This may come as a shock, but if you look at Hustler over time, a remarkable amount of their material can legitimately be described as misogynist.
I am not trying to police people's sexual fantasies.
I am arguing that Hustler is routinely sexist in a misogynist way.
Geez, why is this so hard to make clear?
Why is there such anger and defensiveness, not to mention patronizing sneering?
Does anyone else see the irony that the people blasting me for their (mis)perception of my prudishness are so uptight about the topic itself?
-Chip
________________________________
From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org on behalf of BklynMagus Sent: Sun 12/18/2005 4:07 PM To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org Subject: [lbo-talk] Re: Hustling the Left
Dear List:
Chip writes:
>Is it possible that there is a line where, when erotic imagery is
conflated with misogyny, that as a matter of political principle,
one might suggest it was not appropriate to write for such a
publication?
That line can only exist inside an individual's head.
Sexual desires, fantasies, imagery etc. cannot be policed. The image is just that -- an image. It is the person's mind that adds any misogyny, racism, sexism, etc.
> I don't mind the pink shots, I mind the relentless cheap shots
at women.
But cheap shots are different from erotic imagery. "Cheap shots at women" denotes a sexist agenda. Eroticism is merely about getting off - a fine and noble pursuit which more people should devote themselves to instead of worrying about how others choose to get off. They might even learn something.
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister
___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 5205 bytes Desc: not available URL: <../attachments/20051218/0eba035f/attachment.bin>