The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Meat treatment sullies Diggers in lraq > Comments

Meat treatment sullies Diggers in lraq : Comments

By Melinda Tankard Reist, published 25/9/2006

Don’t gloss over the offence committed by these soldiers against women.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
That’s right - kick our own soldiers in the guts instead of saying anything to upset the enemy. After all, a bit of red-blooded lust (perhaps more unseemly behaviour in the cases of a few) is far, far worse than anything other women-hating cultures can do to their own women, according to the likes of Reist. And those porno pictures that most women don’t know exist on barrack walls! How dreadful! I suppose the women pictured were made to pose for them, the poor little innocents. I wonder what we would see in the female soldiers’ barracks. If these ladies are anything like civilians of their generation, they don’t need protecting from anyone, many of them more sexually aggressive than, certainly, my generation of males. They would frighten the life out of me. It’s amazing that someone of Reist’s obvious youth is so naïve.

Reist doesn’t even talk about her opinion of men in general. It’s Australian men involved in wicked wars only.

And, in a very short jump from a few pictures on the wall, she has these mostly decent young men involved in sexual abuse and sex-slave trafficking.

I would be the last person to ill-treat a woman (apart from Tony Kevin), but this essay is a piece of nonsense
Posted by Leigh, Monday, 25 September 2006 9:46:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I not a student of the politics of pornography nor do I know anything about the links between pornography and the the traffic in women - not saying it does nt exist - it is just a field of enquiry I dont delve into - maybe I should

But from what I see pornography is a thriving (legal) retail business in most or our capital cities - and not surpisingly a big business in Canberra - home to the nations most active onanists( the editor thought my alternative word was a profanity!).

But never the less I find Ms Tankrads protests some what shrill.

And what I find more suprising is that where these images would be the subject of prosecution in any other workplace our soldiers are free to stick all manner of stuff on the walls - and I only have Ms Tankards peice to tell me the back drop was pornographic.

The fact that they are there - together with the other forms of stupid behaviour portrayed tells us there are discipline issues to be dealt with - and the calls by the government to bolster the number of regular soldiers by lowering the entry standards is a very dangerous proposition indeed.
Posted by sneekeepete, Monday, 25 September 2006 10:39:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For possibly the only time in my life, I find myself in (partial) agreement with Leigh.

Pornography has been around since the days of cave paintings and it always will be. I don't think the soldiers, in an unnatural environment, cut off from female company, should be condemned for having some nudes on the wall. Having worked in a number of workplaces with large numbers of females, I can say first hand that women are not averse to having a few male 'hunk' photographs.

On the other hand, I don't believe the military should be 'off limits' for scrutiny. It seems that any criticism of the military is immmediately labelled as 'unpatriotic', that 'our boys' can do no wrong. They are of course human, and subject to the same weaknesses as the rest of us. They should be expected to abide by the same codes of conduct, perhaps higher given the potential they have to do harm and good.
Posted by AMSADL, Monday, 25 September 2006 10:57:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yeah, I'm gonna have to agree with Leigh on this one too... feels a little weird, but there it is.

In terms of the big picture issues, quite frankly, porno rates pretty low on my list. Even if you take away the porn, men are still going to have sexual fantasies. If it was to be banned, it would simply be driven underground.
Guys aren't just going to give up their sex drive and stop wanting to see naked women. Who's to say it's harmful anyway?

If a man commits a crime against a woman (or another man for that matter) of course there needs to be justice. But chalking it up to porn is a bit of a reach I'm sorry.

Plus, I find it kind of stupid that people are being shot and bombed in Iraq, but Reist is more concerned with the porno on the walls of soldiers tents or whatever.
In my view, that's some seriously dodgy prioritising.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Monday, 25 September 2006 11:04:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
* * * *
Many female members of our defence forces have reported sexual assault and harassment. This fleshly montage hardly contributes to their sense of safety, or belief that they will be treated with respect.
* * * *

This is the classical feminist fallacy of half truths.
By only reporting a part of the truth a false impression is created.

Guess what, lots of male recruits get sexually assaulted, harassed and tormented, some to the point of suicide. This is not about sex, it's a culture of military thuggery not a men vs women thing.
Wether you get smacked around or not in the military is, I suspect, primarily a function of rank, not gender.

Husmusen
Posted by Husmusen, Monday, 25 September 2006 12:22:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You have to laugh.

These young diggers are just kids. The mockery of their enemy is something that soldiers have done since the year dot. It makes it easier the kill them when the time comes.

None of these kids will get in trouble. They've done nothing wrong except let some pictures of them blowing of steam in barracks escape onto the internet. For this reason alone the Army is embarrassed.

As to the alleged porn on the walls. These kids are full of bravado and testosterone. Some pics on their barracks (bedroom) walls is of little concern.

The actual problem lies with the exploitation of the nature of young men who have paid their hard earned dollars to obtain these pictures. I would bet that the models involved were paid quite well for posing, the photographer and publishers would also have profited.

Pornography is nothing short of the exploitation of men for money.
Posted by Narcissist, Monday, 25 September 2006 12:25:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You have to be Kidding,

How dare you use Australian Soliders who where not raping or piilaging women at all to detract from what they are going through and push the chip on your shoulder.

It is a disgrace that these men put their lives on the line FOR YOU TO HAVE THE FREEDOM TO WHINGE and yet you notice perfectly legal posters of females on the walls and this was worth writing about and conemning them for.

These men often have no female companionship during their time away and admiring women is as close as many get.

As you dont understand that males have differing hormones and genetics to you all you think about is this is another angle for you to harp on about your cause.

Your cause of protecting women is very valid, but you do it no favours by the manner in which you attack and lay blame on innocent people.

Take a good hard look at yourself, you may hinder your cause by your innapropriate behavior and attitiudes. This is your personal attitude to pornography here, and as a person who obviously does not appreciate it nor know much about it, how do you know the impact it has on those who do? Your asumptions and cheap shots have taken the decency out of your message.

You should be diligent enough to put your cause before your attitudes and personal grevances.
Posted by Realist, Monday, 25 September 2006 12:48:19 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The reference as to what Moaslems might think about our soldiers
attitude to women does not take into account that moslem men are so
uncontrolled that they cannot even be allowed to see the hair of a
woman.

Australian men can see women on the beach in the scantiest of cossies
yet do not rush over and rape them.
Can the same be said for moslem men ?
Else why do they insist that their women drape themselves in mobile tents.
It must simply be that they do not trust other men.

A little bit of proportionality here please.
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 25 September 2006 12:56:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I hope we do not send boys to war.
Yes boys will be boys, but I expect men to act as men, not children.
Posted by Flo, Monday, 25 September 2006 1:03:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Melinda, as an oldie who spent nearly five years in the forces during WW2, partly agree with you about the way troops talk about women just to be used sexually, but not much about dinkum love which you would be surprised troops do talk about often with tears in their eyes.

But what us old veterans are more disgusted about, is the way Mr Howard virtually commended the way that low-rankers are now allowed to mess about with small-scale weaponry while off duty.

We did have one occasion where a low-ranker shot himself while on guard with his issue long-barrelled 303, but the point is that us gunners knew without asking the question that it was British military tradition that low-rankers were not issued with small weaponry, revolvers and such, because low-rankers especially when a bit young were too likely to play around with small weaponry. Quick on the draw, etc.

Hoping WW2 veterans will agree with us on this one, even if it helps stop our PM making a real fool of himself.
Posted by bushbred, Monday, 25 September 2006 1:09:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Like all radical feminists, Melissa is blind to all of the degradation, suffering and death that is so glaringly apparent in the Islamic world.

None so silent as radical feminists when confronted by violations of women's rights in Muslim countries it would seem.

Melissa, if you really want to do some good, what about the genital mutilation of girls that is rife in some countries and through migration has been imported to western democracies? Greer and radical feminists support genital mutilation because it is 'women's choice' and is performed by them.

What about child marriage where adolescent girls are taken by old men as happens in Aboriginal communities? Or the similar sexual 'training' of young boys (in the same culture) by old women pedarists? The feminist response is 'never you mind' because it is cultural and therefore quite OK. So much for children's rights. So much for the street cred of the feminist elite.

