Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watcgl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!water!watcgl!dmmartindale
From: dmmartindale@watcgl.UUCP (Dave Martindale)
Newsgroups: net.women,net.politics
Subject: Re: A suggestion for a ground rule in any pornography debate
Message-ID: <2467@watcgl.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 6-Sep-85 19:08:35 EDT
Article-I.D.: watcgl.2467
Posted: Fri Sep  6 19:08:35 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 7-Sep-85 07:19:52 EDT
References: <5660@tekecs.UUCP> <1873@reed.UUCP>
Reply-To: dmmartindale@watcgl.UUCP (Dave Martindale)
Distribution: net
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 46
Xref: watmath net.women:7324 net.politics:10834

In article <1873@reed.UUCP> ellen@reed.UUCP (Ellen Eades) writes:
>
>I find it harmful to me when "Playboy" presents a view of women
>which, while lacking the physical whips and chains, is severely
>limited in scope.  I don't like the image of women in "Playboy"
>any more than that of women in "Screw";  the "Playboy" women, gazing
>wetly at the camera in soft focus, seem to me to be the reason
>behind men's rationalization of "You know you really want it."
>How can any man NOT get that impression when all the images he is
>exposed to have that message?  "Playboy"'s misogynism, while far
>subtler than that of "Hustler", is nonetheless far more widespread
>and is accepted by most of liberal America as all right.  This I
>find upsetting, because it presents a subtler and more
>insidious encouragement of violence against women: the violence
>of date rape or forced seduction.  With "Playboy"'s message that
>all women want sex all the time goes the idea that it is all
>right to give it to her.  When a woman DOES NOT want sex, a man
>who reads "Playboy" regularly and intensively will probably get
>angry and confused and accuse her of being a tease.

>It seems to me that
>the attitude that "Violence is uncool, but 'Playboy' isn't
>violence and is therefore justifiable entertainment" misses a
>great deal of the subtlety behind this form of pornography.

 [ and several more paragraphs that reinforce the same idea ]

Ellen, I agree with your comments that the image presented in Playboy
is ridiculously unrealistic, and I think I can see your real concern
that men will believe it.  But not all men do, any more than they believe
what they see on television or in films.

An important question is: given that Playboy's sort of pornography is
misleading, what should be done to correct the problem?  Should we ban it,
or should we try to educate people?  And if banning it is the correct
solution, should we not also immediately ban most TV commercials on the
same grounds?  Or maybe most TV programs too.

Should I not ask that all John Wayne movies be permanently
banned, on the grounds that they present an unrealistic and even dangerous
image of what a man should be like?  Aren't Clint Eastwood movies even better
candidates for banning?

I agree that there is a problem.  I don't think that censorship is the
answer in this case.  Do you?  If so, how is this case different from
the other examples I mention?