Hearing a few stories about men fighting outside nightclubs around here this week reminded me of the ongoing unfulfilled myths, hypocrisy and unreasonable pressure put on one part of the community by the reactionaries.(eg http://abcchurch.blogspot.com )
Tell me I am wrong , but its suits men to promote the idea but ask any man on the planet (pushy or not) whether they want to marry a girl who is easy. The men boast and the women feel guilty. Are we really looking after our daughters, or in no talk while our kids rage and be raged upon. Noone seems to be gettting what they would really like- hence the fight . Lets have the facts, and not focus on the exceptions. The idea is a curse.

You said: " Noone seems to be gettting what they would really like- hence the fight"

So it's chicks fault the guys fight outside clubs?

...and a blog on BLOGGER as evidence of ignorance written by JOURNEYMANJ and LITTLE JOHN...?

Ummm ya THINK?

The latest rules here are, no hard liquor after 2 am. Surely the damage has been done before 2 am.
Who would want to be drinking hard liquor that time of night.
I think this night club scene is one of drink and drugs, i fail to see the entertainment value in it.
If this is what comes with a free society, do we really need it.
I say a mix of free, with common sense would be more appropriate.
This night club drama is costing us heaps,with property damage, and unsafe streets, i say we would be better off without it.
This is AU we don't have to follow the stupid antics that occur overseas

Good question StG , but blame isn't my game although I am suggesting that women don't go Yes . It takes 2 to tango and my issue is with why our daughters willingly go to such places when in the old days men payed for the pleasure in such areas . Is someone going to say Greer was right in offering her gender more freedom and fulfilment ? Maybe the acceptance of this change of thinking has to do with the fickleness of women and the silence of men? Either way, as every community is saying , the frustrustion on the streets is at fever point and the idea of "Having fun there " is not working .
Let's start at the basics . Would you StG let you daughter (assumming you had one ) go to one of these places? Let someone who would --say so here !

Dear Hanrahan,

You ask, "What has the sexual revolution ever
done for women?"

I think that a new, affluent generation of young
people challenged the traditional norms and values
in many areas of society, sexuality included.

The women's movement arose, demanding changes in
the established relationships of the sexes.
And, importantly at that time a new technology
became widely available: the birth-control pill,
which permitted a separation of the pleasurable
from the reproductive aspects of sexual behaviour.

Today, however, things that were once considered
scandalous, such as open cohabitation by unmarried
couples, X-rated movies, or nudity on the stage,
now arouse far less concern. Opinion polls show
substantial tolerance for diversity in sexual
behaviour, however, they also show a continued
commitment to marital fidelity and a declining
interest in promiscuity.

Researchers agree that increasingly judgements
about right and wrong in sexual matters are based
on the attitude that moral behaviour is that which
involves mutual affection and respect and does no
physical or psychological harm to those involved.

The real question mark hanging over sexual attitudes
and practices today is AIDS. We associate sex with
the most loving, live-giving human impulses. The
equation of sex with death is something our culture is
totally unprepared for, and wrenching changes are
needed to deal with it.

As for violence outside nightclubs - I'm not sure what
the answer to that is - a stronger police presence at
night, earlier closing, heavier fines, education programs,
mates looking out for each other? Or all of these.

Where to begin with this stupidity.

"If this is what comes with a free society, do we really need it.
I say a mix of free, with common sense would be more appropriate."

Desmond, it is about WHO makes the decisions. Yes we need a free society. As for "a mix of free wit common sense" that's relinquishing the choice to government. Whose common sense should we blindly trust? Given the naivete of this comment, I wouldn't trust your idea of common sense.

"Would you StG let you daughter (assumming you had one ) go to one of these places? Let someone who would --say so here !"

Notably, you didn't ask whether you'd let your son go to one of these places and it's the men who are more commonly involved in violence.

And yet, you didn't ask about them. You focused on the women. As if they are the issue.

Which is a very telling comment.

If had a daughter and she was over 18, she'd be an adult. I'd hope she'd be wise enough to choose for herself. I certainly wouldn't be able to make the decision for her.

Adults make their own decisions.

Which kinda comes back to my first point.

Also I'm curious as to whether you Hanrahan, or you Desmond are a woman. I'm reasonably certain you're not.

Not that being a man disqualifies you from commenting, but I rather suspect women also would prefer to be able to make these decisions for themselves.

Hanrahan: <"Tell me I am wrong , but its suits men to promote the idea but ask any man on the planet (pushy or not) whether they want to marry a girl who is easy.">

... ask any woman on the planet whether they want to marry a male who is easy. Few women will respect, much less love, a male slut for long.

There are some PEOPLE - male and female - who are promiscuous. There are many PEOPLE - female and male - who are more selective and who seek sex in a loving, committed relationship.

TRTL is right. I should have said ...would you want them to.. . Are we going to let what I hope is a questioning of the excuses, mental twisting and lies sold to our daughters hide behind ...a, its no longer our responsibility clause ? Please , you silent ones out there...would you want your daughter to...?

Are we really behaving like men or mice here ?
I saw a man behaving like a mouse on the TV tonight . A father who quoted the opinion of a 15YO's as authorative - his own 15YO. Dad's opinion would have been far more important because Lindsay claims to lead the households of the country ( http://ecomia.blogspot.com ). As Melinda Tankard Reist pointed out so well , men should be free to speak ( freedom of speech starts at home?)and disagree, but are they ? Or are the childrenincharge ?
The choice is clear - Labor let's everyone do what they like, so these non governors have no choice but to let the economy and the moral life of the country run itself . From the $900 gift to letting our daughters fall for crap .
Please , you silent ones out there -speak up!
Melinda also made the point that not enough is being done to prevent the selling of prostitution type behaviour to the young ones . My point too is that there are many young girls who are unaware of the implications of being there - maybe noone who cared enough tried to tell them that natural instinct provides a natural excuse for the rebellious teenager who has more hormone control than mind or experience control to guide them .
Whose problem is the lack of awareness?- our daughters or us fathers? Greer was wrong and is still wrong - freedom come at a cost Come on girls, say something here !
Cumon, talk about your daughters and what you want for them !StG

Hanrahan, others have already asked but you seem to have missed it.

Why the exclusive focus on daughters?

R0bert

Dear Hanrahan,

You ask, "What do we want for our daughters?"

The same as what we want for our sons.

What is important as I've said in the past is the
content of our children's hearts and minds, or what
is often described as character. When we say,
"It's what's inside that counts," we speak a simple
but profound truth.

It seems that our job as parents is to raise a decent
human being.

Decency might sound like a modest ambition,
but in today's culture it's not so easy to achieve as
we might think. Every parent I know lives with the
uneasy sense that their children are growing up too fast.
I hope that I have instilled in my children clear values
and a real code to live by. I tried to raise them with a
sturdy sensibility, a world view, and I wanted it to
be different from the "Me" mentality of modern culture.

I understand that these are difficult times for parents.
When you realize that your child is just as likely to find a
condom as a flower, at the park.

I remember a friend's daughter excitedly telling her mother about
the "great story," she had just read, and that in the book
"Alice and her boyfriend French kissed."

"French kissed?" her mother was dumbfounded.

The little girl explained how great a French kiss was!

Great indeed!

But, in retrospect - in thinking about this problem, I began
to realize that if you have a six-to-ten year old who liked
to read, this in many ways was an unavoidable aspect of our
cultural landscape.

It makes sense to be aware of what your children are reading,
and to make sure that the best
books - including classics old and new, are also avialable
to them.

Our role as parents is not to protect our children from the
truth, but to protect them from something LESS than the
truth! And the truth is that - yes, French kissing may be
wonderful, but love is even better!

This is the sort of discussion that could go on forever : You say all we want to do is bring up a decent child. [To whose standards ]
Young people are followers of fashion. [Is it fashion you are combating] Maybe instead of looking at what's happened, it may be time to see what's about to happen.
On the news tonight i saw a female with a fabric star covering her nipples and the rest was see through mesh.
Wheres the standard, Why not blokes with their stork in a sheif like hey do in New Guinea. [will that be fashion ]
We may be targeting the wrong age group. [Could be gettin to old.]

Just an interesting note for the feminists.It was the Rockerfeller family who heavily premoted equal rights for women to enter the work force,since the corporate elites would then have two family members to tax,take insurances,mortages,medical bills etc.

Families are now worse off even with two incomes because mortages are enormous with taxes ,child care and the extra costs of a subsequent dysfunctional society.

Why daughters ?Because as i said initially i don't think the sexual revolution has really done anything for women in particular . Let me add that many of my generation talked about freedom without cost, but now the kids try to live it, they bear the consequences!
The russian rebels didn't take as long as Australia will to give up on the idea of free love .
Let's not be dumb about this , some young girls are smart enough to recognize that hanging around the streets and trying it all on is not for them.
These girls see their parents as woosy in letting them chose without being clear about the consequences ( hence my question ) ,
Many children see my generation ( over 50's) as woosy in just that same way as I see Lindsay Tanners public declaration of his own his daughters opinion as weak willed and woosy .( Can't express a moral opinion now can we ?)
These girls are not religious ( yet ) but who would blame them if they chose a birka instead of a ' you do what you like badge " for everything ..Maybe we don't know our children as well as we think because many modern women are not happy with the lifestyle that silly reactionaries like Greer and Mead gave licence to.
You know the story girls , if the men won't speak up , you should!

Hanrahan

Maybe this article by Bel Mooney published today in Mail Online expresses what you are trying to say:

Title: "My generation created the sexual revolution - and it has been wrecking the lives of women ever since".

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1232485/My-generation-created-sexual-revolution--wrecking-lives-women-since.html

Bel Mooney (1946-) is part of your generation and was around to witness the changes.

I think she does make some very telling points but what do you think of the article?

Cornflower, the article you put forward is indeed quite interesting and despite considering myself a (small l) liberal, I agree with the general thrust of the piece.

However I didn't see any arguments in favour of government intervention. That's quite a key point in my view.

In my view, the sexual revolution was about more than just having free, more open sex. There was the pill, which allowed for choice regarding pregnancy. To my mind, this was unquestionably a positive thing for women's rights, and women in general.

The attitude that women needed to have sex to be accepted however, was of course I downside. I don't condone it in the least. Offering women greater choice and autonomy however, was unquestionably a good thing.

The tragedy is that some women didn't feel they had the choice to say no. Both the choice to say yes and no needs to be a free decision. That was the ideal of the sexual revolution. It wasn't necessarily the reality, but consider the alternative -

Would it really be better for women to be unable to choose to have liaisons as a man does? There is already unreasonable stigma (labelling women as sluts and so on) attached to it. It's simply not fair than men aren't subjected to the same criticism.

So would we really want this codified in laws?

Similarly, with prostitution and pornography - I frequently hear people arguing to ban both, however again this comes back to choice. Banning the oldest profession would force it underground and ultimately make it more dangerous, similar arguments can be made for pornography.

Consenting adults make their own choices. That needs to be a guiding principle (of course, with caveats, hence 'guiding') in society.

The real question to ask, is what would be the alternative to the sexual revolution? Pray tell, what is being proposed?

All I hear is that parents really talk with their daughters and make them aware of the world out there. Now that, I wholeheartedly endorse.

TRTL:"It's simply not fair than men aren't subjected to the same criticism."

Why? Men and women are different. There are many aspects of our culture that have evolved out of that particular fact.

For example, if I criticise or ridicule a woman on here, no matter how extreme her post, I'm called "antiwomen", yet if a woman does the same to a man she's called "strong" and the "white knights" all clap approvingly. Is that fair?

We've just had a law passed here in Qld that says a woman need not leave a violent relationship, but can choose to kill her partner and she will not be held accountable. Is that fair?

There are insurers who offer young women better rates than young men. Is that fair?

Once a woman has exercised her right to sexual self-determination and falls pregnant, she can choose not to tell the father and can simply refuse to disclose who it was, thus depriving him of ever knowing his child. Is that fair?

If a woman commits the same crime as a man she will be held to much less account by the Courts. Is that fair?

Some seem to think that only women are capable of being the subject of unfairness.

TRTL:"The real question to ask, is what would be the alternative to the sexual revolution? Pray tell, what is being proposed?"

That's like asking how to unscramble an egg. The fact is that it has occurred and the consequences are still being felt. One of the consequences has been the breakdown of the family unit, to the detriment of the last couple of generations of children.

Eventually, I suspect, our culture will come to terms with the possibilities, both positice and negative, offered by the sexual revolution. Like any revolution, it will be a great thing to look back at.

Turnrightthenleft

"Would it really be better for women to be unable to choose to have liaisons as a man does? There is already unreasonable stigma (labelling women as sluts and so on) attached to it. It's simply not fair than men aren't subjected to the same criticism."

Much as I tire of repeating myself, garbage like that cannot go unchallenged. Men are under substantial pressure not to sleep around. It takes many forms, from complimenting men for staying with one woman to this vicious way that women are expected to treat men after a relationship ends. You would have participated in this at some time.

Similarly women's choices are influenced by a number of factors. As Bel Mooney argued in the article that Cornflower found, "it's absurd to suggest that we exist in isolation, that we are not shaped by the culture we inhabit." It is only proper that these influences be discussed.

The sexual revolution has done nothing for anybody, but women themselves. Women giving birth in their forties, has got to be the worst ever. 10% of all kids born are autistic. Two incomes have done nothing, but over inflate house prices. And these people carry the nations debt. When you are grey in the head, you will still be paying mortgage, and changing nappies. It's all about me me me.

Ah. I'd forgotten I was at the headquarters of the one-eyed-male-victim-society.

Cheer up lads. Someday you'll realize that the world isn't just out to get men.

... hopefully.

Antiseptic: "Some seem to think that only women are capable of being the subject of unfairness."

Nope. Both are. Both are quite capable of whingeing about it too and pretending their side is the only one who is suffering, leading them to ignore the other side entirely.

