From: muffy%remarque.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.berkeley.EDU (Muffy Barkocy)
Subject: Re: you just don't understand (was: control of display ...)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
Date: 5 Oct 92 22:16:48 GMT
	<MUFFY.92Sep25152358@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<1992Sep28.183340.23060@Veritas.COM>

[Some mail to my site was evidently delayed as the date on them is
9/30, but I got them last friday and over the weekend.  Sorry for the
delays; unfortunately, I'm not sure what is causing them.  --CTM]

In article <1992Sep28.183340.23060@Veritas.COM> rdh@veritas.COM (Robert Hartman) writes:
>In article <MUFFY.92Sep25152358@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy%remarque.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.berkeley.EDU (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>> ... but it comes down to the fact that most of the people in our
>>society don't want to look at *all* nude women, just those who
>>conform to the current standard of "beauty" or "attractiveness" -
>>slender, with large firm breasts, etc.  If only one view of women is
>>being shown, it is indeed not an expression of the sexuality of women
>>but of the sexuality of those people who wish to view that one sort
>>of woman.

>I understand this completely.  However, if women were to publish an
>alternative to Playboy that they felt better portrayed their beauty in
>their diversity, no one would put them in jail for it.

Well, perhaps not here in the US (although I wouldn't be so sure!), but
look at Canada.  They believe that some censorship (of "pornography," in
particular) is not only acceptable, but a very good thing to do.  They
have applied this censorship to a lesbian publication.  I don't know
about putting people in jail, but they're certainly censoring it.

Things *could* go that way in the US as well, which is one reason that I
think feminists should be firmly anti-censorship.

>And who knows,
>such a publication just might succeed!

"might."  I don't think its chances are all that good, though.  As you
say, the pornography that deals with non-societal-standard bodies tends
to focus on a single attribute, which is, I think, how it succeeds.  I,
personally, do not want to subscribe to a magazine full of pictures of
nude women, whether Playboy-type or real life, even though I do enjoy
looking at nude women in real life...*smile*.  I don't know how typical
my attitude is, but that's part of what makes me think this magazine
would not succeed.

Anyway, what Janis was talking about was more than just magazines.  The
real problem with display of women's bodies is out on the streets.  It
is there that women whose bodies do not measure up to the standards feel
the full weight of "them" (= society) not wanting those bodies
displayed.  I'm thin, so I can go out in a tight dress and get
compliments.  A friend of mine is pretty large, and she hears insults
frequently for wearing anything at all revealing, even though what she
wears is generally less revealing than what I wear.  Sure, she could
have a picture of herself published in this proposed magazine, but she
still can't walk down the street and not be insulted by other people
because her body doesn't look like what *they* want to see.

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

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.