The Barometer Online

Originally posted by

Alicia

Side note: Sara is NOT the first OSU student to be named Playmate of the Year. The first was Jodi Patterson who was the 2000 Playmate of the Year. Two out of 48, not too bad. GO BEAVS!

I believe Jodi Patterson had already graduated by the time she became a Playboy model. It's a bit of a technicality but she was no longer an OSU student. I remember her appearing in the Girls of the Pac 10 issue but not as one of the Pac 10 girls.

Originally posted by

Bruce Alexander

While Facilities Services may have had every right to remove the poster, since it had been hung without authorization, the reasoning behind its removal only serves to justify the motives of the authors. Ms. Underwood is no less deserving of praise than anyone else.

I disagree. The people recognized in that series of banners spent many long years of work and sacrifice to get where they are in life. All Sara Underwood had to do was respond to a Playboy casting call and take off her clothes for some photos.

[QUOTE id="6f9fa5f9-7c10-4adc-b7ad-3bbdd6781d39"]We glorify athletes whose only contribution to academia is as cash cows. True, the argument there is that they encourage team spirit, camaraderie, and physical wellness, but there is little difference between our fascination with their activities and the bloodsport utilized by Rome to occupy its citizens...so that they didn't think about the excesses of its ruling class.[/QUOTE]

I fail to see how ancient Rome is relevant here. And I know more than a few athlete who would take offense at hearing football compared to a "bloodsport".

[QUOTE id="6f9fa5f9-7c10-4adc-b7ad-3bbdd6781d39"]Are we truly so outraged at a display of beauty? Is this the level to which our culture has devolved? The argument here will be one of concerning exploitation[/QUOTE]

Wrong again. This is exactly the sort of straw argument I've come to expect from people who want a knee-jerk reaction. While pornography's so-called "exploitation of women" is debatable, the appropriateness of its display in public is not.

[QUOTE id="6f9fa5f9-7c10-4adc-b7ad-3bbdd6781d39"]From Playboy? This magazine focusing on the best of our culture, including sports, and is highly respected in the publishing world. As a fledgling writer, it may be years before I am worthy of gracing its pages. This is no rag, and the girls who are lucky enough to be so honored have every possible door of opportunity opened to them. I should be so exploited.[/QUOTE]

Was it an article about sports or culture that was displayed on campus for everyone to see? No. It was nude photo. And by the way, if you're going to write a comment attacking football, it would be wise not to cite sports articles as a credential of the magazine you are defending in the same comment.

[QUOTE id="6f9fa5f9-7c10-4adc-b7ad-3bbdd6781d39"]Walk through any shopping area in France, or Europe at large, and you will see ads that use the human form, artistically rendered. After all, it is we who use the products, isn't it? If we do not happen to look like the people in the photos, that is irrelevant. I regularly work out; I do not look like Governor Arno. Do I blame him, or his people? Why should I? Was he being exploited? No. He was a self-made success story who leveraged his body to build first a business, then an acting career, and then governor of California. The moral: If you resent those whom you do not resemble, that is your problem, not theirs.[/QUOTE]

And now the author has resorted to personal attacks on the people he imagines are the ones opposed to the posting the banner. Childish ad hominem, drivel (read also: "the 'you're just jealous' argument")

[QUOTE id="6f9fa5f9-7c10-4adc-b7ad-3bbdd6781d39"]So, we reach so point: So is Ms. Underwood. Put the poster back up. She deserves it.[/QUOTE]

This does not even merit a response.

Clearly, Mr. Alexander has not made use of reason in forming his opinion on this matter. People who object to Ms. Underwood's nude image appearing on campus have plenty of reason aside from "not liking it".

There are lots of things that people "don't like" but which they tolerate simply because they aren't thrust upon them. The banner, on the other hand WAS thrust upons us without our permission and it should then be within our rights to demand that it be taken down.

I see the the banner as a parody of a campaign to market the university. In my opinion it mocks the efforts of our hard-working publications staff to put the university's best face forward and promote the kind learning environment we can be proud of.