I do agree with you in regard to finally coming to terms with the sexual revolution. The difference is that I think it was ultimately necessary, though like every leap forward it takes time to deal with.

benk: "Men are under substantial pressure not to sleep around"

The discussion began about men in nightclubs. Are young men in nightclubs under substantial pressure not to sleep around?

Last time I checked, it was usually a badge of honour, in stark contrast to women.
So this "garbage" tends to be right in most instances I'd argue.

Frankly, I think a large number of guys don't take this "pressure" that you speak of seriously, given the examples you gave. Except after a breakup when someone is left emotionally hurt. That however, cuts both ways. Both can feel guilt after a breakup. The only exceptions are hardened people - male or female. This "men are the only ones who cop it" stuff, now that's garbage.

Desmond: It's those people's choice. Good thing people are living longer. If they're dumb enough to have kids at that age, well, that's their call. It's not about you, you, you.

Dear Desmand,

We can criticize young people - we can blame the
so called "sexual revolution" on permissive behaviour,
however, the picture is not predominantly dark. A great
majority of young people behave responsibly. There are
many more serious students in high school and university
than there have ever been before. Tens of thousands
have risked jail working against an illegal war.
Young people are more outspoken on topics they feel
concerned about ranging from abortion, homosexuality,
and so on.

Parents today find it particularly difficult to know
how much direction to give their children male and female
about sexual matters. I'm not assuming that there is only
one right set of morals. Morals will always be quite
different in different countries, at different social levels
even in the same community, and somewhat different in every
family. I'm only encouraging parents to be clear and firm
in passing on the set of morals and ethics which they
themselves believe in.

As Bel Mooney pointed out in the Daily Mail, "We are unique,
complex, multi-faceted creatures...shaped by our family
values, by personal reactions to events, and by the culture
we inhabit..."

As a parent all I can hope to do is teach my children
responsibility for their own choices and as I lose
my children to the great seduction called life, I have to also
learn to let go. Letting go is a most timportant step;
letting go of roles and the power we have had all of our lives
as parents. Letting go and having faith
that the lessons learned will be remembered. It's not easy,
but it's necessary, unless you want to be a parent who
has to be "dealt with" instead of a parent to whom they
will continue to turn to for advice.

Turnrightthenleft

"Last time I checked, it was usually a badge of honour, in stark contrast to women." I'm guessing that last time you checked was quite a while ago.

Men who sleep around put alot of effort into persuading their victims that they are looking for something long term. They are careful not to discuss their conquests too openly and exaggerate how hurt they were when their last relationship ended. Oh, and lets not forget all of those special, teary, "you said that you would call me...you barstard" moments.

By contrast, women who sleep around cannot help themselves but big-note. It gets the attention of gullible blokes who will put them up on the pedistool where they feel at home. Plenty of women will piss in the pocket of these tramps as well. No matter how over-confident a woman is being, there always seems to be people around who have learned that it is safer to applaud high self esteem than criticise arrogance.

Foxy

Agreed and well put.

Youthful exuberance and risk taking are to be expected, condoned even. Risk-taking cannot be or made 'safe' through State bans, the only reasonable response is to raise youth who are informed, resilient and make good members of society. That is achieved through setting boundaries early in life and being adult enough to be their advisor and support, not their friend.

Nightclubs, drunks and bad behaviour
The misfortune is that nightclubs and pubs are usually the only venues available that offer the music, dancing and opportunity to dress up a bit and socialise - innocent enough pleasures in themselves that young people, especially young women, are looking for.

However, nightclubs are almost invariably owned and run by the seediest members of society, who daily demonstrate their unsuitability for owning a liquor licence, which for some is just a front for more lucrative criminal activities. The crux of the problem is in the policing. There is so much money in drugs that corruption is inevitable, which is a compelling reason for regular mobility of senior police and others in high places, including parliament.

I don't believe that the sexual revolution has anything to do with 99.99% of the serious risks we are concerned about with youth.

Of course if you were the Pope you'd damn the Pill and want to roll back the sexual revolution because that is how you lost most of your control over people. Ah, the salad days of the fundamentalist religions, when sex was a forbidden, guilty, dirty thing - unless authorised to produce more 'lambs' for the priest's flock of course.

In my second paragraph above, the second sentence should have read, "Risk-taking cannot be prevented or made 'safe' through State bans, the only reasonable response is to raise youth who are informed, resilient and make good members of society."

TRTL:"Nope. Both are."

Now we're getting somewhere. Are you also starting to come to a realisation that for all sorts of reasons people are treated differently by our culture? The fact that those differences exist doesn't imply any lack of "fairness", but usually reflects hstorical historical ways of addressing persistent social conditions.

You say "It's simply not fair than men aren't subjected to the same criticism.", yet until only 40 years ago a woman who opened her legs too readily was likely to end up pregnant in short order, while a man who put it about faced no such risk. Up until only 80 years ago, with the invention of penicillin, if someone got a venereal disease they had it for life. Both men and women shared the risk, yet only the woman risked passing it to an unborn child.

These facts lead to certain cultural prejudices designed to make it less scoially acceptable for women to engage in promiscuity: for their own protection rather than for any oppressive motives.

What you and the rest of the Victim Appreciation Society don't seem to grasp is that every time we exercise our self-determination we must have cognisance of the consequences. Pretending that the consequences of sex can ever be the same for men and women is simply stupid, therefore pretending that our culture is "unfair" for treating them differently is at best disingenuous.

Besides, women have always been the ones who decide who gets to have sex. As my Mum used to say: "a woman with her skirt up can run faster than a man with his pants down". Some men have been prepared to take what they can't get by other means, but for most people the woman is the "gatekeeper". Is that fair?

Cornflower:"Risk-taking cannot be prevented or made 'safe' through State bans"

nAnna Bligh here in Qld thinks it can. Engaging in "unregulated high risk activity", such as climbing a tree, for example (unless you're a trained climber, of course), is an offence and renders one subject to arrest.

Fortunately, nAnna and her lapdog, Cameron the Dick will be gone at the next elction, but I'll bet the LNP doesn't repeal the law...

Antiwomen: << As my Mum used to say: "a woman with her skirt up can run faster than a man with his pants down". Some men have been prepared to take what they can't get by other means, but for most people the woman is the "gatekeeper". Is that fair? >>

What an appalling statement. However, I'm not at all surprised that you attribute your antediluvian attitude to women to your mother. Quite Freudian, really.

Sex isn't something that women "give" and men "get". That realisation was pretty much the whole point of the 'sexual revolution', along with the freedom for women and men to engage in sexual relationships without being stuck with some loser for life.

As we read so regularly at OLO, there are apparently quite a few people - mostly men - who'd like to take us back to the 1950s. The greatest benefit of the 'sexual revolution' is that the more enlightened majority can tell those sad sacks to go jump.

Pomeranian:"Pphhwwwoof, phhwwwoof"

erm... hang on little fella, you're meant to be responding to the whistle, not trying to blow it. You know you're much better at sniffing than blowing.

Now we've got that worked out for you, why don't you try to tell me precisely what you think I said that was wrong?

Have you ever forced yourself on a woman when she was unwilling and you were keen? Does that not make her the "gatekeeper"?

There's another old saying: "some people are just thick"...

Cornflower . Yes Bel Mooney makes a very strong , welcome and pointed case for reform .Thanks for that.
Nothing worse than more blame game. The really important thing too here is not more theory but lets cut to the chase -the consequences of the idea .Like Marxism well intentioned but ineffective even destructive effects on the human spirit. Time for objective review and honest reflection. Use as few words as possible
Martin Amis provides the model - I don't want to hear more theory on this subject. I want to hear people who care about people cause that's where Martins story on Susan carries more weight than all our blogs put together.

Note the young people leaving the church and the reality of admission in the public sphere- opportunities for growth ....if you listen? http://abcchurch.blogspot.com

Antiwomen, you're positively Neanderthal.

<< Have you ever forced yourself on a woman when she was unwilling and you were keen? >>

Er, no - have you? I believe it's called rape.

<< Does that not make her the "gatekeeper"? >>

I think that "gatekeeping" is a pretty poor metaphor here, old chap. Women are either sexually receptive or not - most men these days are capable of spotting the difference, but I'm not all that surprised that you can't.

You may be surprised to learn that there are even occasions when men aren't in the mood for sex when their partners are. What do you think happens then?

One of the great things about the 'sexual revolution' is that women were permitted to assert their sexuality without necessarily attracting shame, but I suspect you've never noticed that.

"Women are either sexually receptive or not - most men these days are capable of spotting the difference"

'Sexually receptive'? That is getting a bit clinical and reminiscent of someone talking about their German Shepherd bitch, but full marks if your senses are so finely attuned. Please don't elaborate, too much information.

Women (and men) like to think that it it not all instinctive and that their brains and choice figure in there somewhere.

CJMorgan:"You may be surprised to learn that there are even occasions when men aren't in the mood for sex when their partners are. What do you think happens then?"

In my experience, lots of pestering and a bit less sleep. What do you think happens then?

Cornflower:"That is getting a bit clinical and reminiscent of someone talking about their German Shepherd bitch, but full marks if your senses are so finely attuned."

Well, we are talking about the Pomeranian here. The little fella can sniff a bitch in heat from miles away. Sadly though, his ambition far exceeds his ability, and he's often a bit confused about which bitch is which, hence the constant danger of a frotted leg when he's about.

Antiwomen: << In my experience, lots of pestering and a bit less sleep >>

So, in your experience, do you consider yourself a "gatekeeper"? What a sad case you are.

Cornflower - Antiwomen seems obsessed by dogs, so I was using language that he might understand.

Pomeranian:"So, in your experience, do you consider yourself a "gatekeeper"? "

Why on Earth would I? To what would I be "keeping the gate"?

Do try to keep up, little fella.

Still there, little fella?

There's another old saying Mum used to love, which seems especially appropriate for you:

"Better to keep your mouth shut and have people think you're a fool than open it and remove all doubt"

She didn't have much time for lapdogs either. She thought they were a product of defective genetics and far too much inbreeding. I agree.

Antiwomen: << "Better to keep your mouth shut and have people think you're a fool than open it and remove all doubt" >>

Perhaps you should stop dribbling on about your mother and dogs then - not to mention all those dreadful women who don't measure up to your mother.

You seem to be getting yourself in a bit of a lather again, old chap. Feeling a bit bitter, twisted and lonely this weekend, are we?

Dear Anti,

There's another saying:
(bit rude) but funny:

Want to get laid?

Crawl up a chicken's ass and wait!

Gentlemen, again you seem to get a little distracted again .

How about One of you at least answer my question ? If you had a daughter , how would you feel about all the hype over the last 40yrs and its effect on the rational decisions of teenagers, now.

Hanrahan:<"How about One of you at least answer my question ? If you had a daughter , how would you feel about all the hype over the last 40yrs and its effect on the rational decisions of teenagers, now.">

I have two daughters and a son. None of them were or are promiscuous. However, when they were in high school I encouraged them to participate in a health youth group where they talked about sexual activity; sexual safety; peer pressure and personal morals and beliefs.

I think you'll find that teenagers in general are less promiscuous than is commonly believed. By Grade 12, approximately half of boys and girls have had intercourse. Of those, less than 10 % is casual sex. Another approx 10 % is unwanted sex perpetrated against them by a child sex abuser. The majority (over 30 %) of consensual sex is with someone they know well like a long term boyfriend or girlfriend.
FIFTY percent are not sexually experienced or sexually active.

What worries me is 'self fulfilling prophecy'. If adults expect young people to be sluttish then young people are more likely to think that it's the norm and inevitable. It increases pressure on them to think there's something wrong with them for saying, "No".

Have some confidence in them.

Popular music, films, magazines and the like can give youth the impression that sex is common in their age group and they could be left out if they don't act the part as well. Inevitably there is a lot of pressure to comply with the standards of the group the young person is part of or would like to join.

This makes it all the more important that we encourage children to question, think for themselves and recognise the persuaders for what they are. They should be encouraged to take risks - done gradually with with some judgement from caring parents and others adults such as coaches and teachers.

It is the child with the low ego who is always vulnerable, but simple things like a bit of travel and success in independent activities eg cooking, crafts, photography and bush-walking can do to improve ego.

Of course some countries have done their level best to protect their people from the sexual revolution and any other information/liberty that could result in independence of thinking. This article gives an example :

http://www.news.com.au/world/women-caned-for-illicit-set-grateful/story-e6frfkyi-1225832325047

Foxy:"Crawl up a chicken's ass and wait!"

That must be what the little fella is up to with all his leg-humping: just trying to crawl up that chicken's arse. Shame it's beyond his reach...

My Mum was fond of another one, too: "lie down with dogs, wake up with fleas". I bet those chickens do a lot of scratching...

Hamrahan:"If you had a daughter , how would you feel about all the hype over the last 40yrs and its effect on the rational decisions of teenagers, now."

I do have a daughter and I also have a son, both of whom are just on the cusp of adolescence. I have made a point with both of them of making personal responsibility a feature of their upbringing. they are allowed to make their own decisions on all sorts of things, but they know they can and will be called to account if their decisions are poor ones. They spend time thinking about things before jumping in.

When I see them interacting with their friends, I see very little different to what I saw among my own peers. While there is much hype, as you say, and while there is a certain amount of cultural influence on personal expression of sexuality, I expect that their own ewxperiences of early sexuality will be comparable to my own.

For once, I agree with pynchme.

Pynchme

Yes

Cornflower

No

An obsession with protecting self esteem is the problem. Men who sleep around are noted for their arrogance. It takes huge self esteem to treat women as expendable. Women who sleep around can more than match these blokes for arrogance. They like the way that their reputation attracts the type of man who will put them on a pedistool where they think they belong. They think that they are so fantastic that they can sleep around and still be gods gift to men.

I respect men who think "when you have a nice girlfriend, keep her".

I respect women who think "if I want someone who loves me, I cannot afford to look like a slut."

Teaching our children humility is the key.

