Nice one Houellebecq!

I'm glad to see someone is taking this frightening new political movement as seriously as I am!

I think the only thing shocking is that some sensitive and naive people were given a dose of reality into something that upsets them, and therefore it has now sprung into existence.

At this point I'd wish OLO had smileys- I think the rolleyes one would sum up this trifling saga quite nicely.

In fact, it reminds me of a feminist art teacher I used to have who railed on about how in art (nude) women are only seen as inhuman objects existing for male pleasure etc- ignoring the fact that the artists might have only wanted to perv on someone they fancied and never really considered anything else except making a painting that would be popular (same might be true for many male artworks too).

In short, some people get their nickers in a twist and go overboard on largely non-existent implications based on pure personal hysteria alone.

Oh Hazza,

I love that 'objectifying' gear. How is a painting supposed to talk. It *is* an object, not a woman. Men normally can tell the difference, and they even try to make the image more real in Play Boy by printing the supposed interests of the object (sorry, woman) on the page. See, men really are interested in women for their minds as well after all. Or at least the kinky sexual part thereof.

In fact, my partner is heartened when she catches me perving at other girls and I tell her, 'don't worry, I see them purely as objects'. She finds this very reassuring, as in I'm not going to go chasing after all these girls and having affairs with them. Although sometimes she wants me to objectify her more often, and sometimes she even catches me objectifying her at the pub and gets really happy about it. She's a rubbish feminist that chick.

But as she says, it doesn't matter where you get your appetite from as long as you come home for dinner.

Orange Donkey
Thanks for your thoughts. I do understand the risk of using privacy as an excuse for suppressing information (such as with governments/corporates and areas of individual accountability). I also agree with you - why do we use the word "slut" anymore? If we want to be a more accepting and liberal society why do these old labels still apply?

Unfortunately though, while these attitudes pervade, websites like this can have negative consequences on those who are targeted. It is not just boys but girls can be quite ruthless about their own sex at times.

Hazza talks about the murmurings of people under bridges and grafitti on toilet doors and underpasses. The difference is the audience is much smaller and ramifications of being posted on the Net is much greater. Schoolyard bullying can be dealt with in the open with intervention by teachers.

RObert - you are right. There was no specific mention of boys or men in similar situations but the message can easily be extended to anyone. Girls were the main targets (and probably perpetrators) in this Facebook site so hence the emphasis by the author on girls (I suspect). But a side comment would have helped given the reputation of the author on OLO. Would it be the same response if someonelse had written it - who knows.

We can't do much about the graffitti on toilet doors or boys/girls muttering about sluttish behaviour, hopefully they will grow up, but we might be able to, as a society, assist victims of bullying on the Net.

"My 13 year old daughter knows just who the sluts are at her school, and she was mortified to be called a slut by one of her peers for committing the social gaffe of sitting next to a boy on a bus trip during a school excursion when she had other seats available."

Yes, of course. It's mostly females who call females sluts. I know lots of men who would like to have casual sex with many, varied and good-looking women. But I don't know any women who would like to have sex with many and varied men, no matter how good-looking the men are. Even Hugh Grant, famous romantic film-star with the lost-puppy eyes, had to pay a woman to have sex and not bother him with endless consequential claims on his time, income and equity. Females calling other females sluts, and marriage, are female anti-competitive practices to drive up the price of pussy.

Thanks for the laugh Houellebecq.
I can be proud enough to say that I've never oggled a naked woman and thought "sombody put that woman in her rightful place!" (not playing down placement of course- ahem)

Pelican- the difference between school bullying and internet bullying is quite more substantial than that:
-Victims are always present and directly affected by school bullies (including spreading rumors behind their back). Internet ones aint.
-Victims cannot escape school bullies until the bullies are punished, threatened or reprimanded into submissive passive behaviour by themselves or another party. On top of that as a common possibility, internet victims can simply not read the page- let alone specifically seek the page.
-Victims can put on as tough an act online as they like and constantly throw the exact same treatment back at the bully- in the school they tend to have to actually be physically stronger.
-Insults online in the form of a bit of text or recorded video tend to be less harsh to recieve than in a direct situation when you're in the same room.

In short, WAY less harsh and much easier to avoid.

Also, I'm dubious that the individuals are so much brainwashed to hate female sexuality as much as a bunch of jealous losers trying to look tough by trying to talk like gansgstas and "Pimpin their Bottom Bitchas" so to speak.

King Hazza:

<<Sigh- I just can't stand these "disturbing new "trends" on the internet articles.
It's the internet.
Every person can set up a page, and people are free to say whatever they like- and as such, everything sayable will be said.
Nothing else to see here.
Just another beatup.>>

A vacuous response. Where there's a grain of truth it's the bleeding obvious.

MTR said:

<<By allowing this site, Facebook is a conduit for bullying, harassment and abuse.>>

The posts by KH or Houelly and so on don't rebut this essential point in the article, notwithstanding some false analogies with railway bridges, school playgrounds etc. I sense that, while it may be easy for people like KH, Houelly or I to ignore bullying and insulting posts about us if they were to exist, or to 'retaliate' (as if we would stoop to that level, eh, KH?), many people targeted on this Facebook page possibly already have been victims of abuse and bullying; even if they were not, who are you, KH, to exhort them to 'toughen up'? It's trite, disingenuous and a further insult, to offer the facile 'it's the internet... deal with it' kind of advice we're seeing here.

In the absence of research findings - if such do exist - I hazard a guess that Facebook abuse and ridicule would be more disturbing to many victims than the graffiti on a railway bridge or a school locker.

The retort to Pelican, asserting internet-based bullying to be 'WAY less harsh and much easier to avoid', is not persuasive. For a start, the point about having to be 'physically stronger' in the school yard, is simplistic as most bullying victims have surely already been identified by abusers' groups as physically non-conforming and emotionally vulnerable. The whole idea of retaliation, in any case, is inane. I think the hold of social networking sites over individuals' lives and the psychological effect of cyber-bullying is an area worth more investigation rather than simply telling abuse victims to toughen up.