From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: MacKinnon, Playboy,...
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 17:02:33 GMT

lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:

>I think Playboy *does* portray women just as sex objects (interview responses
>notwithstanding), and I'm sure it is offensive, but if you're offended you can
>ignore it.  Censorship is worse, though.

(I'm not flaming you, Richard... just using this is a jumping off point
for a teeny tirade of mine.)

Playboy is not offensive to all women.  I have a big problem with people
who argue it is.  I have a friend who does this, and it drives me
nuts.  I'll tell you right now that *I* find Ladies' Home Journal
more offensive than I find Playboy.  And you know what my friend
says to this?  Not much.  She still banters that Playboy is offensive
to women, while she clips recipes out of LHJ.  (She's a good, Christian,
medium-traditional wife -- not quite the radfem stereotype.)  It blows
my mind when she just refuses to hear me say it:  I do not find Playboy
particularly offensive... and I'm a woman.... Hello? 

In fact, you know what is really "offensive to women" (IMO)?  The
attribution of opinions simply on the basis of having XX chromosomes.  
It sucks, I think.  

>The contention that Playboy might influence someone to rape is tenuous.  I am
>not willing to say that it could never happen, but I don't think that it will.

You know what I think?  Even if it *does* -- that's no reason toy with
censorship.  I mean that.  I don't care if it shown conclusively that
pornography is linked to rape.  It still should *not* be censored. 

Lot's of [printed, preached] ideas have 'driven' people to commit crimes.
Anyone see the movie Rope, by Hitchcock?  Now that story is based on
a real incident.  Basically, a professor challenges two students (in the
movie -- dunno that much about the real version) with the idea that there 
is nothing inherently wrong with murder.  The students accept the argument
and commit a heinous murder of a random individual.  A terrible crime
was the direct result of a professor's teachings.

Now does that mean that we should ban anything that argues murder is
often not a bad idea?  Well, heck, we'd have to start with Crime and
Punishment, which is my favorite book.  Need I even point out what
a horrible thing this would be?

>someone sick enough to rape is not going to be swayed by the presence
>or absence of Playboy et al.  The possibility that there might be 
>that one casewhere 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.

Well, please, don't be nervous.  Look, if Scorcese hadn't made Taxi
Driver, probably Hinkley wouldn't have tried to kill Reagan, permanently
damage James Brady, and terrorize Jodie Foster.  For all three of
these casualties, it would be better if Taxi Driver hadn't been made.  
But can you seriously argue that it *shouldn't* have been made?

>I do think MacKinnen has a valid point about what she finds offensive about
>Playboy, all rhetoric aside.  I don't think that her (and others) being
>offended means they should be able to censor, though.  

Yes, MacKinnen (sp?) is not dumb, and I'm sure there are reasonable
things to find offensive about Playboy, and I'm sure she probably
points these out very eloquently.  But you are very right to state 
that offensive things should not be censored.  I hope they never are.

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

I realize you (Richard) weren't arguing that censorship was okay, but 
I was just taking the openning to let off some steam.  (Am I arguing with
*anybody* in net.land?  Mebbe not.  That would be nice.)

rini