Foxy, I loved that chicken joke! Lol :)

Benk <" I respect men who think "when you have a nice girlfriend, keep her". I respect women who think "if I want someone who loves me, I cannot afford to look like a slut."

I respect men who respect the rights of women to wear what they choose.

I respect women who wear what they like and don't give a damn what men think!

Dear Suze,

The chicken joke made me laugh out loud.

Here's a few more you might enjoy:

All men are animals,
Some just make better pets!

Many a man thinks himself extremely sensitive simply
because he's easily put out.

Men think "monogamy" is something you make dining
room tables out of.

If Michaelangelo were a heterosexual, the
Sistine Chapel would have been painted basic
white and with a roller.

I dress for women, and undress for men.

I'm not a snob. Ask anybody.
Well, anybody that matters.

In my sex fantasy, nobody ever loves me
for my mind.

Egotism - just a case of mistaken nonentity.

There are two kinds of women - goddesses
and doormats.

Today - the way to be subversive is to think.

Stupidity is not a crime -
So you're free to go!

Keep it up -
I'm re-loading!

Excellent Foxy!
In keeping with the sexual revolution and the men who welcomed it- I offer the following quotes:

Why be a man when you can be a success? -

The male is a domestic animal who, if treated with firmness and kindness, can be trained to do most things. -

Nothing astonishes men so much as common sense and plain dealing. -

A man who has been the indisputable favourite of his mother keeps for life the feeling of a conqueror. -

In all systems of theology, the devil figures as a male person. -

If man evolved from the ape, how come there are still apes around?
Some of them were given choices. -

Most men prefer looks to brains, because most men see better than they think.

Women sometimes make fools of men, but most guys are the do-it-yourself type.

Hey Foxy, I think we have the makings of a new thread!

Dear Suze,

Go for it - great idea!

All this politics stuff is wearing a bit thin!

Same old, same old ...

We need to have some fun!

Maybe we have come back closer to the original question .I am all for the girls thinking - maybe that explains why so many are rejecting the idea of playing open door like the media suggest they should . Maybe your daughter will, like we did , reject her parents advice, and, instead of trying to dodge the heavy traffic in our drug and hype laden streets, decide to wear a burka.
Rebellion is the paradigm of the past, so why not the paradigm of the future? Why wouldn't some young people reject the hypocrisy the frustration, the false fantasy and regrets that are all before them courtesy of our generation of woosy "do what you feel like' advice from all directions .
Maybe young people want to have more lasting fun than the BB are offering them in generation report ads like those ON ABCTV http://abcchurch.blogspot.com
If the selling culture is so much fun, why aren't men and women getting together and having it? Why increasingly is the night out a boys night out - maybe the girls are increasingly thinking and the boys not? Someone do a survey and see please!

Suzie and Foxy,

You know I luv you girls. Sistas and all that.

BUT I can't get with those sort of jokes. I know a lot of
blokes would laugh them off but I still feel it isn't
ok to tell jokes that belittle men, just like I don't like
dumb blonde jokes and the like.

Could we make the jokes less gender based ? Maybe like
this:

Plane Conversation


A stranger was seated next to Little Annie on the plane when the stranger turned to the Little Annie and said, "Let's talk. I've heard that flights will go quicker if you strike up a conversation with your fellow passenger."

Little Annie, who had just opened her book, closed it slowly, and said to the stranger, "What would you like to discuss?"

"Oh, I don't know," said the stranger. "How about nuclear power?"

"OK," said Little Annie. "That could be an interesting topic. But let me ask you a question first. "A horse, a cow, and a deer all eat grass. The same stuff. Yet a deer excretes little pellets, while a cow turns out a flat patty, and a horse produces clumps of dried grass. Why do you suppose that is?"

"Jeez," said the stranger. "I have no idea."

"Well, then," said Little Annie, "How is it that you feel qualified to discuss nuclear power when you don't know sh1t?"

Suze

Men who don't think of others are called selfish. Men are never allowed to forget the consequences of choices. Why should women be treated any different?

I understand that you are only conforming to your gender role by never criticising other women, but your attitude belongs in the past. Choices have consequences and women who understand this go alot further in life.

In Gone with the Wind, there is a scene where all of the ladies totter off for a sleep after lunch while them men discuss issues that the women need to be protected from. Some of us have moved on from those attitudes. I have, Hanrahan has, you need to join us.

Yes Pynchme, the joke was good alright! However, the thread is about what the sexual revolution has ever done for women, so I ran with that and put some jokes out there about men.

I would hazard a guess that there are far more put-downs about women in these forums than there ever will be about men, so I was just trying to even the score:).
Sorry if I upset you, but I wasn't trying to upset anyone.

Benk, I am not 'conforming' to any role at all. Just trying to have some fun really. Lighten up for goodness sake.

In actual fact 'Gone With The Wind' was my all time most favourite movie, and I would have LOVED to have lived in those days!
I don't believe that the women were protected from anything however.
It was a tough life for all in those days of civil war, as the rest of that movie showed very well.

suzeonline:"I would have LOVED to have lived in those days! "

Gawd 'elp us.

Hanrahan:"Why increasingly is the night out a boys night out"

Now that is a very interesting question indeed. It may be to do with the fact that many, many young men have seen what happened to Dad when Mum got tired of him and have decided not to put themselves in that position; it may be that they are simply getting tired of being the one expected to pay for everything when their g/f probaly earns as much if not more than they do; it may be they're rebelling against an increasingly rigidly feminised society, in which normal masculine activities are demonised at every turn and they simply want some space to be blokes.

There are any number of possible reasons, including the one you put forward, but you won't get a sensible discussion about them from the grrrls brigade: they're too busy being "solid" with their "sistagrrrls", albeit mostly between the ears.

Suze

I did-not object to your jokes about men. I took issue with the following comments;

"I respect men who respect the rights of women to wear what they choose.
I respect women who wear what they like and don't give a damn what men think!"

I see these comments as an example of paternalism, where women are seen as needing protection. I don’t think that this “do whatever you like and I will compliment you” attitude helps women.

I simply see myself as willing to be brutally honest. I believe that my attitudes towards women’s sexuality are quite moderate and common sense. I think that being flirty or slutty will make people think less of them and make it harder for them to get the best boyfriend that they can possibly get. I would say the same thing about sleazy men. I also dislike the way that many women complain about men who love them and leave them but make no effort to avoid these sleaze.

You on the other hand, seem unbelievably reluctant to post anything that might be seen as criticising any woman. By doing this, you are conforming very closely to your gender role.

Choices have consequences. Choosing to act in particular ways can have negative consequences for the woman involved and for women more generally. If women are going to be the most that they can be, these consequences need to be discussed. If the world is going to become a better place for women, then women need to think about what they can do to make this happen. Lastly, I don’t think that it helps women to be better people to encourage them to be so hypersensitive to criticism.

I think we're all supersensitive to criticism.
No one likes to be demeaned -
male or female - and referring to females as the
" grrr girl brigade" is unnecessary. But possibly
in this case - understandable - as a hit back
when the teasing hits a bit close to home.

Relationships at the best of times - aren't easy.
However, in a mature relationship, people can ideally
hold onto themselves, not being drawn into the drama
of reacting defensively if their partner throws a
tantrum. This is a case when individuals can be
authentic rather than what some mental therapists
call their "pseudo selves," trying to impress or please
others and denying their real feelings and fears.
The bottom line in our relationships will only be satisfactory
as we are in ourselves.

Hope this makes sense.

Suzie: <"I would hazard a guess that there are far more put-downs about women in these forums than there ever will be about men, so I was just trying to even the score:).">

Well that's a damned fact too - and they are much more directly hateful as well.

Suzie: <"Sorry if I upset you, but I wasn't trying to upset anyone.">

No matie you didn't upset me. You and Foxy would have to go a long way to be as mean as a good number of the woman-haters here on OLO, and even they don't upset me.

I just felt obliged to state an opinion on behalf of blokes who are different to the sorts in the jokes.

I know you and Foxy have men in your lives that you love dearly, just as I do; that's why I was sure you'd be ok with me making sure the other side of the coin was noted.

Dear Pynch,

I fully understand where you're coming from -
and you're right of course!
however...

Sometimes you've just got to give in to the dark
side (giggle). You get sick and tired of all the
PC - and think - "to hell with it, let it rip,
potato chip!" especially when the right buttons
are pushed.

You have no idea how many times I've wanted to say
to a religious, righteous nutter:

"Jesus loves you,
Everyone else thinks you're an asshole!"

or

"You're the reason God invented
the middle finger!"

But, no - you can't. That's rude - and you've got to be
polite. Avoid emotionally charged words - personal
attacks on an opponent is an admission of intellectual
bankruptcy - (et cetera, et cetera, et cetera).

Sometimes my instant reaction could be
"Blow it out of your pants mate!"

or

"Talking to you is about as effective as a
fart in a blizzard!"

But you take a break and come back to OLO -
when you're in a better frame of mind to communicate.

Anyway, sorry for all this - but I simply had
to get it off my chest!

Haha Foxy you wag!

Lmao.

One of my mental faves is, "I've only got two middle fingers."

Some people just warrant more than one hey :)

Foxy:"you've got to be
polite. Avoid emotionally charged words - personal
attacks on an opponent is an admission of intellectual
bankruptcy - "

Rot. Some opponents are simply not worth engaging with on any other level, since they're not capable of grasping simple concepts that most would regard as central to the discussion being held.

Besides, some people just invite ridicule by their existence. The po-faced wowsers who infest the gender threads practically demand mockery.

On the other hand, I don't much like people who abuse without wit. Whilst I am possibly one of the more vituperative posters here, I try to be witty in doing so. Yes, it's casting pearls before undeserving swine very often, but then, they're not my audience.

The worst form of conduct in these debates is the dog-whistle, used by some weakminded debaters to try to close down a discussion by flooding it with irrelevant "me toos".

Anti

I admire your knowledge of many subjects, the effort that you put into research and do have a laugh at most of your insults. I just think that the insults distract people from your message. Whenever anyone cannot find a comeback to the points that you raise, they just feign outrage at one of your insults. I understand that family law is emotionally charged for you, wouldn't you like to win converts to your point of view?

benk:"I just think that the insults distract people from your message."... "wouldn't you like to win converts to your point of view?"

The people who tend to engage with me on these subjects are zealots. They are not only convinced that all men are evil, they are convinced that all men will forever be evil. There is no way they can be convinced that they are wrong. The best service I can offer is to make these people so risible that they simply shut up. I don't usually have to work too hard at that...

On the other hand, there are many people who read these threads who never contribute. I am confident that they are reading my posts and nodding their heads. Most people recognise that hecklers deserve heckling and appreciate it if it's done well.

There are also some very clever and dedicated men, such as Greg Andresen, Ash Patil, John Flanagan, John Stapleton and many others who are doing good strong behind the scenes work, lobbying politicians, lodging complaints with Ombudsmans offices about the more egregious outbursts of Feminist-dominated bureaucracies, etc. Then there are the thousands of men amd women who write into newspapers, TV stations, etc giving their stories. Where once the only voice heard was that of the bitter ex-wife, now it is common to hear the other side of the story.

I think that my POV is becoming well accepted and that change will come. The grand social experiment has failed and the evidence for that continues to pile up.

If some see me as a demon to attack, good luck to them. They just give me a chance to make obvious their self-interested foolishness.

Foxy,

'
Sometimes you've just got to give in to the dark
side (giggle). You get sick and tired of all the
PC - and think - "to hell with it, let it rip,
potato chip!"'

See this is the kind of attitude I've long looked to foster in you. I always knew you had the potential. Don't you feel more alive?

pynchme,

'and they are much more directly hateful'

I cant agree. The amount of stuff that's been thrown at anti, really personal sh1t about his children, being a paedo and stuff, is often as a response to a generally sexist patronising comment from him, or even a general comment about single mothers or something. Sexist patronising and unfair generalisations in no way can be equated to accusing someone of bashing their wife and being a kiddie fiddler.

'I know you and Foxy have men in your lives that you love dearly'
As I'm sure does antiseptic. He probably loves some Women too.

I'm afraid you girls are often hiding behind a passive aggressive victim-hood smokescreen on these threads. Foxy's post confirms it to some degree. Most of the stuff you say like loving men etc bares no relation to how you argue about gender stuff and the image of men you are all constantly portraying.

You'll spend 10 posts creating this profile of the typical abusive man, throw around insults at antiseptic and co and then when they respond fall back on the 'oh, look at his attitude to women.'

I see you both as identical sides to the same coin, but with one party (anti) accepting his low pariah status and playing his part as the hated abusive man, and the high and mighty untouchable god given benefit of the doubt wholesomeness chicks covering their equal aggression with the thinnest (as that's all that's necessary given your gender) veneer of 'but I really love men' disclaimer.

A lot of this crap on these gender wars is really unnecessary. There is a reluctance for the genders to meet half way. And I'm not talking about on the issues (you cant realistically expect that), I'm talking about the norms of communication between men and women.

I mentioned on another thread how men have been brought up with a thicker skin. Men joke around and express themselves in a way shaped by the expectation that men have been socialised to have a laugh at each other, and shock, and the social contract not to be too worried about each others feelings.

Women on the other hand are all about being 'nice' and sparing any harsh truths and sugar coating stuff.

My example on another thread is of men openly laughing at each others shortcomings in appearance and women I have observed generally give affirmation to each other on the surface. But it applies more generally.

Anti shows a lack of desire to tone down his recourse for a female audience. The female audience, who we're always told has such high emotional intelligence, decide to deliberately discount antis more traditionally masculine way of conversing, take the moral high ground and use it to discredit his arguments.

As Foxy has shown, women can be constricted in outwardly showing blatant aggression and a lack of sensitivity, but would more than likely have the same aggression, just display it in the Fractelle patented ('excuse me for having an opinion while being female') passive aggression. Anti shows the emotional intelligence to recognise it for what it is. In a way I think he's the more intellectually honest, but I have a male bias.

