From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: At the Barricades (was: Re: Catharine MacKinnon, Playboy and feminist propaganda)
Date: 9 Oct 92 08:44:25
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<MUFFY.92Oct8104958@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<1992Oct9.031201.28185@netcom.com>
	<1992Oct9.053556.28239@midway.uchicago.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu's message of Fri, 9 Oct 1992 05:35:56 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.053556.28239@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini) writes:
>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.

Rich, if you claim to understand that things exist in a context, how is
it that you do not understand when I give you some examples of that
context?  Rini is absolutely correct, I have not been giving you
examples of what Playboy *causes*, I have been giving you examples of
the CONTEXT it appears in.

>the context.  Look, payner, Muffy did *not* say Muffy caused or
>enforced this behavior.  You asked for CONTEXT, she gave it.

That should be "Muffy did *not* say Playboy caused or enforced this
behavior."  In fact, I think that it *illustrates* this sort of
behavior, rather than causing 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. 

It has absolutely nothing to do with Playboy.  Where did you get the
idea that it did?

>>>  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. 

Maybe I should send *my* lawyers to talk to you, to stop you from
claiming that I said that Playboy caused all these things when I didn't?
You can't *possibly* be as stupid as this article makes you appear.

>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!

Exactly.

>> 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*.

Indeed.  In fact, I like parts of it, but not enough to pay for it.  My
SO buys the occasional Playboy or Penthouse and I like to read through
it, but I'd rather buy things that I personally am more interested in...
Anything That Moves, for example...*smile*.

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy                               muffy@mica.berkeley.edu
~Little round planet/in a big universe/sometimes it looks blessed/
 sometimes it looks cursed/Depends on what you look at, obviously/
 But even more it depends on the way that you see~ - Bruce Cockburn