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 > Why Roddick’s s*x shops are a sell out > Comments

Why Roddick’s s*x shops are a sell out : Comments

By Abigail Bray, published 9/6/2010

The slick ideological con of Coco de Mer: empowerment doesn’t come packaged as a sex toy.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All
C'mon. This is an advertisement, isn't it?

Very subtle, but very clever. I bet Roddick's PR people are behind it, laughing their knickers off.

Except they probably don't wear them.

But thanks anyway, for quite the funniest OLO article in a long while.
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 9 June 2010 8:26:31 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
OLO has sunk to an unexpected low with this story.

Suttle? yes, about as suttle as a BD anti Islam post of yesteryear or.. a log splitter.

The 'comforting' thing about all this, is that life is finite. The morons purveying this rubbish will one day be wrinkly and old.. cast off to the scrap heap..or.. they will just get some horrible disease in their 'liberated' youth..and suddenly the house of cards will come crashing down.

This kind of thing is like the Tower of Babel... same mentality.

We all know what happened there..and it didn't end well for the Babylonians.
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Wednesday, 9 June 2010 8:42:18 AM
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
By the sound of the products and services there is an opportunity here to cross market. It seems that every pet emporium around has a product range that would cater to the sexually adventurous. We could brand the chain "Precocious Pet and People Warehouse", Our slogan could be "everything for the boudoir bitch, at doggy prices”.
Posted by sonofgloin, Wednesday, 9 June 2010 10:22:28 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
Pericles is right - it's got to be a marketing thing, and a very funny one too. It's just too caricatured to be serious.

However, I note that it was simultaneously posted on the wowserish Melinda Tankard Reist's blog today. Have they been had, or do they really believe this hysterical prudery?

The shops themselves sound like 'Sex and the City' meets 'The Body Shop'. Certainly questionable in terms of taste and dodgy marketing, but I can't see why consenting (and apparently wealthy) adults can't indulge their sexual tastes if they want to. Nobody's forced to go into these shops if they disapprove of what they sell.

I'm a supporter of feminism, but not of the shrill wowserism expressed in this article.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Wednesday, 9 June 2010 10:59:34 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
Great comment, Pericles.

Sounds to me that the very canny Roddick is parting overly cashed-up from their dollars. Healthy capitalism. Anyone stupid enough to pay £239 for a human hair whip... well, I am clearly lost for words.

R0ddick - you go girl.

Abigail Bray, trying to link this piece of high-end (no pun intended) marketing with child sexual abuse is very tawdry. About as tawdry as many of Roddick's customers.

However, I am now enlightened to consider the carbon footprint of sex-toys, thank you.
Posted by Severin, Wednesday, 9 June 2010 11:01:59 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
CJ

Its hard to call yourself a supporter of a movement that you don't seem to understand. The point of the article was that selling over-priced sex-toys to rich people does little to make this world a bwtter place for women. This business makes money by dressing up consumerism and conforming to current fashions as feminism.
Posted by benk, Wednesday, 9 June 2010 1:54:42 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
More broadly it speaks to a hijacking of the feminist movement by a modern repackaging of all it fought against as now being "the spoils of victory". Congratulations ladies! We won, now we can CHOOSE to be objectified.

Whether you believe Roddick and Co should have the right to do this is irrelevant, the article is more concerned with "Are they RIGHT to do this?" A legitimate question.
Posted by Grayzie, Wednesday, 9 June 2010 2:34:18 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
‘Living in the shadow of her mother Anita, founder of the Body Shop and arguably the pioneer of ethical consumerism……Like her mother, Roddick, 38, is taking her product and giving it an ethical story.’

Pathetic isn’t it? One should not visit the sins of the parent on the progeny, however, the progeny is dopey enough and duplicitous enough to perpetuate the myth of her mother’s Body Shop as being a ‘caring company that helped to protect the environment, indigenous peoples and animals by selling ‘natural” products.’

In fact the 1500 Body Shops with their large carbon footprint, makes wide use of non-renewable petrochemicals, synthetic colours, animal products and preservatives, and in many of their products they use only tiny amounts of botanical-based ingredients.