As far as the moral outrage argument, I'm not particularly offended to see a naked woman. In fact, I think the idea behind the banner is actually kind of clever and it's far less alarming than some the works of Jeff Koons or Carolee Schneemann.

What bothers me is the way in which the "artists" chose to display it. By placing the banner alongside some of OSU's finest alumni, they essentially present her as their equal. I refuse to believe that Underwood should be mentioned in the same breath as Linus Pauling or Milton Harris.

Thompson Response: "I disagree. The people recognized in that series of banners spent many long years of work and sacrifice to get where they are in life. All Sara Underwood had to do was respond to a Playboy casting call and take off her clothes for some photos."

Since you don't make clear to what you are disagreeing, I'll assume this is argument for it's own sake. You feel that such things should not be viewed by anyone. God help the human race if the like's of you have their way, because we won't be able to procreate.

Seriously, Mr. Thompson, if your argument is that the sight of an unclad human body will do harm to a 7 or 12 year old, as you do in your response another commentator, I don't see how you can substantiate this claim. One of the major points of my commentary was that we sanction violent behavior and punish the appreciation of beauty and love. It is just such rhetoric that I was addressing.

You also state in more than one other posting that the photo is pornography! Better check with the Supreme Court Mr. Thompson. Nudity is not pornography. The Supreme Court's decision is that pornography is without redeeming merit, and Ms. Underwood's photo does not fit that definition, no matter how badly you would like it to.

Alexander Orig: "We glorify athletes whose only contribution to academia is as cash cows. True, the argument there is that they encourage team spirit, camaraderie, and physical wellness, but there is little difference between our fascination with their activities and the bloodsport utilized by Rome to occupy its citizens...so that they didn't think about the excesses of its ruling class."

Thompson Response: "I fail to see how ancient Rome is relevant here. And I know more than a few athlete who would take offense at hearing football compared to a "bloodsport".

Let them take offense. If they are well educated, they will understand the comparison. The golden age of Greece and the Roman empire at its height are where the foundations of logical thought began. The same logical thought you propose to use here.

I do not argue against sports per se. They have their place. But, they are promoted at the expense of the arts, social programs, etc. They are also, arguably, the modern version of Marx's "Religion is the opiate of the masses." The promotion of activities that take up our leisure time, rather than being involved in politics or the community, allows those who are bent on corruption to operate. Still, not the fault of the athletes, any more than the war in Iraq is the fault of the troops.

Alexander Orig: "Are we truly so outraged at a display of beauty? Is this the level to which our culture has devolved? The argument here will be one of concerning exploitation."

Thompson Response: "Wrong again. This is exactly the sort of straw argument I've come to expect from people who want a knee-jerk reaction. While pornography's so-called "exploitation of women" is debatable, the appropriateness of its display in public is not."

Is your use of the word "porn" not a knee-jerk reaction? Is your allusion that your young relatives will be harmed by the photo not a knee-jerk reaction? You're talking to me about straw arguments? Listen to yourself for a second. There is nothing wrong with nudity. The only reason some cities disallow it is because of the hordes of maladjusted adults who can't come to terms with their own sexuality. They lead repressed lives and go wild at the local topless bar because of that repression. Why should the rest of us be punished?

Alexander Orig: "From Playboy? This [is a] magazine focusing on the best of our culture, including sports, and is highly respected in the publishing world. As a fledgling writer, it may be years before I am worthy of gracing its pages. This is no rag, and the girls who are lucky enough to be so honored have every possible door of opportunity opened to them. I should be so exploited."

Thompson Response: "Was it an article about sports or culture that was displayed on campus for everyone to see? No. It was nude photo. And by the way, if you're going to write a comment attacking football, it would be wise not to cite sports articles as a credential of the magazine you are defending in the same comment."

There you go using the phrase "nude photo" again like it was some kind of epithet. It is not, except perhaps among that sector of society of whom I spoke above. The use of the sports reference was for perspective, to show what our society's priorities are. You obviously missed that I was not attacking sports. If you got that impression, I suggest you reread my original post. It is analogous to the coliseums of Rome, whether that sits well with you or not, and is used to advantage for the same purpose.

