Here's me thinking the topic was about the avariciousness of the sexualisation of children.

Apparently anyone who believes that men and women are equally responsible and entitled as part of our society, are man-hating feminists (especially when they make jokes at male expanse - as if men haven't been doing the same to women for eons).

But Houllebecq asks an interesting question:

<<< But then, why don't we ever hear anything from masculinists about the sexualisation of men. >>>

Why don't we? While we are not hearing much about the sexualisation of children from men (or if they do it is all the fault of single mothers) nor are they up in arms about the portrayal of men as sexualised beings. Hmmmmmm, must think about the reasons for that.

BTW what is a masculinist? Is it someone who believes men and women are equally responsible and entitled as part of our society?

Fractelle (Severin) you seem to have missed my point entirely.

It's only a small proportion of women who seem to be upset about sexist jokes. Nobody here is objecting to men being the but of jokes, rather objecting to the hypocrisy of your average feminist who likes a laugh at jokes denigrating men while being offended by similar jokes about women, and putting up the very existence of jokes denigrating women as evidence of a generally misogynist society.

'as if men haven't been doing the same to women for eons)'
That illustrates the mentality nicely.

'Hmmmmmm, must think about the reasons for that.'
I've already told you. Men have thicker skins. Probably most women also do. It's just we only ever hear the shrill cries of your average feminist that looks to be offended and upset and blame men about... everything.

'BTW what is a masculinist? Is it someone who believes men and women are equally responsible and entitled as part of our society?

I used masculinist as an antithesis to feminist with respect to gender. So I would say it would be someone who was interested in 'equality for men'. Not equality perse, but to leave all gender inequity in place where men are advantaged in comparison to women, but to make a lot of noise about every perceived inequality the other way around at every opportunity, and to twist any social phenomena into an example of an abusive women/victim man dichotomy. Hope that clears it all up.

So I suppose in the same way you'll never hear a feminist use women and responsibility in the same sentence (unless in 'the responsibility of men for/towards women'), no, your definition would be inaccurate for masculinists also.

I don't think you'd find too many masculinists. Most of the men I know are accepting of true equality for men and women, and take responsibility for their own vanity, can have a laugh at sexist jokes about either sex, and understand the difference between what they see on TV and real life.

Houellebecq:"I don't think you'd find too many masculinists. Most of the men I know are accepting of true equality for men and women, "

And that's the nub of the matter, isn't it? Feminism has thrived because most men are very happy for the women in their lives to be as fulfilled as possible. The trouble is that the women who get most fulfillment out of Feminist doctrine don't actually want any men in their lives.

You should start a separate thread about feminism: perhaps one with a clear issue?

By talking of the sexualisation of children the author does not define what she means by ‘child’, and thus fails to distinguish between children properly so-called – people who are physically sexually immature - and people who are physically mature but under the age of consent. To confuse, or fail to distinguish between these two categories in a discussion of sexuality is culpable ignorance, or deliberate dishonesty.

By referring to the problem as sexual*isation*, the author assumes a theory of *causation*. People have no sexual thoughts, feelings, autonomy or activities themselves. People are just plastic blobs under the impress of rugged exploiters. All their sexuality comes from what *others* have programmed them with as automatons.

But the author is in a separate category. She looks on tempests and is never shaken. She knows not only what values *she* should live by, but what everybody else should live by too; and if they don’t agree, why it goes without saying they should be forced.

She advocates reversing the onus of proof. Every communication by everyone about anything should be presumed guilty; its author should be imprisoned unless he or she can prove that it was *not* intended to sexualize “children”.

After I read this article, I saw a five or six year old girl on the street wearing a spangly T-shirt saying “My [heart symbol] belongs to Daddy.”

And I thought “What criminal pervert has abused this innocent child, by his expression purposely assimilating the concept of filial love with romantic or erotic love, thus seeking to confound them and to normalize incest and child sex abuse? Rape is commonplace in prison, but is not part of the formal sentence. If while imprisoned, some demented muscle-bound gorilla, with ‘love’ and ‘hate’ tattooed on his knuckles, were to beat this guy’s brains to a pulp, and ream his arse to excrutiation, who could say that would be such a bad thing?”

After all, to those who say my view is extreme, I say “But what about the children?”

Peter Hume<" By talking of the sexualisation of children the author does not define what she means by ‘child’, and thus fails to distinguish between children properly so-called – people who are physically sexually immature - and people who are physically mature but under the age of consent."

You are skating on thin ice here Peter.
The legal age of sexual consent in this country is 16 years and over.
Naturally most educated people would assume that the children the author is discussing are aged under 16.

We weren't discussing the difference between pre and post adolescent children.

A human being under the age of 16 is a CHILD no matter what they look like, whether you like it or not.
That's the law, and we should fight to keep it that way.

suzeonline, "A human being under the age of 16 is a CHILD no matter what they look like, whether you like it or not.
That's the law, and we should fight to keep it that way."

Not in Australia or at least not for some children, where multiculturalist and feminist alike turn a blind eye when it suits them. Some may have seen this story, but did anyone note that the offender was not charged with a sexual offence and his punishment was far less than one would have expected for his crimes, even despite his shame?

'During a 10-week reign of terror Morgan, of Moama, subjected the girl, who was his under-age sexual partner, to a series of attacks, where she was bashed, stabbed, humiliated and held captive.

He threatened to kill her, smashed a full plastic water bottle over her head, threw a knife at her, which struck her on the neck, and bit her nose.

Morgan made a weapon of a water hose and repeatedly struck her on the legs, threw a heavy tool, cutting her head, and forced her to stay in a bedroom for nearly a month.

Morgan pleaded guilty at La Trobe Koori Court to eight counts of causing injury intentionally, two of assault, one of making a threat to kill and one of false imprisonment.'

http://www.news.com.au/national/koori-reprieve-for-teens-shamed-attacker/story-e6frfkvr-1225833209499

Sex was no problem, huh? Exactly how did she come to be in his clutches and from what age? What about informed consent, how was that obtained from a child? Might there be an OLO article about about this case I wonder? Maybe not.