Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!linac!att!ucbvax!bloom-beacon!ora!ambar From: jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) Newsgroups: soc.feminism Subject: Re: does healthy, mutual erotica exist? Message-ID: Date: 28 Mar 91 03:24:19 GMT Article-I.D.: remarque.JYM.91Mar18145430 References: <2995@titan.tsd.arlut.utexas.edu> Sender: ambar@ora.com (Jean Marie Diaz) Organization: Berserkeley Lines: 57 Approved: ambar@ora.com ___ __ I suspect what you're looking for is a way to communicate your _ dislike of _Playboy_ in a persuasive manner. I recommend sub- version. :-) ___ __ The first step is to review the material and catalogue what _ you don't like about it. ___ __ Objections that come to my mind are things like the fact that _ the women are passive objects, that no women look like that in real life, that the expressions on their faces don't reflect any genuine emotion or thought, etc. ___ __ _Playboy_ operates on a principle of being non-threatening to _ its male readers: the women are photographed with soft-focus and air-brushed to be made "softer;" they tend to have larger- than-average breasts, which some consider a motherly trait; and they are of course relentlessly passive (or have their "activeness" safely contained). ___ __ And, of course, there's the _Playboy_ lifestyle angle: the _ magazine is basically about selling objects (stereos, clothes, alcohol) to men. Not exactly the best environment for viewing women as human beings. ___ __ At any rate, catalogue your objections in specific terms and _ let him know about them. It might help if you're adept at humor and sarcasm. At any rate, the idea is to link the objections to the specific images used in the magazine, so that when he'll notice the vacant expressions and such in the photos. With any luck, this will spoil the fantasy for him and he won't enjoy _Playboy_ anymore. ___ __ Personally, I only found _Playboy_ interesting in puberty, _ when I had no idea what naked women really looked like. I have trouble understanding the magazine's appeal for non-virgin adult audiences. > I am reading Andrea Dworkin's _Pornography_ at the moment, but > I think it's not going to help me out much . . . ___ __ Be aware that Dworkin tends to extrapolate generalizations _ to absurd extremes. She does catalogue a lot of worthwhile and overlooked information in support of her absurd extremes, though. ___ __ I don't know if it was in _Pornography_, but I seem to recall _ Dworkin going so far as to suggest that any graphic represen- tation of women (a drawing, a painting, a photo, etc.) is a way of objectifying, dominating and possessing women! * * * ___ __ In regard to the subject line, I'm afraid I've never found any _ graphic erotica that isn't either sexist or as dumb as a bag of rocks. The search continues . . . <_Jym_>