Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.14 $; site uiucdcs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!stank
From: stank@uiucdcs.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Penthouse/Pageant - (nf)
Message-ID: <31600083@uiucdcs.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 17-Aug-84 17:29:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.31600083
Posted: Fri Aug 17 17:29:00 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 19-Aug-84 02:25:38 EDT
References: <1841@stolaf.UUCP>
Lines: 22
Nf-ID: #R:stolaf:-184100:uiucdcs:31600083:000:844
Nf-From: uiucdcs!stank    Aug 17 16:29:00 1984

#R:stolaf:-184100:uiucdcs:31600083:000:844
uiucdcs!stank    Aug 17 16:29:00 1984

What on earth does it mean to say that both the M.A.P. and
P.H.M. are both "pornographic in principle".  Maybe my
sexual appetite is jaded, but I find the presentation of
the women in the M.A.P. to be totally asexual.  Indeed,
I think that this is the intention of the organizers.
P.H.M. is, on the other hand, definitely pornographic.

Now, I'm no fan of the M.A.P.  I believe that it attempts to
present an vapid picture of the "ideal woman".  However, not
likeing somthing (even hating it) is no excuse for calling it
something other than it is.

Let's call a spade a spade, and pornography, pornography.  But
let's not call everything, which is degrading and/or distasteful to
women, pornographic.

                         Stanley J. Krolikoski
                         U of Illinois at UC
                         ..!pur-ee!uiucdcs!stank