From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Exploitation by Playboy and Hustler (was: Re: <None>)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 21:27:47 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <BsIJx5.2wo@newcastle.ac.uk> Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:
>
>        [alt.censorship deleted from Newsgroups line]
>
>gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>>cp: [in response to GF]
>>| You stated, as a premise, that pictures of naked women stunt a man's
>>| emotional growth. The picture you presented was that of a man trying to
>>| relate sexually with a picture. Can men not tell fantasy from reality?
>>| Can men not tell the difference between a picture and a woman? You have
>>| not demonstrated the "exploitation of men" to my satisfaction.
>
>>I've done about as well as I can.  People can tell fantasy from
>>reality in a cognitive way, but that's not the whole of human
>>mentation by a long shot, and I'm speaking mainly of affective
>>and intuitive, rather than rational, processes.  And it's not
>>pictures of naked women per se that are damaging but the
>>peculiar system of repressions which Playboy and Hustler
>>utilize, which involves certain _kinds_ of pictures. 

>A good approach, I think, is to examine the way that women are
>exploited by the advertising industry when they absorb the
>beauty myth.  Girls can tell the difference between fantasy
>(all those ideal faces and figures, that are overwhelmingly
>popular) and reality (the people they see around them in school).
>But women still absorb the desperate insecurity that makes them
>go out and buy unnecessary "beauty products" and uncomfortable
>clothes, and they're afraid of acting too clever, for fear of
>alienating the males around them.  So far, so uncontentious (I hope).

  OK.

>The male side of this is to buy into the beauty myth as well.
>Boys invite girls who are "pretty" out to the movies, and ignore
>those who are less so, or who seem too bright.  They learn to
>judge the value of a woman by her appearance.  The role of
>pornographic magazines is that they tie this skin-deep kind of
>evaluation in with the full-blooded sex drive.  Men have to
>accept the reality that most of them cannot sleep with these
>visions of loveliness; but they are left feeling that the best
>lays are with the most beautiful women.  Thus, they are often
>vaguely unhappy that their (admittedly fantastic) ideal cannot
>be satisfied.

  So let's connect this back to Playboy.  Is there any evidence
  that Playboy plays some kind of a causal or facilitative role
  in this process?   Is there any reason to think that if we
  set up some kind of Twilight Zone experiment involving two
  identical middle-class US suburban towns in the 1960's or
  1970's, the *only* difference being that one town had never
  heard of Playboy, Hugh Heffner, or the Playboy Philosophy,
  that there would be a fewer problems of the sort you describe
  above?    

  I mean, I don't know how to assess the net result.  The first
  naked woman I ever saw, I saw in Playboy, and the first Ray
  Bradbury story I ever read I read in Playboy.  Hiding Playboy 
  magazines under my mattress was one of my first acts of adolescent
  rebellion/secrecy-from-my-parents.   The role of a magazine
  like Playboy is complex. 

  
>It doesn't have to be this way; there is nothing inherent in
>the depiction of unclad bodies that makes people absorb the
>insecurities that are so dear to the heart of advertisers.  But
>that is how they spin it now, and it works.

  That's what I'm skeptical about.   I know that's how it's
  supposed to work, and how advertisers would like to think
  it works.  But how do we explain why some people don't seem
  to be affected by this?   Despite all the hype, I had no desire
  to read about the Olympics in the paper (I don't watch TV)
  but other people simply HAD to read every detail, videotape
  every event, etc.   

  There are metaphysical issues here.  I don't feel the need
  to wear ear-rings, drive a new car, watch TV, read the latest
  tales of Princess Di or Madonna, or pay any attention to 
  the home baseball or football team's fortunes even though these
  are all popular things to do these days.  Now I claim to be
  exercising free will.  So either I have to take the position that
  I, alone have free will, and all about me are mindless automatons
  subject to the programming of Madison Avenue, which is a meta-
  physically doubtful position to take; or I have to also grant
  them free will as well.    In which case we have to conclude
  that they *choose* to buy these products, follow these fads,
  and treat their bodies, or members of the opposit sex they
  way they do.  


---peter
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory