Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!pt.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!ls1i+ From: ls1i+@andrew.cmu.edu (Leonard John Schultz) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc Subject: Re: SEX! (Now that we've got your attention...) Message-ID: Date: 8 Jul 90 00:10:50 GMT References: <9680.2690a1c5@amherst.bitnet> <1975@key.COM>, <33520@ut-emx.UUCP> Organization: Class of '92, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA Lines: 25 In-Reply-To: <33520@ut-emx.UUCP> ; Well, this is quickly exiting the realm of "comp.sys.mac.misc" but ;i, personally, would answer yes to most of your questions. MacUser has done ;this for at LEAST the last four months, and it really bugs me. I feel that ;no person should be thought of as merely an object. This is inhumane, and is ;what MacUser is doing. I will not support a company that makes money at the ;expense of other people's humanity. No, the women are not totally nude ;and the magazine is not all "smut" as someone observed. But the CONSISTENT u ;se ;of women as "eye-catching" material on the front covers prevents me from ;enjoying the magazine, so i won't buy it. I'll get my info from the ;Internet, or from other Macintosh magazines. (I have a subscription to ;MacWorld which i may cancel because of alleged "dunning" or nefarious sub- ;scription attempts/practices.) Wait a minute. Are you telling us it is inhumane to take a picture of a woman? It's inhumane to put her on the cover? Why don't you say that about Vogue or SI or Redbook? Why do women let people put them on the cover of magazines if it so completely destroys their humaniny? Would YOU object if MacWorld wanted to put you on the cover licking a stamp? What is so evil and pornographic about someone's face? It seems that you are the discriminator. You object to a woman on the cover, but I hear no objections about putting a man on the cover. You discriminate against a woman because she is attractive. Maybe you are gay or something, but that doesn't give you the right to say what sex is allowed to be seen on computer magazines!