I agree with Narcissist, this article by Melissa is a real joke. Feminists spend far too much time egging one another on and are completely out of touch with reality.
Posted by Cornflower, Monday, 25 September 2006 1:21:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I doubt that I would agree with the Author on much, but on the matter of 'MEAT' I do agree..and I raise it 3 fold.

It is a sad and tragic commentary on our 'values' when men seek comfort in the battle field from porographic degrading images of women.

We should look more closely at some of the love stories which emerged from world war 2.... the letters home... the true and deep affection.

Pornography is NEVER the answer to lack of female company. NEVER.

All it does is re-inforce the "I need SEX" rather than "I would love to have someone to love right now" value.

I absolutely believe that the teaching of Christ, and the Apostles is a value we could do well to inculcate into our young men and women.

"Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her"

Contrast this with

'Ooiyyy mate.. I've got a massive sperm build up.. I desperately need to get laid"

On this score..if current Australian values include regarding females as "an opportunity to get laid" then I TOTALLY AND ABSOLUTELY REJECT that.

I am educated enough though, to realize that such 'values' emerge from
a) Rejection of God
b) Misuse and abuse of the freedom we have (even in a more Christian values environment)

The Bible teaches "You are free indeed, but don't use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh"

But alienation produces increasing confidence in waywardness, in seeking the quick thrill, in dehumanizing our fellow men and women into 'opportunities' for sick and carnal pleasure.

Eventually, the voice of our fading conscience is but a whisper... until nothing is heard at all.

It is then that the words "The way is easy and the road is wide which leads to destruction" are fulfilled in us.

May God help us.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Monday, 25 September 2006 1:30:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hmmm! Who was it that said "Judge not lest thou be judged?" Well Melinda, it seems you've found out the hard way about judging others, but please don't forget, those same people you're judging are the same ones who fight for your 'right' to judge them. They're doing an impossibly difficult job in an increasingly hostile land. The atrocities they encounter on a day to day basis make a few girly pics hanging on their barrack walls pale into insignificance. We must be very, very careful about running down our defence force personel. It's the thin edge of the wedge that will spread to become an all out cry against the war on the enemy, that enemy who is the fundamentalist Muslim. How they must rub their hands in glee every time they hear or read reports of the West turning on itself over the war on terrorism. Our boys need all the support we can give them in their attempt to put an end to the aims of the aggressor even if it means turning a blind eye to the occasional barrack room prank, for as surely as night follows day, to loose this war against terror is to enter a very dark and bleak future for us, our children and their children, if indeed those generations are left alive.
Posted by Wildcat, Monday, 25 September 2006 2:16:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Melinda didn't have to squint to see scantily clad women on the walls of young soldiers' barracks, she could have gone to the lesbian magazines which have scads of unclothed nubile young women for ogling. See here:

http://www.divamag.co.uk/diva/features.asp

http://www.lotl.com/

What about the trim ripped male bodies in women's magazines?

C'mon Melinda, you didn't even have to step outside of Canberra to see some naughty mags and photos.

So what about some poh-faced denunciation of the stuff being thumbed through by gay and straight women in her local Canberra newsagency?

Or a visit to the fleshpots of Fyshwick to see some real red blooded lesbian hard core and bondage stuff.

The radical feminists are ridiculous. So what if sexually active people look at the photographs nude or partly nude bodies? As long as they leave the kids alone - unlike Greer's pederast manual with photos of adolescent boys - who cares?

Fess up Medinda, you were just having a 'go' at men weren't you and you are not really concerned about pornography. Otherwise you not have gone outside of your own backyard to find it.

Shame Melinda, shame.
Posted by Cornflower, Monday, 25 September 2006 2:41:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The porn on the walls was the first thing I could make out in those fuzzy images and an unhealthy relationship between sex and violence did come to mind.

Then I wondered what the wives, mothers, daughters, girlfriends of soldiers might think of it.

Then I wondered how those pornographic images came to be shown on prime time TV - shouldn't they have been fuzzed out or something?

While I don't think the issue merits this sort of hysterical response it shouldn't be dismissed either.

You have to wonder how the whole stupid catastrophe of this war is going to effect the men in those pictures when they get home.
Posted by chainsmoker, Monday, 25 September 2006 4:10:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Melinda,
I admire you passion.

But well meaning, principled actions can do more harm than good if they are based on preconceived notions, not reality.

You wrote:
>Portraying women as nothing but sexual fodder for male lust and pleasure is a form of oppression of women everywhere. It puts women at risk of unwanted sexual advances and abuse.

How do you know this? Do you have any evidence?

Reality is, that pornography provides sexual relief.
In Sweden, after introducion of pornography a noticable decline of sexually motivated assualts was recorded.

Do you realy want to provide protection for women everywhere?
Realy?

I'll tell you what works.

But let's start with evidence.
During the WWII Germans troops did NOT rape local women, Russians did (massively).

Difference? Russians were ideological, Germans pragmatic.
Russians had their commissars, Germans had... field brothels.

So? What do you care more about: women in other countries or ideology?

If it is the former, I am waiting for a passionate paper 'let's introduce brothels for our soldiers.

Regards

Paul

www.creativewinwin.com
Posted by Paul_of_Melb, Monday, 25 September 2006 4:53:26 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Since when did men looking on women in that 'certain way' become an act of oppression. The day men stop, the species is history.

I think the author ought to be examining herself to work out why she identifies so strongly with pictures of other people doing things she doesn't approve of.

The thing about Democracy that some people don't get, is that implicit in the freedom it grants, is that you have to respect the freedom of others. If it doesn't personally affect you or demonstrably harm others, then it's none of your business.
Posted by Kalin, Monday, 25 September 2006 5:35:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If this is all Tankard Reiss has to write about and OLO is so desperate for anything to publish, well I might be forced to put up a dissertation on the cultivation of belly-button fluff. It would be more entertaining and revelant to modern day life.

As Leigh, on the first post rightly commented, "but this essay is a piece of nonsense"

Spot on Leigh.

One wonders what is lacking in Tankard Reiss' life that she obsesses so much about absolutely nothing, maybe a lack of anyone bothering to look at her in that way men look lustfully at other women?
Posted by Col Rouge, Monday, 25 September 2006 6:12:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bushbred, like you, I also served my country (not during time of conflict though).

Many folk, primarily political identities and 'barrow pushers'are conveniently ignoring the growing (hidden for 'their' agenda purposes) statistics of women becoming more violent, & more 'male' like e.g tribadism. This today is more often being pictorialised.

For what?
Male titillation, or female equality? I think more likely as some hint, to add to the bank accounts of publishers and media outlets.

As a Digger I observed some bizarre happenings in my 12 or so years in the ADF. Some of those memories are not pleasant. In my subsequent years as a civilian I have observed and witnessed equally - if not substantially more abberrant behaviour since.

When humans are denied or frustrated in their natural functions, then weird behaviour is exhibited whether in private or in some cases - publicly. It is not exclusive of gender - just visit a women's prison and observe the behaviour there.

When theology proscribes by the relevant deity just how a womans body is to be treated by men, then the issues of equality have been chucked out the window. The Old Testament was possibly sound advice 6,000 years ago, but modern medicine has since given us better knowledge of things.

What then if we evolved from 'matrilineal' as opposed to 'patrilineal' Judeo-Christian forebears? Would we have been spared the Germaine Greers, Emily Pankhurst's and others along the way? Would there have been less warfare waged over the aeons?

No, without doubt most war as such is waged by men against other men who don't have the testicular fortitiude to do the dirty work themselves.

In short to paraphrase old American General Smedley Butler - "War is just a racket, and I've been a racketeer for those corporations playing the game..."

So the more rifles they manufacture to put in the hands of soldiers who need to be fed, clothed, medically attended to or whatever in an army at war - so much the better for the corporation bosses, and the parasitic politicians who feed off them.
Posted by Albie Manton in Darwin, Monday, 25 September 2006 9:33:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Before Melinda Tankard Reist passes judgement,I think she should go to Iraq and experience hell on earth.She has no idea what these soldiers are going through.They are not getting support form home because of Bush's stupidity,and our armed services are at the lowest ebb in their history as far as morale goes.

Just remember Melinda,when the oil stops flowing from the Middle East because of religious hatred,our transport and basic necessities such as food and clothing will become very scarce commodities.

Do you have any comprehension of real poverty?No social security or safety nets of any sort.We as individuals are then totally alone fighting each other over diminishing resources.

One thing is certain about reality,you don't know what it's like till your've been there.
Posted by Arjay, Monday, 25 September 2006 10:24:54 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Defending our freedom to whinge? Since when has one soldier been sent to Iraq to protect one of us?

Here is what they are doing in that hell hole.

1. They are protecting diplomats and business men out for a quick quid - protecting our wheat sales and trying to get in on the oil wells which is what we have always done in Iraq. Pray tell me what is the point now that the entire world knows our wheat sales were gained on the backs of bribery and corruption and outright theft of $300 million by the wheat board? Pray tell me why we should get any "in" on the oil wells when some of the BHP people are liable to be sent to prison for theft from the starving women and children of Iraq - all in the name of commerce of course.

2. They are training "soldiers" and arming them with multiple weapons so they can then join either the sunni or shi'ite militias and slaughter each other in the thousands while we train more.

3. We should remember that the Iraqis were not supposed to be our enemies ever, we were there to liberate them. Kapeesh.

The pornography on the walls is what leads to thugs like Stephen Green stalking a 14 year old girl, raping her, murdering her and burning her body before slaughtering her family and then going back for a beer.
Posted by Marilyn Shepherd, Tuesday, 26 September 2006 12:15:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TEAM !

The most alarming thing I find in many of the comments (Cornflower,Kalin etc) is the inability to separate a very important social and spiritual issue from the personality and views of the author on other matters.

I don't see any posts getting to the core of the matter.

Let's give credit where it is due and rebuke where it is due.

Kalin said "Since when has it been 'oppression' to view women in a certain way"

Ok.. I take the point that this is an 'angle' on the feminist mantras, which should be criticized, BUT... the more important issue by far, is that viewing women as "sex objects" is a tragic and sad commentary on just how far we have fallen from Grace.
The dehumanizing, soul destroying, character denying,personality using aspects.... all encompassed in the word 'lust' .. where we put aside the 'responsibility' aspects of the male female union, and just go with groin instinct......are testimony to where we have descended to in our morally relativistic 'broad and easy' road to destruction.

Another poster mentioned the wives, girlfriends,mothers and fathers of the recruits. I have to say that if I saw my son with that background I'd be wounded so deeply it aint funny.

If we want to rip into Melinda for 'feminism'..ok..sure.. but do it when she speaks about that agenda specifically. Let's not be blinded to the terrible consequences of objectified human relations.

Every time I fill up with petrol, I experience a combination of sadness and anger, as I pass the rows upon rows of pornography on the shelves. Sad that gullable people are sucked into this, and ANGER that people would seek to profit from such weakness.

Marilyn Shepherd tends to rant incessantly, but.. she does have a point on the 'hidden agenda'. I can promise, that the further we are alienated from God and Godliness, the more brutal and manifest that hidden agenda will become.
May God forgive us. (but will we turn ?)
Posted by BOAZ_David, Tuesday, 26 September 2006 6:19:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David Boaz,

You seem to be assuming that people are condemning the Author on this point, simply because they disagree with her on other points.

I don't think that's the case. For me the real issue is this - in any democracy, adults ought to be allowed to decide what they look and how they look at whatever they look at.

You, like the author, are apparently mortified that other adult citizens of this country find such material pleasing. Be mortified, be disapproving, even urge others not to enjoy such material - that is your right, but it is equally the right of other adults to enjoy such material.

These soldiers are away at war and will have very little privacy for an extended period, so we ought to cut them some slack.

Censoring smutty magazines is the first step down the slippery slope toward women wearing tents. There really isn't much difference.
Posted by Kalin, Tuesday, 26 September 2006 11:11:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is probably another very good reason why the soldiers have placed these pictures on their barracks wall - because they can. Step outside and you don't.

They probably also enjoy a beer or two ("two cans, per day, per man perhaps") which would probably not be tolerated too well outside their compound.

