From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [alt.feminism] Re: Catharine MacKinnon, Playboy and feminist propaganda (Was: Value of...)
Followup-To: alt.censorship,alt.feminism
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 05:27:54 GMT

[A repost - Carl]

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Catharine MacKinnon, Playboy and feminist propaganda (Was: Value of...)
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 04:32:30 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.223208.20854@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:

[...]
 
>The contention that Playboy might influence someone to rape is tenuous.  

I'd say tenuous is an overstatement. The government commissioned a study
just to prove that this is so. But the study (who's name escapes me)
showed that such a connection did not exist. I recall that it did show
a weak connection with (child pornography? something non-normal), but the
conclusion stated that despite the study, the commission still believed
what they set out to prove. 


>                                                                      I am
>not willing to say that it could never happen, but I don't think that it will.
>I mean, someone sick enough to rape is not going to be swayed by the presence
>or absence of Playboy et al.  

Indeed, the problem is probably much deeper. I suspect that Playboy might
act as a trigger, but I suspect a Paula Abdul Pepsi commercial (or half of
the other commercials) would have the same effect. Assuming that the victim
is not sufficient a trigger. 

>                       The possibility that there might be that one case
>where the absence of Playboy made a difference just seems so remote.  The
>possibility that I'm wrong makes me real nervous, though, I must admit.
>
>[Aside:  I'd sure go for a no-parole and/or death-penalty for rapists, tho.
>         There's way too high a % of repeat offenders.  I forgot the #, sorry.]
 
>I do think MacKinnen has a valid point about what she finds offensive about
>Playboy, all rhetoric aside.  

If you mean that she finds it offensive, so what. I find much of her rhetoric
offensive, and not substantiated by what I know. Does this mean that she
should be censored? Or only if I get enough followers? 


>                                  I don't think that her (and others) being
>offended means they should be able to censor, though.  OTOH, somebody who comes
>up and forces her to look at a Playboy (or has it hanging in their work-place)
>is being extremely rude.  Whether it should be illegal or considered
>harrassment is discussed elsewhere, but I'll just throw in that I wouldn't
>want federal law to outlaw Playboy on any wall of any workplace, but that if
>somebody is really offended by Playboy on the wall they have to look at, it
>should go.

What about that Bikini calander? I have one on my wall right now (not at
work, the other one is jet fighters, both get used, and I enjoy looking
at both of them). Oddly, I do not recall a single line in the Constitution
or Bill of Rights protecting one from being offended. And people get offended
at the damnest things.

BTW, although I may not have made it clear, I am not really disagreeing with
you.

>"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu

Rich

payner@netcom.com



--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.politics.elections,uiuc.civil-liberty,alt.sex,rec