Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83 based; site houxm.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!tektronix!uw-beaver!cornell!vax135!houxm!gregbo
From: gregbo@houxm.UUCP (Greg Skinner)
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Re: Playboy, honestly
Message-ID: <886@houxm.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 6-Sep-84 17:38:36 EDT
Article-I.D.: houxm.886
Posted: Thu Sep  6 17:38:36 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 16-Sep-84 12:15:09 EDT
References: <1137@pucc-h>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ
Lines: 38


>> I do think that reading Playboy is unlikely to bring one closer to God.
>> And I haven't the slightest inclination or desire to read it. [Paul DuBois]

Neither do I.  I think we all basically agree, judging from the repsonses
to Trish's article on VW, that such magazines are degrading to women.

> Actually, you're right...usually.  Every once in a while, God can even use
> Playboy to zap one with an insight into a twist in one's own feelings about
> relationships, sexuality, or whatever. 

If you mean "after I read Playboy I discovered that I wasn't interested in
seeing women degraded in that manner" I would agree.

> I could comment that you don't need Playboy, since you have access to a woman
> who is beautiful to you (I have no idea of her physical appearance, but she's
> certainly beautiful to you) at any time you reasonably desire -- and not just
> to a view of her, but to her reality.  Of course, in order for you to not need
> or want to examine Playboy, this would also imply that you are strong enough
> to handle having a real woman in your life, who may not always behave quite 
> the way you would most want, and who has some degree of control over you -- 
> distinct from fantasies (with or without the aid of photos), which you control
> entirely.  More power to you!  I'm not sure I'm at that point; the thought of
> having an SO, now that I examine it more closely, is frightening. 
> [Jeff Sargent]

Question for Paul DuBois:  Are you married?

Seriously though, Jeff has brought up a valid point.  If he is married, then
he doesn't need Playboy obviously.  In general though, I think the point is
that those Christians who are married have a distinct advantage that they can
have sex with their SOs and not feel guilty.  But what about us Christians
who aren't married and have to keep our hormones on a leash?
-- 
Hug me till you drug me, honey!

Greg Skinner (gregbo)
{allegra,cbosgd,ihnp4}!houxm!gregbo