They probably enjoy a bacon and egg breakfast or a spit pig, roast pork or chop.

They tuck into lunch during Ramadam and give the local kids chocolate and lollies.

The Australian girls at the airport don't wear burkas.

They do these things because they have the freedom to do so.
Posted by Narcissist, Tuesday, 26 September 2006 11:24:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Justice comes full circle when these men marry and have daughters. Then point out that the picture a man is looking at is someone's daughter, and watch his face fall. It sucks the enjoyment right out of it!

That said, I have worked in a number of environments that are male-dominated and had to turn a blind-eye to nudie pictures on the walls. Very rarely is there any malice in the comments made. Does it objectify women - well yes, but 95% of men who use porn are quite able to make the distinction between fantasy and reality (there are always a few simple-minded people that have trouble separating the two, but you cant please everyone). A few are hate-fueled and pose a risk to women at large. They would anyway.

Therefore while I dont like porn, I dont see that it necessarily does much harm, as long as its behind closed doors (after all its adult stuff, doesnt need to be paraded around in front of kids, which is why it shouldnt be displayed for purchase at petrol stations).
Posted by Country Gal, Tuesday, 26 September 2006 1:41:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kalin “Censoring smutty magazines is the first step down the slippery slope toward women wearing tents. There really isn't much difference.” Exactly, the US were big on the Hays commission in the 1930’s, that on the failed attempts of prohibition. Better people make up their own minds than a bunch of prudes try to make it for us.

Country Gal “Then point out that the picture a man is looking at is someone's daughter, and watch his face fall. It sucks the enjoyment right out of it!”

I don’t think you are very qualified to talk for us red blooded males.

I have walked around Kings Cross and felt saddened at the sight of those poor girls who trade their bodies to the high rollers, I have often thought - they are someone daughter, where are their parents?

However, I never thought that Anna Nicole Smith the doyen of Penthouse (or Playboy etc) was ever “exploited” by any man, in fact, I suspect quite the opposite.

Ultimately, boys will be boys and enjoy images of lusty busty lovelies and girls will be girls and prepared to satisfy the inquisitiveness of boys both in magazines and on their backs.

As for fathers – I have 2 daughters, I know the eldest’s boyfriend was a little wary of me when he first moved in with my daughter, but she already owned her own house, therefore I do not pretend to tell her what to do in it.

As for objectifying – well who cares – better to be a “sex object” than a “rejected object” and as you say, what goes on between consenting adults has nothing to do with anyone else.

“Real men” are capable of separating their daughters from the rest of womankind. It is a shame so many unreal women cannot do the same.
Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, 26 September 2006 2:51:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col, the women in the photos were not giving their consent for thugs in Iraq to use them as objects.

Now for the ludicrous statement made by someone that the boys in Iraq do it inside because they can and that women in Australia don't wear burkas.

Can some enlightened soul tell me just what he is saying.

I have a daughter who is now 33 and a grand-daughter who is nearly 16. If they were objectified in this way to suit someone else I would protest very loudly indeed.

I notice that Boaz again accuses me of ranting - something he does only when he refuses to concede that I am being quite honest. What we are doing in Iraq is illegally occupying a place where we are not wanted.

Now what if some arabs decided to dress one of them as an Australian soldier and put his gun to the person's head and spread it on the internet as a joke? I can hear the ranting now from the neocons about the "violence and lack of humanity of the arabs and muslims".

The problem is you are all hypocrites.
Posted by Marilyn Shepherd, Tuesday, 26 September 2006 3:48:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No Marilyn. I'm afraid that in agreeing to pose for a pornographic magazine, the women in those pictures had to be aware that they would be viewed by some 'thugs' as you call them. To believe anything less is simply naive. In this, they were bound to be objectified.

Now there could be a myriad of reasons why these women posed for the pictures - perhaps they were desperate, perhaps they needed the money. All fair enough, and issues that need to be addressed.
There would have been some of them however, that were neither desperate, nor 'forced' into doing those pictures.

The only issue I have with feminism, is it all too often claims to represent all women, when to simply assume all women share the same views is most certainly incorrect.

