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