Re: Digest Number 1301

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/3/2005 4:46:40 AM Eastern Standard Time,

AutisticSpectrumTreeHouse writes:

What the dominant society does by habit (particularly if it's not universal)

doesn't necessarily make it right, it just makes it the norm.

That isn't the point. " Gentlefolk " as in kind people, which I would choose to

be over manipulator any day, use the basics of ettiquette to ease interaction

and generally show respect. And, even if the other person is disrespectful,

you have not allowed him to change = manipulate, your basic kind behavior of

choice. It can bring peace and centering, because like any routine, once you

adopt it, you do not have to think every time what to say. It's a convenient,

always appropriate script, and, politically, it does not, at all, put you lower

in power. Rudeness, I feel, puts people lower in the power structure, because

they have lowered their level of humanity. (Which is not to say I feel

superior, it's just that they did it to themselves.) I endeavor to be a

gentlewoman,

but it's true when I'm overwhelmed, I don't always manage it, and, when I cry

in public and am ignored by kindness, I feel obliterated. I would never pass

someone crying and not express concern. If not me, who?

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/3/2005 4:46:40 AM Eastern Standard Time,

AutisticSpectrumTreeHouse writes:

Except that very few people regard Miss Manners as anything other than a

quaint amusement..

No, your opinion is based on a very limited experience. Most people use her

very practical advice as a standard, based on generations of fine tuning. I'm

not saying " the right fork or you're trash " I'm saying that guidelines like

when do you tell someone they have food on their shirt depends upon whether that

moment they can do something about it or not.

but I agree Californians tend to be rude, and swear so much it's sometimes

hard to pick out the meaningful words from between f*in this and f*in that.

Boring language, really. And language is so rich and beautiful to waste on that

useless garbage. I always taught my daughter, as I was taught, to save a word

like fuck for when you really needed strong language to express something,

because, if you overused it, you were left with very insipid vocabulary indeed.

Didn't work. She went to visit in California, and came back with her language

really diluted, and far less potent.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/3/2005 4:46:40 AM Eastern Standard Time,

AutisticSpectrumTreeHouse writes:

I have had one person tell me that " it is the right thing to do " to give

up my seat on a bus (for example) if there is a female that needs a

seat. I disagreed-- that particular cultural idea came about as a

result of a patriarchal society, where females were considered to be

inferior and fragile. Since I do not consider them so, I could find no

rational basis to find that a female was any more deserving of a seat

than a male that had gotten to that seat first.

There's ample reason for this act. Ergonomic design of public facilities is

based on the average adult MALE size. So, for most females, chairs, straps on

the subway, etc. are way, way out of reach. If a male is small, that would be

good reason to keep your seat. But also, a younger person can keep their

balance in a train, etc, far better than a middle aged - elderly one of either

sex.

It's just a fact. In either way you are providing an accomodation for a person

who is more " handicapped " in that situation than you are. And that is why it

is the " right " thing to do. Because all of us want it to become the right

thing for our needs to be considered and accomodated, right? Because it's

" right "

to care about others.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/3/2005 4:46:40 AM Eastern Standard Time,

AutisticSpectrumTreeHouse writes:

Please

describe what process is going on in your head, when you think, read,

or talk to others.

We were talking about just this thing a couple months ago on another group. I

sometimes " think " in solitaire, or Snood (computer game) characters (it kind

of works like billiards), or in cloth textures. I will find myself imaging

these mentally going through interactions that are discrete to that " language " .

I also have dreamt in these " languages " . (and in Danish, French, smells, etc.)

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/3/2005 4:46:40 AM Eastern Standard Time,

AutisticSpectrumTreeHouse writes:

I'll miss insults, but later on when I think back on it, I'll relize

there was an insult and feel like a fool.

This is true for me, routinely I feel like a fool. I feel stupid for being

" open " when my experience, repeatedly, is that it did not bring safe results.

I had also remembered another language I have thought extensively in: Excel

spreadsheet development. In the middle of a large project, where I was trying

to figure out how to lay out the data so that I could grab it up into a graph

so that it would be clear to the reader, I would end up day and night dreaming

in " Excel " - not working just on my problem at hand, but going through the

process of inserting and deleting rows and columns, calculating formulas based

on

cells all around the sheet, etc. I always really enjoyed it when I could

access this mental play. Although I am very verbal I don't think of words

connected at all with these alternate " languages " just relationships, permitted

moves,

etc. There's a great book, Flatlands, that someone here may have read or

might enjoy reading, that kind of takes you to another communication context -

and

it's not like learning a foreign language (I could always mimic very well an

accent, but couldn't comprehend one word said back to me - and I have a lot of

trouble with auditory comprehension of English as well.)

[Guest guest]

JLAM1950@... wrote:

> In a message dated 2/3/2005 4:46:40 AM Eastern Standard Time,

> AutisticSpectrumTreeHouse writes:

> Except that very few people regard Miss Manners as anything other than a

> quaint amusement..

> No, your opinion is based on a very limited experience. Most people use her

> very practical advice as a standard, based on generations of fine tuning.

They do?

Upon what do you base this claim?

I would be willing to bet you that if you cited " Miss Manners " to the

next 20 people you meet in public, most of them would respond with a

snicker or a laugh.

" Generations of fine tuning " leaves it hopelessly out of date when

culture evolves rapidly, even within one generation. Indeed, excessive

formality and politeness is often cited as dysfunction in autism texts,

and you can argue until you are blue in the face that it's always

appropriate-- but the rest of society just went ahead and evolved away

from that ideal without your consent.

[Guest guest]

Actually, ,

I find your list of rules for required behavior for those who interact with

you far more constricting than Ms Manners, and way beyond what you can expect

in reasonably accomodations even in those who totally understand autism and the

need to adapt the environment to fully function. Your rules stamp all over

everyone else.

[Guest guest]

wrote:

> " Generations of fine tuning " leaves it hopelessly out of date when

>culture evolves rapidly, even within one generation. Indeed, excessive

>formality and politeness is often cited as dysfunction in autism texts,

>and you can argue until you are blue in the face that it's always

>appropriate-- but the rest of society just went ahead and evolved away

>from that ideal without your consent.

The fact is, NTs use " politeness " as part of

their basic communications skills. It is a part

of their language and, as you say, , just

like language it evolves rapidly. All forms of

communication that are useful evolve rapidly.

That doesn't mean they are not useful or don't

exist any more.

Here is my take on the subject, as quoted from my

Snippets page (http://mjane.zolaweb.com):

Two autistic adults started a discussion about

the social language continually used by NT

(neuro-typical; i.e., non-autistic) people.

Examples include " How are you? " and " Happy

Holidays! " One man noted that this type of

language use is believed to have evolved in human

pre-history, before language had developed to the

point of coding and conveying information about

the world (e.g., " I saw some gazelle over there "

or " Is today payday? " ). This man noted that it is

very hard for him to participate in this kind of

social language. Even when he does have positive

feelings about someone, he finds it irksome to

perform verbal behaviors that are not natural to

him. A second autistic man agreed, adding that,

in his view, this kind of

language-without-substantive-content is silly. On

the other hand, he said, when he notices someone

doing it well and compliments that personís

skill, his compliment often is not well received.

He resented being penalized for not participating

in the ongoing routines of social interchange but

asked for strategies others might have developed

in this regard.

I wrote:

I think you are not being completely logical

here, nor are you integrating [the previous

posterís] points into your response. (That's not

a criticism, simply an observation.) As he wrote,

and as you agree, that level of communication is

something NTs do automatically. It is not

performed as a conscious decision, it is the

outward expression of pre-conscious neural

development that has been wired into the (NT)

human brain since pre-history.

It is not " silly " for NTs, nor is it " empty. "

For them, it plays an important role in social

interaction -- and social interaction is

ubiquitous in most NT lives, so this kind of

communication is like breathing for them. They do

it all the time and rely on having it occur

automatically. It supports them in crucial ways,

makes their world meaningful and comprehensible

for them. There is no need to compliment them on

it, any more than you compliment them on

breathing. (Though it's true that some NTs are

especially good at performing social language as

a form of " outreach, " where they layer it onto

the basic, unconscious level in order to achieve

a specific purpose -- e.g., being attractive as a

job candidate, or making a new-comer feel

comfortable.)

I think the best solution for autistics is to

grow up with two older sisters who are normal

(unique but socially adept). That way, you get to

spend a lot of time watching good models at work,

and you eventually find yourself imitating them

in tone of voice. It helps. But, alas, it's too

late for most autistics who didn't have my good

luck.

How about a compromise? We will ask the NTs

around us to understand our difference in this

regard. We will ask them to remember that when we

do not send out the expected " signals "

(non-verbal communication or the routine

responses to their verbalized non-verbal

communication), they should assume our intentions

are benign. If they need to know more about our

state of mind at any point, they can ask and we

will be patient in trying to reassure them.

In exchange, we will try to understand and

tolerate the constant chirp of NT-to-NT

communication that seems meaningless/useless to

us. Pretend they are whales who need to

echolocate constantly. Since we are not whales,

the noises mean nothing to us and may even be

irritating at times. That's what earplugs are

for, I guess.

At work, I have discovered that a good-humored

" You, too! " will cover a multitude of situations.

It is my attempt to imitate a whale. Although my

inevitable instinct, when I realize someone is

talking to me, is to try to figure out what that

person is saying and then formulate an

appropriate response, I have come to accept that

it is easier for everyone if I repress my

instincts at times. Nobody really wants me to

tell them the answer when they say, " How are

you? " Nobody wants to hear my opinion about

either religion or commercialization when they

say, " Happy Holidays! " And since nobody is really

listening to these ritually-voiced forms of

verbalized non-verbal communication, it is fine

to respond " Fine! " or " You, too! " to almost

anything, as long as you say it so you sound

friendly and/or happy.

That's my take on the subject, anyway.

Jane

[Guest guest]

Klein jotted this down:

> I would be willing to bet you that if you cited " Miss Manners " to the next 20

> people you meet in public, most of them would respond with a snicker or a

> laugh.

Exactly. Miss Manners is based on a standard abandoned long ago here. If I

followed her dictates I'd have been bullied or shunned in school (including

college) even more than I did.

>  " Generations of fine tuning " leaves it hopelessly out of date when culture

> evolves rapidly, even within one generation.  Indeed, excessive formality and

> politeness is often cited as dysfunction in autism texts, and you can argue

> until you are blue in the face that it's always appropriate-- but the rest of

> society just went ahead and evolved away from that ideal without your consent.

My thoughts as well. There are some areas (like Washington D.C.) where it's

still the norm to always wear casual-business attire, wander around speaking

formally, greeting everybody with a cheek-kisses or formal handshake, and to

keep the disabled folk carefully hidden aside from the rare homeless

beggar...but it hasn't been the norm for California, Oregon, Nevada, or Arizona

that I've seen.

--

DeGraf ~*~ http://sonic.net/mustang/moggy

[Guest guest]

JLAM1950@... jotted this down:

> There's ample reason for this act. Ergonomic design of public facilities is

> based on the average adult MALE size. So, for most females, chairs, straps on

> the subway, etc. are way, way out of reach.

I'm only 5'2 " and have had no problems finding hand-grips for somebody my size

on busses or rapid-transit (subway) trains, either in Bay Area California or

Washington D.C. I can't reach the ones running above me, but every seat-aisle

has one, plus there are several near each of the doors.

> But also, a younger person can keep their balance in a train, etc, far better

> than a middle aged - elderly one of either sex. It's just a fact.

That's not necessarily true. You can't tell just by looking at somebody whether

they have some kind of internal disability that mangles their ability to keep

their balance. I've always had poor balance, for example, but if all you do is

judge me by my age at any particular moment, you'd assume that I am more capable

than somebody that is 60 years old -- and be wrong.

--

DeGraf ~*~ http://sonic.net/mustang/moggy

[Guest guest]

> Klein jotted this down:

>>  I would be willing to bet you that if you cited " Miss Manners " to

>> the next 20

>>  people you meet in public, most of them would respond with a snicker

>> or a

>>  laugh.

>

> Exactly. Miss Manners is based on a standard abandoned long ago here.

> If I followed her dictates I'd have

> been bullied or shunned in school (including college) even more than

> I did.

You don't know that because you don't read Miss Manners, so you don't

know what her columns are about. It is true that a good deal (probably

about half of it, I'd say offhand) does indeed bring evoke images of

1950s ladies wearing veils and white gloves as they sip tea from bone

china with their pinkies in the air, but the other half is actually

pertinent even in modern times.

As to the twenty people in 's hypothetical, I'd ask the same

question of them: when's the last time you read her column? If they

say they've never read it (or that they seldom read it), then their

opinions are worthless.

It reminds me of the people who sometimes hassle me for my " Playboy "

subscription and insist that I'm full of it when I say that there's a

lot more to Playboy than the centerfold and that there's actually not

even all that much nudity in the magazine. The ribbing continues until

I ask them, " Have you ever read Playboy? And if so, how often do you

read it? " The needling invariably stops at this point, because those

who insist that Playboy has quite a bit of content other than nudity

are invariably people who have never looked at the magazine at all.

-----

Homemade scented candles to bring warmth and fragrance to your home...

Knight Scents

http://www.knightscents.biz

[Guest guest]

Dammit, revising... language issues today...

> You don't know that because you don't read Miss Manners, so you don't

> know what her columns are about. It is true that a good deal

> (probably about half of it, I'd say offhand) does indeed bring evoke

> images of 1950s ladies wearing veils and white gloves as they sip tea

> from bone china with their pinkies in the air, but the other half is

> actually pertinent even in modern times.

Strike either the " bring " or " evoke " ...

> those who insist that Playboy has quite a bit of content other than

> nudity are invariably people who have never looked at the magazine at

> all.

Those who insist that Playboy does NOT have quite a bit of...

[Guest guest]

Parrish S. Knight wrote:

> As to the twenty people in 's hypothetical, I'd ask the same

> question of them: when's the last time you read her column? If they

> say they've never read it (or that they seldom read it), then their

> opinions are worthless.

I was responding to the letter someone wrote that most people consider

her column to be wonderful (or whatever it was). I am pretty sure I

don't need to read it to get a feel for its contents enough to say I

wouldn't care for it. If she thinks belching at the dinner table,

throwing food, and such things are rude, I want no part of it.

[Guest guest]

JLAM1950@... wrote:

> Actually, , I find your list of rules for required behavior for

> those who interact with you far more constricting than Ms Manners,

> and way beyond what you can expect in reasonably accomodations even

> in those who totally understand autism and the need to adapt the

> environment to fully function. Your rules stamp all over everyone

> else.

By Jove, I think she's got it.

And the normal rules stamp all over me.

[Guest guest]

> That's not necessarily true. You can't tell just by looking at

> somebody whether they have some kind of internal disability that

> mangles their ability to keep their balance. I've always had poor

> balance, for example, but if all you do is judge me by my age at any

> particular moment, you'd assume that I am more capable than somebody

> that is 60 years old -- and be wrong.

Yeah. There was a time period when I had periods of extreme vertigo

-- possibly related to malnutrition, because I don't know what else

would explain it at the time -- and I'm sure I looked like a " young,

strong, healthy (if a bit skinny) person " at the time. But I *really*

needed to be able to sit down.

[Guest guest]

JLAM1950@... jotted this down:

>  " Gentlefolk " as in kind people, which I would choose to

> be over manipulator any day

Being " gentle " is not the opposite of being " manipulative " -- the two have

nothing to do with one another.

> , use the basics of ettiquette to ease interaction and generally show

> respect.

This is actually a form of manipulation in itself, since it is specific behavior

designed to elicit a specific response.

> And, even if the other person is disrespectful, you have not allowed him to

> change = manipulate, your basic kind behavior of choice.

That's *your* behavior of choice. It's not everybody's (i.e. collective " we " or

collective " your " ).

> It can bring peace and centering, because like any routine, once you

> adopt it, you do not have to think every time what to say.

Maybe you don't. That's not how it works for me, and it's not from previous

lack of effort (which nearly destroyed me, hence my decision to stop).

> It's a convenient, always appropriate script, and, politically, it does not,

> at all, put you lower in power.

Maybe not where you live, but it *would* place one " lower in power " elsewhere.

(Like where I live.)

> Rudeness, I feel, puts people lower in the power structure, because they have

> lowered their level of humanity. (Which is not to say I feel superior, it's

> just that they did it to themselves.)

That's not how society works in reality, however. It is either how things work

where you live, or it's how you interpret things, but it's not how society

actually functions. I personally find it disgusting to view other people as

more or less human based on how well they conform to a specific society's norms

-- that attitude is one of the big reasons those with differences are so

viciously treated in the first place.

> I endeavor to be a gentlewoman,

I don't think, by definition, a " gentlewoman " is one that goes around declaring

others more or less " human " ...if it is, I'm happy I'm not one.

> I would never pass someone crying and not express concern. If not me, who?

Hopefully nobody, in my case. I'd become additionally distraught (threatened,

humiliated, etc.) if some stranger came within my personal space when I was

already upset, even more so if the person started talking to or touching me. (I

recognize others have different norms, so I don't judge them on this at all, but

I consider it a personal failure on my part to cry around others. When I do

lose control enough to cry, I become extremely angry with myself for it, and

much more so if somebody points out to me that I also couldn't conceal my

failure.)

--

DeGraf ~*~ http://sonic.net/mustang/moggy

[Guest guest]

JLAM1950@... jotted this down:

> 

> In a message dated 2/3/2005 4:46:40 AM Eastern Standard Time,

> AutisticSpectrumTreeHouse writes:

> Except that very few people regard Miss Manners as anything other than a

> quaint amusement..

> No, your opinion is based on a very limited experience. Most people use her

> very practical advice as a standard, based on generations of fine tuning.

In my experience, actually, most people will snicker or smirk if you even admit

reading her, and they won't say that they follow her rules. That's not just in

California and Arizona, either -- a lot of the international students I went to

university with would have reacted similarly.

As said, you can go out and ask people (particularly men or modern women)

whether they read Miss Manners, and what their view on her is. I already know

the responses from asking people in the past myself.

> but I agree Californians tend to be rude, and swear so much it's sometimes

> hard to pick out the meaningful words from between f*in this and f*in that.

I have no idea what part of California you're referring to, or which age group,

but I rarely encounter somebody that swears like that in public. Once in a

while, yes, but in those cases it's a fairly humorous addition.

What is " rude " to you, anyway, is *not* necessarily rude to others. It's just

what suits this location rather than your own. That we don't follow the social

rules that fit a " gentlewoman " in East Texas doesn't make us rude, it makes us

from a different culture.

> I always taught my daughter, as I was taught, to save a

> word like fuck for when you really needed strong language to express

> something, because, if you overused it, you were left with very insipid

> vocabulary indeed. Didn't work. She went to visit in California, and came

> back with her language really diluted, and far less potent.

First, " fuck " is no less or more a useful word than any other one. Some people

use it only as an expletive, others use it in place of other equally-meaningless

language. (A mildly dismayed " oh sugar " isn't any less 'diluted' than an

identically-voiced " oh shit " -- it's just different.)

Second, what you might have thought of as less " diluted " and " richer " language

might have sounded stilted, formal, stuffy, and fake to other people. It all

depends on personal preferences, where you grew up, your age/peer group, and

similar variables, all of which obviously can combine to make a pretty wild

number of possible interpretations.

Finally, as anybody that has spent time on AutAdvo can tell you, if you think

the word " fuck " can be diluted by saying it regularly, you haven't met AS fellow

" Psychobollox " from Great Britain... *grin*

--

DeGraf ~*~ http://sonic.net/mustang/moggy

[Guest guest]

>

> --

> DeGraf ~*~ http://sonic.net/mustang/moggy

Hi... so I'm not the only one trolling at this late hour. Cheers!

-Matt

[Guest guest]

Parrish S. Knight jotted this down:

> You don't know that because you don't read Miss Manners, so you don't know

> what her columns are about.  It is true that a good deal (probably about half

> of it, I'd say offhand) does indeed bring evoke images of 1950s ladies

> wearing veils and white gloves as they sip tea from bone china with their

> pinkies in the air, but the other half is actually pertinent even in modern

> times.

Actually, I *have* read Miss Manners quite a few times; I just don't bother

anymore, as I didn't identify with any of the people writing in. Judging from

the one I'm looking at right now (which matches my previous experience), most of

the " modern " letters are from people so intensely obsessed with pleasing others

at their own expense and following protocol (that Miss Manners herself commonly

admits almost nobody cares about) that they can't make decisions on their own.

> As to the twenty people in 's hypothetical, I'd ask the same question of

> them: when's the last time you read her column?  If they say they've never

> read it (or that they seldom read it), then their opinions are worthless.

I wouldn't say that; it could be that (like me) they read it and found it of no

value in their life-scheme. Miss Manners isn't exactly all about succeeding in

life, being self-confident or happy; it's more about following rules aimed at

women in 1960, from what I've seen.

> It reminds me of the people who sometimes hassle me for my " Playboy "

> subscription and insist that I'm full of it when I say that there's a lot

> more to Playboy than the centerfold and that there's actually not even all

> that much nudity in the magazine.

I've seen the magazine -- quite a few, in fact, since you showed them to me. I

can agree that there's more to it than the centerfold, but it *does* have quite

a bit of nudity. What those people are getting at with teasing you isn't what

the technical content is, but the real reason you subscribe. Reality is, the

same topics it offers are typically tackled in a wide variety of non-sexualized

magazines or online sites; the distinguishing factor of " Playboy " is that it

offers the same content with attractive women.

--

DeGraf ~*~ http://sonic.net/mustang/moggy

[Guest guest]

Point one out that I haven't already rejected and I might change my

subscription. For now, I like my Playboy subscription, and I generally

don't even glance at the nude artwork, although I'll look at the cartoons.

I haven't seen another magazine with the Libertarian viewpoint that will

tackle the wide variety of issues that Playboy will while remaining fun to

read.

Elayne

http://cablespeed.com/~solinox/index.htm

" Those who refuse to support and defend a state have no claim to protection

by that state. "

> -----Original Message-----

> From: DeGraf

> Reality is, the

> same topics it offers are typically tackled in a wide variety of

> non-sexualized magazines or online sites; the distinguishing

> factor of " Playboy " is that it offers the same content with

> attractive women.

[Guest guest]

>>  It reminds me of the people who sometimes hassle me for my " Playboy "

>>  subscription and insist that I'm full of it when I say that there's

>> a lot

>>  more to Playboy than the centerfold and that there's actually not

>> even all

>>  that much nudity in the magazine.

>

> I've seen the magazine -- quite a few, in fact, since you showed them

> to me. I can agree that there's more to it than the centerfold, but it

> *does* have quite a bit of nudity. What those people are getting at

> with teasing you isn't what the technical content is, but the real

> reason you subscribe. Reality is, the same topics it offers are

> typically tackled in a wide variety of non-sexualized magazines or

> online sites; the distinguishing factor of " Playboy " is that it offers

> the same content with attractive women.

Right -- and I always tell people that whenever they try to needle me

for reading it. I say that " Playboy " offers a lot of quality fiction,

essays, and the like in addition to quality photography of attractive

women -- *all* of which are reasons I read the magazine.

When Jeanne Cavelos' book " The Science of Star Wars " was coming out

(right about the same time " The Phantom Menace " was being released),

there was an article in Playboy about the Star Wars phenomenon, and her

book got mentioned. I sent her an email to let her know about it, and

when she told me she hadn't heard about that, I included a scan of the

page where the mention happened. I then told her, as I tell so many

other people, that I read Playboy for the articles *and* the

photographs; if the person persists with the needling, I ask them

whether they consider it an indication of illness or something like

that for a man to be interested in attractive nude women. This

typically puts an end to the discussion. :-)

-----

Homemade scented candles to bring warmth and fragrance to your home...

Knight Scents

http://www.knightscents.biz

[Guest guest]

DeGraf wrote:

> I've seen the magazine -- quite a few, in fact, since you showed them

> to me. I can agree that there's more to it than the centerfold, but

> it *does* have quite a bit of nudity. What those people are getting

> at with teasing you isn't what the technical content is, but the real

> reason you subscribe. Reality is, the same topics it offers are

> typically tackled in a wide variety of non-sexualized magazines or

> online sites; the distinguishing factor of " Playboy " is that it

> offers the same content with attractive women.

As I see it, getting the magazine for the nude pics only would be kind

of silly-- you can get endless supplies of such things from the internet

for free (including most playboy centerfolds-- although it is a

copyright violation).

I recall one issue from about 1991 that had a fairly balanced view of

gun control. It had a page of political cartoons for the " pro " side,

and another for the " anti " side. My favorite was an image of an

answering machine on a table, with a voice bubble coming out of it...

" Congratulations, Ms. , the waiting period is over, and you can

come pick up your gun today! "

Below that was the image of a woman lying face down on the floor, in a

large dark pool of a viscous liquid.

[Guest guest]

Parrish S. Knight jotted this down:

> I then told her, as I tell so many

> other people, that I read Playboy for the articles *and* the photographs; if

> the person persists with the needling, I ask them whether they consider it an

> indication of illness or something like that for a man to be interested in

> attractive nude women.

No, it doesn't... On the other hand, I wonder how typical it is for men to

continue subscribing to it once they're past young adulthood, if they have any

real success in relationships? (That is, I wonder if it doesn't say you're

mentally ill, but does say something about the other two attributes?)

--

DeGraf ~*~ http://sonic.net/mustang/moggy

[Guest guest]

> Parrish S. Knight jotted this down:

>>  I then told her, as I tell so many

>>  other people, that I read Playboy for the articles *and* the

>> photographs; if

>>  the person persists with the needling, I ask them whether they

>> consider it an

>>  indication of illness or something like that for a man to be

>> interested in

>>  attractive nude women.

>

> No, it doesn't... On the other hand, I wonder how typical it is for

> men to continue subscribing to it once they're past young adulthood,

> if they have any real success in relationships? (That is, I wonder if

> it doesn't say you're mentally ill, but does say something about the

> other two attributes?)

I don't know what the exact demographic breakdown is of Playboy's

readership, but I do know (as is probably pretty obvious) that the

largest portion is men in their twenties and thirties. It does go

beyond that, though. Back when I was in college, for example, I stayed

with my mother and her husband whenever school was out, and they always

read my copy when I was done with it. They're both in their fifties.

I'm mostly speculating, here, but I wouldn't think that the nude

photography would be the main appeal of Playboy anymore. As

said, if that's all you're looking for, you can find terabytes of it on

the Internet for free. Most of the people who buy it are most likely

looking for the other content. (Most, not all... I'm sure there are

exceptions.)

The only other comment I can offer is anecdotal... I had a roommate

back in the late Eighties who subscribed. He was in his mid-thirties,

and he had had women falling all over him all his life. Each month

when the magazine showed up, he'd spend about five or ten minutes

looking at the photos, then he'd file the magazine in his bookshelf and

never look at it again (I always thought that was quite a waste of

money). When I moved in with him and started subscribing myself, he

let his subscription lapse and just started looking at my copy instead.

I remember one time when I was in the living room reading the latest

copy, and he walked in and saw what I was reading. He asked me how the

latest centerfold was, and I told him that I actually hadn't looked at

it yet. He gave me a very strange look. *chuckle*

-----

Homemade scented candles to bring warmth and fragrance to your home...

Knight Scents

http://www.knightscents.biz

[Guest guest]

Parrish S. Knight jotted this down:

> I don't know what the exact demographic breakdown is of Playboy's readership,

> but I do know (as is probably pretty obvious) that the largest portion is men

> in their twenties and thirties.  It does go beyond that, though.  

Oh, I know it goes beyond it. I'm mostly curious whether it reflects the

lifestyle of the subscribers -- whether the subscribers tend to have LTRs and

get laid regularly, or if they're more like the sort that largely remain

unattached and get laid sporadically on a casual basis.

> Back when I was in college, for example, I stayed with my mother and her

> husband whenever school was out, and they always read my copy when I was done

> with it.  They're both in their fifties.

True, but I was talking about subscribing, rather than just looking at it. I

looked over some of your magazines when I was there, but that's a long stretch

from me being a subscriber, masturbating with the pics, etc.

> I'm mostly speculating, here, but I wouldn't think that the nude photography

> would be the main appeal of Playboy anymore.  As said, if that's all

> you're looking for, you can find terabytes of it on the Internet for free.  

> Most of the people who buy it are most likely looking for the other content.  

> (Most, not all... I'm sure there are exceptions.)

There's a long online, but I don't know the quality, since I'm more into other

things when it comes to sexual content. There's also, like some guys have

mentioned on 'net forums, that you can't bring the computer easily into the

various places people like to masturbate, plus you have to worry about mess

rather more with electronics, etc.

> The only other comment I can offer is anecdotal... I had a roommate back in

> the late Eighties who subscribed.  He was in his mid-thirties, and he had had

> women falling all over him all his life.

Was this the narcissistic guy that was unable to emotionally connect with

anybody, though? If so, that would more underscore what I'm wondering about,

that it might suggest not mental illness but immaturity, lack of connection,

etc. ?

--

DeGraf ~*~ http://sonic.net/mustang/moggy