Noted for some time that OLO will rarely post articles that are positive regards the male gender. Almost every article and every forum post is negative of a male, or negative of the male gender. There is almost nothing positive said about males on OLO, and a considerable amount of name calling from female posters, that also goes unchecked by the moderators.

This article is no different, as it basically portrays men as being some type of sexual predators. Some men would be, the vast majority of men aren’t.

So far as "WomansWorld".

This comes from a previous forum, but it shows the titles of articles from the popular women’s magazine Marie Claire:-

“Hot Sex”, “803 Sexy Looks”,“Be Gutsy in Bed”, “Sex, Men and Your Body”, “Angelina Jolie Spills All About Sex, World Poverty and Brad Pitt”, “Four Ways to Face Your Fears and Have Better Sex”, “Secrets to a Sexy Celeb Body”, “Pro Sex Tips”, “On Sex, Power and Getting What You Want”, “Sex with Strangers”, “Extreme Sex Boosters”, “874 Hot Sexy Looks”, “Crazy Sex Tips That Work”, “How Many Orgasms Could You Have in 2 Days”

Many other women’s magazines are almost identical. The magazine covers can be changed, but the articles contained within the magazines are much the same, and basically the male is treated as a sex object, or a type of sex toy for the woman’s gratification. Those magazines are some of the highest selling magazines on the market, and apparently women also constitute about 50% of porn viewers.

So if someone wants to talk about people treating members of the opposite sex as sex objets, they should be taking a broader view, rather than just concentrating on males treating women as sex objects.

Bla, bla, Bla timmy
As we've seen a backlash from conservatives we're also seening a backlash from mullet set. We need to ensure that none of these things come back in vogue.

You make a number of important points, Timkins, regarding the way our culture continues the sexual objectification of both sexes, and increasingly of males (ref. your list of Marie Claire articles). And I wouldn't want them to be lost by your post having not addressed the central concern raised by Melinda Tankard Reist: that events such as Blokesworld are horrendous because of the high levels of sexual harassment, abuse and violence of women, girls (and boys and men) by men. Events, 'festivals', whatever you call them, that explicitly make a spectacle of women's bodies and sexuality for men's psycho-sexual satisfaction have to be viewed in that context, which appears to be the author's intent. Sexual violence, against anyone, is not a gender-equal crime: we men overwhelmingly do it to women, children and other men. My more general questions to the forum are:

Why is it that in order for 'Blokesworld' to carry any of the meaning intended in its title, that the sexual objectification of women, boozing on, and association with weaponry must be tied to otherwise worthy interests and pursuits (of both sexes) such as motoring, motorcycles, men getting together to enjoy each other's company and shared interests?

And why is it that 'Blokesworld' wouldn't be quite 'the same' if it involved perving on male bodies by men who desire men, associated with all the other fun male pursuits that we share with our gay, bisexual and queer mates?

The material in the authors article underlines the importance of a 'values' education, with a sure and enduring foundation.

The impression I gain from such an event, is that the 'make-it-up-as-you-go' crowd, did just that, and cast their moral and social anchor into the sea, and are just drifting wherever their testosterone sails take them.

The sad thing, is that there are numerous 'female' equivalents to this kind of thing 'Hens nites' where male strippers are on display, and screaming drooling women watch men do vigorous pelvic thrusts culminating in squeezing penis like objects to suggest a huge orgasm and ejaculation.

So, while the blokes thing demonstrates just how far we have slipped in the moral area, it is more suggestive of how far our whole society has fallen on both sides of the gender coin.

Is it any wonder that we godbotherers make continued calls for repentance, renewal and revival in our land. Perhaps we havn't seen it yet, because we have not gone so far as to see we are no better than the animals, but we are not far off it. Perhaps were in some ways worse, because we know what we are doing, rather than just acting on instinct.

In 2004 a Godbotherer said this.

http://www.slidellsentry.com/articles/2004/05/04/news/news06.txt

"One Category 5 hurricane coming up the river will take care of all Sodomite marriages...," Shanks said. "I believe this will open the floodgate for God to bring judgment on our land."

It happened. Prophecy ? or coincidence, u make the call.

"Don't be fooled, God is not mocked, whatever a man sows, he will also reap"

Is Sydney next ? ... its just a question.

The more important one is.. where will be each of us stand when judgement ultimately comes ?

Boaz, that is just bigotry. Pure and simple.

Pay no attention to Boaz, Laurie. Just think of him as Pat Robertson with bad grammar (ie: even easier to ignore).

What I don’t like about a ‘Blokesworld’ kind of event is its tackiness. It’s almost like the ‘blokes’ need to justify themselves by expressing dominance over a sex like this. Women do it too, and it’s just as tacky then (women’s magazines, as Timkins points out).

Basically it justifies idiotic behaviour. The idea that only people of one sex can have common interests in the first place is idiotic. I despise events like ‘Blokesworld’ the same way I despise magazines targeted towards one sex, the same way I despise comedians who say 'Women be lovin shoppin!!', the same way I despise how these values are shaped and entrenched in early childhood through gender specific toys, so on. This sort of reinforcing of stereotypes does nothing but damage our common sense and dumb us down.

Objectifying PEOPLE is wrong, male or female. Obviously sexuality should be celebrated, but is this kind of tacky exploitation the way to do it? Of course not. Sexuality is a powerful human force which shapes our condition and exposes our strengths and vulnerabilities, it’s not a topless woman riding a mechanical bull.

Maybe sexual repression is what started this ridiculous culture in the first place. I don’t think anyone who was genuinely in touch with their sexuality would find this sort of thing the least bit entertaining (except for maybe ironic value, as I do).

Timkins,
Fair go.
I distinctly recall inviting you to contribute an article to OLO from your male centric perspective. And I recall you turning down my invitation. The invitation is still there if you wish to take it up. Meanwhile I always try to garner comment from as many angles on a topic as I can get. If there is a lack of articles "pro-men" then it is because I have been unable to fire up anyone sufficiently to write on it.
Submissions can be sent to me at susan@onlineopinion.com.au.

Regards
Susan Prior
Editor, On Line Opinion

Let the name-calling commence (eg “mullet set”, “bigot” etc).

Now the moderators can understand that such name calling can be duplicated and at least doubled, so if a poster calls another poster a name, then they can be called the same name back again. Eventually OLO becomes a forum where people just call each other names.

Timbo,
I have seen various data on the rate at which males sexually assault females. That data may / may not be totally accurate, as it depends on what constitutes “assault” or “harassment” etc.

It is possible that males carry out more physical assault than females, but a type of psychological assault could be carried out more frequently by females. This is also shown in the articles from the magazine mentioned previously, (and I point out that that similar articles could be obtained from most other women’s magazines, and also these magazines have their younger sister editions, that have quite similar articles for young girls)

“803 Sexy Looks” etc, basically tells the woman that she should be attempting to sexually stimulate males (almost continuously). But what happens if the male doesn’t want to be sexually stimulated. What happens if he is simply walking down the street to buy a sandwich for lunch. That now presents a difficulty for many males.

Sex sells, and I think that the vast majority of males will realise that “BlokesWorld” is simply a gimmick to take people’s money from them.

