HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: panlilio@acs.ucalgary.ca (Victor P. Panlilio)
Subject: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
Summary: One Netter's Exasperation is...
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 92 05:36:06 GMT
Expires: Mon, 30 Nov 1992 05:00:00 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta
Keywords: sick and tired
Followup-To: alt.supermodels

In article <BxFLB1.DGL@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> allorja@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Jason M. Allor) writes:

>Come on people!!  You've been writing about this Elle MacPherson causes rape
>things forever now.  Get a freaking life people!  Don't you have anything

We derive a sense of self-worth in beating a topic to death. 8^)

(Not!)

And my life is not freaking, it's quite fun, thanks very much!

>better to do with your time???  At least change it to "Cindy Crawford causes
>rape", or something.  I think a lot of us are really tired of this subject.

Well, I think the Elle MacPherson subject line is sounding a bit
shopworn, but *really*, now, I have this model agency book from
Elite that shows Cindy and a lot of other beautiful women in very
little or no clothing, and I don't think it would be fair to her
to insinuate that her nudity was causing rape, and that the other
models who are seminude/nude in the book are not also to blame.

*chuckle*

This week I may be photographing a cute woman friend, in the
NUDE, if her schedule permits. She was the one who asked me to!

'Cause I sure as hell DON'T treat her like an object, okay?

*nudge, wink*

BTW, she appeared on a locally-produced swimsuit calendar here.
It was a calendar showing some very attractive university coeds.

VERY attractive, I assure you! (I must resist...must resist...)

ARRRRRGGGGHHHHHHH! My professional demeanor is crumbling!  8^)

> Don't tell me to unsubscribe, becuase I like a lot of the things I read in
>this newsgroup, and I don't want to unsubscribe.  But I would like us to move
		     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I'll bet. Why don't you try to use the "k" key instead? 8^)

Oh, I see...it must be the GIFs, right? Gotcha! You sleazebag!

(note for the humor-impaired: not meant to be taken seriously)

>on PLEASE!!!!!   I don't imagine what more you could possibly need to say 
>about this subject that was not said in any of the previous 200 articles.
>Thank you.

What, and lapse into the inane blubbering about how this model or
that model is gorgeous or the most beautiful woman on the planet?

What do you take us for, mature? Speak only for yourself!  8^)

Duh...ooga booga....

Victor 8^)
(who, at 30, is rapidly regressing to mid-puberty here -- not!)
Newsgroups: alt.supermodels,soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 07:38:18 GMT

In article <10933@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au> odin@cs.uq.oz.au writes:
>I can't say that pornography is wrong. I can't say that rape is wrong either.

What?!  Please tell me that this is not what you intended to say, that
you can't say that rape is wrong.

Of course it's wrong.  Forcing another person to have sex with you
violates that person and is wrong.

Newsgroups: alt.supermodels,soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
From: kytan@mantra.fia.dmg.ml.com (Kok-Yong Tan)
Subject: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
Organization: Organised?  Here?  Hahahahahahahaha.....
	<dsblack.720940978@vincent1.iastate.edu>
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 16:09:39 GMT

In article <dsblack.720940978@vincent1.iastate.edu> dsblack@iastate.edu (Vilkata TDK) writes:

>So basically, the girls don't like the Elle/Cindy/etc. calendars, and even
>think they're morally wrong.  But they do like the Chippendales.  And guys like
>the Elle calendars.  Why?  CUZ WE'RE HETEROSEXUALS, DAMMIT!!  Of COURSE guys
>like pics of girls and girls like pics of guys!  How stupid can these people 
>be?  It's just natural!

>The difference (this might sound sexist, but I'm just observing--any flames 
>will be ignored) is that I honestly don't ever remember hearing any of my male
>friends say that they were offended by the Chippendale calendars.  (Well,
>sarcastically, maybe, but _definitely_ not seriously.)  That's because we
>realize it's the same thing.  But I do hear a lot of girls complain about the
>calendars we like.  It's like it's okay for them but not for us.  Which, of
>course, is absurd.  I honestly wonder why guys can accept it but many girls
>can't....