Alexander Orig: "Walk through any shopping area in France, or Europe at large, and you will see ads that use the human form, artistically rendered. After all, it is we who use the products, isn't it? If we do not happen to look like the people in the photos, that is irrelevant. I regularly work out; I do not look like Governor Arno. Do I blame him, or his people? Why should I? Was he being exploited? No. He was a self-made success story who leveraged his body to build first a business, then an acting career, and then governor of California. The moral: If you resent those whom you do not resemble, that is your problem, not theirs."

Thompson Response: "And now the author has resorted to personal attacks on the people he imagines are the ones opposed to the posting the banner. Childish ad hominem, drivel (read also: "the 'you're just jealous' argument")"

Do you realize that "Childish ad hominem drivel" (I removed the misplaced comma) is an ad hominem attack? Whom did I attack, personally? Name them for those reading this forum. Whom did I attack?

Jealousy has nothing to do with. Self-esteem, perhaps, but that, in this context, is probably irrelevant, too. Guilt and shame about one's own body instilled by certain vested interests are certainly part of the problem. Fortunately, there are some people there who can think outside the box, without resorting to ad hominem attacks or circular arguments. Have you no desire to discuss this on an intellectual level?

Alexander Orig: "Put the poster back up. She deserves it."

Thompson Response: "This does not even merit a response."

Really? Why not? Because you say so? Have you no response? Are you so certain of your point of view?

Thompson Response: "Clearly, Mr. Alexander has not made use of reason in forming his opinion on this matter. People who object to Ms. Underwood's nude image appearing on campus have plenty of reason aside from "not liking it"."

Oh, clearly. Yes, everything is clear now. By the way, this is another ad hominem attack, Mr. Morality.

And yet, you still cite no clear reasons for not displaying it.

Thompson Response: "There are lots of things that people "don't like" but which they tolerate simply because they aren't thrust upon them. The banner, on the other hand WAS thrust upons us without our permission and it should then be within our rights to demand that it be taken down."

With apologies to the other readers, I must respond to Mr. Thompson in the context to which he has devolved. His above "argument" falls firmly into the "change the f***ing channel" category. Nudity has no effect unless the groundwork for that effect has been laid. If your 7 or 12 year old relatives happen to see it, the only damage that will be done is by the caretakers of those children. If the caretakers paint it in a shameful way, that is what they will grow up with.

Thompson Response: "I see the the banner as a parody of a campaign to market the university. In my opinion it mocks the efforts of our hard-working publications staff to put the university's best face forward and promote the kind learning environment we can be proud of."

Thompson Response: "As far as the moral outrage argument, I'm not particularly offended to see a naked woman. In fact, I think the idea behind the banner is actually kind of clever and it's far less alarming than some the works of Jeff Koons or Carolee Schneemann."

Then why attack me, Mr. Thomson? I agree with you. If you had tried for common ground, perhaps this discussion could have been productive.

Thompson Response: "What bothers me is the way in which the "artists" chose to display it. By placing the banner alongside some of OSU's finest alumni, they essentially present her as their equal. I refuse to believe that Underwood should be mentioned in the same breath as Linus Pauling or Milton Harris."

"I refuse to believe" is not a firm basis for argument. It is a judgement. I, too, hold Pauling and Harris in high regard. Did you ask? No.

Where is the line, Mr. Thompson? Who decides what contributions to the status of OSU are worthy and which are not? Not you. Not me. This is what we should be discussing, not whether or not it is pornography (Oh, puuleese!).

Ms. Underwood is proud of her status. I think we should be, too. No, she did not contribute years of work, but the publicity that her courage produced will produce a monetary gain for OSU. Your comments minimize the risk that she took to her future to put herself out there, so to speak. OSU has nothing to lose from this, and quite a bit to gain.

The points used to validate my argument were not attacks, as they were categorized by you. Perhaps you thought this would bolster your own argument. It did not. Our feelings about nudity are colored by many things, but mostly it is sexual maladjustment brought about by generations of repression. For those that would repress our sexuality, nudity is seen as akin to sex, so it, too, must be repressed. But, repressing our sexuality is damaging, not helpful. It results in monsters like Ted Bundy, Jeffery Dahmer, John Wayne Gassey . . . and Joel Courtney. Shall I go on?

Mr. Hefner's enterprise has done more to bring wholesomeness back to the human form than anyone in history.

Originally posted by

Charles Thompson

So, since we're allowing big posters of porn on campus, can I expect more of this in the near future?

If so, can I be notified of when and in what fashion so I can be sure my family isn't down here visiting me? How about my cousins aged 7 and 12?

Will the City or State be pressing obscenity charges?

Would you also like to know when they are going to display images of abortions and genocide in the quad. I would much rather have a child see images of the human body displayed in a tasteful way then of images of death and violence.

Originally posted by

Charles Thompson

So, since we're allowing big posters of porn on campus, can I expect more of this in the near future?

If so, can I be notified of when and in what fashion so I can be sure my family isn't down here visiting me? How about my cousins aged 7 and 12?

Will the City or State be pressing obscenity charges?

Did you actually read the article or look at the picture? It was not pornography. Everything that should have been covered up was. Also, the students were not encouraged to put the poster up as part of the project, they just did that as a kind of prank.

Also, since when did looking at a human body become obscene? You need to come out of the middle ages and join the rest of us in contemporary culture. Although I have to admit, your open letter to Ed Ray on facebook was pretty funny.

Get a clue. Get a life. Get the facts.

Charles... Obscenity? Really? Take a look at the Miller Test and see if you think it could ever in a million years hold up in court. Namely, the portion where the work must lack literary, artistic and EDUCATIONAL value.

It's a college campus, you are supposed to be shocked and offended every now and then, that's how well-rounded people are created.

Also, I guarantee your little relatives watch re-runs of baywatch and look at there mothers bra and panty magazines everytime they get the chance. Unless, of course, they have decided to fish on the other side of the pond.

To Joe:

Thanks for mentioning this Miller Test thing, this is really interesting!

As for what you can "guarantee" about my little relatives, it just so happens that their household doesn't even HAVE a TV. Yes, your point probably had more to do with how they will eventually see things anyway, but you should be careful what you assume about other people. We don't all have the same experiences in life.

It's not porn.....moron!

Originally posted by

Clay Stephens

That's a reputation I sure don't mind OSU having-producing both smart and beautiful women.

Saying that OSU produced smart and beautiful women is almost as silly as the article's claim that taking off your clothes in front of a camera is an accomplishment. They were smart and beautiful walking in the door.

Pablo: "Saying that OSU produced smart and beautiful women is almost as silly as the article's claim that taking off your clothes in front of a camera is an accomplishment. They were smart and beautiful walking in the door."

This statement does not make sense. It is not how she contributed to OSU that matters, it is that she did. Passing judgment on the "how" does not invalidate the benefit to OSU.

Yes, she would be beautiful whether she had done this or not. And OSU graduates would be smart whether they attended OSU or not. Get the picture?

Another way to look at it is this: Some of those posters around campus honor people for their years of dedication. Weren't they just doing their job? Is that a reason to honor them? Any number of arguments could be made to denigrate or simply disapprove or someone. I do not argue that they should not be so honored, of course. I simply offer this for perspective.

It is a sad testament to our progress as a society when we so easily pass judgment on others.

[QUOTE]Saying that OSU produced smart and beautiful women is almost as silly as the article's claim that taking off your clothes in front of a camera is an accomplishment. They were smart and beautiful walking in the door. [/QUOTE]

Ok, I'll give you that- "Associated with" may have been a better word choice.

Originally posted by

OSU ALUM '96

Hey Charles,

Step out the dark ages. This poster was only up for a couple of hours, but you make it sound as if the world has come to an end. I, for one, salute these kids for being creative in their approach to school projects. People just need to lighten up.

Seriously. It's just tits. We've all seen them.

