Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!think!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!tektronix!reed!thoma
From: thoma@reed.UUCP
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: The latest in Playboy controversies
Message-ID: <4240@reed.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 9-Oct-86 15:00:12 EDT
Article-I.D.: reed.4240
Posted: Thu Oct  9 15:00:12 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 11-Oct-86 06:16:51 EDT
References: <4107@reed.UUCP> <1076@sunybcs.UUCP> <464@cci632.UUCP> <413@fai.UUCP>
Reply-To: thoma@reed.UUCP (Ann Muir Thomas)
Organization: Reed College, Portland, OR
Lines: 20

In article <413@fai.UUCP> ronc@fai.UUCP (Ronald O. Christian) writes:
>I agree again, but a small quibble; she (the not-like-porn group) didn't
>live there, and they (the like-porn group) did.  Posting the centerfolds
>was rude, but one could argue that they had the right.  Also, I think the
>accusation was based on sexist porn, not porn in general.  (Although, maybe
>she considered all porn to be sexist.  How can we know?)

This woman is a little bit paradoxical.  She thinks _all_ porn is
sexist but like the rest of us has standards for what qualifies as
porn and what does not.  I think her definition of "porn" is "anything
that causes sexual arousal in male humans."

HOWEVER, this same woman thinks it is OK to wrestle bare-cheste on
the front lawn at Reed with another woman, with the unavoidable
audience of panting males all around.  (She ignored them.  I guess
she figured that she wasn't doing what she was doing for their 
entertainment, therefore it's not porn.)

Ann Muir Thomas
...tektronix!reed!thoma