Houllebecq

I am well aware that your raison d'etre is to provoke and inject levity. So be it.

I find your interpretation of a 'masculinist' << So I would say it would be someone who was interested in 'equality for men'.>> interesting indeed. Does this mean that along with women, children continue to be sexualised? In the interests of men?

You talk of taking responsibility, most people (female and male) do take responsibility for their actions, it is always the nasty minority who fail to do so and cause all the grief.

Instead of acknowledging that both men and women can fail miserably in caring for children and working together to find a better way, you and the indefatigable Anti prefer to dispute anything any female poster here has to say.

In the interests of the topic as opposed to arguing over male and female rights; Steven Biddulph has suggested a that not having TVs in children’s or teenagers’ bedrooms as the best single protection of developing sexuality and mental health. He has also called for the establishment of a national organisation to monitor advertising and other products specifically aimed at children.

What say you?

Fractelle,

It's a long bow... actually it's not even an ACA standard segue from me using 'equality for men' (mocking the feminist definition of 'equality for women', which in itself is self contradictory, or maybe a deliberate way to position women as being universally disadvantaged) to 'sexualising women and children in the interests of men'.

I don't know what kind of women you know, but all the women I have known have been sexual beings. I don't know how one would sexualize a sexual person. It sounds good though. Maybe I can ask my partner to sexualise me tonight.

With regards to children, I am of the belief that children will see the world around them, and should rightfully and sensibly observe how it works. TV is one aspect of this, but I would personally not give my child a TV or computer in their bedroom, and not because I'm cheap.

Being a parent I see it as my responsibility to have a hand in educating my children about the forces at play in the commercial world, and being an informed critic of popular culture and advertising. So I intend my children to be perpetually annoyed by my cynical musings at each and every advert and show they watch on TV.

I will definitely teach my daughters that their body is their own and they are boss of it, that people judge by appearances even though they shouldn't so you should think about how you present yourself, that life isn't fair, people lie sometimes, that young women have more to lose than men in the case of failed contraception, to respect themselves and be kind to themselves, that sex is fun, flirting is fun but you should be careful people understand the messages you are giving them, boys have feelings too even if they don't look like they do.

Well there's heaps of other stuff, I'm making it up as I go. But the point is, well, I don't usually have a point. Feel free to mock and castigate me for my parental advice as you would Tony Abbot.

Houellebecq, I for one would not mock you for the advice you say you will give your daughters. It sounds exactly like what I have said and continue to say to my daughter- even though she is now 18.

You are so right in saying that the girl has so much more to lose if she agrees to unprotected sex. Unplanned teen pregnancies can ruin their lives in so many more ways than that of the young fathers.
And some of the dreaded sexually transmitted diseases can be fatal to both present and future partners.

With some of the truly dreadful stories I have told my daughter about some STD affected patients I have cared for in the past, I am amazed she even looks at a boy!

Unfortunately we can only vaguely control what they see and hear while they are with us at home. Much of the problems they face are presented to them when they are away from us out in the cruel world.

We can only do the best we can.
Good luck to you with your girls.
So far so good for me and my daughter, I think. :)

Houllie

Great advice, I get in trouble from Suze for saying more or less the same thing.

Suze

"haven't you seen the men's underwear adverts showing good looking men with bulging biceps and bulging jocks? These show what men are supposedly supposed to look like in order to attract women."

One problem that teenaged boys face is that the men that they idolise tend to be footy players or wrestlers. Very strong, blokey sorts of guys. The men that teenaged girls admire tend to be singers in boy bands and actors. There seems to be a huge disparity between what boys want to be (and have been socialised to respect) and what girls want. The women that teenaged boys admire are often the same as the women that many teenaged girls want to be. Sorry for introducing another men-are-worse-off-than-women theme, but boys do face some different problems to girls.

BTW I'd like to hire you as storyteller when my children reach puberty?

Suzeonline:"You are so right in saying that the girl has so much more to lose if she agrees to unprotected sex. Unplanned teen pregnancies can ruin their lives in so many more ways than that of the young fathers.
And some of the dreaded sexually transmitted diseases can be fatal to both present and future partners."

Me(in the sexual revolution thread):"until only 40 years ago a woman who opened her legs too readily was likely to end up pregnant in short order, while a man who put it about faced no such risk. Up until only 80 years ago, with the invention of penicillin, if someone got a venereal disease they had it for life. Both men and women shared the risk, yet only the woman risked passing it to an unborn child."

Funny how I was attacked for saying that, when it's an identical sentiment to that offered by Suzie...

I went on to say:"These facts lead to certain cultural prejudices designed to make it less scoially acceptable for women to engage in promiscuity: for their own protection rather than for any oppressive motives."

It seems that these social prejudices are still in full swing, but only for "girls", not "women". If a woman puts it about and gets duffed up or a dose, she expects everyone to be "understanding" and the State to drop everything to make her mistake as consequence-free as possible. If a man does, he expects to pay, one way or another.

Well I'm impressed, a sincere straightforward response from Houellie.

I agree with the points you have raised - particularly in raising your daughters to have self-respect - always a good antidote to any who would try to intimidate them.

What I find amusing is that both Benk and Anti are actually agreeing with Suze, I guess they must have actually read her post and considered all her points instead of reading in some "male demonisation". I'd say "well done" but that would be condescending of me, so I won't.

:-P

No comments vis a vis Steve Biddulph's suggestion of regulating children's television & advertising?

Nah, too much to hope for. Instead just another piece of nonsense from Anti claiming that pregnant women are just a leech on the state - no surprises there.