From: rtsumn01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: Catharine MacKinnon, Playboy and feminist propaganda
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 01:09:29 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <1992Oct7.180559.10555@midway.uchicago.edu>, mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini) writes:
> In my life, I have noticed that the softer the porn, the more likely it
> involves [36-24-36] women only.  Take a look at the swimsuit issue of SI,
> for example.  Then Playboy.  Then maybe Hustler (more likely to have
> a male at least in the background.)  Then hard-core porn mags or
> movies.  Once you get into hard-core, the % of men in the scene
> jumps *way* up.  And then of course you get classic titles like "Fat
> Mommas and Their Machines ."  The airbrushed Sex Symbol is missing.
> 
> Anybody else notice this?  What's the deal?  Theories?
> 
> rini

Theory 1:  Many, many people have access to Playboy and Sports Illustrated. Not
so many people have access to hard core porn. More specifically, women and
children don't have the access, because they are not allowed into the
appropriate shops (in the case of children) or don't seek them out due to lack
of interest (in the case of women).

It's okay for a women-and-children to see a scantily/non-clothed female,
because they *are* sex objects. But for them to see a male...well, that would
be undignified. It would hurt the male image.

Same thing goes for the "Fat Mommas" and so forth. If the women-and-children
knew that men *liked* such things, that would be undignified. Also, it would
take away women's incentives to kill themselves looking "beautiful." Some guy's
wife would get the idea that she might be sexy to somebody without being on a
perpetual diet, and then she wouldn't look like the standard "beauty" anymore.
Then where would the poor guy be? His woman would no longer look like a
high-class beauty:  horrors!

Theory 2:  Soft core porn is basically for the purposes of admiring and
enjoying a woman's body. Hard core is for getting into the sex act itself, thus
it has to have sex (males are required). Beautiful women (36-26-36) are rarer
commodities, and can get into whatever part of the market they like. They
generally choose the soft end because it's less degrading (I'm not saying
anything about pornography, I'm just saying that it is perceived by some as
degrading to be in) and it's less likely to involve simulated or actual sex.
Less "attractive" women can't get into the higher-class soft core, snd the hard
core makers have to take what they can get, hence the Fat Mommas.

Theory 1 is mine, Theory 2 is Shaitan's (my SO). I asked him because I thought
a male point of view might be more useful regarding a male-oriented commodity.

As for the comment about most pornography being intended for the male, I
suggest that anyone believing this go to the bookstore sometime. Women have
pornographic works a-plenty. They're called "romance novels." Generally
contains members of both sexes, so it's pretty egalitarian. Of course, they
don't rely on using real-live people, so the ramifications are different.

--Semhaza
Here's a .sig I found in alt.fan.pern; thought it was worthy of being shared.

*** Matt Korth *** dragon@camelot.bradley.edu *** dragon@buhub.bradley.edu ***
The Republicans are thinking of changing the Republican Party emblem from
an elephant to a condom, because it stands for inflation, halts production,
and gives a false sense of security while one is being screwed.  
Newsgroups: alt.feminism