Hmmm...maybe it's because males have to chase females (in general) and not the
other way around.  This way, if you're lusting after Elle, you can't pick up on
their feminine vibes (since they are societally bound not to have to come up to
you to ask you for a date and have you stare down your nose at them like
something slimy just crawled up to you.) Do you notice that the women (that
I've met, anyway) who DO come to ask you for a date DON'T have any problems
with Elle calendars?  :-)



--
===============================================================================
Kok-Yong Tan, 			  	| My words are my own: 
Fixed Income Analytics Group, 	  	| My bosses know naught.
Merrill Lynch,			  	| Wherever they're sown,
World Financial Center, North Tower, 	| Just I should be sought.
New York, NY 10281-1315.	  	|		- K. Y. Tan, 5 Feb 1992
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
InterNet: kytan@fia.dmg.ml.com (Merrill Lynch)
	  75046.256@compuserve.com (CompuServe)
===============================================================================

Newsgroups: alt.supermodels
From: cliff@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Cliff Chen)
Subject: Re: Paulina GIF
Keywords: Teddy bear picture from Playboy
Organization: HAC - Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 03:08:54 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.020557.26077@newshub.ariel.yorku.ca> johnv@ariel.yorku.ca (John Vink) writes:
>Well, you have my request to find out which Playboy Paulina's teddy bear
>picture was in.  Other information about how to request back issues
>would also be appreciated.  I'm sure others would want this info as
>well.

	Well...not that I wouldn't bother, it just may be worthwhile.  I
can tell you that the issue with Paulina is definitely from 1987.  But
which month...I don't know.  I seem to recall April.
	But, for those of you praying...she doesn't appear topless, nude or
otherwise in her appearance.  Just some normal pictures of a goddess
clothed.

					Cliff Chen
					cliff@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.supermodels,soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
From: 891666t@dragon.acadiau.ca (Trish Turliuk)
Subject: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
Organization: Acadia University
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 18:56:06 GMT

lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:

>In article <1992Nov7.170150.12610@dragon.acadiau.ca> 891666t@dragon.acadiau.ca (Trish Turliuk) writes:
>>kytan@mantra.fia.dmg.ml.com (Kok-Yong Tan) writes:
>>peroxide/dye, killer coloured nails). It *does* bother me that what society
>                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>has governed to be beautiful is put up on a wall. Unrealistic objectification.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>My 2 cents on a cloudy saturday in Nova Scotia.
>So shall we tear down the L'ouevre next week?...

>Sorry, but either you're not expressing yourself well, or you're being most

>illogical about one particular form of artwork.


Rich, can't you see the vast difference between art and advertising?
1. The goal of art is not to sell some product (other than the art itself)
2. Advertising is so extremely pervasive in today's North American society. I
cannot go a day without seeing a plug for some product (try as I might).

If these two factors were not involved and advertising refelected the artistic
notions of individuals, then I would consider it art. Unfortuneately, if these
two factors were removed, then it would no longer be considered advertising.

I realize that advertising reflects the work of so-called 'artists', but such
people are merely the puppets of corporations. 
Trish

 
Xref: sparky alt.supermodels:1589 soc.women:19068 alt.feminism:3941 soc.men:18874
From: auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer)
Newsgroups: alt.supermodels,soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
Date: 8 Nov 92 02:47:50 GMT
Organization: Swarthmore College, PA

In article <1992Nov7.213707.15211@fid.morgan.com> sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:
>In article <1992Nov6.150355.9849@rtf.bt.co.uk> fletcher@rtf.bt.co.uk
>(Catherine Fletcher) writes:
>[...]
>>By the way, anyone who has the slightest grasp of what sexism is and doesn't
>>understand why an Elle calendar is offensive and harmful and a Chippendales
>>calendar isn't probably has no aptitude for complex thought - therefore I
>>am resorting to condescending insult rather than reasoned explanation.

I think that this view is fairly understandable.  Outside of an ideology that
incorporates power relationships, the only difference to be seen in an Elle
calendar and a Chippendales calendar is the gender of the model.  I was quite
good at mathematics, which involves complex thought, before I understood what
sexism and power relationships were.  I do not think it is particularly
constructive to resort to insult, especially when you yourself have not been
insulted.

