Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site burl.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!geoff From: geoff@burl.UUCP (geoff) Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Re: Re: A flash from the (recent) past. Message-ID: <902@burl.UUCP> Date: Tue, 22-Oct-85 09:26:07 EDT Article-I.D.: burl.902 Posted: Tue Oct 22 09:26:07 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 23-Oct-85 05:08:15 EDT References: <742@decwrl.UUCP> <5751@tekecs.UUCP> <1171@rayssd.UUCP> Reply-To: geoff@burl.UUCP (geoff) Organization: AT&T Technologies, Burlington NC Lines: 72 In article <1171@rayssd.UUCP> hxe@rayssd.UUCP (Heather Emanuel) writes: >Jerry says: >> > > The Playboy Mensa pictorial . . . has finally appeared in this >> > > month's issue. . . . I've _got_ to start going to more regional >> > > gatherings. > >To which Jym replies (three cheers!) : >> > One would think that a member of Mensa - as you have >> > announced yourself to be (in a rather roundabout way) - would have >> > more sense than to pollute this newsgroup with such sentiments. >> > <_Jym_> > >Which prompts Jeff to say: >> Stop being such a prig. Just because you feel guilty about being interested >> in pretty women is no reason to expect that others will have the same >> problem. >> Jeff Winslow > >Which incites Heather to say: >Ooh, this makes me mad!!!!! First, I'm surprised at you, Jeff. >You're usually not like this. Maybe you were kidding? > >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? Um, excuse me, but what does the fact of the 'overwhelming sentiment of the postings' have to do with whether Jeff should have made that comment? Should every poster check his or her back files to make sure they are presenting the 'appropriate' image so as not to offend readers? Or, since that would not be practical, lets just have one central clearing point for 'correct' thought. Would you care to volunteer, Heather? >This is net.women, started for discussions by and about women. I saw the Mensa pictoral. In my considered opinion, the models were definitely women. Oh, but they are not right-thinking women. That's different. >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." Even if you don't agree with that, and even if *Jym* >doesn't agree with that, Jym's posting was pointing out that most of >us *do* agree with that. As such, I feel your attack on Jym was >unwarranted. I feel the attack was entirely warranted. Surely free speech is a touchy problem, because those who support it must support the right of those who oppose it to argue their case. Those who oppose it, of course, are under no such obligation. I disliked Jym's posting, not (just) because he disliked Jerry's comment, but because of the way he said that posting such sentiments 'pollute this newsgroup'. Considering how much petty bickering, name calling, and mud-slinging goes on in this group, I think Jym is just a little bit late to be worried about trash. > >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. Your identity is fine, but all who disagree must give up some of theirs to coddle yours? If you are going to be robbed of your identity as long as people disagree with you, in this respect or any other, you had better live in a vault. You will be robbed until the day you die. Let people live their own lives; it is the only way to let you live yours. geoff sherwood ihnp4!burl!geoff