Killarney "perhaps we should be considering why the right to perve over the scantily clad, sexually provocative images of the opposite gender is deemed to be so natural and healthy."

Outline a practical solution to your problem.

//Has anyone considered the possiility that it's actualy the articles in it that people object to?//

Since when has Zoo had articles? A paragraph describing Saucy Suzie's turn-ons, turn-offs and favoured positions doth not an article make.

//Killarney "perhaps we should be considering why the right to perve over the scantily clad, sexually provocative images of the opposite gender is deemed to be so natural and healthy."

Outline a practical solution to your problem.//

Now this I would like to see :)

Please show all working for the hard-of-thinking.

Tony Lavis

//'Killarney "perhaps we should be considering why the right to perve over the scantily clad, sexually provocative images of the opposite gender is deemed to be so natural and healthy."

Outline a practical solution to your problem.//

The practical solution is already in force. Organisations such as Collective Shout are proactively opposing this with organised intent, and what’s more, achieving success. That’s why articles such as this are being written – to ensure that the consumers of this dubious trade are reminded that their exploitation of the female sexualised form is a normal, natural expression of human sexuality and an appreciation of all that is beautiful in women. They do so by invoking the Western reverence for freedom of speech.

Fewer and fewer people are buying into this. They know that there is something intrinsically wrong with this logic.

If people of either sex are not aroused by images of scantily clad people of the opposite sex then there is something wrong. They are in denial or have repressed all sensitivity to their sexual feelings because it is too painful an area to acknowledge.

In order to help them keep their sexual feelings repressed they have to co-opt society and they do so under cover of claims of ‘exploitation’. Who wouldn’t want to help people who are being exploited? So others hop on the band wagon and cry “how awful” and then we have a ‘movement’ who seem to have the best interests of women at heart.

Stop exploiting women really means take these images away from me because they remind me of a part of my humanity that I do not want to be reminded of. They have become the new puritans of our day. Words like sleazy, perverted and ogling show their real attitudes to sexual feelings. It is the same language used by religions who want do deny the reality of sexual feelings.

It is ironic that the good liberties won by feminism have allowed women the freedom to take off their clothes and be photographed if that is what they want. All they are doing is acknowledging that men have sexual feelings and if they can make money from that well then it’s is a good business transaction. Now some men have cottoned on to this business and it can be quite lucrative because more and more women are acknowledging their own sexual feelings.

This is not what many feminists fought for. They did not expect freedom to go this far and now they are trying to reign in some of these women because they are reminding them of parts of their humanity that they do not want to be reminded of.

//The practical solution is already in force. Organisations such as Collective Shout are proactively opposing this with organised intent, and what’s more, achieving success.//

Cool story, Killa.

Getting one magazine banned from sale in some places is a qualified success at best. It's not going to stop the fans buying their favourite magazine - my favourite magazine (the Phantom) is only stocked by some newsagents: I still manage to get my hands on a copy.

And it's definitely not going to stop heterosexual males and lesbians from enjoying pictures of good-looking girls in minimal attire, for the same reason that 'gay conversion therapy' doesn't work. You can't harangue the heterosexuality away any more than you can pray the gay away.

I had a look at some of covers of the romance novels in my local library this afternoon. There seemed to be a common theme - good-looking men in minimal attire. I was shocked and disturbed to discover that exploitation of the male sexualised form is considered a normal, natural expression of literary appreciation by the matriarchy. Do you think Collective Shout would get behind a campaign to have the covers of romance novels banned? Or at least to have them printed in plain format like Penguin Paperbacks, with no offensive sexual imagery?

And I'm a bit concerned about the wallpaper on my desktop, and my wall calendar. I really like dogs, so I have a cute puppy wall calendar and a picture of a really adorable Boxer puppy as my wallpaper. They aren't sexually exciting but they give me a lot of pleasure to look at. And now you've got me all worried that looking at nice pictures exploits the subjects of those pictures. I'd hate to exploit puppies. Oh sh!t, what about nature documentaries!? All these years I've been enjoying the beautiful footage, and not once did I stop to think that I was complicit in Sir David Attenborough's horrific exploitation of wildlife.

phanto

What you're doing is confusing sexualisation with sexuality. The former is about power, exploitation and dominance - not sex. If you're going to criticise feminism within this context, then make an effort to learn what feminists mean when they refer to sexualisation.

Tony Lavis

If you take another look at those 'good-looking men in minimal attire' on romance novel covers, you'll find that, virtually without exception, those men are in a dominant position and exercising full control over the minimally attired woman. The man is intently focused, whereas the woman is in a state of helpless ecstasy. The men also have abnormally massive physiques, which heightens the sense of male power and dominance, whereas the women are usually of normal build (albeit suitably curvy).