negative signals inward
    to suppress the unconscious sexual reactions, some of those negative
    signals can also be transmitted outside while sill being unconscious
    to the woman.  Men pick these up as mixed signals.  A man must
    objectify the woman in order to feel right about ignoring these
    unconscious signals.
    
    						MJC O->

    In Note 782.160      MJC O-> suggests that a man "ignoring [a woman's]
    resistance" to sex is no more rape than 

    >>the way a mother dominating over her children is different
    >>from child abuse.  She must believe she is more human than her children
    >>in order to exert her will upon them.  This power balance can lead
    >>to child abuse but usually doesn't.

    I think Bonnie R. spoke pretty clearly to the notion of mother-as-more-human
    and therefore entitled to impose her will.  But the main point I want to
    make is that if a mother imposed her will (for whatever reason) on her 
    children in order to fulfill her sexual desires (and this component
    must be included in order to make the analogy complete), we would 
    definitely see it as child abuse.  The extent to which and whether or
    not a mother would be punished for abusing her children or a man
    would be punished for rape may in fact tell us a great deal about how
    much we value the "humanness" of children ... and women.  

    I am deeply troubled by the ideas that have been presented in this
    string of notes.  It frightens me to think that anyone thinks it is 
    somehow legitimate for a man to impose his sexual desires on a woman
    who says she doesn't want sex.  But I think the fact that this notion
    has been tossed so casually into this forum is even more telling.  Anyone
    who thinks that women made GREAT gains in the area of sexual equality
    might want to think about that.  A woman Software Engineer *MIGHT* be
    getting a salary equal to her male colleagues, but if even one of them
    thinks that when a woman says no, she really means yes, how "equal"
    is she?  How safe is she?  I say we have a long way to go.

    Justine

    re: .165
    
    I'm sorry that you appear unable to distinguish between legal
    competence and human rights.  
    
    re: .166
    
    I agree, Justine -- I have a cold knot at the pit of my stomach
    just reading this.
    
    --bonnie, sadly

    	RE:  .166
    
    	Agree with you, Justine.
    
    	To make the analogy of the mother_preventing_the_child_from
    	running_into_the_street even more complete, it would seem
    	that the man who "imposes his will" on a woman by getting her
    	to have sex is assuming that *he* knows what is best for her
    	(better than she knows herself) and that he is somehow "saving
    	her from herself" by forcing her to accept something that he
    	is certain she needs (i.e., "a good f*ck.")
    
    	Pretty disturbing, indeed.
    

    re .165
    
			    WHAT UTTER ROT!
    
    Excuse me.  Left my manners at home.
    
    I have grabbed the arm of a woman who was about to run out into
    traffic and I have been grabbed by the arm when I was about to run
    out into traffic.  Several times!  Honest!  I didn't find it
    dehumanizing a bit, although perhaps a bit startling.  It's been
    combined with a "Look OUT!"  No, it wasn't an infringement on my
    rights as an adult, but rather helped me maintain them by keeping
    me alive.  (Dead people have few rights and in fact, are treated
    inhumanly :-) .)  Some of the finest minds of this century have
    belonged to the absent-minded (e.g., Norbert Wiener), so I don't
    even feel insulted to have friends and strangers prevent me from
    becoming a statistic on Queen Anne Hill or Beacon Street.  Ha!
    
    What is this, some sort of a religion or philosophy?  That adults
    don't help other adults, but rather exert or refrain from exerting
    their power over them?  Whooooooeeee.  Then what does this say about
    why you're noting here, Hmmm?  
    
    I probably would have brought in my manners today, and, for that
    matter, treated your notes with some respect, but I'd rather return
    the respect given to me in them.  I'm sorry, I don't need a man
    to spark my sexuality one bit.  [Heck, if I had too much of that
    sort of help, the building would go up in flames!  :-) ]  I find
    it ludicrous that anyone would say such a thing to a pack of women.
    And I'm not the first woman here to have said this either.
    Listen up!

	Not only does the idea of men having to impose their sexual
	desires on women because men know better than women about
	women's wants make me feel sick, but the whole concpet of
	using an analogy of mother to child with man to women implies
	a hierarchy in men's relationship which doesn't exist.  Women
	are not children.  Both men and women are adults.

	If a man ignores a woman's negative signals, how will he
	ever know if a woman is unhappy (mad, distraught, whatever),
	with what he's done?  Do those "negative signals" get ignored too?

	God, I can't believe I really do feel a knot in my stomach
	after reading these last notes.  Time to use those stress-
	relaxation techniques I've learned.

	...Karen

    Re .158, my daughter just read this note over my shoulder.  She
    said, "Who wrote that - a woman or a man?"  I said, "A man, why?"
     She said, "I just don't like what he has to say."
    
    (I hadn't said one word to her.)  Looks like your ideas don't even
    go over too well with 14 yr. olds.  It may be time to rethink some
    of your strategies.
    
    Lorna
    

    It seems that my string is causing much more upset than I had
    anticipated.  I'm sorry for those people that I have upset.
    I take responsibility for that upset even though I feel that I have
    been misunderstood.
    
    I'm not avocating rape.  Unambiguous negative signals must be heeded
    and ambiguous signals must be very carefully examined.  A man must be
    willing to except sexual rejection and be quick to back off if positive
    signals stop.  "Dam the torpedoes, full speed ahead" is a very
    destructive sexual attitude for a man to take.
    
    
    					MJC O->
                                                                

    For the record, the original note that has generated these recent
    responses broke the record for frightening, angering and offending
    me. I've tried to address it, but still can't do so calmly. I commend
    the women who have managed to state the things that I couldn't say.
    
    I can only add/reiterate that men have NO RIGHT to ignore our
    "ambiguous" signals about sex. It violates civil rights to say
    the least, and to ASSUME that women are oppressed or manipulated
    by society and don't know what they want - well the words I'm thinking
    just don't belong on the screen. 
    
    From personal experience, let me simply say that it does traumatic
    and often irreperable damage to a woman when a man imposes his will
    because he doesn't think she knows what she wants. 
    
    And lastly, (I'm getting carried away) your analogy about children
    sucks s**t. You can't compare date-rape or "imposing a man's will
    to have sex on a woman who doesn't know what she wants" to pulling
    a child out of the way of a moving car. HOW DARE YOU!  How dare
    you imply that having sex is "what's best for us" or protecting
    us, which such an analogy implicitly states. I sincerely hope that
    someday this happens to your daughter or sister or mother. And when
    you feel the rage inside that someone took advantage of that woman's
    "ambiguous signals" and has his way with her, and you see the tears
    and pain and confusion as this woman grapples to find her sexual
    identity with this kind of NEGATIVE reinforcement, and you see her
    withdraw and say that she'll never enjoy sex and men are jerks,
    ask yourself how valid your statement is. Maybe you should make
    it a point now to educate the women in your life that there are
    JERKS out there who feel as you do, that indecision is a come-on.
    Teach them karate, and that no means no, and that until they are
    the "mistresses" of their sexuality, to let NO MAN tell them when
    where and how they should have sex to please and satisfy HIM.
    
    Its when I see notes like yours, that send off such horrible alarms,
    for the specific reason that they come from seemingly literate,
    educated men, that I wonder how you can be so shocked at a gut reaction
    of loathing and disgust for men. If I were to believe that all men
    feel as you do, that all men rationalize this objectification and
    accept it as a duty and responsibility, I would hate every man I
    ever laid eyes on.
    
    I fight a hard battle to overcome the instances of mental abuse
    from men who have thought as you did, that by forcing their will
    on me, they were doing me a service instead of committing intense
    mental abuse. If it weren't for the fact that I've dated a VERY
    sensitive man who loved me enough to understand that sometimes his
    "will" to have sex made me cry and shudder from repulsion, and he
    would back off, I'd probably still hate men.
    

    AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGH!
    

    Mike, a few thoughts on some of your REPLYs....
    
    You said <some number of> young women want men to take over their
    sexuality. Assume then, that *some* young women want this. (NOTE:
    Not for a minute do I believe this) OK. WHY in God's name do you
    want to concern yourself with such people? (Your REPLY sounded as
    if you do, or *have* to) If a person does not have his/her sexuality
    together enough to *own* it, run like hell. There are THOUSANDS,
    maybe MILLIONS of young women who own their sexuality - concentrate
    on *them*.
    
    Coping with sexual  rejection. This can be lessened, tho' not
    eliminated. I submit that by the time 2 people know each other well
    enough to be thinking about intimacy, they have *communicated* with
    each other quite a lot. They know some things about each other -
    how the other feels about Ronald Reagan as President, their opinion
    about the best dessert wine to serve with Baba-a-Rhum, stuff that
    interests them. Now, certainly knowing someone at least that well
    can give you an idea of how receptive they'd be to a proposition
    for "hanky-panky" :-) .  I mean, isn't *knowing* your partner a
    great aid to good relationships?
    
    And while we're at it....RE: a woman's inner state vs. her actions.
    Her actions are what you need to be concerned with; NOT (repeat)
    NOT what YOUR PERECPTION of her inner state is. If there is a conflict
    between her inner state and her actions towards you, you don't know
    each other well enough to be messing around with stuff like feelings
    and sex (in my humble opinion). 
    
    --DE
    

    re Note 782.172  "Brian Hetrick" 
    One deep, cleansing breath later...
    
    It really goes against my grain to spend the energy I have to give
    to Womannotes arguing with men, but I do feel that I should
    respond to statements that are directed at me.
    
    Brian, first of all, I disagree with your basic premise, that
    MJC's ideas were only a "theory."  I think that many men do
    feel as he's described and that there in lies one of the
    fundamental problems in relationships between men and women.
    
    (hoping i can avoid a rathole, let me state here that I do acknowledge 
    that there are problems in relationships of all kinds:  between women, 
    between men, etc., but I think different kinds of relationships have 
    different kinds of problems, and in this string we're talking about
    men and women.)
    
    To go on... I suspect that there is little room for discussion about
    that basic disagreement between us.  I think the anger that I and
    other women in this file have expressed has a great deal to do with
    my (perhaps our?) belief that many men *DO* feel as MJC described.
    
    If, however, the note he wrote was merely describing a theory,
    (as you've proposed) then (at the risk of repeating what I've said 
    in earlier notes) I'm still disturbed.  Theories are fine if you 
    want to discuss chess, or physics, or if you're taking a course on 
    the sociological basis of sex roles, but to many of the women in 
    this file, when you talk about forced sex, whether in theory or in 
    practice, you're talking about real fear, real experience.  It's no 
    secret that I wish that men were not so prominent in this file 
    (called WOMANnotes), and it's not because I don't like men.  
    It's because of exactly the kind of thing that we've seen in this
    note.  Using your intellectual skills to "theorize" about an issue 
    is a good way to learn about it, but many men fail to see that in 
    talking in the abstract about something that is very real for many
    of the women in this file, harm is done.  It hurts to hear stuff
    like this, whether the person saying it believes it or not.
      
    Justine                                                    

    Gee, Nigel, I don't think you can repress "fantasy".
    
    The argument that pornography causes men to rape and pillage is
    one thing. The argurment that "repressing" pornography will cause
    men to rape and pillage is another - sounds more like a threat.
    "If we can't have our <name favorite form of porn, sexual fantasy,
    whatever-you-call-it> WATCH OUT!"
    
    So if Guy X gets to read (say) Playboy none of us are safe; but
    if Guy Y *doesn't* get to read Playboy none of us are safe?????
    
    My my.
    
    --DE
    
    

    How To Get From a Discussion of Pornography to a Discussion of Rape
    Vol I.
    
    (I believe I have been paying attention here, so:)
    
    1. "Pornography encourages and reinforces the objectification of
    women." 
    
    	<No, it doesn't.  Yes, it does. No, not really. Yes, really!
    	 Nope. Yep. Naw! Yo mama! etc. etc.>
    
    2. "When a woman says "no" and really means "yes", it helps if the
    man can objectify her so as to have sex with her."
    
    3. "When a woman says "no" she means "no" - her inner state is not
    your business. If you then force sex it is:
    
    			RAPE.
    
    I think that's how we got here. Perfectly logical.
    
    --DE
    

Sigh!

I entered .176 in haste, having just skimmed the note string.  One of the
moderators pointed out to me  that I _had_ in fact missed a turn that the note
string has taken, so I just deleted the note to increase the level of peace in
the universe. 

 Let's carry on this other discussion either elsewhere in the file or by mail.

			Sorry for the upset!
				Nigel

    Re: .177
    
    Brian is right. It is just theory.  I myself am very bad at
    objectifing.  Most of my potintial mates get furstated at me
    when I don't get around to asking them out.
    
    You're right Justine, this is not the place to talk about such theories.
    I even said that about 50 replies ago but I did not take my own
    advice.  Now I'm kicking myself for it.  I should have known that
    this theory would touch a nerve.
    
    Sorry all.  Back to read only.
    
    						MJC O->

    A very important point in this 'theory' is the fact that it is entirely
    possible to have a sexual interest in a person and *choose* not
    to act on that interest.  So in order to carry out the 'theory'
    a man must first determine if the woman has made a conscious decision
    and/or is giving mixed signals and really wishes their attention.
    
    I believe it is in our nature to seek out sexual partners and I
    also believe that men find that urge daily whereas a woman's urge
    although it may be daily is greater during ovulation.  But that
    does not justify theories such as was proposed.  
    
