Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2.fluke 9/24/84; site vax1.fluke.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!fluke!tron
From: tron@fluke.UUCP (Peter Barbee)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Re: A flash from the (recent) past.
Message-ID: <1231@vax1.fluke.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 21-Oct-85 15:58:15 EDT
Article-I.D.: vax1.1231
Posted: Mon Oct 21 15:58:15 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 23-Oct-85 03:45:51 EDT
References: <742@decwrl.UUCP> <5751@tekecs.UUCP> <1171@rayssd.UUCP>
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA
Lines: 45

To set the stage:
	Jerry mentions and jokes about "The Playboy Mensa pictorial".

	Jym castigates Jerry.

	Jeff accusses Jym of prigishness, implying he doesn't have that problem.

   >And Heather continues:	
   >Ooh, this makes me mad!!!!!  
   >
   >On the assumption that you were serious: are you *crazy*?  Haven't
   >you been listening AT ALL to the overwhelming sentiment of the
   >postings in this group for the last two years?  

I'm not sure about overwhelming sentiment, but I do 'k' most porn discussions.

   >Most of the women who
   >post or respond via personal mail to various posters have made it
   >QUITE CLEAR that we view pornography as something that demeans us as
   >a whole and offends us as individuals, NOT as "being interested in
   >pretty women."  

Heather, this brings up an interesting point.  The women pictured in this
particular feature are obviously intelligent.  It seems likely that they
are not particularly desperate for money.  Why did they pose?  Of course
they did get paid, and it was very easy money, maybe even fun.  But they
most obviously do not feel that nude ,or semi-nude, pictures of them
demean them, let alone demeaning women as a whole.  (Remember, I'm assuming
these women are intelligent and wouldn't purposely demean themselves)

My quesstion is; Heather, how can what these women did and what you say
be compatible?  Is there not room for differing and yet respectful views?

   >And by the way, as long as there are people who feel that not "being
   >interested in pretty women" in pornographic magazines is a "problem"
   >then I, as an individual woman, am going to be robbed of a little
   >of my identity.

And as long as people equate nude pictures as pornagraphy this debate
will continue to polarize.

   >From the heart, with sadness,

yea, me too,
Peter B