The implications in the article are generally aimed at anti-female exploitation. We can all agree with that ethic. Where I am left to wonder is at this point:

Quote:
“The Lynx Lodge appears to be parent company Unilever's foray into the sex industry, with all the trappings of a brothel without identifying it as such”.

Well is it a brothel? There appears no evidence presented in the article as proof: And it is a very important point, for example, To openly promote a brothel in Martin Place, Sydney, on Thursday morning could actually be the real issue here, not the continuing exploitation of Women by Women or Men for that matter; already an incurable entrenchment in todays culture.

I think Melinda’s article is aimed in the right direction but lacks the vital necessity of truth and proof. Sad really, that makes for a wasted space

JamesH posted a link earlier to an interesting blog which makes a valuable read as a counter to MTR's writings.

http://www.worldchangecafe.com/2010/10/02/why-do-we-demonize-men-who-are-honest-about-their-sexual-needs/

Those who think MTR is spot on probably should not bother but otherwise it's well worth a read.

R0bert

Open Letter to Woolworths

Regarding the recent promotion of Lynx Lodge:

I was very disappointed to find that Woolworths even began to be associated with a promotion that objectifies women so blatently. It seems an extremely adverse judgement call by people who have responsibility for such matters at Woolworths.

All those involved with the promotion are in desperate need of retraining with positive results in attitudes and respect for women, or have their contracts terminated. It would be greatly appreciated if the general public were reassured by further action on the part of Woolworths to address employment of people with such poor decision-making skills.

2-3,000 years of theo-political sexism takes a while to shake off, Melinda.

I found an interesting piece on MTR at http://unbelief.org/articles/melinda-tankard-reist/ which readers may find interesting. I don't know how good it is but the tone of it gave the impression of trying to be fair.

R0bert

Contrary to the gasps of breath and faux self-righteous indignation at the advertisement, it is clever and funny and the women in it are all having a good time. It is nowhere near pornographic and nor does it belittle women, it creatively plays on what young men's (and young women's) sexual fantasies are like to appeal to its audience. Sexual fantasies are usual and normal and no-one confuses them with real life. I wonder what they could do a similar advertisement representing young women's fantasies? It would be fun to see.

On the other hand, what is really disgusting and limiting is the sexual wowerism of the author and her supporters. Such dangerous whingers for censorship are having some effect too by milking the very odd attitudes to men found in the deep recesses of the women's movement and specifically by the radical and gender feminists.

A return to the Fifties? I hope not!