From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: At the Barricades (was: Re: Catharine MacKinnon, Playboy and feminist propaganda)
Date: 9 Oct 92 03:12:01 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <MUFFY.92Oct8104958@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.142924.14462@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct7.214506.10583@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>>[...]
>>>kb:
>>>|>> Does Playboy refer to women as "cocksuckers"? Does it denigrate
>>>| the women whose pictures it publishes? Does its glorification of women
>>>| as sexual beings suggest that female sexuality is vile? Is it
>>>| responsible for attitudes that predate Playboy, that come from a time
>>>| when such public glorification of female sexuality was illegal?
>>>
>>>_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.
 
>>> Part of that context is
>>>hatred and contempt for sexuality, especially that of women
>
>>I most strongly diasagree, this simply is -not- true.
>
>It simply *is* true.
>
>>Please put some flesh on this claim (:^), Playboy is readily available, 
>>show me what context you claim is "hatred and contempt for sexuality".
>
>He is talking about the context here, not about Playboy itself.  I'll
>give you some examples from Playboy, just to make you happy, though.
>All the women in Playboy look very much alike.  

Maybe to you. <mandatory grin> So what?

>                                                 They ignore and,
>indeed, seem to wish to deny, the fact that women who don't look like
>that can still be sexy, interested in sex, etc.  

Again you generalize, and I was asking for specifics, examples, quotes,
not abstractions that support your thesis.

And I disagree with this as well.

>                                             In many of the stories
>in Playboy women are portrayed as pretty much constantly ready for sex -
>there is no need to do anything to arouse them.  

And in many stories there is no sex, or we have frank talk about sex,
disease, etc... You are generalizing from this, and I think the generilization
is invalid and misleading.

>                                                 Certainly, I think that
>what people find arousing is a major part of their sexuality, and it is,
>again, denigrated or ignored.  

Again, supply an eximple of this 'denigration'. You are claiming that it
is the essence of Playboy, are you not? So it shoulf be easy to find an
example in any issue. 

>                          By the way, the same thing tends to be
>done to men - the assumption in the stories is that they are
>sufficiently excited by someone's looks to be ready for sex.  This,
>then, is an example of the general contempt for sexuality, but at least
>the men are given some *slight* motivation (huge breasts, short skirts,
>whatever).

So then if I am always ready for sex, this shows my 'general contempt
for sexuality'????  This seems backwards and contradictory to me. And
I admit that I do not get it. There is always the possibility that I
do not get it because it makes no sense though.
 
>I see this sort of thing frequently in our society (the context, again).
>I am tall and thin.  When I go out wearing tight clothing, a short
>dress, or whatever, I get lots of compliments and sometimes obnoxious
>advances.  A friend of mine is very heavy.  When she goes out in tight
>clothing, she gets insulted, told she shouldn't be displaying her body
>in that way, etc.  

At best, this would show contempt for overweight people, not for sex.
And my best friend married an overweight woman. Being a feminist I
guess she felt compelled to attack where she thought I stood when I met.
Some overweight people do have attitude problems (as do some not
overweight). There is an overweight woman in my class, she has no attitude
problem, and is plesant to be around. What am I doing wrong that I do
not insult her? Do I have an attitude problem? 

>                    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.
 
>Finally, just look at how sex is viewed in general.  It's something to
>be done in secret - 

No, it's something to be done in -private-.

>                      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. In
some puritan or conservative towns, it may well be inappropriate.
People from these pleces tend to attempt to enforce their mores
even when they are inappropriate, as my roomate from Nebraska so
clearly illustrated.

>                                                                  If a
>girl in high school has sex with anyone, she is regarded as "loose" or
>"easy" and many people feel they can simply expect sex from her.  If a
>woman has several partners (just read alt.sex - it doesn't take many)
>she is "promiscuous" and very much looked down on.  

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?

>                                                     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. 

And this is a different subject than hatred of women and their sexuality
as espoused (somehow) by Playboy. 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.
 
>>>or those who take a woman-like role in it.  That's why 
>>>"cocksucker" is an insult.  No, _Playboy_ did not invent
>>>this context; 

It's an insult because it implies that a man is a homosexual, which
has nothing to do with Playboy. The homosexual and bi men posting to
the binaires groups do not want the playboy images, and they are quite
vocal about it. And I do not want their images, which are -not- images
containing females. You are putting the wrong things together.
 
>>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.
 
>>>MacKinnon is not, after all, MacKinnon, but a part of 
>>>DworkinMacKinnon, a necessary gargoyle for the enemies 
>>>of feminism to target in order to attack all feminists 
>>>-- as you can see in this newsgroup.  The particular 
>>>form that the repression of sexuality takes in our 
>>>society -- which, by the way, _Playboy_ exploits and 
>>>probably could not exist without -- can't even be discussed 
>>>here; instead, the ardent need to denounce the demon, and by 
>>>extension all feminism, always comes first.  If you don't
>>>believe me, look around you.
>
>>The ultimate proof of an empty claim, a conspiracy theory.
>>And you are almost as good as making stuff up as they are.
>>Imagine, a "DworkinMacKinnon" "gargoyle". 
>
>*sigh*.  When someone says that there are societal forces behind
>something, that is *not* a conspiracy.  Ever hear of "mob psychology?"

But who is the mob? Those who protest at stores selling Playboy?
Those who want censorship are well organized, and often gather in
groups large enough for MP to apply.

>You know how a mob sometimes just all start doing the same thing, even
>though they didn't talk about it before?  That is not a conspiracy, that
>is just the way people work.  You keep bringing up the word
>"conspiracy," much as you do "feminism," to attempt to invalidate what
>you disagree with by labelling it, rather than disproving it.

Tell me how to talk about something without naming it. You do it all the
time, re-read your post. I'd say you are no less guilty than I. And I
used the word 'conspiracy' once, and I have not used it before. Your
claim that I keep bringing it up is wrong.
 
>Muffy
>
>Muffy Barkocy                               muffy@mica.berkeley.edu

Rich

payner@netcom.com