From: muffy@anableps.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: At the Barricades (was: Re: Catharine MacKinnon, Playboy and feminist propaganda)
Date: 9 Oct 92 09:51:32
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<1992Oct8.142924.14462@netcom.com>
	<MUFFY.92Oct8104958@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<1992Oct9.084417.18720@netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: anableps.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: barry@netcom.com's message of Fri, 9 Oct 1992 08:44:17 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.084417.18720@netcom.com> barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
>In article <MUFFY.92Oct8104958@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>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.  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.  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.  Certainly, I think that
>>what people find arousing is a major part of their sexuality, and it is,
>>again, denigrated or ignored.  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).

>Yeah, here it is again, Playboy as Rorshach test. Your
>"examples" don't describe Playboy at all, Muffy. All your "examples"
>show is that you must never have read the magazine.

I've probably read 2-3 dozen issues of it.  Perhaps your experience of
it is wider, but I *have* read it.

>It's still all
>"context": your own attitudes, and those of our culture, toward sex.

My attitudes towards sex?  *laugh*...I think sex is great, and that
there should be a lot more of it, and a lot more depcitions of it.  I
just happen to think that the depictions of it in Playboy are incredibly
limited and boring.  Not that that makes them evil, just not worth the
money to me.

>Which are no doubt worth discussing, but your obvious belief that you
>are still talking about a magazine called "Playboy" shows that Gordon
>was successful in leading you down the garden path.

Gordon hasn't lead me anywhere.  I read the magazine and came to my own
conclusions.  Some of their articles are quite good, as is some of the
fiction they publish.  Their depictions of sex are BORING, BORING,
BORING, though.  It wasn't boring when I was 13, but I've actually *had*
sex since then...*smile*...and read some *much* better written fantasies
and seen some *MUCH* sexier pictures.  (Check out the "Safe Sex is Hot
Sex" posters...yow!)

> Redefining "Playboy" to mean
>"everything that's wrong with American sexual attitudes" is not a game I
>care to play. What do you get out of it?

Really?  You're the only one that is doing it around here - you're just
then trying to palm that attitude off on me.  I talked about *BOTH*
Playboy *and* what was wrong with American sexual attitudes.  I did
(and do) *NOT* equate the two.

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
Newsgroups: alt.feminism