    There are societal pressures and biological pressures that have
    caused women to suppress their sexual urges but a man that is 
    forceful for the womens own good does not reduce these pressures
    they only add more.       
    
    The answer is very simple and men find it very hard to understand,
    there are very few Playboy bunnies out there...there are real women
    who want to love and be loved.  And through these 182 replies I
    have yet to see any understanding why many women do not like the
    various 'male' magazines.  It is like having two lovers....one is
    so fancy, so beautiful and so perfect.  The other is real and if
    all the admiration goes to the lifeless form in the centerfold the
    real woman that you want to hold and love senses this.
    
    I had a very bad experience with Playboy magazines, the opposite
    of what is considered 'normal'.  I was ignored because the pictures
    and the hand did the job quicker and didn't talk back!
    
    

    What if I said I agreed with Mike? 
    
    
    Ai-i-i-i-i-e-e-e-e-e-e.....
    
    Well, OK, only partly. If I understand him, Mike says that it is
    easier to (allow yourself to) force your will on someone if you
    objectify them. Well, I agree with that. It's how we get people
    to fight wars with other people who haven't done anything personally
    to them.
    
    So, it is therefore easier to allow ones self to rape if the "rapee"
    is an object.
    
    So, if things like Playboy do indeed perpetuate the objectification
    of women, then they must play a role in how (some? many?) men can
    perpetrate acts of greater or lesser violence against women.
    
    So Mike's theory (in part) actually supports the view that Playboy
    contributes to the subjugation of women.
    
     
    --DE
    

    Boom, you hit the nail on the head, Dawn.  Except I guess we're
    still asking for a minor leap from
    
	    		pictures in Playboy
    
    				to
    
    			objectification of women
    
    I think I've seen some support for this leap in the various comments
    from Bob and Joyce and others that paper pictures are less trouble
    than real people.  [I also admit I don't believe that Playboy and
    similar magazines alone are the sole problem.]

    RE: .185
    
    Dear Gussie, Lisa, if pictures in Playboy were the *sole* problem,
    there wouldn't *be* a problem!
    
    Or if it were *only* describing baby girls as "cute", or if it were
    *only* discouraging women from athletics, or if it were *only* calling
    women "girls", or if it were *only* denigrating women's literature,
    or if it were *only*....
    
    well, you get the point.
    
    --DE
    

Re: .185:  I think that the minor leap (pictures in Playboy to objectification
of women) is so straight forward I wouldn't call it a leap at all.  Here goes:

(Pictures of) Women are USED in advertising & packaging to sell almost anything:
software, electronic components, auto parts, etc.  The more the customer is
traditionally male (e.g., electronics, auto parts), the more likely "cheesecake"
is (or has been) used to push the product.  (My father-in-law is an advertising
copywriter, and my wife worked in advertising for a while, so she and I have
talked about this some.  I certainly do NOT think it is acceptable!)  Remember
the story about the magazine which had Farrah Fawcett on the cover, with the
text "Inside this issue: Absolutely Nothing about Farrah Fawcett" and their
sales went up that month for, I presume, no reason other than the cover
picture?  When an ad has a can of motor oil being held by a model, it isn't
because the customers know that the model knows anything about motor oil (and
she may!) -- a nameless model is a different story from a well-known/named auto
racing driver.

Then figure one could make a lot of money selling more packaging and less
(no) product.  (So maybe Playboy has somewhat more product than some of the
other magazines -- it has text!)  If I paraphrase "the medium is the message"
as "the packaging is the product" we'll recurse, so I won't...  But the point
is that the magazine pictures are just a way to USE women to make money.
(They're also manipulating men to get their money, but that is another file...)

Another point is that the pictures are static: they don't age, they don't hurt,
they don't cry, they don't really laugh or talk or share.  The pictures just
provide an empty shell for men to fill with their own fantasies.  The danger
is that some men may then assume that real women are also empty shells which
can be treated likewise.

Come to think of it, maybe that past paragraph is an adequate explanation all
by itself.

    re:.174
    
    �I sincerely hope that someday this happens to your daughter or
    sister or mother. And when you feel the rage inside that someone
    took advantage of that woman's "ambiguous signals"...� etc. etc.
    
    Lauren, believe me, I know as well as anyone here how the heat
    of anger and frustration can lead one to say terrible things.
    But I really hope that you didn't mean what I quoted above. Such
    a thing shouldn't happen to *any*one, for whatever reason.
    
    re:.179
    
    Thanks for the flow chart, Dawn. I was starting to wonder about
    that myself.
    
    re:.183
    
    For what it's worth, though I've been on the side "defending"
    PLAYBOY, I've had no trouble understanding why women do not like
    it or other men's magazines. On the other hand, I've apparently
    not made myself understood by some others. (1) I've not been
    defending men's magazines in general, but *only* PLAYBOY (well,
    PENTHOUSE, too, to some degreee, but nowhere near as much).
    (2) I'm not defending the salacious content of PLAYBOY by any
    standards other than those which are used to judge any art.
    (3) I've defended PLAYBOY only to the point of saying that I
    believe that the non-salacious content mitigates the salacious
    content to a certain degree. Others have disagreed with this
    position, and I note and understand what they are saying, but
    I still don't agree. I've since decided on a unilateral "let's
    agree to disagree"-type cease fire on the subject. Whether those
    on the "other side" want to go along with this is up to them.
    
    re: pictures in PLAYBOY --> objectification
    
    OK, here's a question to propose. You people can run with it or
    not, but I'm staying out of it, at least for the nonce. Perhaps
    it will get the discussion out of the date-rape gutter and back
    into the pornography gutter where it belongs.
    
    What is cause and what is effect?
    
    Do the pictures in PLAYBOY and the like (or rather pornography in
    general) lead to objectification of women, or does objectification
    of women lead to pornography? Does it matter which is true? Are
    they *both* true? Do they just reinforce each other?
    
    (Nota bene: I am *not* advancing an opinion, so don't yell at me
    if you feel like yelling. I'm simply proposing a subject for
    debate.)
    
    --- jerry

    re .188
    
    My apologies to Macarelton, I don't have a personal vendetta against
    the women in your family. But sometimes I feel like it would take
    such an intimate person to bring home the point, so I use it as
    an example. I realize that more than one person has been alarmed
    at the extent of my rage, and I can only apologize for such poor
    wording. Its actually very hard for me to take back those words,
    but I also know that Mcarelton has apologized TWICE, so I should
    at least try not to express myself in such an equally offensive
    manner.
    
    As I reread Boyajian's note, the only way that I can think to rephrase
    this is that I hope the men will at least THINK about the possibility
    of it happening within their families, so that they will not pretend
    that it only happens to OTHER women. And crusade with us to get
    rid of mindsets that could cause it to happen to any woman. But
    never think that it won't happen to the women in your life if no
    one works to prevent it. I'm a woman in my father's life. I'm 
    sure he never wished it on me.
                                  