>Anybody who considers a calendar to be harmful (I admit that any
>phyical object can be used in a harmful manner, but that's not what
>we're discussing here) is certainly guilty of taking something too
>seriously.
>[...]

Cocaine and the atomic bombs aren't harmful, just their misapplication.
("Guns don't kill people; bullets kill people.")  In a similar manner, though
less pronounced, I do not believe it is ridiculous or overly thin-skinned
to believe that objectifying literature can be harmful to society.

I am not advocating censorship here, but rather that we work on the demand
side.  If we educate people to the ills of pornography and idolization of
beauty and make it less socially acceptable, we can diminish the problems
associated with the consumption of such pernicious literature.

-dave
Xref: sparky alt.supermodels:1670 soc.women:19243 alt.feminism:4106 soc.men:19010
From: teri@sdd.hp.com (Teri Tracey)
Newsgroups: alt.supermodels,soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Self Appreciation (was: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?)
Date: 10 Nov 1992 15:16:38 -0800
Organization: Hell's Little Breakfast Nook
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: hp-sdd.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Nov6.165051.25204@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> krw@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (keith.r.smith) writes:

>  If you _know_ that you are doing the best
>that you can with what God gave you, then you have no reason to feel
>inadequate next to anybody.  In a word _attitude_.  

The thing is, though, most men are brought up to think this way, and women are
not.  It goes back to that "men do, women are" dichotomy which unfortunately
permeates our society.  Men receive their credibility and worth through 
what they *do*.  Women receive their credibility and worth through their 
*appearance.*   Men are automatically given credibility whereas women 
are asked to demonstrate capability.  Not quite so much any more these 
days, and this is a change many of us would like to see, but it's really 
ingrained.  

**Men (or anyone) who have never experienced the type of societal pressures 
that many women do, usually **don't understand** what it's like to be a 
woman and to be bombarded by Madison Avenue's images of the ideal woman.**   
You really *don't* have any idea, although you *think* you do.

I'm not sure how to bring people to that understanding, either.   You can't
understand what it can be like to grow up female.  It's not just "stepping 
into her shoes for a few-second thought experiment."  It's living her 
life of Vogue magazines and MTV videos and Woman's Day--whether she 
consciously chooses to accept these messages or not!

I hope your message is not for us to "stop whining, if you just tried harder, 
you'd become CEO/earn more money/feel better about yourself."  No, I'll 
just go back to my room that my parents filled with stuffed animals rather
than erector sets, do my home ec homework, iron my mini skirt and polish
my heels that impede my ability to even walk, and play with my Barbie that 
reinforces my belief that "math is hard."

If anyone out there agrees with me...how about some email or something...

Teri Tracey              "When people are free to do as they like, they
 San Diego, CA            generally imitate each other."                   
  teri@sdd.hp.com  
=============================================================================
From: voyager.larc.nasa.gov (Advisor)
Newsgroups: alt.supermodels
Subject: test
Date: 13 Nov 1992 19:44:47 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA  USA
Reply-To: voyager.larc.nasa.gov (Advisor)
NNTP-Posting-Host: bknouff.larc.nasa.gov

test


Newsgroups: alt.supermodels,soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
From: krw@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (keith.r.smith)
Subject: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 20:24:26 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.185317.28903@cbnews.cb.att.com> lib@cbnews.cb.att.com (Lib) writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.170627.20310@cs.nott.ac.uk> rji@trellis.cs.nott.ac.uk (Rob Ingram) writes:
>>
>>The problem is that most of the images we see in advertising are of
>>women who are really too thin for their height but this is portrayed
>>as an ideal. This is difficult to achieve for most women and so this
>>leads to obsessive behavior and eating disorders.
>
>Odd. I thought that the reason all the models were too slim for their
>height was that such people photograph better, not that Madison
>Avenue wants to portray it as an ideal.

