At the risk of sounding conceited, I am an extremely good looking women (in that I am of european heritage and have a shape that is uncommon to these parts of the world i.e unlike most australian born women I know, I actually have breasts!). I am approached regularily by men, and I know some men who I do not believe could actually help themselves if I showed too much of myself to them. I have developed a thick skin over the years and will rarely report sexual harrasment, even though in the strictest sense of the term, I experience this often. The test I use to asses wether I have been disadvantaged by the harasment I experience is to look at my career prospects, how far I have come financially considering the amount of years I have been working in my field and, how I compare to those women around me who, well how do I put this nicely, have no body shape. If I use this measure of justice, in relation to a life time and in relation to my social/economic context, I cant really say that I am worse off. I probably have less money in my pocket at the end of each fortnight, than I should do if I was to be viewed as more than just a sex object to potential employers, work collegues etc. And I do long for the day that my writing is actually taken seriously, as measured by publications rather than by income generation. But gee I have a good time! I have great sex and so many women I know do not. I have a roof over my head that is fairly secure. And so many women I know, who do not recieve the same level of sexual attension , do not. What can I say? I like it, mostly...

C'Mon Bronwyn,

Your comments:

"It is, worryingly, still part of the “norm” in the collective Australian psyche to consider women as sexual predators of unwitting men who simply can't help themselves "

I hope i have read wrong, but this is total crap.

What do you base this claim on? The shiek's comments where bad, but when people like you start bagging the rest of us men and making totally false claims, you should take a good hard look at yourself, your above statement is offensive.

You are not a man, so how do you know what is part of our collective psyche? people like you need to keep the neanderthal image of men to keep furthering your own causes.

I hope you are hoping to get a bite out of this, because you will get one i am sure

When the confected outrage over Hilali's idiotic statement first hit the news, I happened to be having a beer in a country pub, where the story appeared on the TV in the public bar. I was surprised when, instead of the usual Islamophobic reaction to any story about a Muslim, the apparent consensus among the other blokes at the bar was that Hilali's pronouncement was essentially correct - but it could have been expressed better.

From a completely different direction, some of the most prolific Christian contributors to this forum often express sentiments concerning modesty and sexuality that differ from Hilali's only by degree, i.e. that women and girls who dress 'provocatively' are inviting sexual attention from men, who can't help being tempted by the mere sight of naked female flesh.

I think Bronwyn's quite correct to assert that Hilali's comments are congruent with certain values held by significant sectors (i.e. conservative men, fundamentalist Christians) of Australian society. Of course, this raises the question as to why they inspired such apparent outrage in the mass media.

Maybe I'm just naive at my age, but I believe its more than the clothes that invite the lust at times. its the attitude one portrays of oneself that overpowers the clothes, which can give out mixed and unintentional messages.
I find it hard to believe that men can act on such primitive instinctiveness as one based on materialistic clothes. In fact, i believe in our modern society men are probably so used to seeing woman scantily clad that it doesnt really make a difference to them either way. Perhaps in societies where woman are more covered up, this scantility would be seen as scandelous and "inviting".

The Author said:

"Such use of women and girl children in advertising reinforces the message that women and girls are indeed “Satan's agents”, constantly both available and elusive sexual objects, designed to goad men into sexual fantasy that they then have difficulty in not acting out."

Satans agents ? err.. hardly.. speaking as a conservative evangelical, its simply 'life'.. females attract males and vice versa.
And there sadly those in the community who simply want to financially capitalize on that fact by homing in on our weakest life zone.

I think due to hard wiring, males are more easily aroused by females, but lets not take this to mean they /we are about to pounce on and molest the first skimpily clad female we see. Arousal, attraction, are one thing. 'Unwelcome action' is entirely another.
Sometimes a 'fashion' message is selective in intent, but 'general' in the perception of others.

The important thing is our socialization. What do we 'pass on' to our young males regarding females ?
Well.. in this day and age, precious little, many young males get most of their views of women from the hip hop videos, writhing girls, pushing their butts out in submissive welcome to scantily clad well toned worked out male bodies.

The message I want to communicate to my sons is:"Always look past the exterior, to the true beauty beneath, and the whole person".
One of my sons has had quite a few experiences with females. He has scored some who are incredibly HOT....but seems to have latched on now to one who he feels so totally connected to at the inner level. She is skinny, has no hips, a funny nose, is not even attractive physically, is older than him and has children by a previous marraige.. I jusssst dont' get it. But one thing I do get, he has found fulfillment in the whole person at a deeper level than the shallow skin deep persuasion of MTV and Rap video's and definitely the sexed up ads the author refers to.

Oh well its Melbourne cup day and I have the day off.

What a touchy topic this is.

There is much confusion and emotional rethoric in dealing with the subject of sex.

What the writer failed to mention is that 0.3% of person aged 18 and over were victims of at least one sexual assault.

Sexual assault was defined as an incident of a sexual nature involving physical contact, indecent assault, attempted rape, rape and assault with the intent to sexually assault.

Much remains confused and hidden about sexual behaviour and a small highly vocal emotive group control the debate.

Mufti's metaphor shows the huge gulf that exists in what is known as values conflict. Other people added their own meaning to what he said and it is this added meaning is fueling the hysterical debate.

Much of the mating behaviour is covert (hidden)and despite the best efforts of men, not a single one of them has managed to read whats on a woman's mind and as such because the vast majority of sexual behaviour is covert and men cant read minds.

Something is seriously wrong when a small minority are telling the majority that they are wrong.

Until we become open and honest about our motives, confusion, misunderstanding, mix messages will reign surpreme.