Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 (Tek) 9/28/84 based on 9/17/84; site tekecs.UUCP Path: utzoo!utcs!lsuc!pesnta!hplabs!tektronix!orca!tekecs!jeffw From: jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Re: San Quentin strip searches -- a new twist Message-ID: <5108@tekecs.UUCP> Date: Tue, 12-Feb-85 11:56:21 EST Article-I.D.: tekecs.5108 Posted: Tue Feb 12 11:56:21 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 14-Feb-85 11:47:18 EST References: <3365@alice.UUCP> <2295@randvax.UUCP> Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville OR Lines: 22 > However, I'm sort of curious just what kind of point the Playboy article > was trying to make. Sounds like they were making the tired claim ``now > that women have the same rights [sic] as men, they should have the same > liabilities as well''. They probably trotted out a list of alimony and > custody-dispute horror stories later on in the article to show how much > men are discriminated against. Maybe they even brought out some cases > of how new laws make it difficult for men to defend themselves against > false rape accusations. Have you ever actually *read* a Playboy magazine? I have not read the article in question, so I can't say for sure, but if what you say is true, it would represent a radical departure from the editorial policy of a few years ago. I remember that some airplay was given to the issue of "men's rights", but I've seen far more strident and idiotic support of it on this net than I ever did in Playboy. As I remember, Playboy's editorial policy is pro-ERA and pro-choice. Those who consider this contradictory to their photography might want to re- evaluate their ideas on the nature of erotica and its relationship to men's attitudes. Jeff Winslow