Medical experts have warned about the potential adverse effects on the skin of some of these synthetic ingredients. The Body Shop also regularly irradiate certain products to try to kill microbes – radiation from uranium.

But what a splendid marketing ploy of Roddicks - enhancing her ‘altruistic’ and 'ethical' reputation by teaming up with the likes of Oxfam et al to promote her product.

Meanwhile silly impotent old buggers and women with a ‘cocked-up’ view of their own ‘inadequacies’ can splurge £60.00 to stimulate their flagging senses with the ‘Wet Weekend,’ gift pack which includes a sumptuous silk blindfold, feather tickler, Coco de Mer’s ‘natural’ Spill lubricant, ‘edible’ Hazelnut massage oil, Coco Fesse bath milk and a little Ember aphrodisiac toxic candle which is made to melt over your lover.

Well no thanks Ms Roddick – I don't buy your neo-liberal spin so I’ll pass since I’m particular about what I put in my mouth or on my twinkle - organic products are best!
Posted by Protagoras, Wednesday, 9 June 2010 3:03:35 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
benk: << This business makes money by dressing up consumerism and conforming to current fashions as feminism. >>

Does it? Having looked at the Coco de Mer website to which the article links, I think that may be an artefact of the author. Having been exhorted to try a "cock ring" for my lover's benefit, I found under the rather saccharine "Our Philosophy" heading, after some extended babble about a palm seed, this:

<< The Coco de Mer seed germinates from both a male and female plant. Whereas the seed so closely resembles the female form, the male plant has a stamen, which looks strangely like a penis. A huge penis at that, and one that smells of sticky sweet honey. At Coco de Mer we celebrate both genders and believe that between two consenting adults there should be no barriers to love. Like the Coco de Mer, we all come from two and therefore we honor both the feminine and masculine aspects of life. >>

I don't know about you, but this reminds me more of some of the hippy-dippy stuff I read in the 70s than any kind of feminism with which I'm familiar. How Bray reads any of the Coco de Mer 'philosophy' as some sort of 'sell out' of feminism is a mystery to me, I'm afraid.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Wednesday, 9 June 2010 3:10:14 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
CJ

<< I don't know about you, but this reminds me more of some of the hippy-dippy stuff I read in the 70s than any kind of feminism with which I'm familiar. How Bray reads any of the Coco de Mer 'philosophy' as some sort of 'sell out' of feminism is a mystery to me, I'm afraid. >>

:D

The Abigail Brays and Melinda Tankard-Reists are not about feminism. That they pin their ideology onto feminism is a retrograde step for women who truly want choice to be themselves and express themselves freely. If one simply mentions the word "sex" anywhere in their vicinity, off they race in their ankle length skirts (and a scarf on their heads if it's a Sunday), no doubt shrieking a few 'hail marys' as they go. Yeah, I know I am generalising, I'm sure MTR regularly decks herself out in a mini-skirt and boots, however her articles suggest the former description.

Meanwhile young children continue to be exploited by greedy and lascivious adults, while these sexually challenged women screech about a sex-shop franchise. I would rather my love bring me home some massage oil than a hard-core DVD any day. But that's just me. One woman's erotica is another's porn, I wish the MTR brigade would focus on issues where people really are being hurt.
Posted by Severin, Wednesday, 9 June 2010 3:29:40 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
Unfortunately depraved men and woman who have refused to bring their own sexual misconduct under control now want another generation of sexualized girls and boys. The fact that their are enough deviants to support this kind of trash shows why we have so many amoral Green voters. The problem isn't the deviant selling this trash but instead the sick hearts that have embraced it.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 9 June 2010 5:06:07 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
Severin

One of the criticisms of raunch culture is that one stifling conformity has replaced another. Women are under peer pressure to exhibit this one type of sexuality, ironically to "prove" that they don't let others tell them what to do. Thank you for illustrating how this peer pressure works with this bitchy little gem; "If one simply mentions the word "sex" anywhere in their vicinity, off they race in their ankle length skirts (and a scarf on their heads if it's a Sunday), no doubt shrieking a few 'hail marys' as they go." Don't they have a right to wear long skirts or practice their religion?

I get that you misunderstand feminism to mean "women who truly want choice to be themselves and express themselves freely." Its just a shame that some choices are more allowable than others.
Posted by benk, Wednesday, 9 June 2010 6:13:40 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
benk I doubt that severin cares at all about the long length skirt etc, she used those words to paint a picture of religious busy bodies who spend their time trying to impose their own concept of morals on others. What Robert Heinlein used to call Mr's Grundy. One christian writer I enjoy referred to his churches "spot it and stop it" committee to describe such people.

MTR and possibly Abigale (based on two articles by her published on OLO so far) seem to try and use a superficial dressing of feminism and the worst portrayal of an issue they can find to attack sexual freedom for others. Like runner and others they perhaps should have a good hard look at just how much of their efforts are spend thinking about what they imagine other peoples depravities to be.

For those who take the bible seriously perhaps they could take the following a little more seriously "Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable - if anything is excellent or praiseworlthy - think about such things." Philippians 4:8

A constant focus on what they believe other sexual lives are like does not really seem to fit unless they think all of that is noble, right, pure and lovely.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 9 June 2010 6:51:55 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
Very well said, R0bert.

benk, you seem to have a different understanding of what constitutes 'feminism' than most of us. Would you mind elaborating on what you take the ideolog/ies to include, and how the activities of Coc de Mer 'sell them out'?
Posted by CJ Morgan, Wednesday, 9 June 2010 7:08:32 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
Yes well... the only thing I found vaguely interesting about this article was the statement <" “Betony Vernon Sado Chic Masturbation Mirror” liberates your sexuality so that you can “Observe your own pleasure and watch as you reach the heights of sexual ecstasy”."

Not much use if your eyes are closed though... :)

Other posters obviously got more out of this mindless article than I did.

Al Rich found Islam and the Tower of Babylon in the article? Right.

Benk thinks the whole porn, sex toy industry was brought on by those vile feminists. Men, of course, are never involved in this sort of depravity.

Runner is upset about the 'amoral Green voters'.
Not sure what that means Runner?
Are all Green voters amoral followers of porn and sex toys are they?
None of the people from other political parties are involved then
Posted by suzeonline, Thursday, 10 June 2010 12:33:31 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
R0bert

Excellent post - nice to know when one has been understood.

Suze

I agree this is one of the lamest articles yet to be excreted from those earnest Christians MTR et al.

How long since OLO has had any articles from real women? I suppose I should qualify what I mean by 'real women' but ones who aren't aligned with any political parties or religions. Maybe an actual female journalist (yeah, radical); I acknowledge the recent contributions from Nina Funnell, but would love to see some work from the calibre of Jenny Brockie, Geraldine Doogue or Monika Attard.
Posted by Severin, Thursday, 10 June 2010 9:40:28 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
Severin:

You want articles written by "real women?"

Female journalists employed by SBS and the ABC are the only "real women" saying anything worth listening to?

What are you talking about? I really want to know. You're point of view is unique.
Posted by briar rose, Thursday, 10 June 2010 11:01:00 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
Secularist are winning with dirty little cultures destroying families. None more obvious than the example being set by the likes of Branson whose staff are only following their leader. No wonder no kids are safe as perverts feed their lusts and want others to join in.

http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-news/virgin-blue-condoned-porn-claim-sacked-workers-20100610-xxvq.html
Posted by runner, Thursday, 10 June 2010 11:23:45 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
Runner why are you bringing child sexual abuse into this discussion?

We covered that subject fairly well in the discussions on the abuse children suffered as a result of their involvement with Clergy in the Catholic Church.

Religious people are just as likely to be involved in abuse of children and paedophilia as secularists, just as there are plenty of people from either camp willing to frequent sex shops.
Posted by suzeonline, Thursday, 10 June 2010 9:53:44 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
'Religious people are just as likely to be involved in abuse of children and paedophilia as secularists'

and of course Suzie you won't provide any statistics. If you can't see a link between porn and child sexual abuse your moral compass is way way out.
Posted by runner, Friday, 11 June 2010 5:16:47 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
While no fan of these shops (just another corporate marketing idea cashing in on the Sex in the City phenomenon), at the end of the day we are talking about adults. Unlike children they can make their own choices, as long as they don't build them near a toy shop or in a shopping plaza that is fine. Where I live all the sex shops/brothels etc are out in the industrial wastelands away from family venues. At the risk of being labelled a wowser (I am getting used to it :D), I prefer sexuality to be a private matter for the most part, a bit like religion - something for the home - but if someone wants to buy a sex related object, I won't lose any sleep.

I am still giggling over the idea of a masturbation mirror - whatever next.

runner

Are you for real?

You ask for evidence. Have we all imagined the child abuse crisis in the Catholic Church and other transgressions by religious cults. You know better than years of historical evidence.

Sexual abuse is a choice made by deviants no matter whether they be religious or otherwise.

"Amoral green voters" as opposed to self righteous religious fanatics who believe there is no good in man unless you are Israeli of course.

I hate to burst your bubble but there is a strong Christian Green movement who actually believe man and his/her environment are closely interconnected, a land created by God not to be raped and pillaged at will by the greedy
Posted by pelican, Friday, 11 June 2010 5:36:37 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
runner: << and of course Suzie you won't provide any statistics >>

I don't recall runner ever providing any statistics (or other non-biblical evidence, for that matter) for any of his ridiculous pronouncements.

Correct me if I'm wrong.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Friday, 11 June 2010 5:40:02 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
Robert

While I understand that you prefer to think the best of people, Severin's nasty little swipe shouldn't go unexamined. Women who conform to the raunch culture fad regularly claim to be interested in women's freedom of choice. In general, they respect certain choices more than others. They are full of affirmation for other women who choose to conduct their sex life like them and can be incredibly nasty to those who don't (for a variety of reasons). Severin's comment about MTR is an example.

Christians are regularly accused of imposing their views onto others. They aren't the only group with quite fixed ideas about which opinions are and aren't acceptable. Try criticising promiscuous women and you will quickly see what I mean.

CJ

1) I never used the phrase 'sell them out' and would prefer that you didn't use quotation marks to imply that I said things that I didn't actually say.

2) Feminism involves a number of (often competing) efforts to make the world a fairer place for women. While I cannot list them all in 300 words or less, I would like to emphasise that it is a matter of principle. Doing what is right should be seen as more important than doing what is easy. Therefore, I'm cynical about companies that use feminism as a marketing ploy and rich consumers who think that integrity can be bought. I'm also unimpressed by women who think that they can do whatever they like, label it 'choice' and pretend that it is something done on account of their deeply held feminist principles. If someone's choices make the world worse for other women, they cannot be justified using feminism. We shouldn't be so non-judgemental that we are afraid to discuss the consequences and contexts of women's choices. Many months ago, I once asked Fractelle what her feminist principles had ever cost her. She was unable to list anything.

Suze

Could you pleases interpret my views more honestly?
Posted by benk, Friday, 11 June 2010 9:30:41 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
benk: << 1) I never used the phrase 'sell them out' and would prefer that you didn't use quotation marks to imply that I said things that I didn't actually say. >>

I didn't suggest that you did. However, the author did, and you suggested that I didn't understand the feminist movement because I said I supported it while critiquing the author's thesis.

I'd prefer that you didn't deploy disingenuous arguments. I'm quite sure that I understand feminism at least as well as you do, and very likely from a more well-read perspective.

I agree that << 2)Feminism involves a number of (often competing) efforts to make the world a fairer place for women. >>

However, from what Coco de Mer publish as their "philosophy" on their website, it has stuff all to do with any of that. They're about selling sex toys to people who get all gooey about palm seeds and stamens.

You seem to have missed my point that it's Abigail Bray who's reading feminism into Coco de Mer's marketing. It doesn't seem to appear anywhere in their promotional material.

<< I once asked Fractelle what her feminist principles had ever cost her. She was unable to list anything. >>

What a strange and inappropriately personal question to ask on this forum. What have your principles ever cost you?
Posted by CJ Morgan, Friday, 11 June 2010 10:11:52 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
Benk, I can interpret your anti-feminist comments any way I choose.
This is, after all, an online OPINION forum, is it not?

