Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 (Tek) 9/28/84 based on 9/17/84; site tekecs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!tektronix!orca!tekecs!jeffw
From: jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Re: A flash from the (recent) past.
Message-ID: <5765@tekecs.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 21-Oct-85 13:30:28 EDT
Article-I.D.: tekecs.5765
Posted: Mon Oct 21 13:30:28 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 23-Oct-85 06:08:34 EDT
References: <742@decwrl.UUCP> <5751@tekecs.UUCP> <1171@rayssd.UUCP>
Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville OR
Lines: 100

> 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
> 
> 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?  This is net.women,
> started for discussions by and about women.  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.

Well! I seem to have stepped in it this time. But I was not joking,
and I am not crazy. All I ask is that you not read into my statement
that which I did not put into it.

Now, let's get one thing straight. Since Jerry's statement was prompted
by a Playboy article, when I talk about pornography below, I'm talking
about Playboy, NOT some violent crap dredged up from the local sleaze
bin. If you don't think there's a significant difference, you need to
learn a whole lot more about pornography - and men.

First, I respectfully suggest that your statement "Most of the women...
QUITE CLEAR..." is colored by your own personal beliefs. I have observed
a wide range of sentiment on soft porn from the women on this newsgroup,
and, while I haven't kept count (have you?) I don't recall any particular
consensus. And even if that consensus *did* exist, since I believe in
a rational dialogue between the sexes, and I don't see any cause for 
serious offense either in Playboy or Jerry's statement, I would feel
obligated to defend them anyway. Are you saying that, because a majority
of people feel a certain way, no dissenting views are appropriate? Be
careful!

Now to the heart of the subject, what little there is. Both Jerry's
and Jym's comments were pretty vague, so I suspect that the crux of our
differences is simply a different reading of those comments. I read them
this way:

Jerry - "Hey, I didn't know there were such pretty (and otherwise interesting -
         don't forget that Playboy usually gives some sort of personal 
         interest details) women in this group I belong to! I've got
         to meet them for myself."

Jym - "How dare you consider a woman's attractiveness in deciding whether
       you want to meet her or not!"

Me - "What sort of #@$%^&*%$ is that?!"

Let me add that I have seen very few women of approximately my own age that
were not physically attractive in some way or other. What is attractive
varies so much with the beholder that I fail to see how this can even be an
issue. Now I can readily understand what is wrong with a man hiring only
women that he finds personally attractive (besides it being unlikely to
find him the best employee) but, fer chrissake, Jerry's talking about who
he wants in his *personal* life (and not entirely seriously, either,
I suspect).

> 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.

I think you probably see now that that is *not* what I was saying. But
it moves me to say that, as long as there are people who who feel that
"being interested in pretty women" in pornographic magazines (if
anybody takes this statement out of context I will toast them to a 
cinder) is a "problem", just by itself, there are people who need
to understand that men are not as simple-minded as these people think.
I am sorry if you feel robbed of a little of your identity by Playboy,
but I encourage you and assure you that there is no need for you to feel
that way.

> From the heart, with sadness,
> 
> -- 
> --Heather Emanuel {allegra, decvax!brunix, linus, raybed2} rayssd!hxe

Please don't be sad. I don't think there is any need to be (in this case).

					Jeff Winslow