Antis deliberate insensitivity and the chicks deliberate passive aggressive reaction creates a beautiful dance that makes these gender threads so entertaining.

Pity about those who want to reach some understanding. Though I'm not sure, by the behaviour and wilful ignorance and neglect displayed, there are many people really that disappointed. Well, I'm not. It's piss funny.

Antiseptic claims:

<<< The people who tend to engage with me on these subjects are zealots. They are not only convinced that all men are evil, they are convinced that all men will forever be evil. >>>

You would like to believe that people who disagree with your POV are "man-haters", however there is no evidence of that. People like Foxy, Pynchme, Suzeonline frequently express admiration for the men in their lives and are very clear on where they disagree with you. I suspect that you are projecting your own emotions into this debate; you feel you have been short-changed with regard to your custody arrangements - and maybe you have. However, that does not mean any women who do not agree with you, Antiseptic, hate ALL men. That indicates placing a rather large degree of importance on yourself - the world does not revolve around you or your opinion.

In conclusion, one thing the sexual revolution has done for women, is to give them the confidence to speak up, to proffer their opinions (whether right or wrong) even when some men, such as yourself, disagree. And more power to them.

"You would like to believe that people who disagree with your POV are "man-haters""

I can't speak for Anti, but I certainly believe that those people who defend and perpetuate legal systems and attitudes that are grossly unfair to men need to be held accountable.

Famiy law is unfair to men.

The misuse of AVOs is unfair to men.

Society's tendency to assume that men are villans and women are victims is unfair to men.

Accusing men who disagree with any woman of being sexist and unable to handle a woman having an opinion is unfair to men. Some of us have explained in minute detail why we disagree with many of Pynchme and Suze's opinions and it isn't because they are women

I'd just like to say a few words...

I feel that most of us whether it's in a relationship
or in the workplace, we're always negotiating our
own voice. I'm comfortable with my own ideas, I
believe they're worthy of being heard. I'm secure
and unafraid of speaking my own mind. My intentions
aren't to win some sort of "gender war," (I actually
wasn't aware there was one), and I always feel good
that I've spoken my mind without malice or anger,
but just from the depths of my truth.

Sure, sometimes I realize that perhaps I should
have said things differently (haven't we all thought
that at times?). But I've always been aware that it's
important to be conscious and compassionate and act
with great civility. There is nothing more unpleasant
for me than to see a person demeaned - as I've
watched it happen in my own home - growing up.

As far as OLO goes - I wasn't aware as I said that there
was a "gender war," of any kind going on. As far as
I'm aware - Antiseptic is more than capable of standing
his own ground in any discussion. As for -
Suze and Pynch, they are both people that I admire greatly -
because of their constructive debating skills. Their
attention is centred on the topic itself - and they
respond to the argument not the arguer.

Finally, it's silly to finger point - because for every
finger you point there's three pointing back at you - and
so it goes. You can't win. Besides as I've said before -

"A woman can say more in a sigh
than a man can say in a sermon!"

Women like silent men,
They think they're listening.

Back to the sexual revolution and the wondrous little pill that liberated women.

What interests me is why The Pill remains only available through prescription despite a successful forty years 'trial' and very low incidence of problems from it.

- Why shouldn't it be available from Coles and Woolies?

Demographics
Who could ever have forecast the mammoth effect one little pill would have on the demographics of Western countries?

- Could have resulted in environmental sustainability and a better quality of life for millions. Instead, the greed of the few required growth.

There is still time to release women in underdeveloped countries from the bonds of being baby factories. Liberation of women from unplanned pregnancy and being forced to carry umpteen children is the real sexual revolution. ZPG for the world should be the aim of governments not something they studiously avoid.

- However it would seem that having more women in positions of responsibility does not guarantee a change.

I would like to see the Pill available from vending machines world-wide. That is my wish for women and the world. That would be a real revolution.

H: <"Most of the stuff you say like loving men etc bares (sic, btw) no relation to how you argue about gender stuff and the image of men you are all constantly portraying.">

No Houellebecq. The image that's portrayed is of abusive men, not all men. You and others seem to have a problem differentiating or separating yourselves from abusive men. That's your image problem, not mine.

It's very interesting that in one post, females are blamed for being aggressive, passive - yet in relation to Foxy's posts, it's none other than YOU who takes the bow with, "See this is the kind of attitude I've long looked to foster in you". You've fostered? Thank goodness eh or Foxy might never have evolved towards her full posting potential.

Btw - I am sure it won't give you but a moment's laugh, but I find the term, "kiddie fiddler" irritating. It minimizes the distress that children experience when this very serious crime is foisted upon them. Many, though far from all, who have been "fiddled" end up deceased; at the least they are compelled to carry the psychological effects and the memories for a long time.

Foxy, another funny post last night from you...you are a very perceptive lady indeed!

Severin < " one thing the sexual revolution has done for women, is to give them the confidence to speak up, to proffer their opinions (whether right or wrong) even when some men, such as yourself, disagree. And more power to them."

Thanks for summing it all up so succinctly, and thanks for your' kind words. I am not used to that very often on these pages! (Oh dear, 'Septic is bound to comment on that!).

Cornflower, the contraceptive pill will never be available freely because there ARE many problems with the safe use of them without medical supervision.
Many women all over the world have suffered strokes, high blood pressure, blood clots, weight gain and mental disorders as a direct result of taking the pill.
The sexual revolution was certainly not all good for women either!

I have not been on this forum for much time monday and tuesday, because we have had a fire in our town. I guess those sorts of dramas bring you back down to earth again with a thud sometimes!

I take my hat off to the men and women of the many fire brigades that have been here now for more than 48 hours. Thank God this is one set of people who get on well together and just do their job.

Severin:"one thing the sexual revolution has done for women, is to give them the confidence to speak up, to proffer their opinions (whether right or wrong)"

Well, in my family that wasn't anything to do with any sexual revolution, it was a standard part of life for my mother, her mother, her aunts and her sisters, just as it was for me and my father, uncles and so on.

My paternal grandmother was a Dane who emigrated by herself after an early adult life of extensive travel, all self-funded by working wherever she happened to find herself. She did not come from wealthy parents. She met and married my grandfather, an Englishman from Yorkshire, who had also emigrated by himself. She was independent, self-confident, able to look after herself and that was back in the late 19th and early 20th century - my dad was born in 1915 and he was the third of her 5 children. His oldrer sister, my aunty Dulcie, is still alive and lives by herself in her flat at Manly. She's 98 this year and is and always has been fiercely independent. After my Grandfather died (hit by a horse after walking out from behind a tram) she ended up living by herself in a home she built herself, with some help from my Dad, who was a carpenter, near Tumut where she died in the late 50s. I never got to meet her, but I have read her diaries.

On my Mum's side they're Scottish paternally and Irish on my grandmother's side and as anyone who knows an Irish household understands, Irish women are not backward in coming forward. She came to live with us after my grandfather died and she brooked no interference with her own life from anyone at all.

It seems to me that all you silly little grrrls want someone else to tell you you're allowed to do things, rather than just making up your mind and doing it. It's all "men are such oppressors","men this, men that"; my Nannas and aunty Dulcie would think you're as weak as water.

Yeah nice work pynchme.

If you cant keep up with when I'm joking with another poster it's best you just keep your trap shut. Foxy knows she's the police.

You say the male posters are more hateful, then come up with 'You and others seem to have a problem differentiating or separating yourselves from abusive men.'

ie. You're really abusive men now aren't you? Got something to hide have you? Why don't you just come out and say it.

This and other quotes like 'I am sorry Antiseptic, but I believe that *Cotter* and DreamOn are trying to help you here. Me too.'

*Cotter*: 'are you aware that give the impression of a hostile, antagonistic individual who may be a risk to others?'

You grrrls think you are helping the abusive antiseptic come to terms with the fact that he really is an abusive man who threatened and probably hit his wife. You're being pretty disingenuous to then suggest it's he's imagining it all because he must have a guilty conscience.

'I took Chazp.'s post about sperm (Men as sperm doners only) as a challenge to the type of men who frequent the woman-hating menz sites (ie antiseptic) to reflect on how they conceive of themselves as men and what they have to GIVE rather than TAKE. If they can't force women and children to do their will...'

PS: Nice try with the kiddie fiddler stuff. This is the sort of passive aggression I'm talking about. Houellebecq uses a common term. That term is disrespectful of the seriousness... blah blah blah, hey Houellebecq is probably a kiddie fiddler given his attitude or at the very least is pretty suspect. He is male after all.

Seriously, why do you think that based on a term I used, that I need to be told of the serious consequences of child sexual abuse? Talk about high and mighty! Ohhh please educate me great compassionate pynchme! Being a man (hence an abuser), I couldn't possibly understand the damage caused. I think you'd be very surprised just how much I can personally relate.

suzeonline, "the contraceptive pill will never be available freely because there ARE many problems with the safe use of them without medical supervision."

I am going to call crap on that one. The Pill is used buy hundreds of millions of women and while there is the occasional serious side effect, such events have been very few and far between and highly publicised.

I suggest to you that catastrophising about the effects of the Pill limits women, especially girls financially and personally. It also restricts the availability of the Pill to women in developing countries, which would probably suit the Catholic Church and other fundamentalist religions.

It is safer than paracetamol or aspirin which are already sold in supermarkets and nowhere near as risky as the cough mixtures, antihistamines and the like.

Cornflower

<<< It is safer than paracetamol or aspirin which are already sold in supermarkets and nowhere near as risky as the cough mixtures, antihistamines and the like. >>>

Nonsense! I suffer from migraines and therefore, am in the high risk category for side effects of contraceptives. No medico would claim that the pill is safer than common over the counter painkillers.

Antiseptic

<<< It seems to me that all you silly little grrrls want someone else to tell you you're allowed to do things, rather than just making up your mind and doing it. >>>

Oh you wish.

Suze, Pynchme (all the women who post on OLO) - thank you for your persistence, because it is only persistence and consistency that will retain our rights to speak our minds.

'it is only persistence and consistency that will retain our rights to speak our minds.'

Hahahaha. You're provin' his point Fractelle. He cant delete your posts. So therefore if you're having to fight for your right to speak your mind I think that quote of anti's is pretty accurate!

It's the 'nice' girl problem. Trouble is, if you want to give up the 'nice' submissive act, you'll have to take the responsibility for your aggression and lose the moral high ground act too.

Dear Houellie,

If you'd stop using OLO as a urinal -
and poking and prodding for your own
entertainment - perhaps somebody might
take you seriously. Personally I think
the only
contribution you make is lighting up
OLO - by leaving it! You definitely
are a case of mistaken non-entity!

I make no aplogy for these comments !

Ah Foxy, I think I'm suddenly falling
in love with you. You're coming out of
your shell and it's a wonderful experience
to see you blossom.

Fractelle does seem to bring out the urge
to urinate in me. I do enjoy that feeling
I once expressed as 'interrupting an exclusive
dinner party of pretentious twats by pissing
on the table' that OLO gives me.

I cant tell you the amount of time I laugh myself
silly about some of the people on here. It's a pity
Cols been absent. I really miss him.

As I'm sure you do too.

But 'take me seriously'? How ghastly. Why would
I want that? The situation on OLO is more
dire than I thought.

Women speaking their minds reduces Houellebecq to infancy.

:-)

Severin:"it is only persistence and consistency that will retain our rights to speak our minds."

Well, it's obviously not rationality...

It's OK hon, you have my permission to say whatever your little heart desires, really. It's so cute when you try to act all grown up.

Can we have a vote on this one please folks? All those in favour of allowing Frac...Severin to speak what passes for her mind? Against?

There you go, hon. No, no need to thank me. It's the gentlemanly thing to do...

Dear Houllie,

Damn, damn, damn!

You know me too well!

Falling in love?

Really?
(giggle)!

Fractelle

All medications have some risks and the risk of stroke in your case was low even if you were over 35 which you seem to be. Changing to a pill with less progestogen is the solution.

There is no reason why any competent person cannot make decisions given a few guidelines. It is already the case with many non prescription medicines that are as I said, more likely to be a serious problem than the Pill.

Your hysteria about the dangers of the pill is unwarranted and rooted in the late Sixties and Seventies scaremongering. Get your GP to give you a run down on some of the very common and possibly serious side effects of taking 'natural' remedies, such are obtained from alternative medicine outlets and 'health' food shops.

Or better still, ask about the warning that should be on salt and products containing it. Then there are the dire warnings against pregnancy.

What you believe is not based on science, more on the old wives tales that are furthered by uninformed gossip in women's magazines. Moreover, few women are completely incompetent as you seem to believe, any 'advice' on the Pill could be delivered by a community nurse and a medical practitioner seen by exception, not by routine as you seem to support.

Severin (you do sound alot like Fractelle)

"Suze, Pynchme (all the women who post on OLO) - thank you for your persistence, because it is only persistence and consistency that will retain our rights to speak our minds."

What would you like? Perhaps we should all stand in the background applauding every time any woman expresses any opinion, like when a one year old says her first words. IMHO, expecting anyone who expresses an opinion to be able to defend it is far more respectful.

The attitude adopted by Pynchme and Suze has a facade of "niceness", but you don't have to dig to deep to see a deliberate effort to find offence and demonise someone. Neither Houllie's turn of phrase nor Anti's condecending tone warranted the dressing down they both received. Accusing anyone who disagrees with any woman of sexism is making quite an attempt to take offence. The vicious attacks on men accused of DV, men who tend to be victims, as well as perpetrators and are often falsely accused, also smacks of wanting someone to look down on.

BTW I agree with Suze about the pill. Community nurses could prescribe them, but they should't be thrown about like jellybeans. For one thing, they don't always work and I'm not just talking about women whose boyfriends want to leave them.

Benk

<<< Severin (you do sound alot like Fractelle) >>>

That's because I am or was Fractelle - as I have already explained on other posts, OLO doesn't allow for resurrection of an old name once an account has been cancelled, which is what I did after becomg quite ill for a time.