That means we don't actually have to have proof or facts about what we have opinions on at all if we don't want to. Unless of course we make sweeping statements about subjects like 'feminism' that we pretend are facts.

I doubt that any man has all the facts about feminism or females in general at all. They merely have opinions on the subject.

Why is it that on this forum (no matter what the subject) many men seem to have all women pegged as feminists?
Especially when we are discussing sex shops, that seem to be mainly inhabited by men?

I will say again Benk. I really like most men I have contact with.
It is just those men who irrationally dislike all women that I dislike.

Where is Antiseptic when you need an ally Benk?
Posted by suzeonline, Friday, 11 June 2010 10:16:04 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
Benk

I don't recall you asking me: >> I once asked Fractelle what her feminist principles had ever cost her. She was unable to list anything. <<

I imagine I thought at the time: 'None of your freakin' business.'

However, I can say it has cost me employment opportunities among other things. Standing by one's principals can be very fraught.

As for your complaint about my opinion of MTR as being "incredibly nasty" exaggeration? Much. Last time I checked we had free speech and I hold my opinion about MTR and her conservative agenda and will continue to do so. There ARE occasions when I do actually agree with some of what she has to say.

Your problem, Benk, is that all issues fall into 'good' or 'bad' or 'black' or 'white'. Many issues overlap. People are not ALL good or ALL bad.

As for the Roddicks Sex Shops (editor, why in every topic is the letter 'e' replaced with asterisk every time SEX is mentioned in a heading? Sheesh) these shops as, Pelican and Suze have noted, are simply a business venture, the only thing 'feminist' about them is that they run by a woman, something that would not have been possible in the recent past when women could not even get a bank loan, vote or keep their own property.
Posted by Severin, Saturday, 12 June 2010 10:19:37 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
CJ’s claim that this business’ website doesn’t actually use the word “feminist” may well be true. However, their main customers are women who conform to the raunch culture fad and conduct their sex life in the approved way. As post-feminists they may well be reluctant to wear the feminist label, but they use feminist sounding jargon to justify their actions. Therefore, feminism has alot more to do with the success of this business venture than the fact that the management are female.

Severin claims to have deeply held feminist principles . However, she chooses to define “feminism” as being female and doing and saying whatever she wants. It is a bit much to describe doing whatever you want as your principles, it sounds more like selfishness.
Some of us see feminism as a matter of principle. I believe that men who sleep around are being selfish, so I chose not to. I dislike seeing women harassed by sleazy men, so I left them alone. Severin, what have you ever given up to prevent predatory behaviour or sexual harassment?

CJ
Perhaps you could be more careful about how you use quotation marks, because it certainly looked like you claimed that you were quoting me when you weren’t.

Suze
“I can interpret your anti-feminist comments any way I choose.”
When you misinterpret another person’s opinions in a way that makes them easier to attack, you are using a debating strategy called “straw man” which is generally seen as unethical and lazy.

Severin

Regarding MTR, to repeat myself, women who conform to the raunch culture fad claim to be protecting women’s freedom of choice but can be very nasty to those who make certain choices. Your comment neatly illustrated this point
Posted by benk, Saturday, 12 June 2010 10:09:27 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
Benk <" When you misinterpret another person’s opinions in a way that makes them easier to attack, you are using a debating strategy called “straw man” which is generally seen as unethical and lazy."

So, if I disagree with your opinion I am attacking you and am 'unethical and lazy'?

Sorry, but I am not going to stop disagreeing with anyone, least of all chauvinistic males.

See you all on another thread.
Posted by suzeonline, Sunday, 13 June 2010 12:43:06 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
Benk

Saying something doesn't make it so.

>> women who conform to the raunch culture fad claim to be protecting women’s freedom of choice but can be very nasty to those who make certain choices. Your comment neatly illustrated this point. <<

WTF?

I remain sceptical of MTR's conservative agenda - however to extrapolate from my opinion of her that I "conform to the raunch culture fad (sic)" is a major distortion of my POV.

To reiterate:

>> Your problem, Benk, is that all issues fall into 'good' or 'bad' or 'black' or 'white'. Many issues overlap. People are not ALL good or ALL bad. <<

Please indicate where I have stated I conform to anything at all, starting with my posting history as Fractelle. Good luck.
Posted by Severin, Sunday, 13 June 2010 10:37:44 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
Let's get this straight. Coco de Mer doesn't say anything remotely "feminist" in their official philosophy, and according to benk their female customers are "post-feminists" who "may well be reluctant to wear the feminist label".

So how are the company or its customers "selling out" feminism? By not conforming to the very prudish version of that is promoted by Bray, Reist et al?

It seems to me that benk is as guilty as Bray is of reading feminist ideology into an activity that is indifferent to it. They seem resentful that some women have taken it upon themselves to express their sexual freedom in ways of which they don't approve.

<< I believe that men who sleep around are being selfish, so I chose not to. I dislike seeing women harassed by sleazy men, so I left them alone. >>

What does your limited sex life have to do with feminism?
Posted by CJ Morgan, Sunday, 13 June 2010 10:24:18 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
Suze

It’s all about control with you isn’t it? You were losing the debate and felt a loss of control. Unable to produce a decent counter-argument, you simply change my arguments until you can counter them. You then dramatically tell us how you aren’t participating any more, using the only power you had left and leaving.

Severin

You find MTR’s views about sex acceptable, so you made a bitchy swipe at her. This is an example of the way that women who conform to the raunch culture fad use social pressure to attempt to regulate the opinions of others.

Conforming to this raunch culture means having the same sexuality that all female pop-singers make a big show of exhibiting. It includes dressing in a provocative way, flirting and sleeping around. I didn’t waste much time looking for quotes, as we all know that these are the behaviours that you approve of. However, on 25 Aug 2009 you wrote “Flirting is an art - an aspect of social interaction involving wit, charm and enjoyment of another person.” On 15 May you spoke in praise of "expressive sexuality.” You also described MTR wearing an ankle length skirt as though it is unacceptable.

CJ

You are struggling with some quite basic concepts. Post-feminism is a quite well known idea, but you remain sceptical. You find discussing the contexts and consequences of behaviour unacceptable. Complaining about sexually predatory behaviour from men is also a well worn tradition. Think of recent the outpouring of hate, directed at footy players. I chose not to sleep around on principle. I might have more of your respect if I had picked up, used and then casually discarded a dozen different women, but I wouldn’t have any credibility talking about feminism.
Posted by benk, Monday, 14 June 2010 10:18:30 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
Benk

MTR is free to wear whatever she likes. She is also free to express her opinions as am I - that is what feminism is about freedom to live our lives without harming others. However she is not free to apply her religious dogma on everyone else - which her articles are a veiled attempt to do so and that does cause harm to others. For example, the ban by the Catholic church on contraception.

PS - I don't care whether you sleep around or not. Some chronic philanderers have made major contributions to our world. If we judged everyone by the number of sexual partners they have had.... we'd still be in the stone age.

R0bert

Double Standard mate, Suze found Benq a breath of fresh air after the usual misogynist rants from Proxy, Antiseptic - you have a problem with her expressing her opinion on that?
Posted by Severin, Monday, 14 June 2010 10:28:42 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
Severin I don't think it's a double standard on my part. Benq seemed to have spent the entire thread attacking the opinion's of others in a way that appeared designed to shut those opinions down (or to cast them in an bad light - mine included). I was attacked for not being able to present clear proof of bias but you yourself made the point on another thread that sometimes discrimination is very hard to prove.

We were attacked on mass as though the only conceivable reason's for not liking CSA on our parts could be an unwilling to support our children and having decisions go against us. I hope that you know me better than that and I'd expected that Suzie would have known me better than that.

When you see me posting a well done to formersnag on a thread where his posts have been all about attacking the credibility of other posters you'll have me on double standards. Expressing disappointment that someone who I generally respect would choose to offer a message of support to the way benq had behaved on that thread is not especially following from a post about concern that women's opinions not be silenced.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 14 June 2010 12:20:30 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
benk: << You are struggling with some quite basic concepts. >>

Now you're just being obtuse. I've already demonstrated that there is nothing "feminist" about Coc de Mer's marketing, nor indeed their customer base. If Bray had based her criticism on the grounds that a female owned sex shop chain represents a "post-feminist" betrayal of the gains made by second-wave feminism, then you might be on to something - but she didn't.

Both you and Bray ssem to be co-opting a particularly narrow and prudish subset of feminism in order to promote your own wowserish morality. Your lack of sexual experience isn't because you're any kind of feminist - indeed, the values you display here are entirely consistent with good old prudishness that existed well before second-wave feminism.

Like the thinly disguised Catholic morality that pervades the work of Reist and her sorority, you seek to appropriate some aspects of feminism to try and impose your prudish values on others. As some of the female correspondents here have demonstrated, feminism is a very broad church. In my apparently somewhat wider experience than yours of the sexual attitudes of women who espouse feminist ideals, only a very few indeed raise objections to women asserting themselves sexually.

Rather than being any kind of feminist, I think you're a man who'd like to see us return to the sort of morality evident in the 1950s, prior to the advent of second-wave feminism.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Monday, 14 June 2010 1:37:38 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
'Like the thinly disguised Catholic morality that pervades the work of Reist and her sorority,'

While not a fan of Catholicism it is better than the denialist diguise of secularist who want to promote their filth at the expense of women and kids.
Posted by runner, Monday, 14 June 2010 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
R0bert

I guess it is all opinion. I saw Benq not submitting to the vitriol that permeates the posts of Antiseptic, Formersnag, Proxy et al, I believe that standing up for one's self against the hatred for women that is continually expressed by the above as worthy of support. You mistake simple agreement with something else. That is why I accuse you of double standards, you have agreed with Antiseptic on many issues, you have never called him out when generalising about women, child custody issues and the CSA.

Before you go off on a tangent about the CSA - no it is not perfect, but nor is it a feminist conspiracy designed to separate men from their children.

In addition, we have argued this point before; agreeing with someone does not mean that you are "cheering them on". Although I don't have a problem with that either. Various people support each other's opinions on these pages, the double standard, R0bert, is that you only object when it is by posters who hold a difference of opinion to you.

Just to remind you:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10175&page=0#165480

The day that Pynchme, Benq or Suzeonline descends to the depths of vitriol that Anti et al do - I will be the first to point it out.
Posted by Severin, Monday, 14 June 2010 2:04:53 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
Severin I don't want to spread this across yet more thread's (CJ has already asked about the relevance to the thread where I made the comments I assume that you are referring to) - a fair point. I responded to your earlier comment on this thread thinking that I was on the original.

I don't consider your claim that I "only object when it is by posters who hold a difference of opinion to you" is fair but if that's you opinion after seeing my posts over such a long period then there is nothing much I can do to change it.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 14 June 2010 6:53:15 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
CJ

“I've already demonstrated that there is nothing "feminist" about Coc de Mer's marketing, nor indeed their customer base.”

No, you’ve merely chosen to disagree with my claim that this business’ key customer base is a group of women who think they are being feminist by conducting their sex lives in a particular way.

“the values you display here are entirely consistent with good old prudishness that existed well before second-wave feminism.”

I don’t want to see a return to 1950s morality any more than you do. Just because I aren’t from one extreme, doesn’t mean that I am from the other.

“In my apparently somewhat wider experience than yours of the sexual attitudes of women who espouse feminist ideals, only a very few indeed raise objections to women asserting themselves sexually.”

True, but quite a few will criticise women who choose not to sleep around. They mouth hollow platitudes about freedom of choice yet attempt to peer pressure these women into conducting their sex life in the approved way. Almost all are critical of men who sleep around. Remember the outpouring of hatred that has followed recent footballer scandals.
Posted by benk, Tuesday, 15 June 2010 8:05:03 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
Severin

I have no problem with you just for making criticisms of others. I simply wish to point out that most people are keenly aware of pressure to behave in certain ways yet fail to notice others. For example, those of us who criticise the promiscuous are told to mind our own business yet others don’t seem to notice the pressure that they place on women to have a confident raunchy sexuality that doesn’t suit all women. You seem to notice criticism of women about their sex life yet fail to notice similar pressure on men. There is nothing wrong with this, sleazy blokes put their wants before women’s feelings.