This super-slim fashion model trend had its advent in the sixties with Twiggy,
and then just sorta' "stuck".  I think that part of the reason for the success
of this trend is that the clothing designers have an easier time displaying
their designs to best advantage on skinnier (flatter) women, simply because
they have less of the curves that might otherwise affect the shape of the
garment as worn.  This applies a bit less so to swimwear models.  The downside
for the industry is that a lot of these folx end up designing garments that
_only_ look good on women who are fairly skinny.  That leaves out a rather
large chunk of the market (composed of real-world women).

>I don't understand why they
>would want to do that. It's no doubt true women see this as an ideal
>an try to emulate it just like men try to emulate the Marlboro man
>and assorted types who drink beer.
>

Keith R
Newsgroups: alt.supermodels
From: blackbdj@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Dave Blackburn)
Subject: Re: Cindy Crawford gifs
Organization: Aston University
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 17:45:04 GMT

ummar115@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Robert James Martens) writes:
: Cindy gifs are available at erratic.bradley.edu in the gif directory. They
: also have Paulina, Claudia and a few others. Enjoy.
: 
:

Does this mean the playboy cindy's or just the ordinary cindy1-14.

Cheers

Dave
 
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Blackburn                                  Everything I say and wear may be
Dept. Comp Sci & App. Maths                     taken down and used against me.
Aston University                                blackbdj@uhura.aston.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.supermodels
From: palmerp@math.orst.edu (Paul A Palmer)
Subject: Re: Info on Barbie Benton wanted
Reply-To: Paul Palmer <palmerp@math.orst.edu>
Organization: Dept. of Math, Oregon State University
	<1992Nov2.170131.3544@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>
	<8NOV199223162943@pierre.mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 03:14:27 GMT

In article <8NOV199223162943@pierre.mit.edu> kettler@pierre.mit.edu (KETTLER, THOMAS R.) writes:

   In article <1992Nov2.170131.3544@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>, ematias@csri.toronto.edu (Ummm... me!)      writes...

   >   I also remember seeing her in *many* bit-parts on shows of the
   >late-70's/early-80's era, such as Simon & Simon, Magnum P.I., Charlie's
   >Angels, et al.  In my opinion, this was because she's the type of person who
   >can captivate a viewer for a short period of time, but wasn't popular enough
   >to headline her own show.

   She also starred in an ABC- I think that was the network- series named
   something like Sugarplum in the early 70's. It lasted for something like a
   month or two. If I remember correctly, it was about three struggling
   females in a rock band.


From the actress list from rec.arts.movies:

Benton, Barbi           Deathstalker
                        For the Love of It (TV)
                        Great American Beauty Contest, The (TV)
                        Hospital Massacre (aka X-Ray)
                        Murder at the Mardi Gras (TV)
                        Third Girl from the Left, The (TV)
                        "Hee Haw"
                        "Sugar Time!"

--
Paul Palmer
Department of Mathematics     	E-mail: palmerp@math.orst.edu
Kidder Hall 368
Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon 97331-4605
Newsgroups: alt.supermodels
From: z3kpw@ttacs1.ttu.edu ("Wheeler, Kevin")
Subject: stupid whining
Date: 10 Nov 92 22:27:00 CST
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA14323; Tue, 10 Nov 92 20:28:50 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA28983; Tue, 10 Nov 92 20:28:45 -0800
X-To: "alt.supermodels.usenet" <alt.supermodels.usenet>

Yeesh, this "merits of models" thing is ridiculous.

"Unrealistic objectification"?  OF COURSE!  Calendar models are chosen because they're essentially healthy... prime physical specimens of humanity.  
No, they're not average people... who wants pictures of fat slovenly average
people on their wall?  Save that for the sociology textbooks.  Unless that's
what you're into, then you can certainly go out in the street and take some
pictures yourself.  Why bother when you see 'em every day?

Would you rather have on your wall some great piece of art or a piece of crap
you dug out of the trashcan by a "slow" 4th grader in art class who'd been
daydreaming about recess while he was gluing cotton balls to a picture of
a sheep?  Hmm... maybe a picture of a sheep is a bad example, but you get
the idea.

Some people make better models and some people are better off writing books...
more power to all of 'em, I say.

Then, of course, there's the masturbation angle.