Now, you are claiming:

<<< The attitude adopted by Pynchme and Suze has a facade of "niceness", but you don't have to dig to deep to see a deliberate effort to find offence and demonise someone. >>>

I think I'd need more than just a shovel, I'd need a shitload of drugs to even begin to see either Pynchme's or Suze's post as demonising all men. They both write according to both professional knowledge and experience. Nor do they lower themselves to the level of invective that Anti and others repeatedly indulge in.

You'll find no argument from me that some women are total cows, but that doesn't mean that men are all sunshine and light because I think that.

This thread is about the sexual revolution, now some people think it was liberating for women, some don't. Whatever. There is no reason to use this or any other thread to verbally abuse people. None. I find Anti insulting and Houelle childishly puerile most of the time. Occasionally they do make genuine contributions, but I do not enjoy wading through the B/S in case they may have written something worth my time.

So from time to time I am compelled to speak out against their bitter rants, knowing full well the tirades this will provoke. I know they won't or can't change, but that doesn't mean I should retreat and remain silent as women were expected to be not so long ago.

<< Neither Houllie's turn of phrase nor Anti's condecending tone warranted the dressing down they both received >>

What utter bulldust. They deserve everything they cop.

Mind you, they love it - indeed, it's why they come here :)

Dear Severin,

Welcome back!

I had no idea it was you.

I trust that you're feeling better?

'What utter bulldust. They deserve everything they cop.'

Yes indeed! But at least we don't try and pretend we're not dishing anything out like those passive aggressive feminists!

'Mind you, they love it - indeed, it's why they come here :)'

Oh never a truer word spoken CJ!

As I said,

'Antis deliberate insensitivity and the chicks deliberate passive aggressive reaction creates a beautiful dance that makes these gender threads so entertaining. '

I love quoting me.

Foxy,

'had no idea it was you.'

How did you miss it with all the 'excuse me for having an opinion while being female' stuff?

Dear Houellie,

I was mmesmerized by your lengthy posts,
by your multifaceted hyperbole, by your
talent for making assumptions - and above
all else by your obvious obsession with
Severin (Fractelle) - your secret's out -
you Alpha Dog you! You just don't know
when to come in out of the rain!

Ptui!

benk

Heh, heh, I agree that the main reason for failure of the Pill is the stupidity of the user and you can take that whichever way you like.

However, the plot is for US bombers to drop something useful in Afghanistan and elsewhere, which would be the Sexual Revolution Bomb filled with complimentary packets of 5 years supply of the female contraceptive pill. That is assuming the 'use by' date is restricted to five years and it is OK to have someone gentle, inoffensive and sensitive like Leunig do the 'how to take' drawings for the illiterate.

The remainder could be distributed as foreign aid and secreted in Catholic aid abroad packages.

Seriously though, the sexual revolution should be exported in the shape of a wee little pill and the women of the world would thank us for it. Many here seem clueless just how liberating it was and is.

Cornflower, I didn't know you worked in the medical field like me?
By the sounds of it though, you didn't do much study in the Midwifery and gynaecology area like I did?

In actual fact, I was only at a contraceptive seminar a few months ago, so I have all the latest details of the latest studies done recently on all the contraceptive medications.
Were you there too?

You can't have been, because NO INFORMED PERSON would dispute the facts I presented in my last post about the known side-effects and possible serious consequences of some women taking these contraceptive pills.

Yes, the 'mini-pill' is the safer of these drugs, but if the user doesn't take it at the same time each day or misses even one day of taking it, the pregnancy rates are quite high.

Paracetamol is the safer drug by far than any contraceptive pill, and that's a fact! For the record, many medical practitioners aren't happy about paracetamol or aspirin products being available at supermarkets either. They have their own nasty problems for some people.

The contraceptive pill was certainly the start of a form of liberation during the sexual revolution for women, in that they had more say in when and if they became pregnant.

Men were similarly liberated too though, because women were more relaxed and agreeable to having sex if they were reasonably sure not to churn out a baby every year!

Houellebecq - your categories are too limited. People can be nice and non-submissive at the same time.

As much as you might enjoy them, I won't be engaging in abusive tirades. It's mildly interesting (though not an new observation) that abusive male behaviour is in some quarters held up as the ideal that women should aim to emulate; because some men (like yourself it seems) respect it. I have seen some women become that way too, especially in the work place. It's a real pity I reckon.

I don't respect it and I won't be copying the worst of male behaviour any time soon. There are plenty of nice blokes who know how to be assertive without being abusive. They have mature control over themselves and their style of expression is thoughtful and clever. That's the type of behaviour I admire in men and women.

As to the sexual revolution, I'm waiting to see what happens when the male pill becomes available. Is there a male pill? Would it be a good thing ? (I reckon so).

- and Severin!

I'm so glad it's you F! though I think I like
your new screen name better than the last one.

Missed you :)

Dear Pynchme, they have in fact trialled some forms of male contraceptive pills.

Unfortunately, the males in the studies could not be trusted to remember to take the pill regularly (like some women!), and most women would not like to put their full trust in this contraceptive method alone.

The woman has so much more to lose if the male 'forgets'!

The males using a condom while the woman uses a spermicidal gel and takes the pill as well, can be fairly sure of no pregnancy or STD.

suzeonline

Few drugs would ever have been subjected to such exhaustive study and for such huge populations and for such long periods of time as the female contraceptive pill.

You are catastrophysing from the small number of women such as habitual smokers for whom there could be a higher risk of an event they are already disposed to through their smoking. Filter them off through basic screening and examination and thereafter healthy young women should not be obliged to obtain a prescription for the Pill, any worries can be picked up through normal visits and annual health checks.

Save the money and put it into another area of health delivery.

I cannot see any reason why you would object to that sensible approach especially in the case of developing countries. You really need to sit down and do a comparison of risks, but not over a ciggie and coffee.

Dear Cornflower, I don't smoke or drink coffee, and I don't need to sit down and work anything out about contraceptive use or supply because, as you yourself have already stated, there have already been exhaustive tests on all these problems.

I am not so naive as to believe that drug companies wouldn't want to do everything they can to supply contraceptive pills to supermarkets and other suppliers without the need for scripts.

Naturally, the powerful Pharmacist groups would not want this to happen or people could get these drugs as easily and cheaply as they now do for some analgesics.

In actual fact, I believe that specially trained nurse practitioners will soon be able to write out scripts for most contraceptive medications as well as some other medications.

They will however still be required to attend to blood pressure tests and have in depth discussions with patients before supplying these drugs.
Smoking is not the only threat to women taking these pills.

I am still a staunch advocate for suitable women being able to easily access these medications, especially in third world countries and some Catholic or Muslim countries, where women continue to be denied the right to access them.

suzeonline

We are not different in the end goal, that the sexual revolution is extended to all women, not just the fortunate in developed countries.

Unnecessary restrictions on access to the Pill remain not because of risks nor litigation concerns of pharmaceutical companies, it is linked more with governments being unwilling to relinquish control of reproduction, of women's bodies, to women.

It is about the politics of population growth and the control of people. At home Abbott provided an example with RU-486, make it prescription only he said, after other blocks had failed. Of course the doctors who make good money out of their prescription pads don't mind, they would have prescriptions for Eno antacid if they could.

pynchme,

I just prefer the direct approach rather than the exhibited female style on OLO of sly aspersions that can be cowardly backed out on due to a thin veneer of ambiguity, and patronising 'I'm just trying to help you with your emotional problems antiseptic' crap . It's just not honest.

Sure people can be nice and non-submissive, but not when they use arguments like accusing anyone who disagrees with any woman of sexism and claiming you're being silenced when people disagree with you. It's classic passive aggressive behaviour. Even examinator's one foot in one foot out 'naughty corner' crap fits the bill.

Anyway, I thought you'd be right on board with the 'woman socialised to be nice' feminist doctrine.

My point is that with this 'nice' image many women cling to, if you want to give it up by using some of these disingenuous debating tactics observed by the chicks on OLO (Or even blossom like FOxy has lately), you also must give up the 'nice' moral high ground.

You chicks constantly bang on about 'abusive tirades' from anti and co with their more direct style, but then cling to this high horse 'thoughtful and clever' passive aggressive style of the female posters.

You mention CJ as a non-abusive poster, but I see plenty of abuse and snarly comments from him to your nemesis on OLO. Looks like it's whether people agree with you or not that is the deciding factor on whether people are 'abusive'. Now if you mentioned r0bert instead of CJ, your argument would have more weight. But r0bert doesn't agree with you no matter how needy he is for your affirmation.

H

So what are you actually saying?

That the sexual revolution was positive for women or not?

Not that I am suggesting that you are using this forum for passive-aggressive denigration of women, far from it.

;-O

Pynchme

Thanks for the compliments. I kind of like my new moniker as well.

Hope that was straightforward enough for the no nonsense blokes, in case you're not sure, I was thanking Pynchme for her welcome back to OLO.

As for Cornflower's knowledge of the contraceptive pill; wouldn't fill a thimble. Glad she is not a doctor.

Hope that was clear too.

Hmmmmmm, sarcasm, I can see why Anti' likes it sooooo much.

Houellie, don't forget according to the B&T's; that more women are violent than men, so don't be lulled into a false sense of security that women are all "nice" next time you are walking alone at night and a gang of women are walking towards you. Somehow, as I write this, I am thinking I am channelling a fantasy of H's.

Cheers m'dears

Fractelle,

It's a non question. Of course the sexual revolution was positive for women. For men too.

I'm all for casual sex and friends with benefits. I'm all for women being able to control how many babies they have.

What is B&Ts?

Fractelle/severin

Goodness, another mental oldie who is a product of her times and gets her 'updates' from ACA and women's magazines.

The Pill is just a synthetic mimicing a natural hormone. It took a caning in the late Sixties and early Seventies when it was wrongly accused of causing blood clots, strokes and heart attacks. Use of the pill halved in the Seventies and early Eighties as a (delayed) result.

There are efforts in the UK to make the contraceptive pill available over the counter as a way to improve the access of women to birth control. The requirement for a prescription is a barrier to contraceptive use for some women.

As for developing countries what other way is there to reduce the rates of unplanned pregnancies and maternal deaths other than to provide access to safe oral contraceptives for all women at low or no cost?

Just think, had there been dinosaurs like you in charge of the sexual revolution it would never have happened, the Pill would have been locked away in a cupboard somewhere with "DANGER" written over it in red felt pen.

Cornflower, don't forget that you're speaking to a woman who's barren. The pill for her is like children: something other people have to deal with.

Severin, noone has claimed that women are more violent than men towards men, that's one of your more lurid fantasies, probably down to being one of the "women with testosterone" that cotter speaks so highly about.

What has been shown is that women are more dangerous to children, even after adjusting for time in care.

The most reliable indicator of childhood abuse is being born Aboriginal and the next is being given to a single mother with no father in the picture.

I have no idea on the correlation of testosterone levels in women with abuse of children. I suspect it may be high.

Cumon people this is not about us and the secondary issues of the pill and disease. Distractions .
The idea of casual sex being a liberating thing has never had a long life in its revivals through history - what is the intellectual energy of OLO doing to be critical of the limits of Greer and Mead's now tired old rhetoric? Perhaps more importantly, how can we say we're alert when the struggles of thinking women to limit the damage now so evident in TV dressing down of young females and the sense of emotional damage just under the surface --but not often said (the ABC lecture series is an exception - referred to earlier used on Sundays
I say NO TALK is the mood here too - all very well for the men to say they like the idea.

Interestingly though many of you accent to the idea of more causal sex being for you a positive - noone is realling selling the idea . My point is that the idea of casual sex in not working for a generation who didn't promote it but now have to live with as an idea thats supposed to work.
In a technological society , what doesn't work will be thrown out - be ahead of the reactionaries and revisionists and join the revolution before it happens.
Give young people some choice by respecting choice.

I think that Cornflower is on the money when she raises the Pill as a defining factor in the "sexual revolution". I'm surprised nobody else has, because it's been well discussed in the popular and academic literature. Further, while I'm not so sure about its lack of physiological side-effects as she is, they are apparently not as extreme nowadays as they were thought to be in the 70s and 80s.

Certainly, in my experience as a man the Pill has been a feature of most of the sexual relationships I've had with women, either in its use or otherwise. I've never known a woman who's had health problems caused by using the contraceptive Pill.

On balance, I think I was fortunate to grow up in an area and time where the whole trendy/counterculture thing was embraced early, such that when I was 15 most of the girls I knew well had been 'put on the Pill' by their mums. Including my girlfriend's, which I thought was brilliant at the time :D

I recall well that we all read the newly-published "Joy of Sex" avidly and openly, since our parents bought it and left it out for us to read. I've never had a serious relationship with a woman since who didn't benefit from the "sexual revolution".

I can't decipher what it is that Hanrahan is trying to say beyond a call for a return to sexual prudery and subordination of women, with which I would obviously disagree.

It would be far preferable for to do as Cornflower suggests, i.e. to extend the "sexual revolution" to the Third World where birthrates are highest and women's status is lowest. I can't think of anything much more likely to improving health and sustainability in the Third World than making the contraceptive Pill freely available to women who want it.

Antiwomen: << don't forget that you're speaking to a woman who's barren >>

That is a truly horrible comment. Little wonder that you're so evidently lonely, bitter and twisted.

Where do you get off being so nasty to people?

CJ, I too am disgusted with that comment from 'septic.
A new low for him.
He should be struck off this forum. :(

Anti

"Barren"? Where do you find such language?

ROFL

For reasons of fertility, I have had to take the pill, which is why, with better knowledge, my doctor won't prescribe it for me any longer - you ignoramus.

CJ, I do also agree with Cornflower's proposal that the pill be more available, particularly for third world women, however to suggest that it is not without side-effects and is safer than paracetamol is irresponsible at best and ignorant at worst.

