I think the article is spot-on. Marketing and gender power-games tell us that women are the most desirable, obtain-at-all-costs objects imaginable, but at a personal level men are punished if they treat them as sexual.

The way we dress is a tool of communication. If a woman uses that tool to broadcast "I am sexually active and available", it is utterly hypocritical to then treat men like animals for reacting to that signal.

Let's take the same situation in reverse. What if a man offers love and intimacy on order to bask in female attention, then withdraws it as soon as it becomes inconvenient? Do we say that a woman should have more control over her emotions, and not take the bait? Of course not. The bloke gets labelled as a cruel bastard.

Somehow, however, women have scored the double whammy. They can lead men on with what they know men most desire, then take it away when they've had their fun. But for a man to do the same is considered the height of treachery.

Let's reach a compromise. If women can tease men and cry "pervert!" when it elicits the intended reaction, then it's fair for men to say "I love you and I'll take care of you" and laugh in a woman's face and leave once he gets bored of the sex.

Not really!

"What doesn’t make sense is how, in our culture, I’m expected to pretend that I didn’t notice."

No, you're expected to assume that what is on display is not on offer. If you taught your three kids not to grab everything that catches their eye, you've started them on the right track. Go and talk to actual rape victims and you'll find that very few of them were letting it all hang out, so to speak, when they were attacked. I've never met your daughter, but I'll bet there's more to her than hors d'oevres.

More: http://andrewelder.blogspot.com/2006/11/on-display-im-tired-of-silly-articles.html

In this world people face all sorts of temptation, and the good parent and teacher helps people past the idea that you've gotta have whatever you fancy - whether it's sex or anything else we're offered in our in-your-face, consumerist society. Rise above it Dave.

VK3AUU says: "Ronnie Peters, you ought to get out into the real world a bit." Great xample of real slippage from a virtual identity.

So I live in a bubble? Why is testing a faulty syllogism deemed not to be living in the real world? How do you figure that?

Don't you think that line is a little passé? Not only am I in the real world , but I have experiences that give me some insight. Some of them pretty painful. Maybe you should direct your nonsense to Dave Smith and Sheikh Hilal who need to get real when it comes to delivering sensible and logical arguments.

By the way. Ronnie Peters is a human; it follows that, he is a sentient being who must know and be real. Therefore, Ronnie Peters must be in the real world. Correct me if I am wrong. VK you failed to convince like DS and SH.

Why would anyone try to suggest a person had no real world existence or experience? Negate their arguments with more illogical nonsense. The virtual death of reason. Is that what you want? Religious inspired pap with no grounding in reason or truth. Back to the days of heresy? Sounds like VK has an ingrained dislike for reason and a penchant for killing off different positions. It is easy to make assumptions harder to develop them into proper arguments.

If I choose to criticise a failed argument in the way I have, then you can only assume that I am interested in the truth of arguments. The other implied assumptions you make are just ideological loading.

Partaking in these debates is a real activity. My history and reading informs me enough to partake in this discursive formation. Actually, any positve input would enhance the discourse.

VK, Dave Smith and Sheik Halil need to get out in the real world too. So what? Your attempt at evoking emotion is a deceptive practice? Had you real understanding in the world of ideas you would know that that is wrong-headed approach. Do you want to turn off the enlightenment too?

What a heap of ordure

We have laws that try to prevent young people, under the age of 16, from being sexually exploited, either through actual sexual activity, or by being used as the subjects of pornography.

These laws are in place, partly, because it is considered that children under the age of 16 are unable to give informed consent to these activities. That is, that under the age of 16 a child (because that is what they are in the eyes of the law) is not mature enough to make informed choices for themselves in these areas.

However, we do not have laws that prevent people under 16 from dressing and acting in ways that suggest that they are advertising themselves as available for sexual activity.

Why do we assume that if young people should be protected (and I believe that they should be protected), that these same young people are able to make informed choices about their manner of dress and conduct in public?

If a person with a pornographic / sexually suggestive image or video of a young person can be charged with an offense, why should a young person be permitted to dress or act in a sexually suggestive manner?

And shouldn't parents who provide sexually explicit garments to children, such as g-strings and padded bras for ten year olds, similarly be charged with sexual exploitation? If a stranger gave a child these items they could be charged with 'grooming', so why not the parents?

All I am suggesting is equality of the law: if it is illegal, as it should be, to exploit children, it should be illegal for children to present themselves, or to be presented by their parents, as available for exploitation.

This article by Dave Smith, and most of the responses to it, demonstrate that what I and many other said in the wake of Sheik Hilali's comments (and were shouted down for our troubles) is true: Many other religions, and many other Australians, share Hilali's views about womens' attire (they just use more polite language) and share his impulse to remonstrate women for what they choose to wear and attribute to women a measure of responsibility for what men then choose to do. Many men (and women) wish to control and make rules about how women present themselves, for reasons that entirely escape me.

And many of the people who so believe were the ones shouting loudest for the Sheik's deportation or worse, saying such views have no place in Australia. I say, if it's good for the goose... (and he really is a goose).