Xref: sparky alt.supermodels:1524 soc.women:18896 alt.feminism:3771 soc.men:18710
From: cliff@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Cliff Chen)
Subject: Re: nude in playboy - dumb question
Organization: HAC - Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 03:00:08 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.003225.16464@neb> jim@neb (Jim Hood) writes:
>>dcarter@supra.East.Sun.COM (Dave Carter-Sun-Atlanta GA-Atlanta District MCC) writes:
>>: She is nude in this months PLAYBOY issue, can see much though.
>>: A few other models in there, can't remember who off hand
>
>Since it was identified as THIS MONTHS playboy....
>If you check the Message-ID line
>-> Message-ID: <1992Nov10.105251.26701>
>It quite clearly states what month/year it is.

	That's really a good point, folks.  I mean really, we're not all as
dumb as Elle, are we?  :)  (Just kidding, I don't think that she can be
dumb as all that.  Intelligent until proven empty-headed.
	But seriously...I checked this month's Playboy, and yes, she
appears topless...IN ONE SHOT.  But of course, the person who posted
neglected to mention the fact that it is taken with Cindy lying on her
stomach, propped up on her arms which conveniently hide anything that you
couldn't see in Sport Illustrated.  Nude, well, technically yes, but
realistically, no.  Don't get me wrong, she still looks hot in the picture,
but you're not getting more bang for your buck.

						Cliff Chen
						cliff@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu
From: kytan@mantra.fia.dmg.ml.com (Kok-Yong Tan)
Newsgroups: alt.supermodels
Subject: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
Date: 9 Nov 92 16:28:54 GMT
	<92Nov07.071947.29893@acs.ucalgary.ca>
	<1992Nov7.200151.12451@athena.mit.edu>
	<92Nov08.082505.31886@acs.ucalgary.ca>
Followup-To: alt.supermodels
Distribution: na
Organization: Organised?  Here?  Hahahahahahahaha.....

In article <92Nov08.082505.31886@acs.ucalgary.ca> panlilio@acs.ucalgary.ca (Victor P. Panlilio) writes:

   I don't dislike statistics, I dislike *how* they're so often
   misused! Any basic course in research design and methodology
   usually includes a few case studies on misuse of statistics.

   And in the areas of epidemiology and occupational health,
   statistical analysis has had a decidedly mixed track record.

Now, was it Benjamin Disraeli or Mark Twain who said, "There are lies, damned
lies and statistics!!!"   :-)

--
===============================================================================
Kok-Yong Tan, 			  	| My words are my own: 
Fixed Income Analytics Group, 	  	| My bosses know naught.
Merrill Lynch,			  	| Wherever they're sown,
World Financial Center, North Tower, 	| Just I should be sought.
New York, NY 10281-1315.	  	|		- K. Y. Tan, 5 Feb 1992
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
InterNet: kytan@fia.dmg.ml.com (Merrill Lynch)
	  75046.256@compuserve.com (CompuServe)
===============================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.supermodels
From: kytan@mantra.fia.dmg.ml.com (Kok-Yong Tan)
Subject: Re: Who the hell is Elle MacPherson?
Organization: Organised?  Here?  Hahahahahahahaha.....
	<1992Nov4.190544.14939@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu>
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 16:14:45 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.190544.14939@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> u235@rex.chb.uokhsc.edu (Yung-Jin Lee) writes:

>  I have her gif pictures: elle.gif and elle1.gif.  She looks
>so so.  Gorgeous?  Nahhhhhhh!

De gustibus non disputandem est (i.e. "There's no accounting for tastes" or
"One man's meat (pardon the pun, here) is another man's poison.")


--
===============================================================================
Kok-Yong Tan, 			  	| My words are my own: 
Fixed Income Analytics Group, 	  	| My bosses know naught.
Merrill Lynch,			  	| Wherever they're sown,
World Financial Center, North Tower, 	| Just I should be sought.
New York, NY 10281-1315.	  	|		- K. Y. Tan, 5 Feb 1992
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
InterNet: kytan@fia.dmg.ml.com (Merrill Lynch)
	  75046.256@compuserve.com (CompuServe)
===============================================================================

Xref: sparky alt.supermodels:1785 soc.women:19516 alt.feminism:4360 soc.men:19236