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.

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?

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

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.

'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.

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.