Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site randvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!lsuc!pesnta!hplabs!sdcrdcf!randvax!edhall
From: edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: San Quentin strip searches -- a new twist
Message-ID: <2309@randvax.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 15-Feb-85 20:56:51 EST
Article-I.D.: randvax.2309
Posted: Fri Feb 15 20:56:51 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 17-Feb-85 15:27:22 EST
References: <3365@alice.UUCP> <2295@randvax.UUCP> <5108@tekecs.UUCP>
Organization: Rand Corp., Santa Monica
Lines: 43

> Have you ever actually *read* a Playboy magazine? I have not read the article
> in question, so I can't say for sure, but if what you say is true, it 
> would represent a radical departure from the editorial policy of a few
> years ago. I remember that some airplay was given to the issue of "men's
> rights", but I've seen far more strident and idiotic support of it on this
> net than I ever did in Playboy.
> 
> As I remember, Playboy's editorial policy is pro-ERA and pro-choice. Those
> who consider this contradictory to their photography might want to re-
> evaluate their ideas on the nature of erotica and its relationship to
> men's attitudes.      
> 
> 					Jeff Winslow

I have to admit to a bit of type-casting, here, as the most offensive
tirades for ``men's rights'' I saw were in Penthouse a couple of years
ago.  (I've not read one since, except for a glance through the Miss
America [I can't remember her name] issue that a ladyfriend (!!!) showed
me.)  I made the assumption that Playboy was playing the same game--I
probably shouldn't have (though in my experience Playboy and Penthouse
seemed to track pretty closely in editorial opinions).

It's been five or six years since I've read Playboy; at the time, I was
aware of their nominal support for women's rights, but I got the
distinct impression that their ideas about liberation were ambivalent
except when it came to sex; i.e. liberation was a Good Idea because
it allowed women to be more sexually aggressive and ``available''.  I'll
not be so cynical as to say that everything else was lip-service, but
it seemed that Playboy's support of economic and political equality for
women was pretty lukewarm.

Since it's been a while since I've looked through these magazines, I
could be all wet, at least with respect to Playboy.  Unless Penthouse
has changed pretty radically, though, it likely has continued to make
``men's rights'' an item for crusade.  (I noticed in the Vannesa
Williams--that's the name--issue that they even had a special column
on the subject.)  As far as Hustler and its ilk go--they never made
a a pretense of presenting women in a position of equality.  As
disgusting as I find Larry Flynt and his magazine, I have to admit
that he's honest about what it is.

		-Ed Hall
		decvax!randvax!edhall