Yoshie writes:
>Women are not part of their implied audience at all:
they sell images of women to men, period.
And?
Colt Men sells images of men to gay men.
It is logical to sell erotic imagery to those who will be aroused by it.
> Here, the difference in degree, as it is so gigantic,
matters a great deal, and that's the reason why women
don't read Hustler but read the New York Times.
Could it not also be because they are not very interested in pornographic images of women?
Aren't women also culturally conditioned (to a certain degree) to reject pornography as filthy and degrading, and that to show an interest in it is unlady-like?
> Any good writing that goes into Hustler gets wasted, as
it won't resurface from it and get circulated by email and
other means, unlike things that get published in the New
York Times and other notable corporate media, which will
get passed around.
But this is a different argument than the one Chip is making. You are saying that one should not write for a publication that does not have wide circulation. Chip's opposition is based on Hustler's content (as always, please corect me if I have misstated any LBOster's views).
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister