Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!elbereth!rutgers!seismo!rochester!ritcv!cci632!rb
From: rb@cci632.UUCP (Rex Ballard)
Newsgroups: soc.singles,soc.women
Subject: Re: The latest in Playboy controversies
Message-ID: <464@cci632.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 6-Oct-86 11:13:32 EDT
Article-I.D.: cci632.464
Posted: Mon Oct  6 11:13:32 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 8-Oct-86 23:41:47 EDT
References: <4107@reed.UUCP> <1076@sunybcs.UUCP>
Reply-To: rb@ccird2.UUCP (Rex Ballard)
Organization: CCI, Rochester Development, Rochester, NY
Lines: 73
Xref: watmath soc.singles:361 soc.women:248
Summary: Justified anger.

In article <1076@sunybcs.UUCP> ugeileen@gort.UUCP (Eileen McGowan) writes:
>In article <4107@reed.UUCP> thoma@reed.UUCP (Ann Muir Thomas) writes:
>>Meanwhile, here at Reed there is considerable backlash against the
>>Reed feminists.  One of them got offended at the appearance of 
>>Playboy in a dorm social room and managed to antagonize most of the
>>dormies while telling them why they shouldn't read (or look at)
>>porn.
>	She might be just plain angry.

Got two problems here.  Those who displayed the porn seem to be saying
"It's not OK to not like porn"
The feminist/moralist/... is saying "It's not OK to like porn".

Neither is right.  If one group likes porn, they should be able to
read it, not put it on display for those who don't.

If one group does not like porn, they should be able to go into the
public portions of a building without being confronted by it.

>So angry that she really doesn't
>  care that what she is doing may not really benefit her cause...she

Which cause? Fundamentalism, moralism, or feminism?

>	I know when I see a man sporting one of those Playboy logos..or
>  whatever...the picture of the bunny head...I get angry.

Don't get angry, be grateful.  By displaying the logo, he is giving you
a warning as well as an invitation.  If you want someone like that, it's
an invitation.  If you don't, it's a warning.

>  I find it hard
>  to tolerate a man who is proud of viewing women as sex toys.

Would you rather find out after you've married him?  By wearing the
appropriate "signal", you can avoid him, but another woman who wants
a man like that (I suppose there might be a few) can do what is appropriate
to start a relationship with him.

Remember that the Playboy mentality also includes a money oriented, expensive
life-style, "success ethic".  Some women like this aspect as well.

>  I am tempted to give him a punch in the gut or say something very insulting
>  to him.

How about coming up with a "signal" that the type of man your'e interested
in could wear/display?  I knew of one group that used a dog's choke chain
to mean "the woman's needs/wants come first".  Men wearing this chain
around their neck were to live by that ethic.  A woman wearing the symbol
would expect a man to know what it meant.

Another group used to wear special crosses that meant, "celibate and
enjoying it".  Those men and women would date, party, and socialize,
but with the understanding of "No sex".

Many of the gay men would have the left ear pierced, and the het
men would have the right ear pierced.  Very useful in a situation
were 70% of the male population preferred men.

Stuffing people "back into the closet" as far as their expression of
sexual values is more of a problem than "letting them out".

Would you rather no one expressed, and then the hard core feminist
met "Mr. Macho", and both try to pursuade each other to each other's
point of view?

There have always been signals which had specific sexual meaning to
others with similar interests.  These range from the green carnation
of Oscar Wilde's day, to the black patent leather 5" high heeled shoes,
meaning "dominant woman" or "sexual feminist" in some circles.

The biggest problem is that some people don't know about these signals.
At least the bunny has become more of a "standard" signal.