However, there is no denying the contraceptive pill's part in freeing women to enjoy sex without the 9 month consequence. Along with the freedom to no-strings sex came the emancipation - women were better educated, could seek careers, were no longer dependent on men for a home and finance. Major improvement; for both sexes, except for a few disgruntled Bitter and Twisted men whose control was neutered.

Suzeonline

Anti' by his own words is his own worst enemy - why would I bother reading in full, posts where I am personally vilified? Yet he expects me to take him seriously. Not likely. While I do not always agree with him, I do read R0bert's posts because they are presented in civil language and he does not try to dominate which ever thread he is posting on.

Finally, Houellie

Thanks for reviving my old moniker, 'Fractelle', hopefully people will be interested enough to check out my substantial contributions to OLO.

Cheers

Classy response Fractelle.

Anti, how would you feel if you found out Fractelle couldn't have children and desperately wanted them? Would you feel bad at all? Just interested.

'hopefully people will be interested enough to check out my substantial contributions to OLO.'

What, 20 pages of 'excuse me for having an opinion while being female' and 'I wont be silenced'.

I too was rather taken aback at Anti's
comment, "Don't forget you're talking to
a woman who is "barren."

This is a perfect example of not thinking
before you post - because had he done so -
hopefully he would have realized just
how offensive that remark was and not used it.

As for the birth-control pill...
well that permitted a separation of the
pleasurable from the reproductive aspects of
sexual behaviour. It freed many women from
the fear of pregnancy.

In sharp contrast to the situation a few decades
ago, only a small minority of young people of both
sexes today feel it is desirable that a woman be a
virgin at the time of marriage. Nonetheless,
promiscuous behaviour in a woman is still more likely
to attract stigma than similar behaviour in a man -
although a strong sexual appetite in a woman is no
longer likely to be seen as a sign of psychological
maladjustment or "nymphomania."

One interesting effect of the changing relationships
of the sexes is that the responsibility for a
successful sexual encounter has been largely shifted
from the female to the male partner.

A common sexual "problem" in the past was female
"frigidity" - the inability of a woman to achieve
orgasm or even enjoy sex. Today "frigidity" has all but
disappeared, instead, the same problem is more likely
to be labeled as one of poor "performance" by the male.

Houellebecq:"how would you feel if you found out Fractelle couldn't have children and desperately wanted them?"

Neutral. To use a common phrase, "sh1t happens". How do you reckon she'd feel if I had defective testicles which prevented me from enjoying the "fruits of my loins"? do you reckon she'd hesitate to tell me that i had no place in a discussion about children (or the pill)?

Severin:""Barren"? Where do you find such language? "

It's called possessing a vocabulary, hon. Barren is quite an old word, originating around 1300 to refer to an infertile female, as in, "I had to get rid of the old sow, she was barren".

Severin:"Along with the freedom to no-strings sex came the emancipation - women were better educated, could seek careers, were no longer dependent on men for a home and finance."

Rubbish. As I pointed out earlier, women in my family have always been "emancipated". They've also had no trouble being mothers and avoiding having large litters of children.

As for "not being dependent on men", that seems not to have worked, given the existence of the Child Support Agency and the huge amounts of welfare spent on women who choose not to work...

I don't think it's your testicles that are defective.

I've never been a fan of Fractelle, but really cant imagine her wanting to even think about your testicles, or caring whether you have kids.

I'm sorry, I normally wouldn't care, but you really are starting to sound like HRS on this thread.

Hey guys,

this judgemental police style castigation and admonishment from a high horse of moral superiority is fun isn't it?

Houellebecq:"I don't think it's your testicles that are defective."

Self-evidently not. One doesn't father two kids with defective taddy factories.

Houellebecq:"cant imagine her wanting to even think about your testicles, or caring whether you have kids."

She may not want to, but I bet she does when she reads this thread...

Fractelle/Severin, "I do also agree with Cornflower's proposal that the pill be more available, particularly for third world women, however to suggest that it is not without side-effects and is safer than paracetamol is irresponsible at best and ignorant at worst."

Would you concede that the pill is responsible for less damage than table salt? What about alcohol?

Or that it is less risky than a normal pregnancy. The side effects of pregnancy, the horror!

You revel in the benefits of a sexual revolution that you obviously did not fight for and now you would deny the benefits to others. Where access to the Pill is denied or restricted there can be no sexual revolution.

However just to repeat, there is no medical justification for requiring healthy young women to attend and pay for medical consultations for routine refreshment of their script for the Pill.

The 'Gate Keeping' deters some women from obtaining the contraceptives they need.

Restricted access to any drug should be based on evidence - independent assessment of relative risk.

It is unconscionable that the female contraceptive pill has not been made freely available - free access, nil cost - (not your grudging "more available") to women in developing countries. It is absolute absurd to claim that it would present any more than a minuscule fraction of the risks already suffered by such women. In fact it would significantly reduce known serious risks to their health and dramatically improve their sense of wellbeing and quality of life. Goodness, some might even get some education.

In closing, it is absolutely frivolous to say, as one poster did, that "the contraceptive pill was certainly the start of a form of liberation during the sexual revolution for women, in that they had more say in when and if they became pregnant." A "form of liberation", what a load of the proverbial, are some keyboard 'feminists' so jealous of a tiny pill that they feel obliged to minimise the watershed for the advancement of humanity that the Pill was then and now?

Houellebecq:"cant imagine her wanting to even think about your testicles, or caring whether you have kids."

Anti: "She may not want to, but I bet she does when she reads this thread..."

An hour after Anti posted this, Severin started her "who would you turn gay for" thread. The thought of Anti's testes was just too much.

Nope, that's it for me on this rapidly degenerating thread.

The thought of 'septic testicles just has me reaching for the nearest bucket.......

Benk

Too funny. And maybe you were right.

Cornflower

The pill is not safe for everyone, it is less safe than table salt, aspirin etc - I agree with you that it should be more available for women, so should a male contraceptive pill. Give it rest, you are sounding absurd.

Houellie

Your feelings are entirely mutual.

Suzeonline

Like the sexual revolution this thread has lost its energy, is now flaccid and not much use to anyone.

Well there you go, the flummoxed, ill-mannered Fractelle/Severin has declared the thread dead, bagged the sexual revolution and has left the building.

The name might be different but leopard doesn't change its spots so easily.

The stamp of the Doc Martens and the door slam were missing, but hey, the girl is fresh back in the pack.

Dear Cornflower,

This is only a debate - right?

No, it has been closed.

Are you the cleaner?

Dear Cornflower,

No, my dear.

You've obviously come to the wrong Forum!

I have a question somewhat related to the topic.

What has pornography ever done for women?

I don't know why you would mention pornography and not obscenity because both called for bitter fights against church and state as part of the sexual revolution. Basically the demand was for some honesty, authenticity and reality in art and literature - classics by writers like D H Lawrence being forbidden by the censor or only available in expurgated versions, even for academic study (have a look in old book shops).

What about nailing down some dates first though, because it was the Sexual Revolution of the Sixties and by any stretch of the imagination that time of liberalism was over with the coming of Thatcher (UK) and Reagan (US). So you are talking about the Sixties mainly with maybe five, at a stretch eight years of the Seventies.

The sexual revolution was very conservative in outlook compared with today although it was a great leap forward for the time. The pornography was very tame arty stuff with some of the erotic works and vulgarity that had been previously banned in classics. Have a look at art books of the time and you will see the coyly covered up naughty bits. Even photos from Egyptian pyramids were banned if there was a bit of bare midriff.

So YES, the battles against the very restrictive obscenity and pornography laws and censorship of the time were well worth it to women and men. There is a hell of a lot of art and literature that would not have been available otherwise.

What happened thereafter mid-Seventies or Eighties on is another argument for another thread. Unless of course you can point to specific examples of pornography from the Sixties and Seventies that you object to. Ever seen the 'risque' Playboys from that time? What a giggle they are now.

Sorry but all this talk of the pill defining some point of liberation is offline as far as I am concerned . Sure the pill is great for giving women more choice about children and power in a family setting and associated dilemmas. A genuinely positive thing .
But my question is about what I think is a natural progression: If you teach children to think like whores, they will start acting like them - and aren't they ? Mead and Greer did so teach and they were no more than reactionaries ! Where are the women who speak for the future?
Are you saying women need more opportunities to express themselves sexually , and more is better for them. If so , Spell it out . I don't think the evidence for that is there !
Tell me why young women all around you still want to wear white? Are they confused or brainwashed or what ?
If you think some bit of technology somehow changes their genetic disposition, you need to start a new Lemarkian school of genetic imperatives .
Get back to the topic . Are women made for sex or for love: What is the paradigm to integrate them ? To pretend that we can discuss them seperately is to live in the valley of the blind and blinkered schools of mere description that are all around us.
I'm with Tina Turner on this . What HAS all this talk got to do with love .

Pynchme:"What has pornography ever done for women?"

Made a few quite wealthy. It's a bit like asking what has fashion ever done for men?

I think a better quaetion is: what has wowserism ever done for anybody?

Hanrahan seems a bit confused about what constituted the "sexual revolution" in Western societies in the mid-20th century. According to him (?) it was something that happened to women rather than men, but the advent of the contraceptive Pill had nothing to do with it.

Further, it was all the fault of those dreadful women, Germaine Greer writing in the 1970s and Margaret Mead, writing half a century before

<< Get back to the topic . Are women made for sex or for love >>

Hanrahan wants us to "spell out" the benefits of the "sexual revolution" for women - which I thought that some of us had been doing quite admirably - but seems a little coy about 'spelling out' where s/he stands. I think the above quotation is quite revealing on that score.

Women aren't "made" for anything - rather they are adult female humans who latterly have considerable choice in their attitudes and behaviour. Sex and love are two aspects of social life where women in Western societies have achieved much greater autonomy and freedom than prior to the 1960s, but they are not the only advances for women since that time. Women now have much greater access to education and meaningful careers, not to mention being free of the expectation that they need to be controlled and protected by men.

<< Tell me why young women all around you still want to wear white? Are they confused or brainwashed or what ? >>

Probably both, I reckon. I presume you mean "white" as in wedding dresses, in which case they are brainwashed by tradition and confused by mixed messages derived from reactionary wowserish parents and from the obscene wedding industry that seems to have exploded lately.

Pynchme - I think it depends what you classify as 'pornography'. Certainly, I don't see much benefit for women in the hardcore stuff, beyond the relatively small amount of money they are paid to objectify themselves. However, I don't think that's sufficient reason to ban or censor it any more than it is already.

I apologize for not being clearer Cornflower. The thing that led me to the question was this article by Robert Jensen, which he wrote apparently in 2003.

http://www.zcommunications.org/sexuality-masculinity-and-mens-choices-by-robert-jensen

Antiseptic I agree I think, though any performer's take is modest compared to the amount made by the people who produce and market it. The industry is worth billions just in the US alone I think. The thing is, Jensen talks about the way that pornography impacts on men and masculinity. As Cornflower points out, some earlier playboy pics seem almost quaint - therefore pornography reflects something of the sexual revolution.

CJ Morgan - Censorship is not my choice either. So raising the issue isn't about restricing it, but about the socio-cultural values that exist in a symbiotic relationship with a massive industry.

There must be a lot of blokes who use it because it's a big money industry with lots of political clout. Is it just another case of wealthy men and some women shaping and exploiting other men's lives ?

If, as Jensen says, masculinity is in crisis then values have changed for them too. Does that change the way men approach relationships or what they expect of them ?

Really, what do women get out of it?

Dear Pynch,

You raise a good question.

According to Ian Robertson, in his book,
"Sociology," :

The link between pornography and behaviour
is still undetermined, the link between pornography
and attitudes however is not. There is now ample evidence
that men who are exposed to pornography tend, at
least temporarily, to have more callous attitudes
towards women.

There can be little question that, pornography
creates a climate
in which women come to be seen as mere sex objects,
existing solely to satisfy men's desires.

According to Robertson -
public opinion is divided along sex lines. It seems
that half of all women in recent polls were "very concerned"
about pornography, but only a quarter of men.

Perhaps this could be due to the fact that most users of
pornography are men; about a quarter of the male population
uses it frequently, either for entertainment or as an
aid to masturbation.

Pynchme, CJ and Foxy

Great posts all. I don't believe censorship is the answer either. I'm sure porn is a guilty pleasure for a lot of men - and that shouldn't be a problem. But I have to wonder how a man who watches a lot of porn actually performs as a real life lover.

I read Robert Jensen's article, Pynchme - a graphic and honest piece of writing. Have to wonder how porn is justified by consumers, maybe they tell themselves that the women are well-paid (most aren't) or that the women actually enjoy it.

Quick poll:

How many women would like to be treated as sexual receptacles - a living breathing toilet? What percentage?

_____

High enough to justify the preponderance of porn depicting such 'fanasties'? Well, clearly enough consumers to justify the industry. If men sincerely want to know what turns women on, suggest lesbian porn - made for and by women.

pynchme, "As Cornflower points out, some earlier playboy pics seem almost quaint - therefore pornography reflects something of the sexual revolution."

No, not right. I gave that example as a spin-off and excess as it would have been seen then, of the Sixties Sexual Revolution.

The Sexual Revolution was well and truly over before the grotty stuff you want to credit it with got going. If not for the Sixties Sexual Revolution, research on the sexuality of women and men would never have been publicised. That was not earth shattering stuff, but it was banned.

Feminism and other movements for example for gay rights, co-opted and re-engineered the 'sexual revolution' to suit their needs.

I don't particularly care if you want to lapse into the familiar 'f' territory of awful, disgusting men and pornography, but it is historically dishonest to credit the Sixties Sexual Revolution which achieved so much, especially in liberating women and men (didn't have to list them separately back then, all were in it together) from the yoke of a most restrictive, authoritarian State that in sexual matters was a tool of fundamentalist religions, especially te then powerful Roman Catholic Church.

Robert Jensen's article pushes the agenda of radical feminism, which provides endless examples of rhetoric and spin, but has never been known for factual correctness and honesty.