Dear "Lady",

The uproar over the unsanctioned poster should, in a well-adjusted society, be no more than that. The fact that certain parties choose to make it an issue based on sexuality is the problem, and will continue to be the problem as long as sexuality is seen as something foreign, to be disdained and avoided.

Your rant simply serves to drive home the point. Nobody is saying you have to look like Ms. Underwood. I agree, the world is diverse and there is beauty in everyone, and every body. In the art world, however, we have historically adhered to ideals of beauty. I do not think Michaelangelo, Renoir, Rubens, et al, expected those that appreciated their works to obsessive over whether or not they measured up. No one expects you to either.

One of the issues at the crux of this debate is not whether the poster should have bee displayed. It should not have been. Responses such as yours, as I said, highlight the real issue: what's the big deal? Why would something that exemplifies the ideal of beauty in our and many other societies be an object of disdain?

Your response gives us a clear example of the level of maladjustment to sexuality that is a cancer in our culture. True, one's worth should not hinge on physical attractiveness. Neither should physical attractiveness be reason for an attack from people who obviously need counseling.

There are numerous lines in your post that clearly indicate some sort of disconnect between your feeling and reality. "pro-Playboy puritanical element" seems self-contradictory. No, people do not have to be comfortable with anything; it's a free country...for the time being. Would it be if you were in charge? Yes, we do have the right, based on what defines a well-adjusted adult in our society, to say that being uncomfortable with the display of the human form is abnormal. Nudity is not unnatural; being uncomfortable with it is. And who termed this sexually explicit? Nudity is simply and unclothed body. Whether or not sex happens is still personal choice. Don't be dense. And on what grounds do you conclude that the poster was meant to provoke negativity? Huh? This is bizarre and contradicts everything I've read thus far.

OSU's "stance" is to follow procedure. There was no permission given to hang the poster. End of story. Whether or not the poster was unwelcome is your conclusion.

"The few" are those maladjusted individuals that can't seem to handle nudity, not the reverse. Are we to pander to them?

OSU is looking out for OSU. That is there right. They have a great deal of money on the line. Wouldn't want reasonable behavior surrounding nudity to get in the way. Sorry for that flippant statement, but someone, somewhere has to take a stand and say the emperor has no clothes.

Yes, Playboy has a standard, which is its own and no reasonable person expects one to be around every corner. My fiancee is quite beautiful, but shows her Teutonic heritage. She is incredibly beautiful and I can't keep my eyes off of her. However, she thinks these images are beautiful as well. Beauty is beauty. One can deny it out of spite, but that won't change a thing.

The rest of your rant about "boobs", misanthropes, and "crap" stands by itself and I won't honor you further by responding to it. You talk about funding. I hope to god OSU isn't wasting any, too.

Finally, I like www.suicidegirls.com, too. The girls are edgy, beautiful, real. Pierced, tattooed, and my kind of girl. That isn't Playboy's image, but I bet they like it, too. However, did you take time to notice that the LA Times calls this an "art-sleaze phenomenon"? Sleaze? As I sit here, the young couple at the next table is talking about Playbody. She looks like one of the girls at www.suicidegirls.com. Interesting.

As I've stated previously, the repression of all things that may or may not be sexual (nudity is not) is the cause of huge problems in human society. I would much prefer it out in the open, prudes be damned, than hidden away out of some misguides attempt at political correctness.

Hmm. I wonder which would be preferable to the OSU student body: suicide girls or Playboy. Perhaps we should vote on it.

Ciao,
B

LOL... What in my comments caused you to conclude I took it personally? OTOH, that does not mean that her post was not intended to be a personal assault on anyone who might have a dissenting--or realistic--opinion. I suggest you go back and read her post. It is abusive, caustic, and misleading. In her attempt to support the contention that only academic accomplishments are worthy of recognition, she comes off as anything but worthy of representing OSU. In my opinion, her comments, while certainly heartfelt, did more harm than good to the 'anti' side of the argument.

Thompson: Well, then I might argue that you do plenty of damage to the "pro" side by supporting the kind of fodder that conservative elements in our governing bodies jump on to promote the conservative "culture war".