    LKF

    
    Yes, Ren, I think you made an excellent point in the last paragraph
    of your note.  Certainly none of us wishes any harm to anyone, but
    maybe as men start thinking about "theories" of rape that they'd
    like to propose, they should first think about whether or not
    it's something they would say to thier sister, wife, daughter or mother
    if she had been raped.  
    
    Justine

    re: .188
    
    I'd have to come down on the objectification-precedes-pornography
    side of the topic Jerry proposes. 
    
    A picture is just a picture.  What a viewer sees in a picture
    is what he or she brings to it.  
    
    In addition, I'm not sure that I buy the "society objectifies
    women" argument.  
    
    This society tends to treat EVERYBODY as objects, as numbers.  The
    advertising is an example.  We're all, men and women and children,
    just consumption machines to be manipulated to get us to buy. They
    don't care about our humanity.  In this machine, there isn't
    anything special about being male or female or a purple tri-sexed
    Martian unless the related cultural software (I love that analogy)
    means that the male-item or the teenage-item has a different
    buying pattern. 
    
    This goes back to what I've said before, that we have to reform
    all society, for men and women, not just for women.  We're all in
    this together.
    
    --bonnie     

    
    So, Bonnie (R.), how would you explain the huge number of "skin" magazines
    and pornographic materials that are sold to men (as compared to
    women)?  Do you see this as representative of some difference
    between men and women?  AND what about the fact that women (and
    children) are vastly overrepresented in the population of victims of 
    rape?  Do you see these 2 things as unrelated?  
    
    I, too, think it's quite likely that objectification precedes pornography,
    but I think pornographic images (both in skin mags and in the mass
    media) perpetuate that objectification by making it seem sexy. 
    We can also say that violence came before guns, but that doesn't
    mean that the two are unrelated.  To eliminate violence, we'd have
    to do more than eliminate guns, but some think that if there were
    fewer guns, there'd be less lethal violence.  I see the relationship
    between pornography and objectification in much the same way.
    
    Pornography is a weapon, in my view, and one that I think is very 
    dangerous especially because some view it as protection against a
    worse fate, i.e., if there were no pornography men would rape more.
    I think pornography encourages men (and women) to see women as
    less than fully human, and we all know that you don't have to respect
    anything that's not human.  I think treating women (and children)
    as objects hurts everyone, including men.  But I seldom see men
    being treated in this way by the media.  Why?  Because it doesn't
    sell products.  Why doesn't it sell products? Because people *know*
    that men are not objects.  If people *knew* that about women and
    children, too, advertisers and magazine editors wouldn't use
    those images.  
                                                   
    Justine

    First of all, I'm not defending pornography on grounds of anything
    other than free speech.  I am defending Playboy to the extent that
    I don't think it's pornography and I occasionally find it exciting
    as well as artistic, but I wouldn't say I see it as a force for
    social good.
    
    With that caveat, let me say that I see a lot of ads that I think treat
    men as objects. 
    
    They treat men as sexy objects and as rugged objects.  Usually they
    show objects without feelings, often violent objects.  And the
    implication is that if a man doesn't aspire to be like these objects,
    they aren't truly male -- in fact, they're probably "queer."
    
    Do you really think the Marlboro Man is any more realistic, any
    less a fantasy, or any less an object than Miss May?
    
    --bonnie

	I also think that pornography objectifies and dehumanizes the
	displayed sex (whether male or female), and I am for any personal
	or social boycott of those who produce or distribute it.  Unlike
	many who objected to the Falwell-led boycott of 7-11's, I thought
	it was perfectly acceptable and a positive way to discourage the
	sale of pornographic literature.  I know some would disagree with
	me about this, but I am asking the following; for those who think
	any level of pornography is unacceptable, what should be done
	about it ?  I think personal or organized boycotts are great in
	any instance, for any cause, as long as they are otherwise peaceful,
	and I think this would be an effective measure.  What else should
	I as an individual do, and how much should an organized group of
	like-minded people do to change the behaviors and attitudes of
	society ?

    Men are objectified, but it happens a great deal less often.  Never seen
    a scantily clad man advertising motor oil or compilers.

    re 782.193      
    >> Do you really think the Marlboro Man is any more realistic, any
    >>less a fantasy, or any less an object than Miss May?
      
    No, I don't.  Both images are unrealistic.  But one is an image
    of power.  Would you rape a Marlboro man?  The point I'm trying
    to make is that men and women are presented in very different ways,
    in very different roles.  
    
    Next time you watch TV, I encourage you to try paying attention to 
    the commercials.  I've actually done this using a notebook in
    which I tried to categorize and keep track of what I saw. 
    Look at who is most likely to play the role of "expert."  
    (I'll grant you that we're seeing more and more women in 
    non-traditional roles, but the change is slow).  What products do 
    women usually sell?  Are the women taken seriously in the context 
    of the (admittedly silly) commercial?  Are men in ads taken
    seriously?  I'm reminded of an especially tiresome ad in which a young 
    male child shakes his head in disbelief when his mother tells him he's 
    eating turkey (or something.)  Ok, now maybe kids do treat their
    mothers (AND FATHERS) that way sometimes, but I think you don't
    see men trivialized in the same way or at anywhere near the
    same frequency as women.  Bonnie, you've mentioned in other
    notes that you have some discomfort with women who have
    made "traditional" choices.  Has it ocurred to you that your
    discomfort may have at least something to do with how
    those choices have been presented to you in the media?
    If only silly women clean ovens, for example, who the hell
    wants to clean ovens?  Only silly women do that.
    
    Justine                                 
    

    re .195  You don't see scantily clothed men selling "housewares"
    or similar objects which marketing types direct towards women, either!
    
    I listen to a commercial classical station a lot when I can't get
    folk or classical music on public radio, and the ads are a study.
    
    The men in any of the radio ads usually sound confident and authoritative.
    The women in any of the ads usually sound breathy, twittery, excited,
    and over-dramatic.  And orgasmic over ridiculous things. 

    re: .196
    
    Justine, I'm having trouble figuring out what your point is here.
    I never disagreed that men and women are portrayed differently;
    I'm trying to say that everybody is damaged. 
    
    It sounds like you think that because the male image in
    advertising is more powerful, that means it's better even though
    it's equally objectified, unreal, dehumanized.  Do you think a man
    who is denied his emotions because he buys this stereotype is any
    less crippled as a human being than a woman who is denied her
    power and authority? 
    
    I don't disagree that men and women are presented in different
    roles.  The only thing I disagree with is what sounds like an
    implication that because Marlboro Men aren't raped, they aren't
    damaged in any way.  Did you intend to imply that? 
    
