Regan - I just chose a very obvious case to make my point: that while being pro-choice, I don't think all choices are equally wise, so I think that it is you who have "chosen a very dangerous avenue to go down" when you assert that "we cannot argue for choice and then rail against the choices that women freely make". Do you not have a set of values against which you measure your, and other people's choices/actions?

Perhaps I should have used a less controversial example - it's your choice to eat what you eat when you have some chocolate, some cake, a little ice-cream, but it would be an unwise choice to stuff yourself day after day with them; ditto with video games, obviously.

People always reply to my comments wondering out loud if I'm trolling, whether it be here or on the Drum or at the Punch... I take it as somewhat of a compliment, not because I want to be a troll, in fact I'm not a troll, (and if I was trolling, it would be obvious), but because it shows that I'm free thinker devoid of all the disgusting, predominantly left-wing group-think that permeates most people's brains these days.

Now, as a thinker, I look at the big picture... and when we are dealing with the big picture, the broad swathe of society at large, we MUST use generalisations, we MUST rely on averages and typicality. Sure, there are always outliers and atypicals, but are not these the exceptions that prove the rule? Perhaps.

Now, in no way am I dogmatic on anything. I'm quite willing to consider all view points on the evidence presented and flexibly adapt to it, but you it seems are not willing to engage in such a discussion. In your mind, the group-think has been settled, the thought-police have spoken, and any dissent from this sanctioned stance is high heresy! (or at least, "trolling").

Catch up - it is when the 'penny' drops and whose, whom or others coffers 'they' drop in when they actually give a .... well you know.

I am actually interested in the answer to the hypothetical question I asked. Having defended 'equality' for as long as I can remember (as you can note from my reply a few days ago to a comment made by someone else here) and given that responsibility for the existence or perpetuation of LFL (which I had never heard of before this article was published) has been largely levelled at marketing organisations, may I not seek such an answer and wouldn't it be in your best interest to address it ?? Incidentally, the question was not intended to be in any way derogatory in its construction so please don't read anything more into it.

I think the answer to your scenario is in the wider context. A society in which such circumstances existed would seem to have achieved a level of equality that meets the aspirations of most feminists - media power & ownership and genuine choice. Genuine choice is not available to women in our current society. LFL is a manifestation of the general media dichotomy that persists - the serious stuff is for men and the titillation & fluff is for the women.

Hi Paul, thanks for responding.

My question relates to a different situation, not a different society, but the more I try to explain it, the more it appears to be an argument. Honestly, it is not, I think you've already noted that I am an advocate of 'equality'. It is purely a hypothetical so nothing more than the 3 rules of hypotheticals apply to it. I'm sure you know what they are but for anyone who doesn't ...

1. the question must be accepted
2. nothing may be added or subtracted
3. the response must be an honest one

It is also worth noting that I was both owner and principal of an advertising agency for 20+ years and am currently a marketing consultant so this isn't just theoretical for me, I actually hoped to get some feedback from feminists too.
By all means, keep up the conversation. Surprisingly, it would appear that you and I are the last 2 contributors. Thanks again Paul.

Well, if you want a simple answer - no, LFL would not be an issue in the hypothetical posed, in my opinion. Under such conditions it would seem to constitute an act of self-determination and there would be an absence of patriarchal objectification.

Implicit in your post is also the understanding that males cannot be feminists. That is a whole other debate.

I asked the hypothetical because obviously I already knew the answer. The point of it is this ; I am someone who supports equality on all fronts but frequently, the feminist argument does not lead to achieving it because their arguments can be either too easily overcome or they are not 'really' seeking equality at all, and that doesn't help us to achieve it.

The argument put forward in this discussion is about 'choice and opportunity'. As pathetic as LFL appears to be, choice and opportunity is not limited by the inclusion of male participation yet, we agree, that male participation is the only relevant factor making LFL an issue to feminists. Objecting to the organisers of this tacky gimmick (who may well be female) or being critical of its participants who 'are' female would more likely result in limiting choice and opportunity, and to be honest, it's choice and opportunity not available to males.

Can males be feminists ?? I'm not sure what I said to raise that question ??

It is not merely that the LFL is tacky - it is a choice limited to titillating (desperate) males. This is choice that is still defined and limited by the dominant sex.

That LFL is not an opportunity granted males is a pretty disingenuous argument, unless I am wrong and there are throngs of males out there disaffected by their denial of a right to a place in their own underwear league.

"I actually hoped to get some feedback from feminists too." This is your quote from which I gleaned that you thought me to be a non-feminist voice. It may just be a misinterpretation and anyway, I'm not offended by it. It just immediately grabbed my attention and reminded me of a debate I had years ago. I distinctly remember being upset that I was not allowed to walk with the women in the "reclaim the night" protests. Rather I was only permitted to stand in the crowd and applaud in support. I do understand their position on this though.

Dianna,

If you re-read the article we are commenting on, the (female) author argues that she is bored by some feminist arguments (see quote below).

"Such feminism bores me, saddens me and neglects to acknowledge that equality comes in many shapes and sizes".

I made what was intended to be a fairly direct criticism of her rather dismissive attitude to these arguments. Perhaps your criticism of some men (and seemingly me) would be better directed at Lauren, the author of the article.

Paul

That little word "some" rears its head again - Lauren is bored and saddened by a facet of feminist argument - me too. Feminists, as I attempted to point out above, are as varied as, er, um; humans.

A certain regular (who shall not be named) is predictable in his condemnation of feminists, seeing them as homogenous as blancmange and about as vital. While I did pick up of your use of "boredom" my comment was not in direct response to yours. Else I would've used reply function.

As for LFL - I think there is a niche for it along with magazines like Ralph, a variety of porn where people are treated as receptacles and other various forms of sexploitation - gay porn can be just as demeaning as hetereo. All of it less than enlightening. Such are the vagaries of being human I guess. Doesn't mean we should halt exploring the issue and expressing our opinions however.

My sadness is that some young people will grow up believing that women should be hair free and have gravity defying breasts, or that men should all have 8-packs and big dicks.

Plastic sex. Meanwhile the media is raking in a fortune.

Dianna,
Sorry for any inadvertent accusation - it just seemed to me that your comment was pointed at me. Maybe I am just too sensitive.

I guess we agree to disagree on the issue of the feminism expounded by the author. I see far more worth in the feminism she loathes. It is a form of delusion to think that LFL is an expression of genuine self-determination by thinking women.