Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 (Tek) 9/26/83; site tekecs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!houxz!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!orca!tekecs!jeffw
From: jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Women's body parts
Message-ID: <3971@tekecs.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 18-Aug-84 02:44:14 EDT
Article-I.D.: tekecs.3971
Posted: Sat Aug 18 02:44:14 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 13-Aug-84 00:50:09 EDT
Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville OR
Lines: 19

A statement was made here recently that one of the most "degrading" things
about soft porn were close-ups of certain body parts. The idea being that
this would make men think of women as merely pieces of flesh rather than
human beings. A pretty theory, but...

Recently at the portland Art museum there was a showing by a photographer
who is a woman (marsha Brown, I believe the name is). A large number of
the photographs were torsos or smaller parts of women's bodies (none of
them particularly erotic - but see below). If the theory is correct,
these would also be degrading, but somehow I have a feeling that the
photographer would mightily resent such a suggestion. Counterexample,
perhaps?

now, personally I don't find such photographs particularly erotic, even
when they are meant to be, so it's an academic argument to me.

Comments?

					Jeff Winslow