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