You might, but I can't for the life of me see why. The last thing I'm arguing is the conservative side.

Thompson: Take the government-run FCC, for example. Who can forget the Janet Jackson "wardrobe malfunction" at Super Bowl XXXVIII? While admittedly one of the more stupid and obnoxious stunts in recent memory, it DID give friends of the Bush administration leverage to pass a tenfold increase in indecency fines (even though her nipple was partially covered).

Exactly the kind of knee-jerk, spoon-fed pseudo-outrage I'm talking about. You seem to be arguing my side, Charles. Thank you.

Thompson: Call me conservative, but I prefer not to give the people in power more opportunities to raise the stakes. If the battle for boobies is going to be won, it's not going to be done on TV and out in the streets, but rather in the halls and offices of our legislatures.

As do I. And, no, it will not be won in a venue wholly controled by the Federal government who has every reason to repress us in the first place. It will be won be the will of the people. It will be won when enough of us say, "This is life. It should not be something to be ashamed of or feel guilty about. It should be part of our daily lives and not hidden away."

The legislatures listen to what goes on in the streets, and the halls of academia, which is where the next generation, the ones who will be making decisions years hence, are forming their opinions. Part of that process is external, fed to them by those who supposedly have their best interests in mind, not the bottom line, or an archaic view of how things "should" be that was inherited from the Victorian era.

Lady: "Bruce, I think that if you step down from your soapbox for a sec, you'll find that our views have more common than you think."

I suspect we do, which is why I bother commenting on anything at all. Otherwise, what's the point?

Lady: "I'm fine with my sexuality. Nudity is wonderful, when appropriate. Sex is healing and intimate between any two consenting adults, when appropriate. But if we all ran about naked and having sex all the time, both would rapidly lose their appeal."

Close, but no prize, yet. I'm sure you're happy with your sexuality. My point is that we are all victims of the sexuality repressive atmosphere in which we have been raised. To illustrate this point, I would ask that you reexamine your statement above. It's a truism that I have heard in one form or another for decades, but, if you examine it logically and, if needed, do some homework, you'll find that it just doesn't make sense.

Our drive to come together (I'm trying to avoid the term "sex" for the moment, as it can be miscontrued) is part of who we are as a species. The obsessiveness that is manifest in an over-interest in erotica, exotic dancers, and the like is a backlash against the repression of that propensity in our nature. So, if we did run about naked and had sex "all the time" (I wonder what you consider "all the time"?), we would not lose anything. We would gain a great deal. If our society acknowledged that this is not an activity that is shameful, etc., and is necessary in order to avoid unpleasant side-effects, we would be better for it. "Sex" might lose it's appeal. "Making love" would replace it, and the drive for that, trust me, is not going anywhere.

Lady: "The difference between our outlooks, Bruce, is that I grant others the right to set their own boundaries instead of forcing my standards on them. Just because I'm ok with my naked self and other naked selves, doesn't mean that everyone has to be that comfortable."

Correct. Nobody has to be anything. It's a free country. If you'll go back and read my posts, I think you'll find that I'm not saying otherwise. That does not change the point central to my argument: By repressing a healthy outlook toward sex, we are only perpetuating that which has made this a very sick society. That everyone is not comfortable with a very low-key expression of comfort is, and should be, disturbing. It is a symptom of the disease.

Lady: "When you buy Playboy, as it is your God given right to do, you consent to viewing the images. When a large suggestive image is taken out of Playboy, placed where people have not consented to see it, and an OSU logo has been used without permission to endorse its presence, boundaries have been violated on several levels. I simply don't agree with you that anyone had the right to infringe upon personal or institutional consent, no matter the artistic or social values behind the act."

Yes, the poster violated the rules and was rightly taken down. Again, go back and read my posts for clarity on this. And, I haven't read Playboy for years.

