Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83 based; site houxm.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!houxm!gregbo
From: gregbo@houxm.UUCP (Greg Skinner)
Newsgroups: net.singles,net.religion
Subject: Re: Playboy, honestly
Message-ID: <910@houxm.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 21-Sep-84 01:54:53 EDT
Article-I.D.: houxm.910
Posted: Fri Sep 21 01:54:53 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 25-Sep-84 07:30:18 EDT
References: <818@opus.UUCP>
Followup-To: net.religion
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ
Lines: 62

> From: rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn)
> > >> 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. (me)

> 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...

Well, not being an avid reader of Playboy, I really can't say whether is it
worthwhile or not.  I have heard comments by others that the articles are good
reading material, but what I was commenting on, mostly, was the nudity.

> >> 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... [Jeff Sargent]

> 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!

Well, ok, I see your point.  Perhaps the wording of Jeff's article is degrading,
but I don't think that was his intent.  I think I misread his posting, and
associated it with married vs. non-married (read on) ...

> 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? (me)

> First off, could you tell me just what need it is that is satisfied by both
> a wife and Playboy magazine?  

I think I have erred here.  What I was probably getting at was that once one is
married, one is able to make love to one's partner, relieving one of the necess-
ity of looking at Playboy or what-have-you.  (I know that it is not necessary
to be married to make love to someone, but this is an accepted rule by most
Christians.)  In retrospect, I realize that it's not necessary to turn to
Playboy or anything else to satisfy one's needs (I don't).
 
> 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.

Since it has been said that this discussion doesn't belong in net.singles,
I'll refrain from comment here, and continue on in net.religion (when I'm
more awake).
-- 
Hug me till you drug me, honey!

Greg Skinner (gregbo)
{allegra,cbosgd,harvard,ihnp4}!houxm!gregbo