From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: At the Barricades (was: Re: Catharine MacKinnon, Playboy and feminist propaganda)
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 05:35:56 GMT

payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:

>>>>_Playboy_ exists in a context.  
>>
>>>Everything exists in some context, this is another distinction where
>>>there is no difference.
>>
>>Yes, everything exists in a context.  Gordon was not trying to say that
>>Playboy was unique in this, but that the context had to be considered,
>>as the context that anything exists in does.
>
>It exists in the -same- social context as everything else we do. There
>is no difference.

The point being, it makes sense to see things in their context, payner.
Why is this not getting into your head?  Isn't it different to see
a naked woman, for example, (1) at womyn's music festival in the woods
(2) a gay men's leather bar in NYC and (3) in an insane asylum?
You know, context gives meaning.  It's a very simple concept.

The point being, let's look at this object, Playboy, and evaluate
it in the context of the sexual mores of our society.  This is an
alternative to the exercise "what do you, personally, think of
the content of Playboy given your personal stance on sexuality?" 
What is so hard about this for you?

You can disagree about what those sexual mores are, but what is your
problem with the exercise?

(Body types and sexuality discussion deleted...)

>>                    I display mine much more than she does hers, but no
>>one tells me to stop, because mine is close enough to the "ideal" that
>>people *like* seeing it displayed.  They reject my friend's sexuality
>>(or any display which might indicate that she has any such thing)
>>because she doesn't have the right body.  Some of the comments she gets
>>are *extremely* hostile.
>
>What does this have to do with Playboy? Show me where Playboy causes
>this behavior. Or where it enforces the lack of sexuality of non-ideal
>people.

Oh, pshaw.  First you ask for some one to tell you what the CONTEXT 
of Playboy is, then, when they bother to give their two cents on the
issue, you turn it all back on them saying Playboy did not CAUSE
the context.  Look, payner, Muffy did *not* say Muffy caused or
enforced this behavior.  You asked for CONTEXT, she gave it.

>>                      my SO and I get negative comments if we kiss in
>>public, because that's not something that "should be" displayed.  
>
>This seems to be more of a regional thing than a Playboy thing. 

Once again -- did Muffy blame Playboy for this?  NO!
When will you stop misconstruing people's posts?

>By some, but then some look down on those non-PC, or non-Xian, or 
>just about any other group. What does this have to do with Playboy?

Nothing.  And no one said it did, but YOU.

>>                                                     If a person has a
>>non-standard orientation, such as homosexuality, bisexuality, or BDSM,
>>they are subject to quite a lot of hatred, to the point of being killed
>>for their sexuality.  Yes, our society has a lot of hatred for sexuality
>>in it.
>
>So are you claiming that Playboy espouses killing homosexuals? I suspect
>that their lawyers might want to talk to you if you are. 

Egad.  When will this stop?  Please, try to *understand* what people
*say* before you start blubbering!  She's giving you CONTEXT because
THAT is what YOU asked for!

>                                  And I suggest that this is just the
>type of intolerance that caused 7-11 to stop carrying Playboy, not what
>Playboy espouses. Intolerance is everybodies problem. Playboy is not it's
>cause.

Payner, I get the idea that Muffy is not one of the people who is
all that put off by Playboy, okay?  And, once again, she never said
that Playboy was the *cause*.

>>>No, it was invented by MacKinnon, Dworkin, and their ilk.
>>>Or at least the PC version.
>>
>>No, it was invented by our society, many many years before MacKinnon and
>>Dworkin were born.  Read up on St. Paul - he certainly qualifies as a
>>sex/sexuality-hater, and Christianity has taken a lot of their ideas
>>from him.
>
>Then Christians are your (and my) problem, -not- playboy. Playboy does not
>get it's structure from fundamentalist Xians, who find Playboy offensive.
>Again, you are putting the wrong things together.

No, she is exactly correct, and -- believe it or not, you two are
actually agreeing here if you would just take a step back and notice.

>payner@netcom.com

rini

Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,alt.sex