What you have done is hijack the thread for yet another 'f' rant on pornography. Your obsession and a certain thread killer.

Severin,

Thanks - you seem always to understand where I'm coming from.

It was interesting to me to read Jensen's article too. I found it when I was searching for this Dworkin quote:

<"I don’t believe rape is inevitable or natural. If I did, I would have no reason to be here [speaking to a conference of men]. If I did, my political practice would be different than it is. Have you ever wondered why we are not just in armed combat against you? It’s not because there’s a shortage of kitchen knives in this country. It is because we believe in your humanity, against all the evidence.” >

Beaut quote isn't it.

Anyway, I can't imagine going through any of the humiliations and contortions depicted in porn just for a brief shudder.

Which when reading what he was saying; that men are not getting anything good out of it:

<"If empathy is part of what makes us human, and pornography requires that men repress empathy, then we have to ask a rather difficult question. While men watch pornography, are men human?">

I don't know, but if the faculty for empathy IS impaired, I wondered what is happening in relationships.

Cornflower, It's true that I have a primary interest in masculine and feminine identity and how they interact. BFD. It's important socially, intellectually and in my everyday work. If you disapprove please just bypass my posts.

Pynchme, "Cornflower, It's true that I have a primary interest in masculine and feminine identity and how they interact. BFD. It's important socially, intellectually and in my everyday work. If you disapprove please just bypass my posts."

It is not a case of disapproving or not. What you are on about has nothing to do with the Sixties Sexual Revolution and you are just using it as an excuse to vent. How professional is that?

Why not start your own thread instead of hijacking?

Well Cornflower, I disagree.

How can we say that the sexual revolution (decrease in traditional constraints on sexual activity; increasing tolerance for casual sex and all that) has nothing to do with pornography - being one means of sexual expression ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_revolution#Normalization_of_pornography

I would say that mass communications has also contributed to the normalization of more liberal sexual attitudes. So that's another potential area for discussion.

I thought this thread had been declared dead; did you have some other plans for it?

Pynchme,

Again you misquote, I said that the Sixties Sexual Revolution challenged repression that was implemented through laws against obscenity and pornography.

You are back in your familiar 'f' rut about nasty men, with pornography 'proving' they are even nastier than anyone might dream in their most horrific nightmares. Next you will be saying that you have a male partner which is supposed to be taken as 'proof' you are not just disrespecting and mauling men for your own gratification.

It is so predictable, but what about letting it all rip in your very own thread for once and not hijack?

Dear Pynch and Severin,

Pornography today is a billion-a-year dollar industry,
whose products can be seen
in cities throughout the world. The material
ranges from the "soft-core" type, consisting
essentially of nude woman in various poses, to
the "hard-core" variety, which shows women in
various sexual acts and often depicts them being
stripped, bound, assaulted, tortured, and otherwise
humiliated and degraded.

The flood of newer, "hard-core" and sadomasochistic
material - much of it now available in the form
of DVDs has reopened the whole question of the
impact pornography may have on behaviour.

Women have every right to be concerned.

Just to jog a few memories before I go - from my understanding
"Playboy," wasn't the only magazine around that gained
popularity with men - there were more explicit
ones like - "Hustler," and "Penthouse," I can't think
of the others...

Then again, women might represent the new customer base. However that might have more to do with the new raunch culture than the very earnest fighters for freedom of the Sixties.

I was good that someone mentioned Hustler. See here from Oprah:

"In the first three months of 2007, according to Nielsen/NetRatings, approximately one in three visitors to adult entertainment Web sites was female; during the same period, nearly 13 million American women were checking out porn online at least once each month.

Theresa Flynt, vice president of marketing for Hustler video, says that women account for 56 percent of business at her company's video stores. "And the female audience is increasing," she adds. "Women are buying more porn." (They're creating more of it, too: Female director Candida Royalle's hard-core erotic videos, made expressly for women viewers, sell at the rate of approximately 10,000 copies a month.)"

http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/personal/07/24/o.women.watching.porn/

More stories of the increasing demand from women for porn:

http://www.metro.co.uk/lifestyle/52811-women-who-love-to-watch-porn

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/article2355510.ece

What is desperately needed is a new wowerism to counteract it all.

Think of the boys!! If only one boy is saved from a sex-crazed Cougar who got her ideas from pornography the bans will all be worth it. I blame the slide into depravity on Germaine Greer who authored her own perve book on boys and lusted after teenage boys whose “sperm runs like tap water”.

Distracted again . Pornography is , I suggest, like the fighting , like the impotence, a sign of sexual frustration - not liberation
Is anyone still interested in discussing Cornflowers post from Bel mooney .http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1232485/My-generation-created-sexual-revolution--wrecking-lives-women-since.html

If there IS any women on line willing to defend the sexual revolution they better speak now or we shall declare its a no contest .Susie where are you ?
The idea is a curse . Tina Turner is right and no amount of tired old anti wowser fanfare is going to stop many young people from making the choice their mothers or grandmothers made before them. Whose really telling them what's good them here ? Whose really giving them a choice ? I'd rather be called a wowser than woose !

In actual fact Hanrahan, I am still watching this thread, but until now, haven't seen anything I wished to comment on!

I read that link from Cornflower and what a load of rubbish most of it was. Was the author Bel Mooney male or female? Bel could be short for Bellamy too!

I especially laughed at the statement <" ... the writer and feminist pioneer Rosie Boycott has said: 'What was insidious about the underground was that it pretended to be alternative. But it wasn't providing an alternative for women. It was providing an alternative for men in that there were no problems about screwing around." '

Yeah right! Men were 'screwing around' before, during and after the sexual revolution. It is just that during and after the sexual revolution, their female partners were mostly NOT left holding the baby and taking the lion's share of the shame in having a children out of wedlock.

For goodness sake, isn't it obvious? Those women who choose to wait until marriage to have sex can still choose this path if they wish.
Those of us who may wish to enjoy sex before marriage can also choose this path with much less chance of unplanned pregnancy than before the 'pill'.

Men had both these choices before the pill was invented. Now women have that choice too.
Amen to that.

In general phenomena that were once considered
scandalous, such as open cohabitation by unmarried
couples, X-rated movies, or nudity on the stage,
now stir up less concern.

Permissive attitudes correlate strongly
with youth, education,
older and less educated people tend to take a more
conservative stand.

Increasingly, there is substantial tolerance today
for diversity in sexual behaviour, and judgements
about right and wrong in sexual matters seem to be
based on the attitude that moral behaviour is that
which involves mutual affection and respect and does
no physical or psychological harm to those involved.

One interesting effect, as I've pointed out
earlier, of the changing relationships of the sexes
is that the responsibility for a successful sexual
encounter has been largely shifted from the female
to the male partner. A common "problem" until the
1960s was female "frigidity", the inability of
a woman to achieve orgasm or even enjoy sex.

Today, "frigidity" has all but disappeared; instead,
the same problem is more likely to be labeled as one
of poor "performance" by the male.

I wonder if porn mags play a role in that somewhere?

Foxy, 'Today, "frigidity" has all but disappeared; instead, the same problem is more likely to be labeled as one of poor "performance" by the male.'

Typical, few learn from the lessons of history and unfortunately, many think that scientific research is all heads in the clouds stuff and irrelevant to them.

Good news
The vibrator was invented before the vacuum cleaner and the electric iron and I dare say too, the electric washing machine.

The vibrator was invented by male doctors who were suffering from fatigue and repetitive strain injury from giving women relief from hysteria, which was sexual frustration. Not all women could spend all day on Neddy it appears:

http://www.nhne.org/news/NewsArticlesArchive/tabid/400/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/4180/language/en-US/The-Astonishing-History-Of-Vibrators.aspx

So there you go, all that needs to happen now is to share a common interest in erotica, have a little talk between the sheets, ensure a bit of sharing and caring and delegate someone to pay the power bill. Had the sexual revolution become a titch more widespread than university students, all might have been capable of nutting that one out.

Well I agree Foxy and crew that relationships are changing, and for the better I think.

However I don't think that pornography is as mainstream as the links posted by Cornflower would have the public believe. I think only someone quite naive would fail to question who is making claims that push the idea that all 'normal' people use porn.

For example, one of those links quotes "Theresa Flynt, vice president of marketing for Hustler video" - and also of course Larry Flynt's daughter. Harry Flynt is creator/owner of grubby Hustler and he posits himself as a crusader protecting free speech. He has another daughter btw (I think her name is Tonia) who is an anti-pornography campaigner.

In any case, the figures cited are a bit misleading in that they infer that 1/3 of women seek out pornography. However, Nielsen/NetRatings found that "approximately one in three visitors to adult entertainment Web sites was female; during the same period, nearly 13 million American women were checking out porn online at least once each month."

That isn't 1 in 3 of all women; or even of all women online or necessarily of one country (we would need more info from Neilson to know that) - but 1 in 3 of whatever number it was that were already seeking pornography.

Also, has anyone ever participated in a Neilson tracking exercise? I think the people who agree to install Neilson software and have their internet activity logged somewhere else is another subgroup again - a convenience sample I think.

Mind you, the figures could be much higher - what number of people outside of Neilson customers seek pornography? Who knows.

We then have the figure that 13 million US women were checking porn once a month. Well the population of adult women in the US is approximately 100 million females - maybe more. That isn't 1 in 3, so the Neilson ratings survey is likely to be lower amongst general internet users.

cont/d

We then have another typical beat up trying to push pornography use into the mainstream in such a way that it's so 'normal' that someone would be an oddball not to be using it.

The beat up is from the UK SUN, heaven forbid (Rupert Murdoch) headline screaming "66% of WOMEN WATCH PORN". Further along we read that The SUN obtained those results from conducting its own survey amongst 1,000 of its own readers who answered a "risqué questionnaire". I suspect that the SUN would appeal to a fairly specific demographic.

It was reported in 2006 (London's The Business) that R Murdoch was building a porn empire of his own including owning and operating porn channels for his Sky biz.

Violet Blue makes her income writing and blogging about sex issues including porn - which sok. However, interesting that she had enough money to sue a pornography performer by the same name, who had made over 300 pornography films - but didn't have enough money to mount a legal response to hang on to the performance name she'd used for about 7 years. I take it one makes more more from pimping off these performers (producing, selling, writing about porn) than most of them make from performing.

Therefore, who is pushing porn as a cultural norm? None other than people with a direct financial interest in marketing it.

Anyway, in the upshot I think that use or participation has to be a decision based on personal moral values. However I think it pays to be properly informed about it and to know who is really pulling the strings behind it.

Once again a few obscene capitalists are laughing all the way to the bank, having exploited the weakness and gullibility of the weak and gullible.

LOL, Pynchme, you're funny. If only you put the same effort into understandimng the flaws in the so-called research you so uncritically regurgitate elsewhere.

The difference, of course, is that the rest of the stuff you put up is simply telling you what you want to hear, whereas the stuff you're critiquing here isn't.

That's the trouble with feminists in a nutshell: they only hear people who play to their prejudices - nothing else penetrates.

Mind you, I daresay that Theresa Flynt probably knows a bit more about porn and her clientele than you do.

Pynchme:"who is pushing porn as a cultural norm? None other than people with a direct financial interest in marketing it."

Who is puching feminism as a cultural norm? none other than people with a direct financial interest in marketing it.

Too true...

Gee Antiseptic rushing in to defend pornography. Who'd have guessed.

Not everyone working in human services: hospitals, community and NGOs, is feminist.

Also, more than half my clients are male.

You never seem to question the way that you're exploited by other men - that's a pity.

As I said, once again a few obscene capitalists are laughing all the way to the bank, having exploited the weakness and gullibility of the weak and gullible.

Dear oh dear. I was a bit worried when Cornflower posted several reasonable comments on various threads in the past week, but I see s/he's reverted to form.

Of course the contemporary explosion in the production and use of pornography can be attributed in part to the 'sexual revolution' of the 1960s and 70s. The lifting of censorship of so-called 'obscene' literature and images led directly to the legitimation and normalisation of material that had hitherto been prohibited.

A good example from the time is the film 'Deep Throat', which although pretty tame by today's standards, remains the most profitable pornographic film ever made. Unfortunately, it wasn't all that positive for its lead actress, 'Linda Lovelace'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_Lovelace

Similarly, second-wave feminism and the gay rights movement can't be separated from the 'sexual revolution' - they were very much part of it. Cornflower is correct that the advent of the contraceptive Pill was a major part of the 'sexual revolution', but the revolution was by no means confined to the enhanced ability of heterosexual women and men to engage in non-procreative sex.

It seems arbitrary and churlish to me to try and confine a discussion about the effects of the 'sexual revolution' on women to narrowly defined aspects of it, as Hanrahan and Cornflower seem to want us to. Overall, I think that the 'sexual revolution' (which is still ongoing) has been positive for both women and men, but to try and assert that everything that has emanated from it has been socially desirable is simplistic at best.

<<< Overall, I think that the 'sexual revolution' (which is still ongoing) has been positive for both women and men, but to try and assert that everything that has emanated from it has been socially desirable is simplistic at best. >>>

<<< once again a few obscene capitalists are laughing all the way to the bank, having exploited the weakness and gullibility of the weak and gullible. >>>

The above comments sum up the current situation, quite well.

Men continue to be exploited by men and a minority of women, not so conversely women continue to be exploited by a minority of men and women - women don't really want cocks in all their orifices, simultaneously - believe it or not. Both men and women are to blame for this absurdity.

Hmmmm, wake up guys you are being taken for a ride by some of your brothers and the result is doing sweet FA for your sex-life if you base your lovemaking skills on porn.

Sorry to disillusion you Anti.