IMHO one of life’s trickiest moral dilemmas is knowing when to pull others into line and when to leave them be. This is made more difficult when much of this pressure goes un-noticed. Don’t feel guilty for using pressure to encourage others to think of others. Used carefully, your outspoken nature can make this world a better place. Just be prepared for a robust discussion about exactly what sort of world we would like to live in.

Robert

It isn't just you who finds Benq nasty.
Posted by benk, Tuesday, 15 June 2010 8:07:01 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
benk: << ...you’ve merely chosen to disagree with my claim that this business’ key customer base is a group of women who think they are being feminist by conducting their sex lives in a particular way. >>

Your haven't substantiated your claim at all. There is no evidence, either in the article or in your comments, that "this business’ key customer base is a group of women who think they are being feminist by conducting their sex lives in a particular way".

You may think that they are, but you have no basis upon which to make the claim. Neither does Abigail Bray.

<< Remember the outpouring of hatred that has followed recent footballer scandals. >>

I don't recall any "outpouring of hatred" about footballers merely "sleeping around". What I do recall is widespread condemnation of a misogynist culture in rugby league under which some players were found to have regularly had unconsensual group sex with women.

That is quite a different matter to "sleeping around", don't you think?
Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 15 June 2010 9:39:28 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
R0bert

Agree to disagree. No problems, I am not here to proselytise nor to score points, simply to present my POV as honestly as I am able. Therefore, I call it like I see it. Some here take it personally.

I will always continue to consider your contributions - whether or not I agree.

Benk

I neither care whether men or women sleep around or not - nor do I care whether MTR, Bray have no sex life at all. I do care when they present articles as being based on feminism when in fact their agenda is a traditional conservative one.

I believe there is a balance between being uptight conservatism and out of control lascivious behaviour. I do not wish to impose either on anyone. Bray's article starts from a false premise, that Sex Shops run by women are a sell-out on feminism. There are as many opinions of what is feminist as there are women. I can only speak for myself when I say that Bray is denying her sisters their freedom to run a business of their choosing - whether or not I agree with the type of merchandise is entirely moot. I would no more admonish Roddicks than I would any other sex shop. Many men run Adult Shops - why doesn't Bray take issue with them?
Posted by Severin, Tuesday, 15 June 2010 10:02:53 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 no evidence, either in the article or in your comments, that "this business’ key customer base is a group of women who think they are being feminist by conducting their sex lives in a particular way".

What sort of evidence would satisfy you? Do you expect me ask the company for a copy of their market research? My life experience tells me that many women feel that conducting their sex life in a particular way makes them feminist.

<I don't recall any "outpouring of hatred" about footballers merely "sleeping around".>

After the Christchurch incident started to look consentual, many people were admonished for pretending that consent made it all ok. The consentual aspect of Shane Warne and Tiger Woods' infidelity didn't shield them from criticism. You will never convince me that our society is accepting of men who use women.


Severin

"I neither care whether men or women sleep around or not"

Through most of the 1990s, men were encouraged to be sensitive new age guys. We were supposed to be caring, sharing and not into using women. Surely some social pressure is ok, as long as we don't pretend that we never tell others what to do.

"There are as many opinions of what is feminist as there are women."

Can't men have an opinion? What about conservative Christians?

"Many men run Adult Shops - why doesn't Bray take issue with them?"

Neither these men nor their customers are pretending that they are acting on principle.
Posted by benk, Tuesday, 15 June 2010 1:16:19 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
benk: << My life experience tells me that many women feel that conducting their sex life in a particular way makes them feminist. >>

But you've already told us that you conduct your own sex life in such a way that your "life experience" wouldn't give you any access to the motivations of sexually assertive or adventurous women, feminist or otherwise.

You're just making this stuff up as you go, aren't you?
Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 15 June 2010 1:38:43 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
CJ

I have many female friends. I don't have sex with every woman who I talk to.
Posted by benk, Tuesday, 15 June 2010 1:42:40 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. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All

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