Fight for your rights, sure. But if you were to ban pornography entirely, you would be robbing others of their right to express themselves how they wish, and earn money, how they wish, if they are indeed an exhibitionist.

The men in this situation are being blamed for taking a simplistic view of images, without proof of their individual opinions.
This alleged objectification of women is no worse than the people who have viewed this snippet of footage and assumed the worst of these men.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Tuesday, 26 September 2006 4:38:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sheesh, where to start with this predictably nonsensical fodder...

1. typically sugar-coated, ranting, boiler-plate threads of thought and reasoning. eg, tactic of connecting this to sexual abuse and sex-slave trafficking, is straight out of the playbook. l think she did that in her ranting diatribe about Blokes World festivities leading to same.

2. predictably condascending, patronising, base and negative view of men as;
a. sexual predators
b. incapable of distinguishing fantasy (porn) from reality (interaction). People think what they think and do what they do, try and credit us with a basic capacity for understanding the difference.
Wot a surprise re this subject matter, from this scribe.

3. men know what is acceptable treatment of and behaviour towards women... our mothers (and fathers) taught us that.

4. correlation is not causation re specious links between this, that and the other.

5. thinly veiled vilification with a nice sugar coating of plausible deniability

6. advocating for thought and even perception control (bizarre), because thoughts lead to actions. Right-o Buddha, give it a rest.

7. Boring

8. Boring

9. Boring

10. Boring

peace
Posted by trade215, Tuesday, 26 September 2006 6:19:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cornflower,

why can't you be against what you percieve to be the negative treatment of women in Western and non-Western cultures at the same time? I don't like women having to be covered up or have their genitals mutilated to fit some social idea of 'chastity', but I also don't like women being sold the idea that to be liberated means to appear in Playboy and to staisfy male desires. I'd rather have a situation where women are free to express their sexuality as they wish, without being judged as a prude or a whore for it.

Of course women get paid well to appear in pornography, but this doesn't constitute a conspiracy against males. The fact that pornography, prostitution and modelling are areas in which women earn more than men and are some of the highest paid jobs for women only points to the fact that our society values women for their bodies rather than for their minds or for their personalities.

For me, pornography is like fast food- just as fast food is cheap, readily available and bears little resemblance to real food, so too is pornography cheap, readily available and bears little resemblance to real sex.
Posted by la1985, Wednesday, 27 September 2006 10:59:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
la1985

What about the double standard of feminists? It is OK for the high priestess of feminism to salivate over adolescent males and for leabians to have lurid articles and photos of women, yet there is feminist tut-tutting about young men looking at Playboy.

Sp why won't the sky fall down when feminists appreciate nude bodies?

There is nothing wrong with the depiction of women in Playnoy (although it is not a subscribe to) and frankly I think that most (alleged) pornography is not unhealthy for men and women consumers.

So to summarise, my objection to the article is that the author is targetting men, otherwise she would choose the myriad of examples much closer to home and consumed by women, not just by young men.

As for models, well from all accounts both male and female models have chosen the employment, quite like the work and get paid. So what? There is nothing wrong with artistic or erotic depictions of mena and women.

However I draw the line at extreme stuff which is favoured by some women and some men. Greer's book (The Boy) is offensive not because of what is included in it but for the her motivations in putting it together.

Were you not offended by her descriptions of her interest in young boys? Didn't you get creepy goosebumps from rteading what she had to say? Did you wonder why feminists didn't take Greer to account for exploiting the boys? Were you concerned that she was doing to the boys what she has oft (wrongly) accused all men of doing?
Posted by Cornflower, Wednesday, 27 September 2006 11:21:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The word pornography obviously means different things to different people. Is artistic nudity pornographic? Michaelangelo's David for example, or paintings depicting feminine nudity? In the US, there are many examples of genuine artistic nudity being condemned and banned. Is Australia going to go down the same stupid path? These days, photography is cheaper and easier than painting or sculpture, but surely the same concepts apply.

I don't regard a photo of a nude girl as necessarily unacceptable in any way. Or a male nude either, for that matter. It's natural for human beings to admire what they regard as beauty. A landscape or seascape. A mountain, a river or a tree. A fine looking dog or horse. Or a healthy looking, attractive human being, especially a person of the sex which the observer feels drawn to.