    I think the advertising industry does more damage to the
    collective US psyche and individual self-esteem in one day than
    the entire collection of porn from mild to disgusting to downright
    violent does in a whole year.  (For one thing, you can't escape
    it.)   
    
    I further think that the only way a society can maintain an
    dehumanized view of women is if MEN ARE EQUALLY DEHUMANIZED. A pet
    woman, or a silly wife, or whatever stereotype, demands a male in
    a box to complement the role.  Real people want to deal with other
    real people; only boxes can deal with other boxes.  
    
    From my point of view, you're leaving out half the equation.
    
    --bonnie

    RE: .196
    
    Justine, I, too, note the characterizations of men in commercials
    and on the shows, themselves.
    
    I've noticed a substantial number of situations in which the men
    are portrayed as bumbling idiots, seemingly incapable of dealing
    with life (and its intricacies) without the aid of a "good woman"
    to show him how to use the washing machine or what kinds of food
    he should eat.
    
    And let's not ignore those that intimate a wily woman can get
    around "her man" and what *he* wants, by dazzling him with her
    smile (or promises of other "goodies", if he's a good boy and
    does what *she* wants).
    
      Alan
                            

    
    
    I think that images of men and women in the media are dehumanizing
    to both men and women, so I guess that is the full "equation" in its
    sketchiest form.  However, I think that men and women are
    dehumanized in different ways and with different consequences; I
    think, Bonnie, that you said you agreed with me here.  And, yes,
    if pushed, I will say that I think being raped is worse than feeling
    like you shouldn't cry, but that's not the question that I want
    to ask or answer.  (though certainly others do and i think should
    pursue those kinds of questions.)  I think that to respond to a
    question about the role of the media in violence against women
    with a reminder that the media also objectifies men is to trivialize
    the question about women.  I think choosing to focus on one question
    at a time does not negate the existence of other questions.
                                              
    Justine

    While we are discussing advertising it brings to my mind the one
    presently aired on t.v. about a brand of frozen dinners.
    
    Three middle aged women are listing off the different types of
    dinners now available in brand x.  The teenage bag boy remarks
    that those women sure to know their brand x!  The other teenage
    check out clerk brags that he taught them all they know!  The
    bag boy admits how impressed he is with the check out boy.
    
    Is brand x trying to teach shoppers that middle aged women learn
    all they know from teenage boys?  Is the message that teenage boys
    are more knowledgeable and somehow superior to middle aged women?
    
    The advertising message does not sell the product but, in fact has
    a backlash effect.  How many shoppers want to be told they are not
    intelligent enough to purchase brand x?
    

Three unrelated points:

(1)  The portrayal (objectification) of men and women in the media HAS
improved over the last ten-fifteen years.  As evidence, I offer that 
(for example) Nickelodeon (a children's cable channel) is showing old
TV shows from the sixties, such as Mr Ed, Dennis the Menace, etc etc.
The portrayal of women and men in these shows is appalling, even to my
limited sensibilities

(2)  Consider the following two facts.  Most advertizing is aimed at men.
On average, a woman's salary will be 70% of a man's. I suspect (and it has
been said before) that there may be a relationship between these two facts.

(3)  Consider the following (with regard to the "Moral Majority" and boycotts):
The problem perhaps is not so much that pornographic materials are available,
but that these materials are available at the corner grocery store! I can under-
stand that some people find such things distasteful (or stronger) and don't
want to look at nudity while buying a quart of milk. 
 One solution might be to open a "Sex Goods" shop (as I have seen in parts of
Europe) in which one could buy almost anything from "marital aids" to magazines
to videos...(what might be called a  "Pornucopia"!)  Then, if I wanted a quart
of milk, I could go to the corner store, and if I wanted the latest issue of
"Big Breasted Bimbo" monthly, I could go to the Porn Store. This would require
a level of personal honesty from the people buying the magazines, that is "I am
buying a pornographic magazine" rather than "it's really art!" or "I only buy it
for the articles".

			But then, I see nothing wrong with Porn in its place
					Nigel

    	  I think there is a big difference between being stereotyped
    	and objectified.  Objectified means being treated like
    	an object.  I don't see how the Marlboro man or the flustered
    	housewife for that matter, is being objectified.  Objectification
    	is for example, a picture where a woman is being used as a chair
    	or table.
    	  I am against censorship as it is a very dangerous thing. 
    	If it were not socially acceptable to read Playboy Magazine
    	or whatever skin mag, you would not see them in convenience
    	stores, gift shops in airports, etc..
    		Linda

    Thank you, Bananas.  :-)
    
    Tell you what, people.  Why don't those of you who feel that there
    is equivalent objectification of men and women (either 0% or more)
    get some pictures out of magazines that show this objectification.
    (Or just a "Playboy" spread and an ad section from "Time" if you
    think there isn't any such thing.)
    
    Now, in the privacy of your own room, and fully clothed, place your
    body in the EXACT position of each model in each photograph.  Was
    the position physically easy to achieve?  Easy to hold?  Did you
    think of yourself as powerful or strained or precariously balanced
    or what? as you posed?
    
    Perhaps you will find, as have others, that the women are in positions
    that are strained and vulnerable, while the men are in positions
    that are easy and powerful.
    
    							Ann B.

    Yes, the Marlboro Man is a stereotype. He is still a *power*-full
    stereotype. The issue of power cannot be ignored in this context.
    While stereotyping *anyone* is certainly less-than-helpful in our
    realizing our common humanity, we are a society that gives point
    for power. If you are seen as having it, you are seen as "positive".
    
    Stereotyping of males is almost always as powerful; stereotyping
    of females is almost NEVER so.
    
    --DE
    

    
    Re .205
    
    You've finally used the right word to back up Justine's points:
    *POWER*. Even when a man is portrayed as "helpless" 'coz he
    doesn't know how to do laundry - he is nevertheless powerful
    and macho and doesn't have time for trivial, "womanly" things like
    picking the right detergent. Whereas, a woman is portrayed
    as powerless, since she's always needing help when her car
    breaks down or in almost any life-threatening situation.
    
    The point is both women and men are shown to be needy of each
    other, but the men are *always* portrayed powerful no matter what!

    If we're going to really look at the advertising percentages,
    we probably ought to have a party (or a clippings bee, or something)
    where everybody brings magazines and we cut out the ads.  I don't
    think it sinks in until you have the weight of all those pictures.
    Everybody should sign up to bring a half a dozen different magazines
    or something to eat, and some effort is made to make sure not everyone
    brings chocolate and not everyone brings "Family Circle".
    
    Or you could get that video "Killing Us Softly" from the Merrimack
    site library (like I did) and show it at work (it's 3/4", not a format
    many of us have at home, unfortunately).
                                           

        Sandy, I'm sorry, but I don't feel that I can take up your
        challenge to tell you "what men are like" without reference to
        myself and my own experience. It would be entirely contradictory
        to the reasons that I objected to the notes in this discussion
        which theorized about what men are like. I think there has been
        far too much speculating and theorizing about other people's
        motives and inner states in this discussion already. I will not
        contribute to it by pretending to be an expert on the entirety
        of my sex, let alone on the opposite sex.

        We don't need more people expounding on why members of the
        opposite sex act the way they do, nor even people trying to
        explain all of their own sex. What we do need is to have more
        people try to honestly convey the authentic reality with which
        they have first hand knowledge.

        When I was young I also knew boys who "declared women silly,
        stupid and irrational beings who had to be tricked into bed for
        their own good", but there our experiences part company. Rather
        than standing with them, accepting and parroting their drivel
        or accepting their assertion that they were the flower of
        manhood, I noticed that they were also the same boys who were so
        fond of beating up little snots like me. I decided that they
        represented not the male sex or what was admirable in humanity,
        but rather that they were victimizers, and that they needed to
        be opposed, regardless of the cost.

        Rather than accept such boys as the image of maleness, I chose
        rather adult men who exhibited both strength and compassion. I
        was lucky in this in that my father and his friends tended to be
        such men, men who loved their wives and valued and respected
        them as companions and as people.

        (As a side note, one of the reasons that I've been rather tardy
        in answering here is that last weekend I was holding a surprise
        party for my folks' 40th anniversary. For this party I chased
        down about a dozen of their best friends from 40 years ago, folk
        I hadn't seen in 20 years or more. Interestingly, the guest list
        included one remarried widow and 5 or 6 intact couples. Among
        the folk who couldn't make it were two divorced women and
        another half a dozen intact couples. All of my father's friends
        whom I took as my models of masculinity are still married after
        40 years except one who has died (after 30 years of marriage).
        One of the two men who were divorced I never knew. The other was
        my alcoholic uncle whom I loved much more than I respected.)

        My own image of what it is to be a man is therefore quite
        different from yours, and for very explicit and intentional
        reasons. I choose to admire, identify and associate with men who
        have risen above the stupidities of adolescence. The boys upon
        whom you have patterned your image of man are the ones upon whom
        I have patterned my image of victimizer, and whom I have shunned
        and opposed for the last 25 years. What may surprise you is that
        once I rejected them, I found that there were lots of people
        like myself all around who would support and agree with me.

        What are men like? Some are admirable and some are despicable.
        Some act from base and selfish motives, some from noble and
        selfless ones. The vast majority are sexually excited by women,
        and most even by women whom they do not know. Some think that
        excitement is something which must be acted on and others enjoy
        it just for being. Some are moved by power or by lust, and
        others by joy and human contact. There is no average man.
        Which kind of man we take as our model of masculinity says as
        much about us as about masculinity.

        JimB.

    re:.189
    
    In some measure, I should apologize to you, Lauren, for bringing
    this up in public rather than via private mail. I understood what
    you meant rather than said, but I felt that the point needed to
    be raised. Too often we don't realize some of the rash things we
    say in the heat of passion (no, I don't mean *that* kind of passion).
    Recent personal experience -- and not as a "victim" -- has made
    me a bit sensitive to this.
    
    re:.202
    
    The only problem with that "requirement of a level of personal
    honesty" that you propose is that there *are* people who buy
    a magazine like PLAYBOY "for the articles" (me, for example).
    There are also people who quite honestly don't think of PLAYBOY
    as pornography (me, for example). So, your proposal would force
    these people to subject themselves to pornographic images that
    they may well find offensive (such as B&D or S&M -- which I
    find personally repellant -- or perhaps even homosexual activity
    -- which I don't, but others do) in order that they be able to
    avail themselves of something they don't find at all offensive.
    
    --- jerry

    
    re:.207
    this sounds like great fun! it almost makes me wish I lived back
    east, ah well...
    

    Re: .203
    
    >I think there is a big difference between being stereotyped
    >and objectified.
    
    I'd say there's some difference, but not a big difference.  They
    are both forms of dehumanization, objectification being more complete
    than stereotyping.  Stereotyping refuses to allow the person to
    be an individual human being - stripping them of their personal
    qualities.  Objectification refuses to allow the person to be a
    real human being - stripping them of their human qualities.

RE: All

What is your opinion on the difference between photographic and written
pornography?

RE: 'Perfect Pornography places real women below standard'
or  'The Difference between Perfection and reality'

Poppycock!  My three year old son knows the difference between a picture of a
duck and a real duck.  He doesn't expect all ducks to be like Donald Duck. He
knows the difference between a representation/symbol of something, and the real
thing.  Can you tell the difference between Art and reality?  I can, and I
suspect most men can.

How would you feel if pronography did not portray perfect people?

PS saying seen recently... "The difference between Fiction and Reality is
that fiction is supposed to make sense."

RE: 782.23 Sandy CSSE::CICCOLINI

"Um, Mike, what are you thinking of?  If you take away Playboy and just don't
replace it, the picture of female sexuality will get far MORE accurate!  Think
about it."

He is saying that if you take away Playboy, it *WILL* be replaced by something
quite likely worse.

"In this society "good" women are not supposed to indulge their sexuality, (or
even admit to having any at all), and I believe most American females were
raised pretty much the same way differing only in degree."

Is this true anymore?  I don't believe so.  How are you raising your kids?

"We are allowed to pose FOR men, but we're not supposed to drool AT them."

Drool away... Seriously, why do you suppose that men in particular do not
want women to be sexual?  Every train of thought I can think of tells me
that it is in men's best interests for women *to be* sexual as well.  The
only reason I can think of for suppressing female sexuality is a motive
irrespective of sex.

"I believe neither sex in this culture is routinely raised to be "normal".  Sex
is anathema to a "good" girl and not being a raging, rip-snorting, red-blooded
horny teenager is anathema to being a "real man".  Our cultural mistake is in
assuming that sexuality is ANYTHING other than response and a need as common to
every human being as the need for water."

I can agree wholeheartedly with that...  it's when you start pointing fingers
that gets my dander up.  I thank God that I missed out on a lot of that
conditioning, although I suspect I'm not perfect :-}

"It's the refusal to see the reality of female sexuality that is REQUIRED
before you can appreciate the fantasy of it that I believe women object to."

I don't see what you are getting at, could you elaborate?

"Breasts thought of as mere adipose tissue containing milk glands for the
nourishment of the woman's infants is not going to sell magazines because
that reality is everywhgere - why pay?  But fantasizing away their function and
seeing them instead as "creamy globes spilling out of a strapless dress" WILL
sell."

Are you saying that Breasts have no sexual function?

"The function of breasts, (and women's bodies in general), takes a back seat to
the fantasy of them and it's this part of it that I for one have a problem
with."

I have no problem with the (milk) function of breasts, and with breasts having
a sexual function as well. 

"Women who live in a culture where the fantasy of their bodies is considered
preferable to the fact and function of them are going to grow up trying to deny
the fact and function naturally in favor of the fantasy."

If you are talking about pornography, I doubt that you will find many people
who will prefer pornography to "the real thing".  If you are talking about
'women don't sweat, they perspire', I can agree that that is a pile of rubbish,
but I don't see that that is the same as pornography.

"We hate our adipose and milk-gland tissue and try our damndest to make sure
men see only "creamy globes" instead."

Perhaps that this is what woman feel, but I don't believe that for men, "creamy
globes" is not irreconcilable with milk glands.  Please don't pin it on men. 

"Because the truth is, the message of these kinds of images causes women to put
THEMSELVES down and I believe that's the worst part of it.  The damage is
insidious.  Because women flog themselves over men's fantasy images men once
again believe they can get off scott-free in the responsibility for the effects
of porn.  Because in truth, no one is actually TELLING women that they can't
have moles, pores or adipose tissue, right?"

Aye, there's the truth.  It doesn't have anything to do with men!  I believe
the problem is women *competing* with women.  Men compete as well, but in
different ways.  A women feeling depressed because she doesn't look like Vanna
White makes as much sense to me as me being depressed because I don't skate
like an olympic gold medalist.  Big deal.  We all have to realize that we
aren't perfect, and get on with life. 

What'da mean women can't have moles?  Don't you remember "beauty marks"?  :-) 
 
"I challenge any man to spend one WEEK denying his reality and trying to be,
oh, say, Donald Trump for us."

'Real Men' don't don't bother trying to be unreal.

"Try to keep up the illusion that you are or can be what we women most want a
man to be and if you can't, that's ok.  You don't really HAVE to pander to our
fantasies but if you don't, we'll turn to our magazines for solace and keep
looking.  If you knew we had tons of magazines as well as tv, movies,
commercials ad nauseum taunting us with images of care-free men who have tons
of money and time to spend it, you might be doing a little running around
tucking in the corners of your own reality."

I know that you are being sarcastic, but yes, there are women who are exactly
like what you describe.  What about "Lifestyles of the rich and Famous"? Guess
who their viewers are?  Women.  51% of snobs are women.

"They don't feel any obligation whatsoever to the women sharing the planet with
them and that's an interesting point."

I don't think men have cornered the market...  I've heard, 'well I don't care
what you want...' quite a bit from women, quite a bit even in this very
conference.

"But on a one-on-one basis, (pun intended!), women have all the power."

Ah, there you show your colors (power trip)...  I disagree.  I have my own
power.

"If women only slept with men who had pink cars, pretty soon you'd see a lot of
pink cars on the road."

You bet...  There's a lot of stupid hoops women make men jump through... I'm
not jumping unless *I* want to, though, and I don't do hoops. 

JMB

RE: .202
    
>(2)  Consider the following two facts.  Most advertizing is aimed at men.
>On average, a woman's salary will be 70% of a man's. I suspect (and it has
>been said before) that there may be a relationship between these two facts.
    
    
    Huh?  I always thought that most advertising is aimed at women.  I
    heard that (some time ago, so things may have changed) 18 to 38 year
    old women spent most of the disposable cash in this country.  Some
    specific things are mostly purchased by men, and so the advertising for
    these things are aimed at that market.  One such item, I remember
    reading, is ice cream.
    
    Like I said, it's been some time since I heard this statistic quoted,
    and I can't remember the source.  Many things have changed during that
    decade or so, like the average age at which people chose to marry and
    the average income of women, so this may also have changed.
    
    								-- Mikey

re:.212
    
>What is your opinion on the difference between photographic and written
>pornography?

    I believe the difference is not in the medium, I believe it is in
    the degree.  I find certain types of "tasteful written erotica"
    much more palateable and much more to my liking than outright rude
    smutbooks (although rude is certainly in the eye of the beholder).
    Likewise, certain R or mild-X rated movies will serve their purpose
    well with more implied sexuality than the blatant close-ups and
    mismatched voiceovers one gets with triple-X rated movies.  
    
    I believe the objectification we are discussing occurs more often
    in the "lower" or "more graphic" forms of written/pictorial/movie
    pornography.  

    -Jody
    

    Re: .212
    
    >What is your opinion on the difference between photographic and
    >written pornography?
    
    Written pornography is a more private, internalized experience because
    it allows the reader to create the pictures through imagination.
    Is it more or less guilty of objectification than photographic
    pornography?  Hard to say.  It all depends on the particular item
    of pornography.  One could argue that written pornography is less
    guilty of objectification - because it would have to take place
    in the reader's mind - but that's not really true.  The writer provides
    constraints.  If the woman is treated like an object in the story,
    then it is guilty of objectification.

RE: unrealistic publications....

Several people have denounced pornography on the basis that it paints an
unrealistic picture of women as being perfect, always available when the
man wants it, etc...

How would you feel if pornography was realistic?  How could pornography
be made realistic to you?

About realism...  There are *tons* of different kinds of productions that paint
unrealistic pictures...  harlequin romances, lifestyles of the rich and famous,
science fiction, advertising, etc, etc, etc...  Should all of these be
abolished so that that we all have a realistic view of the world and realistic
expectations of people?  Is escapism no longer a valid pastime? 

RE: women who hate playboy hate their bodies

I wouldn't have but the cause and effect that way, and I don't think that it
was meant that way.  I believe that women who hate playboy do so because they
feel that they are expected to live up to the playboy standard.  I do not
believe that this is so; I do not believe that men expect women to live up to
the playboy standard. 

RE: romance books are okay because they're imaginary anyway

I disagree.  The romance books paint just as inaccurate a *stereotype* of men
as pornography paints of women.  It conditions women to expect men to act like
the "Masterly Male", and conditions women to act like the 'helpless female'.
Dreck!  Now that's brain damage... 

RE: "Real Women" magazine...  Sounds like an interesting idea...

RE: ogle & leer  :-> I like that!

RE: "We give the media too much power when we accept its renditions of our
    lives."  AMEN!

RE: "Boy"cott

Hmmm...  So, you presume to judge men 'in total' on one (insignificant) aspect
of their personalities?  My what limitations people put on themselves! To me,
that is like me saying that I would never allow a woman who had had an abortion
in my house... 

RE: 'Women are affected by how men percieve women'

If you want to be truthfull, I believe that you should add another step of
indirection in that statement to make it: 'Women are affected by how women
percieve men percieve women'.

RE: Playboy women are "totally for the man's pleasure"

I disagree strongly!  The sexiest woman in my mind is one who is enjoying
herself.  Her pleasure is very important to how sexy she is.  Perhaps some men
who buy Playboy want to be able to have the fantasy that they can please a
woman.  In fact I would say that a large part of men that I know of who are
heavily into pornography are rather 'disreputable' in some way, and I cannot
imagine them being able to keep a woman, and pornography is the only way they
can please a women.  How *very* sad!

RE: Male (and female) strippers are boring to watch.  

Yes, a relationship between two people should be so much more then that....

RE: Defining different types of women leads to schizophrenia

True, because each person is a mixture of many different models/types. It leads
to schizophrenia only when people start being, and expecting others to be only
one and only type, and all of that stereotype.

"They share similar characteristics of inventing women, and then trying to get
real women to believe the inventions."  I believe that the reason for inventing
models is to attempt to understand.  The problem is in expecting reality to
match the models.

JMB

re: .216
    
    >I believe that women who hate playboy do so because they
    >feel that they are expected to live up to the playboy standard.
    
    In my opinion, due to the utter lack of intellect, selectivity,
    and personality inherent in pornographic pictures, (i.e. they have
    none) I would not want to live up to them...I would not want to
    live down to them either...
    
    
-Jody
    

"Maybe you don't flog yourselves over the constant imposition in our lives of
men's wishlists and maybe I don't either."  Everybody has wishlists that they
impose on other people. 

"But I believe that my personal opinion on miniskirts has absolutely NO bearing
on the cultural implications of the new fashions."  I disagree; if you like
wearing miniskirts, then quite likely other women like wearing miniskirts, and
blaming miniskirts on a male plot doesn't make a whole lot of sense. 

"societal implications of one sex dictating sexual behavior to the other." Both
sexes dictate sexual behavior for both sexes.

"In real life she would have been leered at, insulted, maybe even grabbed once
or twice on the way to her table."  I imagine that depends somewhat on what
type of place she was in.  There is also the possibility (in real life) that if
she went to a dive where she expected such treatment, that she wanted to
provoke some reaction to she sexuality. 

"she would KNOW that the men of her culture might easily tend to think she was
"inviting" contact."  You tell me...  If a woman walks into a bar with it all
hanging out, *yes* I would bet that she is inviting sexual contact, I would
think the same of a man letting it all hang out.  What would you think?  And
no, I would not think that she would be at fault if she were raped. (don't beat
a dead horse when it's down) 

"I'm discussing the fact that a woman is not expected to be sexual in her own
right, but only as the object of a man or men and we've been raised to know
that."  I don't believe that that is what your example shows.  I believe that
your example shows that if you put your sexuality on show, you can, and should
expect a response to it.  Why show it if you don't want a response to it?  The
only thing I can think of if you don't want a response to it would be along the
lines of being a nudist.  Trying to be a nudist amoung the general population
is simply inappropriate.  I can think of several times where a woman was rather
upset that showing her sexuality *didn't* provoke a response.  How can you tell
the difference in what a woman wants before she says different?

"And women who oppress themselves never HAVE to be told by men that they can't
do this or that because they're doing FOR men."  I disagree; giving up the
authority and responsibility for your own life, man or woman, and trying to lay
the blame on others, in my mind, is de facto evidence of inferiority. Either
you take responsibility for your life, or acknowledge that *you* gave it away.
It may be appropriate to blame some men for some conditioning which leads to
women oppressing themselves, but that in no way dissolves your responsibility
for your own life. 

"The fact that Whoopie Goldberg CAN'T tell the joke, "Every time I see a hot
looking guy I just s-l-i-i-i-d-e across the floor"."  Who says she can't tell
that joke?

"I'd like to able to just get cleaned without having to get "detailed" every
single time."  What?

"I'd like to be asked my opinion on the abortion issue before laws are passed
and I'd like my opinion to count as much as a man's does."  Good, and I'd like
fathers to have the same voice in abortions as mothers do as well.

"I'd like to see words used that mean exactly what they should."  Oh my! What
about all of the feminist jargon?

"Women are raised with a fear of a manless life."  Men have fears of being
womanless as well.

"To that end, women don't dare allow THEMSELVES the freedom to see men as mere
sex-objects."  This seems like an odd statement to me; I'd almost think you
*wanted* women to think of men as sex-objects as opposed to real people.

"These women are highly paid objects.  The rest of us are just objects." Are
you saying that you are objectified as much as a woman who appears in Playboy
et al?  I doubt it.

"But just because some women have said, "OK, jerk, here ya go.  Gimme the mink"
doesn't let men off the hook for imposing the limits in the first place."
Hmmm...  I don't see how the fact that there are limits on women (and men) does
anything to prove how pornography should be outlawed or some such. 

"How "sophisticated" is a man who does not really like looking at real women
and who basically admits it even without realizing it?"  Occasionally people do
like to fantisize;  that does not mean that they do not like looking at real
women.

"It's tough to be art when you're a living thing.  And many men say that's ok.
You can be merely real if you want to.  I have Playboy and the rest of the
media to give me the "art" I crave."

Perhaps that's the way it should be that people get their "art" fixes from
magazines, leaving people free to be "real"?  That doesn't sound all that bad. 
Why can't/isn't it be that way?  Perhaps pornography can actually free
women from having to satisfy men's sexual needs when *men* want it, because
pornography gives men another sexual outlet when his partner is not in the
mood?  Is that better then women needing to be at men's beck and call?

"I am unwilling to criticize a woman as "unfeminist" for any choice she might
make"  But you're quite willing to crucify men, eh?  I feel that you operate on
a double standard.

"I think Playboy are part of a larger problem where women are treated as
objects of male fantasy.  This is how I feel."  *Bingo*  That is how *you*
*feel* about reality, which is not the same as that's the way reality is.

"I think men are threatened by sexually able and demanding women."  I don't
understand this; I would much rather have a woman who I could please, and who
wanted me, then one that didn't.

"I think there can be no doubt that porn, however "soft", has as its purpose
the objectification of women."  How do you feel about "women's erotica"? I
would not feel "objectified" by it.

Let's try a new thought...  If that you all are complaining about pornography
is that it does this, that, and the other...  if it doesn't affect me in that
way, then shouldn't it be alright for me to read pornography?  Or is something
else, *really* the problem here?

'men want sex more then women'  One reason I can think of is the same that a
man can concieve hundreds, while a woman can realistically only birth a dozen
or so. 

RE: Hairiness.  I'd bet that that the proportion of women who don't shave is
about equal to the proportion of men who do not shave.  And men have to shave
every *day*.

"And further, do you believe that one of the biggest chains is porn which
forces upon women a male ideal which they cannot possibly ever reach"  The
problem is when men or women feel that they *need* to reach for that ideal. The
problem is not pornography itself.

JMB