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