Lady: "Also, keep the personal insults to yourself. Not a thing in my post personally insulted anyone. I allowed a latitude of opinion without your style of biting insults. I can express my opinion in writing without weathering your suggestions that I need counseling, don't represent my university, that I am bizarre, insecure, or contradictory. Consider this my stand that nothing that comes from your lid-flipping fingertips can do anything to sway my fine self-image. You have every right to your opinion on the subject, but know that what you assign to me is simply wrong. I am intelligent, educated, socially conscious, kind-hearted, strong, secure, responsible and beautiful. Likely, exactly the kind of woman people like you find intimidating, even "bitchy.""

Huge leap to conclusion here, and things were going so well. Personal insult? The statements I made regarding maladjustment were aimed at the pervasive problem with sexuality that is rampant in our society. Put the shoe back where you found it if it doesn't fit. However, the references to "sexually frustrated misanthropes"and "boob lovers" only served to indicate (Notice: "indicate") that you were not necessarily cued into the best interests of the community as a whole. Just my take, mind you, but it didn't go a long way to bolster your point. It made you come off as . . . Hmm, puritanical? Calling Playbody a "nudie mag" when it is so much more didn't help, either.

Lady: "I find it amusing that you automatically assume that because I have an opinion against a poster, I am insecure about my body or have spite. I promise you, both of these ideas are far from the truth. If you'll kindly go back and read, I wrote that in my opinion, plastic and artificial poses are not beautiful. I did not write that "Underwood is not beautiful." She's hot. So am I. So is every other woman on this campus, in her own lovely unique way. They don't have to shed their clothes to prove it to anyone. Hell, if I could make that kind of money taking of my shirt for a camera, I would feed a small nation of children with the proceeds. I hope that Underwood takes the opportunity to do likewise. But I can appreciate these aspects of the topic without draping a naked co-ed on a lamp post and calling attention to the "achievement" of the subject to make a point, or personally insulting those who disagree with my views."

Yuk it up, Lady. More leaps to conclusion, here. Nothing was said about anyone specifically, including you. Your argument started out well; I don't think you have to resort to miscategorizations. You were doing fine.

Yes, Playboy goes to great lengths to create a certain look. That look is not for everyone. For some reason, a number of people seem to feel that they are being compelled to emulate that look. Why? Playboy's own philosophy contradicts that theory. They create a look that is admittedly and deliberately fanciful. Personally, I prefer something more edgy, such as your example of Suicide Girls. Real life is even better. If there were more opportunities for sexual expression in our society, artificial outlets would probably disappear altogether. Or not. Wouldn't we always have a drive to express ourselves? Not just sexually, but in all ways. Sex is only part of us, after all. A very large part, however.

Lady: "Can you?"

The emperor has no clothes. Are you going to wait for a child to tell you?

Yes, everyone is beautiful, some more than others. OTOH, I would not choose to spend my life with all of them, assuming we were otherwise compatible. Each of us is attracted to another for specific reasons, based on what has gone into our psychological makeup. There is a baseline that most of us would agree with, but that's another (very long) conversation. It does change over time, I suppose. For example, our problem with obesity has given way to the beauty of the muffin-top look (Yes, I'm being sarcastic. Deal with it ;-) Personally, I think unhealthy is not attractive. That's just me.

As you said, "our views have more in common than you think", but it seems you need more convincing. A bit of outrage is healthy, but I would suggest getting it under control. You misconstrued quite a few things. Care to try again? This is fun.

Mike: "OSU must be proud. Who cares about their academic achievements, they put out more slutty ass playmates than any other school in the country they claim. That should drive up enrollment. What a hooker!!!"

Typically, I don't respond to such infantile commentary, but, just for the sake of whoever else may be listening, I think it's important to point out how inane this kind of nonsense is. It highlights just how maladjusted our society is: equating nudity with sex, and not only sex but prostitution. Do you work for money, Mike? Do you sell yourself, doing things for someone who, perhaps, you don't even like, just to get a paycheck?

This is the kind of judgmental, moralistic posturing that the lesser of our citizenry hold up as the moral high-ground. Judging others like this is the cancer in our society, not the cure.

LOL. As if you're one to talk about not judging others.