From: assist@orion.oac.uci.edu (ASSIST Coordination Site)
Subject: Re: *GREAT MOVIE ACTORS*
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Keywords: male only (hunks vs. babes)
Date: 18 Aug 92 19:34:12 GMT
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Aug15.032051.15791@cbnewse.cb.att.com> gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart) writes:
>In article <20586@optima.cs.arizona.edu> margaret@cs.arizona.edu (Margaret Newman) writes:

>>Okay, I'm not adding anymore!  Let's see some other input.  If guys
>>can go on about babes, we can go on about hunks.  Okay, don't flame
>>me.  I say this all in good humor.
>>
>>margaret
>
>Dear Margaret and anyone else,
>	I have been reading posts like this for years.  I find it 
>rather amusing that the posts are all of the format "Well, if guys
>can post about women, then women can post about guys...".  I, 
>personally find it surprising that each woman that posts this
>followup seems to me to be reveling in some kind of "wickedness".
>It seems to me to be fairly natural that a species that has
>survived as long as humanity has not realized that sex on the
>part of both male and female sides was not a significant part of
>the survival of the species.  
>
>	Apparently, some think that a drive that has ensured
>the survival of the species is somehow evil or sick or twisted
>or cheap.  This is pathetic and sick and unhealthy.
>
>	I personally do not find any problem in accepting
>women voicing their opinion about male "hunks" in the cinema.
>I may not find myself fitting the ideal of Kevin Kostner
>in his movies, but I do not focus my life around not fitting
>the image of Mr. Kostner because I can't ever look exactly
>like him.
>
>	I don't burden myself with the idiotic notion that
>women are somehow perverted to like to look at the Male 
>Hunk of the Week.  I don't consider women to be sick,twisted,
>cheap, perverted, weak or less feminine for liking to look
>at Patrick Swayze's buns.
>
>	Maybe I'm perverted.  If women wanted to read novels 
>about a guy giving them what they want, I would not consider that
>"sick".  
>	
>	If I were to stop in a shopping lane at the express
>checkout and find a magazine full of  depictions of  men
>"having their way" with females, or, for that matter,  men
>having their way with other men or females having er way
>with other females, I wouldn't even so much as change my
>breakfast menu.  I know these things sell to someone.  I know
>females buy these things.  Otherwise they would not be
>printed, would they?  What's the different between "Harlequin
>Romance" and "Playboy" except that the latter is much more 
>intellectual?  And if you say something is the result of
>"conditioning", who are you to say that someone is "conditioned"
>while YOU are "really thinking"?
>
>	I'm afraid the last million years of so of evolution
>have made me what I am.  And my freedom of choice has not
>provided me with any indication of what is so terribly wrong 
>about it.
>
>GMS

>Boy Gilbert, I can't speak for Margaret, but I sure did not think there
>was anything wrong with the guys posting about "babes", I just thought
>it might be interesting for the girls to start posting about "hunks."
>I think you ought to let your overactive imagination regarding our
>"wickedness"  and your "presumption" that women find men discussing 
>"babes" a "sick and twisted" endeavor rest for awhile and put things
>back into perspective!  These postings were for entertainment, not for  
>a social or psychological analysis of the differences between men and
>women . . . take some deep breaths and relax . . . or life might pass you by 
>while you are trying to figure it all out!

>Kris
>kris@fs2.assist.uci.edu


--