SusanP,
I would agree that broader perspectives should be taken regard many issues, and probably name-calling by various people would be a major reason why other people do not present viewpoints on OLO.

I have given my reasons why I have not presented an article to OLO, and that had to do with a rule called S121.

However a look back over the many articles that have been posted for some years on OLO, shows that almost none are positive towards the male gender. I think that is more than coincidental.

Boaz,

1. Last time I checked New Orleans was not in Massachusetts.
2. Louisiana has a constitutional ban on gay marriage.
3. It was the poorer, underprivileged areas of New Orleans that were most affected.
4. Hurricane Katrina has apparently had no effect on so-called "Sodomite marriages".
5. Religious nutcases make those kind of claims all the time.
6. Fragments of a post from an earlier article:

"I draw attention to an important point, you raised, that people tend to manufacture an image of God, which suits their world view and circumstances,"
"WHYYY did He let this happen ? But the flaw there is that somehow we gain special privileges and protection from natural disaster by our faith, while ignoring common sense. And in so doing, we have just re-invented the God of convenience."
"He who buildeth his home on low lying coastal land, while knowing that tsunami's are a fact of life, should not blame God when the waves come."
"We should all pour out as much compassion and help as we can manage. But lets not blame God for such things."

Tsunamis & hurricanes, blame and attribution: very similar. I wonder why the "continued calls for repentance, renewal and revival" are ignored.
---
I'm in total agreement with spendocrat.

"Events like this help fuel demand for pornography and the buying and selling of women in the prostitution trade."
I would say that it is more a situtation where there is a common cause, although a partial cycle probably exists. The objectification of men and women, and other things we see in the media, help to build unrealistic expectations and these often do result in feelings of envy, dissatisfaction and then anger. Blokesworld, womens magazines, sports, TV, are all fantasies that help us get away but they also feed back into our perceptions.

In some sense, I would agree with social conservatives that increased sexual liberty is the cause of the greater extent of the problems we see today. Sexual things have always created interest, but previously advertisers and competing producers couldn't get away with overtly exploiting sex.

Good Points you bring up Timkins. I have one view on all of this –

“Blokesworld is a celebration of the maltreatment of women. It reinforces their subordinate role as receptacles for male lust. Women are not sex toys. They deserve better than sleaze.
Events that encourage men to behave like wind-up maniacs can only further hurt women and are unfair to the men who do value and respect women.”
Lets put it this way - What is OK between consenting adults is OK by me.

I do not need Melinda Tankard or anyone else to tell me what is “acceptable good taste” – I decide, for me, what is and what is not (eg Pollock’s “Blue Poles” must be a pile of crap because I prefer Canaletto)

The real danger is from people who think they have divine right to regulate how other "thinking" men and women are allowed to pursue their consensual indulgences.

What Melinda Tankard dislikes, she is entitled to ignore and under, freedom of Speech, entitled to rant about. However she is not entitled to dictate for me or anyone else (except her children) on any matter requiring subjective judgement.

Now back to organising the female mud wrestling (– so exciting – you never know who won until the winner has been hosed down).

I'm pretty surprised at the male perspective in this thread so far. I expected many to defend blokesworld and the like, saying that they don't take it seriously and therefore it's OK. Are you sure you're not just being politically correct? Funnily enough, I don't feel threatened or offended by shows like this - at the very worst it's bad taste (ok the meat tray thing is a bit over the top.) It's greasy fried chicken TV, but most men love a bit of junk food every now and then. As long as they don't eat too much too often and yet still expect us to want them!

What seems to be the relevant provisions (From austlii):
---
FAMILY LAW ACT 1975 - SECT 121
Restriction on publication of court proceedings

(1)
A person who publishes in a newspaper or periodical publication, by radio broadcast or television or by other electronic means, or otherwise disseminates to the public or to a section of the public by any means, any account of any proceedings, or of any part of any proceedings, under this Act that identifies:

(a) a party to the proceedings;
(b) a person who is related to, or associated with, a party to the proceedings or is, or is alleged to be, in any other way concerned in the matter to which the proceedings relate; or
(c) a witness in the proceedings;
...
(3)
Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), an account of proceedings, or of any part of proceedings, referred to in that subsection shall be taken to identify a person if:

(a) it contains any particulars of:
(i) the name, title, pseudonym or alias of the person;
---

It would of course be a good idea for Timkins to check with his lawyer, and this is in no way meant to be legal advice, but I don't see what the problem is. Unless Timkins plans on telling us the details of his case, which I'm sure none of us care much about anyway, he should be fine. If just saying that you have been in the Family court is enough, or he has already said too much, then s 121(3)(a)(i) would seem to suggest that going by the alias of "Timkins" is also enough. And that's assuming it isn't simply meant to cover outing *other* people.

Great article. The good news for Australian women is that Blokesworld was cancelled (although still may be put on elsewhere).

It was strange that media coverage of the event almost completely failed to challenge the men and the philosophies behind it, and instead took the opportunity to have a few heavily made-up "flirt models" on their shows.

Melinda Tankard and her sanctimonious narrow-minded fellow travellers miss the point. Blokesworld is harmless fun, and reflects the realities of (heterosexual) life. If you don't like it, dont watch it. Don't waste your time getting your knickers in a knot as there are more important issues to be concerned about.
For goodness sake Melinda, get a grip and get a life. I hope all people like Melinda who dislike Blokesworld, also equally oppose the same sort of material printed in Cleo, Comso and other women's magazines.

Blokesworld isn't nearly as insulting or dangerous to women as it is to men.

It stereotypes them in the worst possible way, as a bunch of neanderthal orcs who can only think with their genitals and their stomach.

I have long observed this about men's media, that it offers the men who read it an even more narrow and sterotypical range of behaviours and interests than traditional women's media.

I started to feel a bit sorry for boys when I first had my daughters, and noticed that while they could wear any colour and play with any toy, my friends who had sons couldn't possibly put them in pink or give them a doll. We restrict men's choices about who they are allowed to be right from the start.

Men should be up in arms about Blokesworld, women would be better served by ignoring it.

Having read the "viewers' letters" on the blokesworld site, I can only come to the conclusion that it was created by MORONS for MORONS. It certainly exploits women, and the brainless females featured seem happy to be exploited in the pursuit of "fame".

Some women who make fools of themselves at hens' nights only serve to reinforce the view of the blokesworld morons that women "ask for it". Whether they do or not, there is no excuse for rape, and it should be severely dealt with, not fobbed off with a feather some stupid Judges and Magistrates do.

Men who bash and terrorise women [and children] because they have no respect for them are NOT MEN AT ALL. They may be male, but they are not worthy to be called "men". It is largely a matter of having RESPECT, and sleazy shows like "blokesworld" undermine respect for women, and the tacky type of "hens' night" plays right into their hands.

enaj: Very well said (you too, big al). I’m offended by ‘Blokesworld’ not by the sexual content or misogynistic attitude, but because it’s so STUPID. I’m embarrassed on behalf of men by this sort of thing, because I look at these morons and think: damn, is this really how you identify yourself? The ‘a bit of fun’ defence is the same line used by those who justify watching dumbass sitcoms or reality shows, I don’t buy it. It’s entertainment for the uncreative, the unintelligent, and the very, very dull.

Scrabble is a bit of fun. A concert is a bit of fun. Real, decent porn is a bit of fun. A wet t-shirt contest isn’t fun, it’s pointless and lame. You could put it down to taste, but I think these guys really just don’t have the perspective or insight to realise how rewarding actual entertainment can be.

lisamaree: as a male I’m not ashamed to say I get a kick out of…shall we say, certain voyeuristic indulgencies. But perving isn’t the issue here. People who think that perving and beer defines manhood, that’s what the issue is.

So many of these desires are learned, not genetic. I feel for the closet homosexuals raised in conservative households, never able to come to terms with their own identity. I feel for the unfulfilled mothers who thought marriage and children would bring them happiness.

‘Blokesworld’ is just another in a long, long list of the celebration of mediocrity we call culture. It takes pride in repressing emotion and sexuality. It glorifies sexism. We are automatically handicapped by being born into a world that shuns creativity, expression, even intellectual pursuit.

“Awww moite, what arrya, a bloody smartass?”

Evidently.

I'm with Melinda Tanktop on this one Blokes world is both dangerous and dumb.

And I am concerned about Boaz D and his intimate knowledge of the going on at hens nights with what seems to be burnt in the brain pan images of pelvic thrusting, penis squeezing, ejaculate giving orgasms - I 've got to get out more - old BD mixes in some pretty wild circles. And did I read him wishing the worlds biggest blow job to beset Sydney by way of a hurricane?

The claim counter claim stuff saying the girls do it in Cleo, or Marie Claire is simply stupid; as does the nonsense about women walking around "stimulating" men while all the poor bloke is tryringto do is buy a sandwich - how helpless is that duffer.

The social context of the crap served up in womens magazines is that of a still patriarchial society - its what the blokes want - its what the chicks who want to get ahead (or some of them )think the blokes want.

You wonder why the muslims think we're a bit stupid - go to blokes world or one of manifestations; read the crap in womens magazines;

If there is a right way for the sexes to treat each other we have not found it yet. Blokesworld or for that matter Shielas World is a an example of really how dumb we are.

Deuc,
your well pointed post is appreciated. I don't get the massechusets bit thought, the GB was speaking about New Orleans.
You rightly point out that the 'sodomite' areas were not so badly hit, and as you probably also noticed, I couched my comment as a question, not a statement (sorry spendo :)

Recalling my former post was also good, and my position remains the same, but I still raise the theological 'question'. I guess by the 4th or 5th plague on Egypt they thought less about 'inconvenient climatic events' and more about 'Is the God of the Israelites saying something'?

Laurie.. check 'bigoted' in the dictionary please.

COL I see where ur coming from, but one must also have a socially responsible attitude to allowable behavior. If such behavior is likely to re-inforce attitudes which are detrimental to others, and the community as a whole, the "Social cohesian" thing.

I would rather think 'blokesworld' could be shamed into insignificance, and Tim has a point about it all being 'marketing' for $$$.

As far as I'm concerned, the idea that we as a community don't send a rather strong message out against drunk men drooling over women and vice versa, we can expect the appropriate social reward of increased debauchery.

We are all fragile in some ways, and justifying it with 'consent' is a bit of a cop out, we are still a society, a community, and what we allow reflects on us all.

ENAJ social/cultural reinforcement of gender roles is practiced world wide. I fail to see this as 'wrong'. If it is, on what grounds ? And more importantly, on what authority ?
I wonder what the divorce rate and family breakdown rates are in such places compared with our 'enlightened' approach. Would you make all the team members 'full forward' ?

The girls mag thing isn't relevant here: they're read by young insecure women who believe they need to look, think and behave in a certain way to be accepted by men (and other women), so they more play on women's insecurities and not objectify men as sex toys (sorry timkins). Taking spendocrat's point, maybe blokesworld is more about playing on men's need to be accepted by other men as being un-emotional and well, blokey.

ps..Sneekeepete I'm glad I'm not the only one who wondered about the stimulated-while-buying-a-sandwich thing. Thank goodness I can keep wearing my latex mini skirt and 4" stilettos down george street at lunchtime

You guys crack me up! the people behind blokesworld are laughing all the way to the bank. All this ranting and raving has done nothing but generate massive publicity for the event. I'm in the advertising game and I can tell you, all you men and women who have attacked them on the morality of their event has done nothing more than create a 'taboo' event ... and that my friends means more dollars in their pocket. It takes years to create brand recognition - blokesworld has become an international brand overnight and if the people running the event are smart, they will capitalise on it and convert all this media into ticket sales. I think blokesworld will have the last laugh! As for the victory celebrations for closing them down ... I don't think it will last long ... word is they have found another venue and are up and running in a few weeks. You will never close them down because from what I understand, everything in their event is totally legal. As for me, I really don't care. I'm a grown adult and capable of making my own decisions. I know for a fact that if I see a good looking woman in a pillow fighting competition, I'm sure as hell not going to run out and rape someone (apparently that's what us blokes do) Give me a break. Are we all that stupid!

Exactly Reggy!

Rant and rave about an event of such calibre, and you give it the best publicity money can buy, without the organisers paying a cent. I have seen Blokesworld a few times on Channel 31, and I just laughed at it. I honestly thought it was hilarious. Yes I am male, no I am not very "blokey".... I don't tend to hang out at strip shows, nor do I watch endless hours of porn or go dirt biking, couch racing or whatever. Blokesworld maybe tacky, puerile and sexist, but I fail to see how this type of thing can be exclusively linked to the sort of terrible things Melinda is talking about. As someone said "don't watch it". Don't go to the festival, especially if is probably going to go ahead anyway. This type of thing will always be around... trying to ban it may make it even worse.

Cheers

SM

DAvid BOAZ “COL I see where ur coming from, but one must also have a socially responsible attitude to allowable behavior. If such behavior is likely to re-inforce attitudes which are detrimental to others, and the community as a whole, the "Social cohesian" thing.”

“socially responsible attitude” – pure "subjective judgement" David – I would suggest that, as thinking individuals, we all deserve the right and respect to make up our own minds – I again use “blue poles” (in no phallic sense) as an example. Whether such a purchase reflected a “socially responsible attitude” depends on ones point of view – same for “blokes world” reading cosmo, going to strip clubs, buying porn or any other pursuit which challenges other peoples “sensibilities”.

It starts with tell everyone what events should be banned and ends with the State dictating what music will be played (Stalin), what is good art and what is degenerate (Nazis' famous exhibition of 1937). I personally do not like Kandinski’s paintings much – but that does not mean they should be banned or discouraged. I leave those who do appreciate such things to decide for themselves – and I ignore them –

Just as those like Big Al 30 , sneekeepete, enaj and ruby – you do not possess the right to tell me what is dangerous, moronic or harmful in matters of sexuality of adult indulgences. You do, however, have the right – as I said Melinda Tankard does – to ignore it.

– Fascism is an insidious process. I prefer to stop it in its tracks.

(- Now must not miss next viewing of "the man show" on channel 25)

This is such an amusing article and thread, that it's hard to know where to start with it. While I suppose some people will celebrate the cancellation of the event and others will bemoan it, I agree with those who suggest that the worst thing about the event and TV show is that they are so tastelessly boring!

As a 'bloke', I'd be worried about any other 'bloke' who'd bother attending such an execrable array of activities, let alone shelling out $25 for the privilege - but that's their choice, I guess. Mind you, one wouldn't want to speculate too much about the quality of their relationships with women... I get this image of a few sad losers lining up to get their vicarious jollies the only way they think they can. I suppose one of advantages of the proposed venue was its proximity to the working girls of the Valley, who might have picked up some extra trade if any of the "Blokes" were still sober enough to get an erection after a day out with the other losers.

Who'd need to write anything that demeans men as a category, when the fact that there is apparently a market for this kind of crap says it all, really? As for the ridiculous comments about blokes being distracted from their lunchtime sangas by erotically clad office girls... you don't want to know the images that spring to mind with that one!!

I'd actually like to read an article that intelligently articulates the 'men's rights' agenda, but it seems that advocates for that sorry position are neither intelligent nor articulate enough to present their case positively in an OLO article.

Do not imagine what we think and do as private things [our business] will not influence who we are and how we behave in public relationships.

Let the name-calling continue

Note to OLO Editors and Forum Moderators. OLO describes itself as follows”

On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit e-journal that aims to provide a forum for public social and political debate about current Australian issues. We publish articles to stimulate a public discourse on a range of topics. http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/display.asp?page=about

But in reality, OLO is very narrow and highly discriminatory, and has been that way ever since it first started.

There are about 3000 articles that have been posted on OLO, and the majority would have a male as the main topic, or have the male gender as the main topic. Only a very few of these 3,000 articles have portrayed males in a positive way, and this can only be regarded as being highly discriminatory. This article by Melinda is typical of 1,000’s on OLO.

OLO would not exist without males. Even the web-site and the computers would not exist. So OLO could have a special section titled “Articles that portray a male or the male gender positively”. Out of the 3,000 articles currently in the OLO archives, OLO may be able to find 2-3 that could go into this section. Indeed it could a major challenge for OLO, to actually find those articles.

The public forum is also quite typical of the main articles, and the most common feature in the forum would now be name-calling. This name-calling can be almost anything, and recent feature now includes calling other people terms such as “old” in a derogatory fashion, with no objection shown by the moderators, even though there is discrimination legislation concerning that.

So in essence, OLO is a very sexist organisation, that has minimal regard for discrimination or standards.

But the name-calling from others now will be returned.

Kenny,
You write “Bla, bla, Bla”. You are a “a backlash from conservatives”. You are a “ a backlash from mullet set.” You are in “ vogue.” on OLO.

Laurie,
You show “ bigotry”. You are “Pure and simple.”

Spendocrat
You are “Pat Robertson with bad grammar”

Lisamaree
You are not “being politically correct?”

TBC

As to the ‘Blokesworld’ issue, if you are so inclined pay your cash and get your jollies, if that is your thing… (and one wonders why it would be anyone’s ‘thing’)

As for the OLO forum, if it does not appear to be to your liking, go somewhere else where they agree with what appears to be your biased, distorted view. Otherwise, put up with the fact that many will not agree with you.

It sounds pretty sad to me. A bunch of attractive women showing some boob to desperate guys for a load of money. It astounds me anyone would want to choose that over the lady at home, who they have an intimate and satisfying relationship with.

I think a lot of it comes down to the lack of culturally accepted environments for singles to mingle. The only options seem to be sleazy atmosphere (e.g. clubs). What a way to form deep intimate relationships, taking a woman home and sleeping with her, and then getting to know her as you go. If you don't like her, repeat as above. Unless she gets pregnant, then you're stuck with her.

Traditionally churches used to fulfill this need, and to some extent already do. I do admire how relationships are formed in that arena; where the couple are encouraged to form a emotional bond, and they value their sexuality. But as a non-religious guy, I'd like to see our culture progress so I have these same tools available to me outside of a church environment.

I know I've rambled a bit, but I do think alot of the reason Blokesworld is so popular is people aren't happy at home with someone they've commited their lives to. We need to give people more options so they can form 'old-school' relationships and hopefully find someone that fulfills their needs in this area.

Timkins, if you dislike OLO so much, consider it so deeply biased, why do you spend so much time and effort here?

Topic: I think blokesword is pretty sad really- very lowest common denominator stuff. But I would not have closed it down- as various posters have noted, that has just given it more publicity than it deserved

Duece
You should check with your “ lawyer”.
You are “ outing *other* people.”

Enaj,
You are a “neanderthal orc”

Sneekeepete
You have “ intimate knowledge of the going on at hens nights”.
Images burnt into your brain are “ pan images of pelvic thrusting, penis squeezing, ejaculate giving orgasms”
You mix in “ some pretty wild circles” .
You wish “the worlds biggest blow job to beset Sydney by way of a hurricane?”
You are” simply stupid”
You talk “ nonsense”
You are a “ duffer.”
Muslims think you are “a bit stupid”.

Reason,
OLO is not "to your liking"

Laurie,
You are “too maligning and judgemental”.
You do not have “well adjusted and fully actualised children”
You consider OLO “deeply biased”

You have rarely answered my questions in the past, just made whatever statements you have wanted about me and other posters. But I will answer your question. I’m here because I am not breaking any forum rules, and probably the only time the moderators would take any interest, is if I made a negative remark about a female, but negative remarks about males would be the overriding principle of OLO, based on past articles and posts.

Surreal.

Funny how, some time ago, Melinda Tankard had nothing to say about Germaine Greer's book of boys, which were photographs of scantily clad and near naked pre-pubescent and adolescent boys. Her PR spin was that the book represented womens' right to take back enjoyment of the visual pleasure of boys, in all their purity (subtext - before the evils of manhood subvert them beyond redemption). Essentially it was a book of peadophile pornography by a dirty old woman for dirty old women. An equivelant book of girls by a man in his 60s for men... prolly enuff to start world war three these daze.

If its one thing that the fellas at blokes world can learn from the communicative prowess of their superior sisters it is that they need better PR and need to work on 'subtle' methods of newspeaking politically correct obfuscation to disguise wot they are up to. If they package it in appropriately cynical, veiled PR dross, they can get away without much complaint from society's self appointed gate keepers. Take a page out of Greer's book... but only if you like to to look at naked 8 yr olds.

Then again their in-your-face-no-holds-barred approach gets them a lot of publicity that you just cant buy, which is usually the best kind.

Timkins,
you rarely answer questions... as you have shown in the past...

Blokesworld.... hhmmm.. seems very patriarchal. Perhaps this appeals to certain elements on this forum?

:-)

Methinks that the matriarchs in this place (of which there are many who seem to have no problem doing what they forever retort in opposition to) might want to put the BIG LIE of patriarchy back into the radical ideological box from wence such an absurd notion sprang.

A starving soviet farmer back in '30s couldn't care less about, let alone identify with the ideoligical fallacies and inconsistencies of a few intellectual and ruling elites within Communism's subverted notions of the ideas penned by Marx.

Similarly, when you rabbit on about the 1/1000th of 1% of men as being omnipotent global rulers who conspire to oppress women, to the point that you use that to project an her-storical revisionist inter-generational guilt trip and shaming therapy upon the generality of men, it tends to paint an appropriate reflection upon those pushing such an extremist view.

