Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!apple!bionet!agate!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: 5 Apr 91 22:49:16 GMT References: <1991Mar28.140605.6006@cbnews.att.com> Sender: ambar@ora.com (Jean Marie Diaz) Organization: Berserkeley Lines: 33 Approved: ambar@ora.com wjf> Some women DO look like that [as depicted in _Playboy_]. > It helps if you're 19 though. ___ __ If you're seeing airbrushed 19-year-old women with orange _ skin in soft focus, with no pores yet every strand of hair under perfect control, luminscent in othwise dark surround- ings, perhaps a visit to an optometrist is in order. ___ __ Nobody looks like that. Not even the models in the pictures _ look like that. jym>> With any luck, this will spoil the fantasy for him and he won't >> enjoy _Playboy_ anymore. > Bull. ___ __ No bull. I've known this to work. > If you really object to it, tell him. If he cares about how you > feel he should find a way to alter his behavior. ___ __ Which is essentially what I suggested. The idea is to _ articulate what is troublesome about the magazine and communicate it. >> I'm afraid I've never found any graphic erotica that isn't >> either sexist or as dumb as a bag of rocks. > Try either Yellow Silk or On Our Backs . . . ___ __ I left out boring. _Yellow_Silk_ is boring. _On_Our_Backs_ _ is as dumb as a bag of rocks. <_Jym_>