Summing up then
- no one is really able to say whats so good for women in all this apart from "the ability to enjoy sex more" ( where is the evidence for this and when is someone going to talk about the regrets issue amongst women - Bel mooney mentions it and ABCTV promotes it as the norm - no wonder young women are looking for something OTHER than what the 60's generation TALKED ABOUT )
Women are more emotionally complex about sex than men surely ? building your dreams around 5 minutes of fun seems more like a myth man's mind might manufacture.
All this sidetrack talmk of women and career is at most only relevant to those with them. Clearly if WE can't talk about most women who are chosing marriage THIS disussion is very incomplete .
How interested in current myths and excuses- ( Why keep bashing the RC church - media bashers and manipulators , fun promoters are the relevant ones )?

- the young innocent( gullible ) are left to fend for themsleves.Great ! What are you - public citizens? ,> do you not care for the casaulties in young children that mellisa tankard identified on Qanda ?
- most of you seem to be in denial about the fact that sexual frustration ( and regret? )is one of the key products of uncommitted sex
- most of you seem to be in denial about the fact that concentrating on quickfix and technical aspects denies the deeper need we mostly seem to have to merge love and will in relationships.

Shallow the sexual revolution was. shallow it remains.

I find myself having to agree with CJ. Hanrahan never really defined this thread as being about any particular aspect of the sexual revolution.

Pynchme wanted to talk about porn, in particular the type where sex is used to humiliate the actress as much as possible.

Cornflower wanted to talk about the pill. Everyone agreed that the pill was a huge step foward, but we couldn't agree on how bad the side-effects are.

Foxy was busily searching for the middle ground.

Anti only got one swipe in at the feminists.

No-one bothered commenting on the ABC church had to say.

'pushing porn'? pft. Avert your eyes!

Most guys I know and a lot of women are happy to see naked imagery. Same as drug pushers. People who talk about drug pushers never understand the efforts drug takers undergo to find the drug 'pushers'.

As a user of both these 'vices' over the years, I hereby express my gratitude to the porn and drug providers of this world, for the pleasure and enjoyment they have provided me.

I also take responsibility for any displeasure as a result of me seeking out the services of these hard working men and women that provide a valued and much sought after service.

Yep, when it comes to drugs and porn, we should always limit the discussion to blanket representations of violent gang bangs and the results of heroin addiction.

'women don't really want cocks in all their orifices, simultaneously'

Maybe not all women, maybe not most women, but it's a brave person to speak for all women all of the time.

Men on the other hand, are singularly desperate to engage in romantic walks along the beach and talk about their feelings with that special woman. In fact, they are brutish and confused, just waiting for that special woman with that special womans' love to tame them. Then they'll be happy forever more shopping for 'scatter cushions'.

CJ Morgan, "The lifting of censorship of so-called 'obscene' literature and images led directly to the legitimation and normalisation of material that had hitherto been prohibited."

No, it did not inevitably lead to the 'legitimation' and 'normalisation' of the sort of pornography that Pynchme is referring to at all. Pynchme is attributing cause and blame for the explosion of present day pornography and its content to the amendment of laws during the sexual revolution of the Sixties, as are you in support of her, however it is illogical to do so and the cause/s are otherwise.

It is much the same as blaming a shovel for its use in a murder: Pynchme, "The shovel caused it Yer Honour, there is a direct link between shovels and murder because had not shovels been legal this murder would not have happened." If one follows this woolly and crooked logic, no freedom can ever be given because it would always result in wrong behaviour.

Pynchme's adolescent blend of Marxism and Eighties radical feminism causes her to reject more simple, obvious, mundane explanations for the increase in pornography, such as demand. Predictably, Pynchme blames her hated capitalists and the Sixties sexual revolution, which got rid of some bad law for opening the gate. She is being proactive in protecting her feminism from any blame for rauch behaviour (which she holds to be good nonetheless).

While on the subject, the obscenity and pornography laws that were successfully fought against in the Sixties had been aimed at far broader restrictions on information and behaviour than just 'pornography'.

However much it galls Pynchme, who is forever trashing her opposite gender ('menz' - what a ridiculous rad fem word) for pornography and dirty deeds as a result of it, women are also major consumers of pornography and their numbers are growing. This is happening through choice, not because greedy capitalists can have their evil way with women.

However Pynchme's adolescent radical feminism doesn't permit any acceptance of the diversity of women, nor of men.

Contd...

Benk:"No-one bothered commenting on the ABC church"

Well, the ABC is a broads' church, after all...

I have been remarkably restrained about feminism, havent I? I must be mellowing.

Houellebecq, you're obviously a deviant of the highest order. I suggest you turn yourself in to the nearest lynch mob and save everyone a lot of time.

Pynchme:"You never seem to question the way that you're exploited by other men "

Oh really? Do enlighten me, won't you?

Apart from the ATO, I don't think I have anyone exploiting me, although the ex and the CSA tried pretty hard to do so.

Oh yeah, I think meat is way too dear as well and don't get me started on the cost of sawblades. Or beer.

contd..

Likewise, Pynchme is blind to the diversity of pornography. It is all awful, reprehensible stuff to her and the invention of capitalist 'menz'. To take an example, she is blissfully unaware of the interest and joy of many women (and men) in erotica.

Through being blind-sided by her prejudice, in Pynchme's world it is impossible to see that the growing interest in and volume of 'pornography' has very much to do with the spread of the Internet, which has overcome previous restrictions over accessing information and ideas, especially for women and the less well off.

Whether Pynchme likes it or not, more and more women will be accessing 'pornography' and for a myriad of reasons: they are just as curious as men; they like a bit of titillation too (but maybe a bit different to some men); they like to see the human form; they would like to compare themselves with others; they might get some information from it to help with their lovemaking; and for no better reason than it is there.

Pynchme isn't interested in definitions or unpacking the 'pornography' suitcase, it is all vile porn to her (shudder, shudder) and it is impossible that women would be interested (the wymmin on the rad site support rough-house, let it all hang out porn for lesbians, but somehow that is different).

It is all capitalist 'menz' lies isn't it Pynchme?

Meanwhile, other women (and their men) are hoping that their interest in erotica will be better catered for on the Net in the future, with better scripts, better acting and more poetry please. Hopefully competition will swamp out the way-out crude stuff with creative, quality productions.

All this talk about porn and how it's all the nasty men with their sick brutish misogynist fantasies reminds me of all that wonderful work from Nancy Friday.

Now if only a porn producer could buy the rights to some of those women's fantasies. That would really give the moral crusaders something to talk about.

The one with the woman taking the massive ape penis, the rape fantasies, the incest fantasies, the humiliation fantasies. Man, I can see why these feminists find male fantasy so appalling; it's way too tame!

If only Hollywood would replace the positioning of men in chick flick type fantasies as the Madonna-whore like untamed Bad-boy/pathetic boring nice guy duopoly with some Nancy Friday stuff we could see the real grunt of women's sexual desire!

Houellebecq

That is where Pynchme and her Eighties rad fems fail, they cannot distinguish between fantasy and reality and they cannot trust others to do so either.

Dear Cornflower,

Just a reminder ...

You once said to me on another thread -
something about, not losing my cool,
when things got a bit emotive - and you
pointed out to me the fact that it was after
all, just a debate.

It's obvious that you feel
strongly about the subjects you've raised -
on this thread. It sounds to me though
that you could use a cuppa. Like the
one you offered me that time.
You need to chill
out a bit.

Research into the
sexual practices of people is very limited and
often unreliable. The greatest obstacle is
the difficulty of surveying a representative,
random sample of the population.

It is easy enough to discover how people will
vote or which brand of washing powder they use, but
it's much more difficult for researchers to inquire
in depth into the sex lives of complete strangers.
Understandably, many of those sampled will refuse to
respond. Since these people differ in unknown but
perhaps significant ways from those who are willing
to answer, the results of the survey may be biased.

In addition, many who do answer may not always tell
the truth. No sex researchers have yet been able to
fully overcome these problems.

Oh dear.

All this pontificating and not one person has mentioned the obvious: we evolved as a pack/tribe creature. For most of our evolutionary history we (the species) lived as part of a group.

Furthermore, that group had a hierarchy, just as ape and dog groups do today.

That means two things: there was as "alpha" male/man who very probably was quite keen to get the pick of the females/women and did his best to keep the rest of the males/men at bay and there was very probably no way to avoid seeing sex happening. It doesn't take much imagination to work out that for a subordinate male, the best time to get some nooky was when the alpha male was distracted with some nooky of his own. the human female's lack of a "season" may have evolved out of this social behaviour as well, since it behooved her to be "receptive" to use CJMorgan's preferred term.

IOW, see sex, get horny, have it away was the norm.

Porn is simply an artificial reproduction of one of the aspects of our social heritage.

All the wowsers in the world can't change that, or the fact that youngsters were routinely exposed to the act of sex within our Western society as recently as a few decades ago, when many people still lived in single-room or at best shared bedrooms between generations.

All that has changed is that the nominally sexually dysfunctional (wowsers) no longer have to face that dysfunction (revulsion at seeing the act of sex) willy-nilly thanks to our large homes and independent lifestyles. For normal people the imperatives created by evolution remain, hence pornography prospers.

The imperatives created by evolution remain, according to antiseptic
I get suspicious when people use the word "simply" and "hence" so easily . Animals we may be, but using animals as our models - I thought you believed in progress?
We can all blame the genes when it suits us. Children now do
But if you are right , Men don't have any brains and women don't have any choice .Unless women are the mysterious wowsers you seem to think are around somewhere?. I wonder what more subtle talk and action the women in the cave got up to to deal with simple talk and expectations of men?
Sounds more like we're more stuck in the past , than liberated.
The violence and pornography are evidence of failure - its not working mate , unless of course it works for you? The cave, that is

Hanrahan, I have no idea if you're male or female, but let me ask you this: do you find horses erotic? What about sea slugs? Monkeys?

The reason you (probably) don't is genetic. One of the tests of speciation is whether two creatures can and will spontaneously interbreed. Horses don't generally want to mate with donkeys, although they are sufficiently similar that they can interbreed with partial success. The things that turn male horses on are slightly different to the things that turn male donkeys on.

Our genetic heritage is not confined to what colour our skin or eyes become.

Back to the proto-humans and early humans: if my theory is correct, then there would have been a payoff for males who got it up quickly when the alpha male started his fun, since they'd have the most opportunities to get their own end in.

There is some evidence that the human penis is so dispropotionately large compared to other apes and is shaped the way it is in order to displace other males' semen from the vagina.

It seems that "easy" women have been with us since the dawn of humanity.

Ah I love it when we get to reducing people to base instincts. You may be right antiseptic, but it sounds like you're talking out of your arse for sure.

What about pheromones? I think they are more powerful than visual cues. That's why guys with hot looking sisters don't want to shag them. Just raising the bar...

(intended)

Houellebecq:"What about pheromones?"

What about them? Name one that has been shown to occur in humans and influence sexual behaviour.

Besides, even if human pheromones exist, which is by no means sure, they may be just one trigger. Why are you so scared of the possibility that your sexual behaviour is hard-wired to visual cues by your genetic heritage? Don't you ever get horny watching your wife undress, even though she's not remotely horny herself and you know it ain't gonna happen?

Houellebecq:"That's why guys with hot looking sisters don't want to shag them."

But some do. The Oedipal urge has also been well documented and we all know that some men want to have sex with their daughters.

In tribal societies pubescent boys were often sent away, possibly to avoid that very possibility you mention.

I wasn't placed in temptation's way: none of my sisters were hot and they were all much older than me.

Actually you may be onto something anti. I remember guys wanting to keep me away from their sister when I was younger. This could actually have been motivated by jealousy.

I thought pheremones in humans was proven. I'll have to talk to those What's Good for You people. In their show they had a sister sniff three guys shirts, and the BO she found the most offensive was her brothers.

It was very scientific you know:_)

Damn, I'm also going to have to stop buying those sachets from the toilets at the pub. I thought they were working, but it may be related to the fact the missus is drunk. Then again, I get a few flattering advances sometimes when I wipe-on sex appeal. But then again again maybe the missus gets jealous and that's why they work.

It's really really interesting isn't it. I should start a blog. People would love to hear about my Journey.

Gawd, Anti - as an evolutionary anthropologist you make a good sawmiller. Don't give up your day job, old chap.

Here's a thought: you could work your primal fantasy up into a good pot-boiler, combining it with your firsthand family experiences and call it something like 'Clan of the Cave Bear'... oh hang on, that's been done.

It might be therapeutic, anyway.

Dear Anti,

For centuries, the societies of the Western world
have shrouded sexuality in myth, taboo, and
ignorance. Even sociologists, supposedly dedicated to
studying social behaviour regardless of the
prejudices and obstacles in the way, did not accept
human sexuality as a legitimate field of research until
after World War II. Yet the fact remains that every
society contains two sexes, a feature that obviously
has important and far-reaching implications for
personal behaviour and social life.

Sexuality is a significant ingredient of individual
personality. Some aspects of human sexuality are still
imperfectly researched, partly because continuing
social inhibitions have hindered the accumulation of
the necessary information. I won't go into a thesis of
the nature of human sexuality, sexual behaviour in other
cultures, cultural universals, restrictiveness and
permissiveness, sexual conduct, traditional values,
contemporary practices, double standards, or sexually
transmitted diseases et cetera.

Suffice to say that human sexuality is extremely flexible;
for this reason every society makes strong efforts to
regulate it in culturally approved ways.

Yeah but do you own a dildo Foxy. And are you really that flexible?

foxy, of course human sexuality is very varied, yet there is an underlying sameness. There are few men who don't respond to pornographic images, even though they may express horror that they were aroused. That suggests that the response is wired pretty deeply.

Many female rape victims tell of becoming lubricated, despite obviously not being emotionally aroused.

Once again, it's a deep response.

CJ, don't worry, some men have always been "different": noone thinks any the less of you. Really...

OK Antiseptic, I've got more proof of pheromones!

The wipe-on sex appeal wipes even come with a warning that they "can trigger powerful responses; use with caution."'

http://blogs.smh.com.au/lifestyle/allmenareliars/archives/2006/08/the_big_questio_1.html

Dear Houellie,

You're a "class act" Sir,
no doubt about that!