Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!lll-winken!sun-barr!newstop!sun!amdahl!key!jsp
From: jsp@key.COM (James Preston)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc
Subject: Re: SEX! (Now that we've got your attention...)
Message-ID: <1979@key.COM>
Date: 9 Jul 90 21:22:33 GMT
References: <9680.2690a1c5@amherst.bitnet> <1975@key.COM> <33520@ut-emx.UUCP>
Reply-To: jsp@penguin.key.COM (James Preston)
Organization: Key Computer Laboratories, Fremont
Lines: 42

In article <33520@ut-emx.UUCP> eggplant@walt.cc.utexas.edu (johan van Zanten) writes:
>  	Well, this is quickly exiting the realm of "comp.sys.mac.misc" but 
>i, personally, would answer yes to most of your questions.  

Ok, but what about the questions that don't have "yes"/"no" answers?

>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. 

Inhumane?  Wow, that's a really strong charge.  I just don't see what your
basis is for making it.  I think that myself and a lot of other people are
not quite so simple-minded that we immediately relegate a person (or even an
entire class of people) to the status of "object" solely because we see an
attractive picture of that person.

>I will not support a company that makes money at the
>expense of other people's humanity.  

Please explain to me how a picture of a woman in a swimsuit (a very demure suit
and pose) sitting in a floating chair has any effect on her humanity.  Please
explain to me how a picture of a woman in a very proper dress (although rather
strangely colored) has any effect on her humanity.  Please explain to me how
a picture of a woman licking a stamp has any effect on her humanity.

>But the CONSISTENT use
>of women as "eye-catching" material on the front covers prevents me from 
>enjoying the magazine, so i won't buy it.

How does it prevent you from enjoying it?  Obviously, it goes without saying
that you can buy what you want, I just don't understand how the picture on
the cover interferes with your enjoyment of the contents.

And you ignored what I thought was the most important question in my previous
posting:  what is wrong with using attractive women in advertising? You say
it is "inhumane", but I just don't see how.  And why is it any more "wrong" 
than using cute babies, or cuddly puppies, or a cute animated helocar, or an 
imitation Charlie Chaplin, or any of the other thousands of ways that 
advertisers try to get your attention?

--James Preston