From: wood@vms.cis.pitt.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Playboy, etc
Summary: Yet another posting with this goofy newsreader
Date: 6 Oct 92 05:17:49 GMT
Reply-To: tjw+@pitt.edu
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Oct5.223208.20854@ils.nwu.edu>, lynch@ils.nwu.edu
(Richard Lynch) writes:

Richard's article gave me a sudden flood of ideas.  Since this *is*
alt.feminism, I guess I should point out that just because I'm following up 
Richard's article, it does NOT mean that I'm disagreeing with what he posted.

His article just caused me to think about a few things and I thought I would 
share them with "you".  (That's "YOU ALL" :-)

> 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.
> I mean, 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
> case where 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.

This reminds me of something I saw a while back.

Anybody see NIGHTLINE the night that the director of the local art museum
in Cincinatti was arrested for showing the "obscene" Maplethorpe photos?

The "head" of the local committee that was pushing for the censorship of
the photos used the argument that if only ONE crazy person was kept from
seeing the photos and it prevented just ONE crime, it was worth it.

The rebuttal to this was that we can't build our laws in our society around
"crazy" people.  We can't keep the public from seeing/hearing ideas because
of the effect they might have on a small minority.  It's very easy to move
from censoring Maplethorpe photos to censoring political writings.  Who
know's what effect a negative campaign advertisment might have on a crazy
person?  It might encourage them to vote! ;-)  For the "wrong" person! ;-)

In any case, there are magazines that are, in my view, far more likely to
cause that ONE rape than Playboy.  Magazines such as "TRUE CRIME" and "TRUE
DETECTIVE".  These magazines deal with very violent subjects.  How about
"Soldier of Fortune"?  Should we ban these magazines because an unbalanced
person might read them?  You can get magazines of this type at any convience
store.  Even stores that have banned Playboy.  Why is it "OK" to get these
magazines, but not Playboy?  Why is violence "OK" and partial nudity is not? 

So, Richard, don't worry too much about that "one" crime.  Unfortunately,
there will always be that "one" crime that was "caused" by that "one"
magazine, book, or even song.  Remember Charlie Manson?  He blamed his
actions on the Beatles song "Helter Skelter".  Who could have predicted
that?  We can't possibly control what interpretations people put on works
of art and magazines.

I'll bet if they don't find it in art, music, books or TV, they'll find it
somewhere else -- like a dog will tell them to commit the crime.  Seriously,
think about "Son of Sam".  The devil didn't make him do it, the DOG did! 

I understand where you are coming from.  It's easy to think "if only ...",
but unfortunately, there are just too things that would have to be
controlled.  The "crazies" end up running our lives.  We end up shackled!


> I do think MacKinnen has a valid point about what she finds offensive about
> Playboy, all rhetoric aside.

Absolutely!  I believe that it's her God given right to be offended.  I'm
offended many times a day.  However, I hardly think that everything that
I find offensive should be censored!  (What a *wonderful* world this would
be if everything that I found offensive were removed and kept hidden!
At least for me! ;-)  *YOU ALL* might not be too happy, however!)

What is interesting, as far as feminism is concerned, is that the jury is
still out on what is offensive to feminists and what is not.  Some feminists
seem to be terrified by sexual images.  Others seem to be quite upset that
feminists would censor sexual images.

Take the recent protest by the local self proclaimed feminist group "Men
Against Rape and Pornography" for instance.  They were protesting the sale of
the current issue of Playboy, because local women had posed for a pictorial. 
Now some feminists would say that these women have a right to use their
bodies to pose.  Other feminists would not.  It seems to be a mixed bag.

Actually, I'm quite surprised that ideas such as "being offended" and
"freedom of expression" are not discussed more in our high schools.  We talk 
about the US constitution in our schools but we never seem to conver the 
really "hard" topics.  Maybe things have changed since I was in school!

Terry