But when religion comes into it, we have nonsense like if someone merely has a passing thought about another person being desirable, then that is the same as actually having sex with them.

I was called up in 1952, at the time of the Korean War and spent a couple of years in the Royal Navy. At one time I had a bikini clad Gene Tierney [US film actress] poster inside my locker door. Did that make me a prospective predator?

In 1947, my elder sister, who was a glamourous sort of woman, made herself a bikini. Bikinis weren't on sale in England then, but we could see photos of girls wearing them in European magazines. Horror of horrors! Maybe even on sale at service stations! She had a series of photos taken in her bikini and sent them to her fiance who was then in the British Army. No-one in the family saw this as a problem, in fact I remember my mother referring to the photos as my sister's "come hither" series.

OK, I'm talking about girls in bikinis and not nude, but over 50 years ago some people regarded that as pornographic. I still recall Catholic priests telling girls not to wear them, as if it were any of their business.
Posted by Rex, Wednesday, 27 September 2006 6:50:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rex if the choir boys wore them,at least half of the priests would have then approved.
Posted by Arjay, Thursday, 28 September 2006 8:47:48 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rex "Did that make me a prospective predator?" if you read the article it's even worse than that

"The soldiers are complicit in the international trafficking of women for sex."

Not only were you a prospective predator, you were apparently doing some sex slave trading on the side. It's a wonder you found time for your Navy duties what with getting to auctions and all the other work associated with the slave trade. (Note - I'm not serious in case anybody does not get it).

On the other hand it's more likely you were like most people who enjoy looking at attractive people, you respected the rights of others to make their own choices, have never dealt with any kind of slavery nor been a customer of anyone involved in the sex slave business.

Don't panic, the former scenario has a lot to do with the authors issues and nothing to do with your choices.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 28 September 2006 9:46:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Another article on OLO http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4845 on the benefits of pornography raises some interesting questions.

If the points made are valid then is Barbera in some way culpable in the rape of women for her stance against porn - she suggests that porn users are culpable for the sex slave trade so the question is not unreasonable.

There may be other factors but the idea's in that article are worth consideration.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Friday, 29 September 2006 12:40:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Marilyn Shepherd “Col, the women in the photos were not giving their consent for thugs in Iraq to use them as objects.”

The women in the photos almost certainly signed off on a copyright release before they were paid for the photo-shoot.

In accepting payment for the photos (selling themselves for a price) is what defined them as “objects”, not how the pictures were displayed or used by Aussie soldiers.

“The problem is you are all hypocrites.”

And you along with Tankard Reist are deluded feminist ideologues who seem to think that men need to change to fit in with your expectations.

Well the world just ain’t like that, so get used to it or get off.
Posted by Col Rouge, Saturday, 30 September 2006 9:29:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Women appearing in printed pornography aren't always paid, some are trafficked or otherwise coerced, so buying that pornography literally does fund sexual slavery. You don't know which? You ever think to ask or try to find out, or you just focus on the jerkoff? You're buying it lads, you're responsible.

Add that many females in online porn are underage or very close to it (and some are also trafficked), and you have a training program for paedophilia. You're buying it lads, you're responsible, and you're making excuses. How typical of men.
Posted by Liam, Monday, 2 October 2006 11:30:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Liam said 'how typical of men'.

Well we know for certain that Germaine Greer didn't approach the adolescent boys she displayed nude photos of in her pedarist manual. Then she went on and on lusting after their 'rivers of sperm' and opined that the age of 'consent' should be 10 or 12 years. Of course she didn't really think that their consent was really necessary, because she would be their sexual teacher. Interesting that feminists didn't complain about Greer's aberrant behaviour. Feminists invented the double standard.

As for nude photos and and girls, what about all the pornographic photos of girls in lesbian sites and magazines?

Women have nude photos of men in their magazines and they go to strip tease - which from all accounts are raunchy affairs with women throwing used underwear on stage and propositioning the performers afterwards.
Posted by Cornflower, Saturday, 7 October 2006 1:56:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy