The only thing this article highlights is the fact that there are some women out there who have absolutely no clue when in comes to their sexuality.

And if I read another 'raunch culture' article (I read the book when it was first released) I think I'm going to vomit.

I found Darlene Taylor's article really interesting, in upholding respect as essential to feminism.

Her criticism of 'raunch culture' is valuable because that culture is demeaning most of those who engage in it, particularly when they're only teenagers who haven't yet acquired an adult objectivity.

Respect seems a stronger basis for relating to others than even equality, because equality has to be imposed, rather than it occurring naturally.

Why else would millions of Australians sit around football and cricket fields every weekend, to watch 18 or 13 players strutting their stuff? It's a pleasure to admit that Einstein was smarter, Lance Armstrong is a better cyclist, and Something for Kate are better musicians than I am. The only interesting equality is among such experts, between themselves.

Equality seems necessary only because the strong have repeatedly abused their power over the weak. In itself equality seems boring, frankly, in that there's no pleasure of admiration there. Yet we need the Racial Discrimination Act, and Amnesty International's National Plan of Action to eliminate violence against women, because the strong so often abuse their strength, particularly when some men still think that women should be slaves, as in the good old days. Of course, it was also sometimes said back then that every man and woman could become so noble as to become a god or goddess.

isabelberners: Helen, I thought you'd got better, but either your recent articles have been an aberration, or you've relapsed. Shame, either way. You're back to sounding like the humorless doctrinaire feminist who told her UNSW class JS Mill's dedication to Harriet Taylor read like "thanks to the typist". Couldn't see it then, can't see it now.

And I also can't see why you interpret "is excuse enough to" (put on a miniskirt and a pair of stilettos) as the article put it, as "puts on same" (as a reaction to Jeffreys and Dworkin). Unless you lack a sense of irony (plausible - I've been to your lectures); just want to nitpick; or have a very dim view of women's capacity to separate whim from action.

This particular woman finds she has an urge, when lectured by doctrinaire Greens (with whom I largely agree) to pick up an old CFC-propelled spray can and unload it straight at the ozone layer. It's a fairly standard human reaction to being harangued. It doesn't mean I'm going to do it. It doesn't mean women will dress like sluts because of Dworkin and Jeffreys. It DOES mean holier-than-thou preaching might be counter-productive.

As might your all-too-obvious failure to understand rhetoric in general, and hyperbole in particular. Possibly a minor disadvantage for a humanities scholar? (If you're interested in understanding more about rhetoric, by the way, "minor" is a litotes).

I Dont think women are any more slaves than most working men .
men are more sloth like in their habits for the most part unless they are defending their patch, probably due to our biological roles ,whereas women seem to have a marvellous restless energy which fascinates me . i suspect it originally derives from at various times in ancient history [and also today ]having to be completely independent of men to survive AND maintain their family.
As for the raunch , it all in the end seems a bit pointless if they don't find a mate .

Frankly I think the author is a sociosexually ineffective person - someone who is likely to misperceive the level of sexual intent in a social setting; becuase of what a persons wears or something else about their outward appearance for instance. What kind of person thinks a pair of shoes can communicate sexual intent or is a reflection of a persons sexual desire?

Displaying cleavage doesn't communicate anything to me Miss - actually not true - the fact that you thought it did tells me you have no idea about your sexuality and to steer clear.

Overt sexualisation is a great way to get a mans attention, but a horrible way to keep it. Sex isnt the glue that binds men to women. The stuff that keeps us in your arms is emotional stability and dependability. Its ironic that females seem to have embraced, from latter revisions of feminist ideoligical dogma, that they are all rights and no responsibilities. Feminism is guilty of much the same as countless other ideologies premised on entitlement by existemce. No one deserves anything because they say so, irrespective of the millions of carefully constructed word festivals that they sponsor and attend. You get power because you fight for it. Freedom is not given it is taken. And getting it is not as hard as keeping it.

l think that a lot of females realise how difficult it is to play this game of equality with men on an equal footing. Its much easier to push the biological buttons. Emotion and instinct are much more effective and efficient tools than reason and intellect. Why waste time appealing to reason when you can just flash some flesh and get that bag of male hormones to dance on the end of your string?

Problem with raunch culture is two fold. Firstly, its self deprecating and biologically reductionist. It flies in the face of the claims to equality when one falls back on the old ploys. Undermines credibility and fosters disrespect. Speaks to a deeper malaise. Hence the swathe of dissillusioned men who wont commit, cohab, marry, father or even have relationships with females. This sort of overt appeal to sex also reflects a condascendingly base view of males, which in turn further undermines your own credibility. It may be easy to love females due to biology, but when they project such a derogatory view of males, they make themselves very difficult to like and respect. You get what you give.

(cont)