Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site opus.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!hou3c!hocda!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!hao!cires!nbires!opus!rcd
From: rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn)
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Re: Playboy, honestly
Message-ID: <818@opus.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 18-Sep-84 03:36:26 EDT
Article-I.D.: opus.818
Posted: Tue Sep 18 03:36:26 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 25-Sep-84 05:35:10 EDT
References: <1137@pucc-h> <886@houxm.UUCP>
Organization: NBI, Boulder
Lines: 44

> >> I do think that reading Playboy is unlikely to bring one closer to God.
> >> And I haven't the slightest inclination or desire to read it. [Paul DuBois]
> 
> Neither do I.  I think we all basically agree, judging from the repsonses
> to Trish's article on VW, that such magazines are degrading to women.

Like it or not, there are some worthwhile things in Playboy (or at
least there used to be:-).  There's also some trash.  PARTS of the magazine
are degrading to women.  Actually, Playboy as I recall it significantly
overlaps Bon Appetit, Road and Track, maybe a bit of the New Yorker.  Best
sort out what's there...but that's not my main point...

- - - - - - - later that same news posting...

>> I could comment that you don't need Playboy, since you have access to a woman
>> who is beautiful to you (I have no idea of her physical appearance, but she's
>> certainly beautiful to you) at any time you reasonably desire -- and not just
>> to a view of her, but to her reality...

I find it hard to believe that Greg (>) is willing to take shots at Playboy
as being degrading to women, without using a tactical nuke on this (>>=Jeff)
opinion.  If believing that having "access to a woman...at any time you
reasonably desire..." isn't degrading, I can't imagine what is!

And further on the same discussion...
> Seriously though, Jeff has brought up a valid point.  If he is married, then
> he doesn't need Playboy obviously.  In general though, I think the point is
> that those Christians who are married have a distinct advantage that they can
> have sex with their SOs and not feel guilty.  But what about us Christians
> who aren't married and have to keep our hormones on a leash?

First off, could you tell me just what need it is that is satisfied by both
a wife and Playboy magazine?  (Sounds like a koan for 20-th century
America, doesn't it?:-)  There seems to be some confusion in this whole
mess over Playboy--some think it incites the passions; some think it is a
surrogate satisfier.

If Christianity vs hormones is a problem, I suggest that you look again to
your religion.  It better have an answer for you, because the hormones are
there just as they should be, doing what they're supposed to do.  I'll give
you one clue:  "Ignore them" ain't a useful answer.
-- 
Dick Dunn	{hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd		(303)444-5710 x3086
   ...Never offend with style when you can offend with substance.