Well,it has finally arrived, but you cannot find it anywhere. Boy, that was fast.
If you thought that you would be able to find a copy of the latest Playboy when you came to Dartmouth (you didn't want to buy it at home, with Mom around), think again -- it seems to be sold out all over town. But before you decide to travel to neighboring towns to find a Playboy, let's consider what people were saying about the Dartmouth photoshoot four months ago and what they are saying now.
First, there was Playboy Magazine. I hate to give them the opening position, but they really were the ones who started this whole mess. They were advertising in The Dartmouth that if women posed for them, they would have a chance to become a model, actress or Playmate! What a deal. Women all around campus had the opportunity to take off their clothing -- or even keep it on as one Dartmouth model chose to do -- and get not only money, but fame, too. Unfortunately, considering the case of someone like Anna Nicole Smith, model and gold digger extraordinaire, sometimes posing in girlie magazines does lead to exposure that may benefit one's career. So, Playboy was not completely dishonest in this aspect of its advertising.
Some students here agreed with Playboy. Some of the interviewees from Dartmouth even reasoned that this might be their only chance to do something like posing for the magazine. Playboy, its campus viewership, and the women who were interviewed seemed to have the same point of view: A women has the right to do what she wants with her own body. No argument there.
Unfortunately, this particular exercise of that right has resulted in a new sort of discussion four months later. For example, a male '96 informed me yesterday that he felt Dartmouth had been poorly represented in Playboy. Why? Because he did not feel enough attraction to the Dartmouth women presented in the magazine. He complained that Dartmouth would have the "brains-no-beauty" reputation that Playboy itself had so eagerly claimed that it desired to dispel with this issue. Darn it, he seemed to be saying, Playboy didn't do its job.
Well, aside from the subjective judgment of whether or not any particular Playboy model is beautiful, we should realize that the real goal of Playboy is the sexual arousal of men. As we all know, beauty is not required to turn people on, and Playboy does not depend on it. When that publication claims to be highlighting the beauty of women's bodies in order to expose a myth as such, it is doubly lying. Playboy is not interested in beauty or myths -- just sex. If Monet's paintings turned men on, that is what Playboy would photograph.
So, you see, Playboy cares very little about that which it uses to make money, including other human beings. Women are used by Playboy and other such publications, and then they are used by the people that buy the magazine. Obviously, many people are still willing to use or be used, claiming that there are no external ramifications. However, like my '96 friend, most people buying the current Playboy are satisfied or unsatisfied with the models in the magazine in direct proportion to their level of sexual arousal, and it is this type of event that leads to negative attitudes towards and about women.
As protesters here at Dartmouth and elsewhere have been saying from the beginning, women's equality is dependent upon the attitudes of individuals. If a woman's worth is to be based on her capacity for sexually pleasing others, then her progress will be slowed, hindered by things ranging from eating disorders to rape to the purposeful neglect of the intellect in favor of so-called beauty.
Is this what we really want when we say that a woman has the right to do what she wishes with her body? I hope not. In ten years or so, if Playboy returns, let's hope the whole Dartmouth campus agrees.
