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