If the aim of such activism is to stem the tide of sexual or domestic violence in the community where are the activists demanding that all the magazines promoting domestic relationships be also banned? This is where the majority of such violence tales place but no one is willing to promote a culture where domestic relationships are shown for what we are told they really are by these same activists.

These same do-gooders tell us that one in three women will be victims of domestic violence. We are also told this includes sexual violence. If domestic situations put a woman in danger of being sexually assaulted then why are these ‘crusaders’ not doing something about the constant glamorising of domestic relationships? Girls and young women are force fed such values from a very young age. Their wedding day is the greatest day of their life, ‘true love’ is the most important thing to have, romance is the best of feelings. All this propaganda goes on to the point of saturation and no one does anything to educate young women about the realities.

Why are they not using their moral outrage to demand the removal of magazines which promote romance as a basis for a relationship? Could it be that they drug themselves with these delusions and do not want anyone to take away their ‘opium’?

They are very selective in their targets. They obviously do not have the well-being of young women at heart or they would be doing everything in their power to protect them from the possibility of being victims in their own homes.

Nothing is more important than your own safety – not even the most blissful of domestic relationships. The values these outraged activists show are mostly self-serving. To promote the fairytale at the expense of being sexually abused can only come from someone truly devoid of care and compassion.

I did some modeling back in about 1996, granted I was modeling suits and casual wear, not underwear but it's a tedious occupation, hours of sitting about doing not much and the money wasn't fantastic, I did get to keep some of the clothes though which was a bonus.

Phanto,
The ready availability of pornography has been credited in some studies with the reduction in sex crimes over the last 25 years, it's important to understand that misogynists are almost all pathological narcissists and narcissists will almost always prefer autoerotic stimulation over interaction with women.

In my days among the hippies on the NSW north coast nudity became natural on the beach and most women went topless most of the time, but not usually at night when the mossies came out.

The first couple of days I did a bit of 'togling' [breast ogling] but it all became common place and I once found myself strolling along the beach with a very attractive young lady, both of us starkers, discussing philosophy and ancient history.

I might add that the attitudes of the children were healthy and they seemed not to notice although I did hear two boys of seven or eight, discussing the impressive lengths of a couple of very good surf boarders (one of whom later became a prominent member of the NSW Parliament).

Oh, here we go (again ... still).

It's all about women exercising their right to make their own 'democratic' sexual choices - wahoo! You go, grrrl!

And it's all about freedom of something or other ... whatever. Democracy is all about women getting their gear off and posing with all kinds of sexually provocative calysthenics to give men an opportunity to ... well ... ahem ... do things with those ever so democratic images in the privacy of their bedrooms.

Don't, whatever you do, question the underlying gender politics - that's just for ugly, hairy feminists who can't get a man. The dubious premise that these magazines are ever so innocently meeting an ever so natural demand for men to view women's bodies as objects for their own entertainment is what it's all about.

'Posing in revealing attire for movies, TV and print has been more or less the norm for both sexes for decades.'

Rubbish! About 99% of that 'posing in revealing attire' is done by females in front of male photographers, hired by male editors whose job is to create a product for sale to men, which is designed to promote men's belief in their god-given right to view women's bodies as something they can use for their own benefit.

Boys will be boys; men will be men; and 'wise' women know that pleasing men by making their bodies commercially or otherwise viable is what women were put on this earth to do.

This rhetoric has been done to death. Get over it, boys. Fewer and fewer women are listening to it anymore. Women are getting sick and tired of all this. They are organising and mobilising to change an entrenched status quo that dictates this very nasty, male dominating version of human sexuality.

How it will end ... the jury is still out. The male establishment will continue to put up one hell of a fight. But don't kid yourselves that it has anything to do with democratic choice.

I think Id make an interesting PM.
I'd call all the press and make an official announcement.
"It's come to our attention that the display and sale of magazines such as Zoo promotes a rape culture. We've discussed this issue long and hard in the policy room, and we've decided that the only way to stamp out this form of disgraceful discrimination against women is to decree that by law all women must completely cover themselves with 'hijab' like articles of clothing at all times".

Then I would sit back and watch Australian women go absolutely nuts amongst themselves to point out how stupid it all is.

Feminism is hypocritical as previously pointed out..
They want the freedom to look young and sexy but then chastise us if we look at them as sex objects.

We can fix this problem and plenty more of these other 'Issues for Idiots' with a new campaign called 'Ban Stupid'
- With website, hashtag and social media campaign.
Anywhere we see 'Stupid' we should just call it out and expose it...

But what this is really about is catering for peoples insecurities.
Should we cater for everyone's insecurities like a collective bunch of emotionally unstable people who all lend our shoulders for everyone else to cry on or have the "Eat Some Concrete and Harden Up" attitude?

Is their a balance or are we supposed to be different in different situations?

And how does a person not be insensitive and have understanding and compassion for someone else experiencing some emotional hardship if they've never been in that situation before?

And even if they did why should they be forced to change the way they choose to live to accommodate someone else's dislikes or insecurities?

Coles is just as hypocritical selling Cosmo which "discriminates" against men in exactly the same way Zoo does against women.
https://www.facebook.com/CullCosmoAtColes
But I doubt many blokes would support this campaign, mostly because its not 'manly' to do so.

It is typical of today's feminist though to whinge and whine about any issue that might hurt their feelings.

BAN STUPID