Incidentally, those men whom constitute the so called elite ruling class also tend to be generally... white, anglo-saxon, middle aged, judeo-christian. Now lets see you rubbish an entire race, culture, age group and religion in your attempts to validate your ideology by vilifying your perceived opposition. In short, you should be able offend just about everyone with that intellectual modus.

For heavens sakes people, get a grip. Its just a bit of throw away rubbish entertainment for whoever wants it. The article draws some typically very long bows, makes incredibly spurious connections and trots out a host of the usual statistical suspects, many (most?) of which have been debunked and/or exposed as built on shoddy statistical methodology.

That article was a propoganda infused, ideologically rigid peice of fluff. Really, a first year women's studies indergraduate could have done better with one eye shut and no arms.

For those who are of the advertising mob, and who suggest that the publicity given to the blokes thingy is 'The best thing' for them, and that they will be laughing all the way to the bank.......

Granted, but the short term profit of a small group of wayward men, is nowhere near as important as what the existence of such an event says about our community values. So a few bucks in the bank of a few sleazes, is by the by, lets grapple with it as a symptom i.e. Social decay, a valueless moral framework, or, one which is just hedonistic and existential.

I think the name calling, Tim, is just a substitute for serious debate, so lets just hope that as time goes by, more people who can interact on an issues basis will come along.

Nevertheless, I find the various points of view quite heartwarming, even those by the name callers. At least we are thinking and interacting with each other. Common sense and truth will prevail.

COL.
as a Christian, I have a right and a responsibility to call you, and all others (including myself) to repentance and to embrace Christ as Lord and Savior, but, I have no right to enforce that nor to stick my foot in your door while I 'bash' you with my bible. That call may go unheeded, as is anyone's right and choice. In a forum like this, people can simply ignore me.

The fascinating thing I'm finding these days, is that many many people ARE interested in hearing about Christ. What wonderful days we live in.

I saw Blokesworld on TV a few weeks ago & thought it was hilarious.

Some people get their kicks going to 'drag races' to watch loud, smelly bits of metal and rubber go really fast; or to places called 'pubs' where they drink mind-altering substances and slur their words. This kind of irrational behaviour goes on as if it was normal and I'd wager even some contributors to this site do it. And then after you leave these places you all drive away at 130 kmph talking gibberish, just like the blokes going to blokesworld head off afterwards in search of women to degrade. Gorn, admit it!

If Blokesworld was held in Sydney & my friends invited me I'd certainly go. But that's OK because YOU don't have to

MMM...?

I wonder why nobody has replied to my post above?

I find most of the posts from the "blokes" in this forum - very interesting and valid.

Cheers
Kay

Yes Bennie, the show is hilarious. There appears to be an element of "pisstaking" (pardon the pun) in many of the shows segments, even though alot of it is pretty puerile. You are right, lots of people enjoy the drag racing, dirt biking, bike shows, tractor pulls, etc, etc. Sometimes the behaviour (often drunken) at such events may be a little base to say the least. But are all the blokes attending such events guilty of loutish and offensive behaviour?

I have often seen examples of "suit and tie" types from the bigger end of town, behaving just as offensively toward women in between putting away a 'few' boutique brews at more "upmarket" establishments, on a Friday evening after work. Loutish behaviour is therefore not confined to "the mullet set". I know quite a few blokes who enjoy their bikes, drags and such, yet don't tend to behave like animals after a few beers, bourbons or whatever. Blokesworld, Gentlemens' Clubs, whatever.... same thing different pricetag.

Cheers

Duece
You are “surreal”

Reason,
You haven’t asked me a question.

You are “Blokesworld”
You are “very patriarchal”
You appeal to ”certain elements on this forum”

Kalweb
Blokesworld is likely for someone 18yrs +, and probably it would be highly commercialised, expensive, and superficial. Probably Girls Night Out events are the same.

But Blokesworld is condemned by feminists (who will call it “patriarchal” etc) while they ignore Girls Night Out.

But the greatest danger to women is not from men. Without men, women would not exist, or their life would be much less than what it is now, and I would think that there are many men who are now very tired of being denigrated as a gender, or being constantly made to feel guilty because they are male. This article from Melinda does just that, and almost every other of the 3,000 articles in OLO does the same.

However I would agree that women’s media should be seriously considered. It is normally highly commercialised, superficial and anti-intellectual. It is often just fashion and sex , but enormous amounts are being sold, and increasing amounts are being sold to young girls.

“Marie Claire” magazine mentioned in previous posts is targeted at the 30+ woman.

But “Girlfriend” magazine is targeted at young teenage and even pre-teen girls. The latest edition has articles “The Rudest Celeb Pictures Ever”, “Making Out Master Class”, "The barley dressed posters of Jesse Metcalfe and Josh Hartnett", "The seedy and sensational confessions of a party pashaholic!", "How to do anything (including buying condoms and telling a boy you like him) without getting embarrassed"

Such magazines are not marketed and sold to 18yrs + women, but marketed and sold to quite young and impressionable girls, and mostly by other women (not men).

There has rarely been a blimp from feminists about it, although most fathers of daughters would probably want those magazines thrown straight into the bin, but that could be classified as “denying women their rights” etc, so eventually it becomes up to women to have the quality of their media improved.

I am a male and don't particularly like the idea of 'Blokesworld', I certainly would never attend such an event. But then I look around and see from where "Blokesworld" has been distilled.

It appears to be a combination of components from many 'mainstream' events, like car racing - with its 'pit girls', the Rugby codes and Melbourne Rules (the original, and still most appropriate name for AFL) and their cheerleaders and female followers, objectifying the players as well, and the sort of drinking and fashionably provocative female attire see at New Years eve celebrations and the manner of dress and presentation of 'princesses' at horse racing carnivals. Throw in women going topless on beaches, that is wearing about the same as in wet t-shirt competitions, and you see what I mean.

The amount of hypocracy here is phenomenal. Can society really have it both ways? The display by women of themselves as tantalising objects of desire, or perhaps their sheer ignorance or self righteousness about it (ie the expectation of privacy in a public place, like a beach) is acceptable. The acceptance and enjoyment of those same traits by men in a male centred context is not.

By all means rail against Blokesworld, but get stuck into those other areas as well.

DavidBOAZ "COL.
as a Christian, I have a right and a responsibility to call you, and all others (including myself) to repentance and to embrace Christ as Lord and Savior, but, I have no right to enforce that nor to stick my foot in your door while I 'bash' you with my bible. That call may go unheeded, as is anyone's right and choice. In a forum like this, people can simply ignore me."

Agree totally David We are not that far apart as far as process is concerned -

Process being individual rights... disagree all you want, express your view and I will support your right to do so.

On the matter of content, we differ... that is fine too... whilst Timkins seems to be getting a pasting from the less errudite here you and I can "disagree" on content without descending into the maelstrom of personal attack.

On the matter of Church and Christianity - I have no time nor respect for organised religion. Do not assume that because of that I have not time for beliefs and moral values. I simply believe we are all individuals and we function best when we make up our own minds - instead of having a theorocratic doctine imposed upon us. Hence -whilst I would, likely, not bother to go to "blokeworld" I see no reason to follow the frenzied cries of "ban it". Individuals always ve and always will made better subjective judgements than governments.

I think that the main disadvantage of a lack of censorship, is that things such as sex become commercialised in time, and the people involved will try and push the the envelope as much as possible, so as to make more money. In time there can be a general lowering of standards, and it can begin to seriously affect the lives of children. Some years ago, movie studios in the US were found to be showing M15+ and R rated type movies to trial audiences of young children, and in fact there are very few movies being produced for children less than 15 yrs sold. Almost all movies are M+, and many young children now watch these movies.

Women’s media is now highly commercialised, and almost totally devoted to sex and fashion. That media is now extending down to young girls, and Girlfriend magazine (as mentioned in an earlier post) is basically for 11 – 14 yr old girls, but the majority of the articles in it are essentially soft porn.

So when sex becomes commercialised, it begins to seek new audiences, and eventually it seeks younger and younger audiences, and this begins to rob children of their innocence and childhood. If it is looked at in terms of scale, the most corruption of children’s minds is occurring from women’s magazines that target young girls. It is very wide scale, but few people realise it, because most concentration is on the male gender.

OLO concentrates almost entirely on the male gender, and most other media does similar, but what is occurring in the female world can actually be much more serious, but becomes overlooked.

Swilkie,
I'm rather suspect about this “repression of sexuality” thing. With events such as Blokesworld, or women going to male stripper shows etc, it becomes “look but don’t touch”, or “look but don’t speak”. It becomes voyeurism, which I don’t think is true sexuality, or if it is sexuality, it is rather shallow or artificial sexuality.

But the commercialism of sex or sexuality eventually means pictures of semi-naked celebrities in magazines for young girls, or articles for young girls titled “Making Out Master Class” etc

This is now happening, and that is where the overt commercialisation of sexuality eventually ends up. But I think those children would be much better learning to play the piano, building cubby houses, playing sports etc

Its great to see democracy in action (is that what george doublya said to bob brown?) Its a great shame that nobody has made the point that you could make a show where you blow someones head off with a shotgun ,and splatter gore everywhere, as long as everyone is clothed.
As the name suggests, the show probably dosent suit everyone and given its timeslot is suited to people over the age where this kind of thing might have disturbing effects.
There was a band in the seventies called the skyhooks, and they sang about the six thirty news being a horror movie. I'd tend to agree.
Certainly, we should keep a tab of whats going on in society and educate our kids about dangers and how to avoid them. Do prostitutes do a roaring trade (above the usual) when an episode finishes? Would the police comment on the number of rapes/sexual assault (above the usual) after a show? do gun shops and knife dealers appreciate the extra business?
Are the knockers going to eat their words when Australia wins gold at the vertical pole event at the next olympics?
This show celebrates life and vitality, watch it and see.
Yes, its fantastic, funny, naughty and fun. (and dosent degrade women)

Now we could adopt the 'she'll be right' pro- anything goes / libertarian approach or say to ourselves "Would I let my daughter do this?"

If you look at the 2 guys behing this show - hardly Chippendale models - they are harmless and an all too sad reality of a lot of guys, but, what strikes me is the numbers of girls who voluntarily provide themselves as fodder for these guys.

The term 'soft porn' whilst most applicable undermines the likelihood that the dangers, appropriate edification being high up there, can be considered as soft.

I can have a laugh, be titilated, and know that its doesn't affect me... or will it? I suppose I will know in a few years time after my children hit their late teens...

It strikes me that this Melinda Tankard Reist, who argues that "the 'Blokesworld Live' event is not harmless fun", is a frightened sexually under-confident young thing, a victim of feminist thinking.

You see, in her writing, she displays her convictions and beliefs in falsified anti-male feminist statistics, portraying men as latent and lascivious, salivating sexual time bombs, whose rape-now fuse will be ignited just by getting an eyeful of some scantily clad maiden copping a watery dunking. Naturally, it seems to her, blokes, who after having been to a Blokesworld event, will then go and rampage through the streets harassing and sexually violating every woman within coo-ee in some sort of mass rape attack.

She reveals her opinion that all men are sexually violent animals with no moral conscience, who, apparently, can't deliberate between reality and fantasy. Such are her perverted thoughts and perceptions about the inner workings and qualities of men.

The writing of this woman also reveals to the astute reader that she is not an observer of reality, real life nor of real men - but, that she dwells in the world of sexual fear and perversion of feminist literature. A world in which she views men as sexual predators and herself, along with all other women, as sexual victims. A world in which men and exhibitions of overt heterosexuality are a constant threat and menace.

This is a problem. This poor girl needs help.

This Melinda Tankard Reist is in serious need of overcoming this phobia of men, masculinity and maleness. Perhaps a therapeutic course of public dunkings might bring her to her senses and back to reality. It might just bring her down off her high horse. It might just teach her some humility, compassion and respect for her fellow man.

A public dunking of Melinda Tankard Reist, hmm, now that's something I'd really like to see.

If Blokesworld Live ever advertised that as an event, I would definitely go and buy a ticket.

Guys/Girls

Love this thread....Melinda, although I think you might need a quiet cuppa and a break for a while...I applaud your interpretation of our little show..... Man!! and I thought I was a beat-up specialist.... But, I have to tip my hat....your stuff is first class!...the clever weaving of our media-stunt meat-tray "500 kilos of meat served up to satisfy his hunger" and the women served up in the same way is a classic...that is truly good stuff...Golden Eggbeater!!...please don't stop, that sort of copy is first class.

Well everyone as you know, we have a show to put on this weekend so I won't stay....all I can say is keep up the good work...and please when the going gets tough, just keep on complaining....(please see Reggy's post)....and remember....be very afraid!!...we might be coming to your neighbourhood soon!!

Cheers from the ever appreciative bunch at Blokesworld LIVE!!

Sorry Blokesworld person, but I seriously doubt this thread has given you any extra customers. We're a bunch of people with opinions and attitudes that are largely unchanging. All we do is talk, we don't do anything.

So have a good show or whatever, but we'll still be right here blah blah blahing on as usual.

For me personally of course, I'll be spending my free time engaging in activities that are a little more stimulating, interesting and enriching. But that's just me.

Blokesworld's post, suggesting that the organisers have relished the publicity and are simply relocating the show, is a bit too breezy in the light of what's actually happened. Several sponsors wisely pulled out of the show once women started to contact them about it. This is where Blokesworld will feel the most pain.

I think Spendocrat is correct - Online Opinion is a world of social and political ideas with a specific group of people who are interested in such things (methinks not the kind of people who might attend Blokesworld) and I truly doubt whether Melinda Tankard Reist's article will inspire anyone to go and pay to see what all the fuss is about. I think the women who took action about this will not go away, and that it was not a flash in the pan; pressure on the sponsors to keep their money out of such trash is a very effective strategy.

By the way, I wonder whether any of the organisers and stakeholders have encouraged their wives, sisters and daughters to participate in the lingerie pillowfight, bikini bullriding, or wet t-shirt competition?

Keep fighting for sexual integrity Melinda. Pornagraphy is a cancer in our society that will contribute to our self destruction. Here is an interesting quote from an article from the website of the Sexual Integrity Forum held in august this year http://www.sif.org.au/papers-_dwight_randall.html

"Pornography has a connection to sexual violence and rape. Over 50 per cent of child molesters in one study revealed that they used pornography as stimuli in preparation to offend. In study after study, there is a clear connection between porn and violence."

That is just one of the mountain of such outcomes pornography has on our society.

What's the difference between Blokesworld and the Mardi Gras. If you don't like either one, don't watch or don't attend.

Neither should be banned just because people get uppity about exploitation or morals.

As far as I know, none of the women are forced to go in the events, they do so of their own free will.

It might not be for Melinda, but each to their own.

t.u.s.

Ruby,
Reviewing the many articles in OLO, then it is just a forum to malign a male or the male gender, as almost no article has ever been positive about a male, or about the male gender.

It is interesting that women have complained about Blokesworld, because I have heard of no female opposition to male striper shows, which often feature full nudity, simulated and live sex, and much female drunkenness. Nor have I ever heard of any female opposition to the amount of sex in women’s magazines, that are now targeting young girls

So write an article on the topic, then we can discuss it.

Hi Big Al 30. Ever been to a strip show?
The arguments above boil down to a "moral" one. If we were to ban strip shows as many of the above would like - on what grounds? Religious?
The government of the day sets regulations as determined by the majority. Secular governments such as ours rely on the 'If you dont want to see it, you dont have to' approach. Non violent commercial sex is tolerated. Our govt draws the line at "imposition" & rightfully so. I find free-to-air TV such as the infamous channel 10 'Big Brother'far more offensive than any of the above. This is the sort of stuff I think should be banned, subjectively speaking.
If our secular govt were to suddenly impose the banning of any non-violent, respectful activity the public needs to know why. Where are the statistics linking strip shows to rape, for example? It is the governments job to provide us with the necessary information in an undistorted fashion.
If Tankard-Reist and her Ilk would like their values & morals imposed on the rest of the population, may I suggest they do this through truthful Political means, not the broadcast of anecdote & assumption.

Timkins and others

See my post of September 22 re going to a male strip show and my views on some Womens' magazines.

Cheers
Kay

I'd have to keep saying that blokesworld is harmless fun,
and even offer that big al 30 and the big al 30 animal sanctuary
are a little off track suggesting that oral sex is not natural.
Its not exactly to my taste, but I'm not sure, I cant bend my neck that far.
Blokesworld is one of the cleanest shows on T.V. as evidenced by the amount of showering that takes place. It also promotes meaningful relationships with the segment "love burnout dedications" .
It is however, a shame its on so late (here in Cairns anyway).
The boys have touched a raw nerve, did big brother up late
churn up the same anxieties and repressed feelings?
please tell me it didnt, because it had so much less to offer.
The live show would be great, but I cant see it coming up here.

As for those wowsers saying "would you encourage your daughters" blah blah.....get a grip (or release your grip) on yourself. A better question would be "are you that shallow that you'd think less of your daughter if she chose to dance round in her undies?"

To the blokesworld crew, your on a winner. In the off season I suggest you make "chicksworld", but sorry, I wont watch it.

Swilkie, Why would you ban "Big Brother" but not "Blokesworld"?

Firstly I have to say I'm not looking for sympathy with this, I just feel i have to be honest about the effects of sexual violence towards women, men and children (i.e. anyone and everyone).

It's taken me about 18 years to get over my distrust and, I have to say, dislike of men since I had a number of experiences of sexual violence in my young-mid teens, all perpertrated by men.

I've come to realise that the people who did this stuff can't have had any respect for themselves and obviously had no respect towards females or children.

I have struggled with the anxiety-depression, self-harm, substance abuse etc. which is common among victims of violence (sexual and other). It severely compromised my ability to form a positive view of my own sexuality and obviously stuffed up my ability to form good relationships with men.

Seeing events like this make my heart sink, as I know the men I'm talking about had the attitude that "chicks are begging for it" - the attitude enshrined in this kind of stuff.

I really benefitted from reading Steve Biddulph's book 'Manhood' as it showed me that ultimately men suffer just as much as women from adopting negative, disrespectful attitudes towards women - because as i said earlier, hurting someone else hurts yourself and comes from your own lack of regard for yourself (often known as "your humanity").

I'm still dealing with my own sexism - i still find it hard to accept that all men are not the misogynistic moronic "type" that Blokesworld etc. appeals to.

I'd also like to add that i'm dismayed also by the junk in most women's magazines - i'm not trying to say man=bad, woman=good. Both sexes need to work towards more positive relationships (and ultimately all people regardless of gender, race, etc. must do the same thing). The unexamined life etc...

OTT: I know of men who watch blokesworld and aren't misogynists moronic "types". I'm glad you've overcome your distrust of men, but I fail to see the relationship between blokesworld (or porn) with violence against women. If you are a violent person, you're a violent person. If watching blokesworld brings out violent feelings in a man, it says more about that particular man than it does about blokesworld. The same applies to previous comments about child molesters and pornography. If you're prone that way, it doesn't mean the absence of porn will negate the child molesting tendencies.

Kalweb: Agreed that male strip shows can be pretty embarassing to watch (more the onlookers than the male dancers). Each to their own. Re the women's mags - teach your neices to respect their own bodies and other's, and it won't matter what they read

Dear OTT

Thanks for being so honest and courageous.

I read an interesting study (I think the link is on New Matilda issue 56 if you want to find it under links) that shows that in society's which are particularly violent and oppressive to women, men's lifespan is also much shorter than average. Its hypothesis is that violence is also dangerous to the perpetrators, as you have discovered in your healing process.

None-the-less, as I said in my original post, I still believe Blokesworld is more dangerous and insulting to men than it is to women.

O.T.T.

Thank you for your post.

I was savagely bashed and raped (1993) by two males (strangers in the street). But that does not make me generalise across all males. I do no think that all men are potential rapists (as the radical feminist sexual assault counsellors promote). Rather, I think that all people (male, female, children) have the potential to be raped. That is quite a different philosophical thrust.

Rape is not about sex. Rape is about power, control and violence +++.
The victim's sexual organs are the vehicle for same.

My previous husband bashed me for 13 years. That does make me hate or distrust all men. I married a sociopath. Simple as that.

Like yourself, I have had to be treated for anxiety and depression - and also panic attacks - all the legacy of violent sexual assault.

Watching Blokesworld does not cause this sort of stuff. People who are sexually violent will always be sexually violent - they do not need porn or shows such as Blokesworld as a trigger. As I said, sexual violence is not about sex.

I hope that you are able to develop a trusting relationship with a male one day. We celebrated our ninth wedding anniversary resterday - a wonderful 9 years.

Cheers
Kay

This whole thing is about power.

The prospect of men reclaiming a public voice to just be men cannot be tolerated. Sure there are some base and banal aspects to being masculine (and feminine for that matter) but for the most part we are pretty harmless in our tendencies. Why throw the baby out with the bath water?

Funny thing is that when its done quietly, out of overt public focus, it goes by with scarcely a mention.

Public expression would challenge the place to where the pendulum has swung. The pendulum seems to be in a place that pretty much sanctions the un-abridged right of women to just be women, with the attendant misandry that quite often emerges from equally banal aspects of women.

This is a game of politics. All the rationalisations, sociological and behavioural ruminations on this thread (this one included) are just a bit of noise to pad out the rather obvious... the battle of the sexes and the gender war foot soldiers are fighting over turf.

As a side note, why do people have such deep issues about the human body? Why is society so incredibly hung up? Why does it so rigidly have such a negative and ugly view of:
1. the human body
2. nakedness
3. sex
4. physical beauty

Why do gender politicians and progandists use the human body and such an essential part of the human condition namely sex to demonise?

Why do they have such a hard time contextualising?

Sexual repression? Denial of the natural self?

What can i say at first i thougth the show would be tammed but after reading about blokesworld and having a good look into what goes on i was rather put off, i wonderer what the organiser of the show would think if it was theire wife girlfriends sister or daugthers performing at these events and if they would still feel the same if us women organised events with naked males and males strip shows and exibits hey girls maybe we should have our own womensworld what do you think ?

Sorry Kalweb, I disagree with some of your arguments. Rape IS about sex. The rapist doesn't look at a potential victim and think 'I'd like to bash and control her". He thinks "I'd like to [blank] her" and if the woman rebuffs him, he then forces her to have sex by physical violence. Sex is the primary goal. Violence is the means to achieve it.

Some people think pornography is harmless, including girlie shows like Blokeworld. Porn is designed to stir up hormones [particularly male] Evidence in rape cases has often revealed that viewing porn had been a contributing factor in encouraging the rapist to attack his victim. So it is not harmless, and should be viewed accordingly.

Big Al 30

Thanks for you post. You may be ineterested in the following:

Ledray, L. E. (1986). "Recovering from Rape", Owl Books, New York. The author is a registered nurse (as I am) with a PhD. In discussing the role of sex and aggression in rape she says:

During a rape, sex is used as a weapon to intimidate,
control, and humiliate the victim. If rape was simply
sexually motivated, Las Vegas, which is surrounded by
legalized prostitution, would not have one of the highest
rape rates in the nation, which, according to police, it
does (1986, p. 195).

Cheers
Kay

Kalweb, despite the author's qualifications, I have been around enough football and other clubs to hear what young men think on the subject of sex, and it's not what the PhD says.

I'm not surprised that there is plenty of rape in Las Vagas despite all the legalised prostitution. Young men don't like going to brothels, or paying for sex anywhere. It spells failure having to pay for "it". Bad for the ego.

They like to get it by sweet words, bulldust, winning over the target. If that doesn't work, they produce the strong-arm stuff. The point is, they want to "score" . They are predators, and they have to "score" on their terms. And that does NOT include paying money for it, so that virtually eliminates prostitutes from their sexual aims. Their goal s SEX. If they can't get it the "nice" way, they'll get it with rough-stuff. And that means rape, There's an old saying [which I will try to put as delicately as I can] "An erect penis has no conscience!"

Kalweb, Kay, things are getting serious when I find myself lying awake in the early hours wondering whether I got the previous post [I nearly said the last post] right. I missed two things: 1. I forgot to mention the role played by booze and drugs in the "sweet talk and bulldust" phase.
2. I remembered a rape case in my area some years ago, where a male abducted and raped a woman from a group they both belonged to out of revenge and anger. Then I thought of ex-husbands raping their former wives out of hatred etc. So I acknowledge that rape can happen when the motive is hatred/jealousy/spite/revenge, and the object is to hurt physically and psychologically by traumatising and humiliating the victim.

However, I think these cases represent only a small percentage maybe 5-10% of cases, and bulk of them are represented by the scenario I have outlined, i.e. the prime goal is sex backed up by force, including date rape and rape by abduction from the street by carloads of curs who deserve the contempt of the community and the wrath of the Courts [which they rarely get].
Some women get themselves into date rape situations by acting foolishly. However, if they say "No" even late in proceedings, the male should back off and call it a night, not use force. Unfortunately, many men don't see it that way. I know because I've argued with them about it. Rape is a terrible thing and should be taken more seriously by Judges; and women should use some common sense about how much testosterone they stir up by the way they dress and conduct themselves. Fair enough?

This "blokesworld" thing seems pretty tame to me. Why all the debate?

There's prostitution out there, table/pole dancing, breasts on billboards, strip-club style dancing on MTV, hardcore porn within reach of kids who use computers. Seems to me that female (and male) sexuality is more a marketing commodity than ever before.

On the whole - society seems to have gone with this, women included, although the internet thing did come as a bit of a surprise.

The significant battles are already lost in my view - but for those wanting to resist the trend, I'd argue that blokesworld is irrelevant.

Think of it this way, Big boy. These people you describe are precisely what Kalweb etc are talking about. Mate, I frequent these places you describe & on the whole the generally unpissed audience is courteous, respectful & there for the show. The odd looney is dealt with appropriately by security. The guys don't leave the show with a violent need for a root. We are gentlemen with a mutual respect for the female.
The 'teenage' mentality of 'needing to score' you describe rarely includes violence & if It does, it falls in the sociopathic category you describe. It does happen. Do consider that the majority of rape cases occur in "known circumstances' where the victim knows the assailant.
I agree with Wombat, enuff said here...

Swilkie, Still waiting to hear why you would ban "Big Brother".

Ok, Big Al, one more on this header to finish up.
You want disrespect for the female then try the 'three handed massage' episode of BB (dick rub to back of head while massaging shoulders). Done entirely to impress the audience, I might add. Even if she knew what was going on, it certainly did not set a good scene for impressionable viewers. The authorities repremanded ch10.
Other than this, & similar I find BB lame & simply cannot believe It has an audience. Says a lot about western mentality, really...
Its off to greener pastures...

Swilkie, Thanks for your reply. I agree with you about Big Brother. From the little I have seen, it is a mixture of boredom, filth and degradation, evidenced by that "massage". I am pleased to see that you have boundaries, a "line in the sand" which you won't allow to be crossed in these matters, which is more than I can say about TV executives such as those in Channel 10. They obviously think the sky's the limit, and don't give a damn. They have been reprimanded, but that is nothing to them. They will need to feel some pain before they'll change, and the new Broadcasting Authority is just as toothless as the old one. Someone says they are getting paid under false pretences, and I agree. "Useless as tits on a bull" as one bloke said.

So far as your comment about the audience at Blokesworld-type shows being gentlemen who have mutual respect with the women performers[forget the exact words] I can't agree. How can you have respect for the women who perform these acts? There was one "Gentlemans' Evening" at my local football club which had a "Door Prize" consisting of sex on the stage with one of the girls. It was won by a middle-aged married man[ I knew him] who duly claimed his prize in full view of the audience urging him on. From what my friends and neighbours tell me about these shows, the blokes regard the girls as sluts and have no respect at all for them. I have seen research which claims that strippers and girls in these shows have no regard for the audience and I wouldn't be surprised if that were also true. Respect is extremely important between people, esecially men and women. You don't try and degrade someone you respect. Anyway, since you are leaving this thread, I'll say goodbye, and maybe we'll cross swords in another argument.

I saw 15 minutes of this show on television and thought what a waste o time. Felt sorry for the girls performing. Hope they are earning good money. They must be desperate to do something quite demeaning.