Friday, 24 September 2010

Who owns breasts?

Cross posted, because I've just found this nonsense on Stuff too

Brendan Black is a new daddy, and he's had an astonishing revelation. He has found that he needs to get over his semi-embarrassment, in public, about his partner breastfeeding their little boy. He's urging all men to do the same, in an opinion piece that appears in both The Sydney Morning Herald, and The Age. and is now on Stuff too, because it's much cheaper to fill NZ newspapers with second-hand columns from Australia.

Grow up men! Breasts are for babies

His ostensible purpose is laudable: he wants men to get over the idea that there is something wrong with women breastfeeding in public.
Once my son was born, I quickly realised what I had long dreaded: my wife's breasts had to be shared with someone else, even though he had a greater need for them than me.

He sets out some fairly standard ideas about the confusion between the sexualisation of breasts, and the need to feed babies. There's nothing new in what he writes, except that he is addressing men. And yes, it's jolly nice that he's supporting breastfeeding. Of course, you will note the privilege that's on display: because it's being said by a man, it might get taken seriously, and even get published in a couple of big newspapers, but when women have made the same arguments, that's just those wretched feminists getting whiny and shrill again.

But what really, really annoyed me about the article was his assumption of ownership.
Nevertheless, seeing my wife's naked breasts several times a day, even with lessened ownership rights and in a new context, is still enjoyable...*

Oh, he asks for permission before he looks, but he still assumes ownership. And that's the flavour of the entire article. He used to own his partner's breasts, but now he has to share them, and hey, he's okay with that.

Dude, it's simple. The person who owns a woman's breasts is the woman herself. Not her partner. Not any man who cares to walk by and take a look. Not even her babies. But the woman herself. That's one of the basic notions of bodily integrity we have in Western liberal democracies. And once you understand that notion of bodily integrity, then whether or not a woman uses her breasts for sexual pleasure, or for titillation, or for feeding a baby, is none of your business whatsoever. Start with the notion that women own their own breasts, and then you don't even need to worry about whether your "ownership" rights have been affected, because you never had those rights in the first place.

And by the way, this sort of behaviour...
We love to sneak a peek at a woman's cleavage, cop a feel when we're allowed to (and even when we're not)...*

... is not a matter for joking. That's sexual assault. 'Though no doubt it would be more properly regarded as stealing from the man who owns them.

* Emphasis mine

50 comments:

James said...

Right.Well lets remember this when Women start claiming their husbands willes as theirs shall we?

Now of course its all silly childish sematics but a partner does sort of have a "first dibs" sort of "right" ..if thats the word, to their partners bits....to love someone after all is to value that person,and to value is to want to exclude all others from a right to that value if one so chooses.

Yes its hard to define but you know what I mean.

Deborah said...

Nonsense, James. I have no idea what you mean, except that you want to claim ownership over someone else's body. As for women claiming ownership over their husbands' willies, could you link to an article in the mainstream media where a woman does this?

Anonymous said...

Uck. The premise of that article sounded really good, but some of the contents are way off mark.

Some things shouldn't be joked about, excused or lightened (this includes any form of groping or sexual assault).

I saw an online clip last week from "What would you do" (by ABC) about breastfeeding in public. The narrator stated that in all but 3 states it was legal to breastfeed in any situtation in public. In that program, they set up a situation where an actress pretended to be a mother breastfeeding her baby in a cafe. The manager (also an actor) tried to kick her out for doing this. Most customers seemed to stick up for the woman, but some agreed with the manager. When they switched the actress for a teenage girl, there was much less support for her. Whatever she was doing was often seen as wrong and offensive simply because she was a teenage mother: only one woman stopped the manager from kicking her out.

[Amelia].

Random Lurker said...

I read that merely as an attempt at playing with words for humorous effect.

I don't believe he really believes he owns or has ever owned them. I suspect though that he believs he has a stronger case for access rights, as it were, than any other man and that's the idea he was trying to get across.

Personally, I think you're reading too much into his inappropriate choice of word.

On the other point, I think he was attempting to be cheeky and playful with his 'even when not' line but it is still irresponsible and not merely inappropriate.

Anonymous said...

There is nothing worse than a half assed attempt at humour that is diced up with the fervent angst of someone with a seriously large chip on her shoulder.
Get over yourself....sure women own their breasts but men like them....its a shift for dads...simple as that. No politics here just biology!
Nicholas

Deborah said...

women own their breasts but men like them

Since when does liking something give you a right to grab it without asking the owner's permission first?

Anonymous said...

Guys are built a bit differently to women...I think the article is benign...guys in committed relationships try it on constantly...most couples don't agree on willingness to intimacy before hand-how sterile would that be...women and men have the right to say no...that needs to be respected but it is a humorless stretch to claim assault in this instance......gotta read the article in context...its a light hearted and somewhat silly dance through the flawed male pysch.
Nicholas

Mikaere Curtis said...

I have a slightly different take on the article. Black seems to have made some assumptions and has not explained them. His use of language was imprecise, and resulted in him appearing to enable sexual assault, as well as appear to believe he owns his partners mamalian protuberences.

Nevertheless, seeing my wife's naked breasts several times a day, even with lessened ownership rights and in a new context
I don't think he meant that he owned his wife's breasts. Instead, I think he referred to a constructive intellectual property - access rights. He is (presumably) in a monogomous relationship with his wife, so has the expectation that he will be the only person who has intimate sexual access to his wife (and therefore her breasts).

So the "rights" he refers to is the exclusive nature of his relationship with his wife. Only he has the "right" to be granted access to her breasts. He doesn't own her breasts but he does claim a right to be the only person to whom she can grant access to her breasts.

Hence the general thrust of the article - it's about his dealing with the fact that he has to share access rights with a person who actually has a need, rather than a want, for his partner's breasts.

The subtext is that his partner may grant or deny access, this his "ownership" is of a right that is at the behest of his wife. i.e. not ownership of her breasts at all she can always deny access, as is her right.

We love to sneak a peek at a woman's cleavage, cop a feel when we're allowed to (and even when we're not)
In light of my interpretation of his comments, he's not seeking to enable sexual assualt against women and their breasts. Rather he's talking about the situation when he's touched his wife's breast and she has, in a friendly way, castigated him. e.g. in a "Don't do that, someone might be watching" kind of way.

I may well be wrong, but reading the article with my Guy Googles on, I kind of can see his point. Not that he did a good job of explaining his position. Especially when he said he was embarressed about women breastfeeding. I mean, FFS, it is one of the best things a mother can do for her child. More = better, why did he have to become a father to work that out ?

Mikaere Curtis said...

Addendum: Just wanted to clarify that the "Don't do that, someone might be watching" scenario implies that the woman would otherwise be OK with being touched in that way. i.e. if she was breastfeeding and did not want this kind of touching then he should NOT be doing this.

Lucy said...

Rather he's talking about the situation when he's touched his wife's breast and she has, in a friendly way, castigated him. e.g. in a "Don't do that, someone might be watching" kind of way.

Okay, here's what I don't like about this whole discussion: it's the disembodiment, as if "breasts" are separate from the woman and the goal is to get to touch them, rather than to be intimate with your partner. *Even if* it's within the context of a committed relationship - the whole "ooh, boobies, must touch!" attitude is one that's frankly kind of creepy. Especially in alleged adults.

Jane said...

Right.Well lets remember this when Women start claiming their husbands willes as theirs shall we?

What women claim ownership of their partner's penis? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

I can't believe people are defending this trashy, respulsive article.

A Nonny Moose said...

@ Random:

If you see humour in the article, then you see humour in sexual assault and a man owning a woman's body.

"I don't believe he really believes he owns or has ever owned them."

The operative word here is "i" - your opinion. You do not know the journo, or the journo's intent. Your opinion may be slightly in line with the journo's, but if you're trying to defend a man's "right" to a woman's body, then you are trying to twist the words to suit your privilege of maintaining physical dominance of a woman.

"Personally, I think you're reading too much into his inappropriate choice of word."

Please refer to Feminism 101 before you throw out this standard line around here thanks. If you want to defend your position, do so with debate that does not centre on tried and failed lines like this. I'd have to ask you: "why aren't YOU reading more into this? what have you got to gain or maintain?"

A Nonny Moose said...

"We love to sneak a peek at a woman's cleavage, cop a feel when we're allowed to (and even when we're not)
In light of my interpretation of his comments, he's not seeking to enable sexual assualt against women and their breasts. Rather he's talking about the situation when he's touched his wife's breast and she has, in a friendly way, castigated him. e.g. in a "Don't do that, someone might be watching" kind of way."

Really? Because he didn't say "I love to sneak a peek at a my wife's cleavage, cop a feel when I'm allowed to (and even when I'm not)"

He bespoke of men in this homogenous lump (and they're not, a lot of them would be pretty disgusted at being lumped in like this, and I wish they'd speak up and tell him it's not on) - all men (the "we") like to look at boobs, and grab at them. All men, in all occasions, which can mean with partners or random women on the street/in a bar/at work etc etc

I don't care to guess his intention because even if he's a Nice Guy (TM) you can say assault-tastic bollocks like "even when we're not (allowed)", and very MUCH mean "with my wife" AND infer "with random slut on street". It's seeking to normalize ownership of women, and their boobs.

And yeah, my boobs aren't disembodied sexual tools that float free of my chest and agency thanks. Any person who seeks to speak on behalf of my boobs can get lost.

Boganette said...

I love you A Nonny Moose. You speak the truth!

Anonymous said...

@ Nonny Moose:

The things is you make a statement like ,"The operative word here is "i" - your opinion. You do not know the journo, or the journo's intent" and then have a good old fashioned rant about what you think the journo's intent is....double standards surely. The point is...the article is written by a fella and no amount of posturing about abuse on your part helps to get inside the machinery of this man's mind. The article has to be read in its entirety and rather than read like the abuser you make him out to be, he comes across as simply immature and a bit of a dick.
Nic

AnneE said...

Yes, he does come across as immature and a bit of a dick - a pretty offensive dick, in fact. But surely the point is that so many papers saw fit to publish this. His immaturity, dickdom and dimness about who owns his wife's breasts, and who can grab any woman's breasts (there's only one way to read that comment - he does not just mean husbands and wives) were not seen as anything of the kind. Instead they were seen as funny, warm and supportive.

A Nonny Moose said...

@ Nic:

We can very well make assertions about the journo's intent because as women with breasts we very much know what it's like to be assaulted, ogled and objectified. Not double standards at all when he very plainly and clearly asserts that women's boobs are there for grabbing WHETHER WE LIKE IT OR NOT.

It's very very simple: if the women likes it and says yes to casual grabbing by a partner - not assault. If the women doesn't like it, doesn't want it and says no (or really, she shouldn't HAVE to say no, because her body is autonomous) - it's assault. Why the hell would you want to defend this sort of behaviour. Oh that's right - so men can casually keep asserting their authority and keep assaulting. Coz the bitch deserves it, yeah?

Go get grabbed in public by a stranger. Go get ogled without repurcussion. Go exist with a female body, or any non-male body, in public, and tell much "fun" it is.

Dude doesn't have breasts, therefore he has absolutely no clue what it's like to be fondled in public (or private) without the breast owner's consent. You could argue "but men have a penis/body that gets objectified", but is our cultured centred around holding men to a standard of sexuality, dress and apportment because of their bodies? Do we casually grab mens penis' on the street? And I'm pissed off that we have to compared a penis to boobs, because the GOOD part of this journo's essay is about not sexually objectifying breasts.

Deborah said...

There's an interesting gender divide in the comments thread here.

Hugh said...

Sorry to ruin your statistical sample, Deborah, but I think this article is utter crap.

Deborah said...

The blog post, or the article by Brendan Black, Hugh?

Anonymous said...

@ Nonnie Moose:

Take a chill pill...every argument you put up works against you in reverse..."Dude doesn't have breasts, therefore he has absolutely no clue what it's like to be fondled in public"...so ok then...women aren't men so don't start foaming at the mouth just because the guy is expresses something about how certain men work....it ain't pretty but it doesn't make him an abuser. Can you honestly tell me that you have never come across decent and respectful people that have tried to get their hands on there partners bits even when they suspected they might not be up for it. Like anything, if you want to take gender politics too seriously then you end up seeing ghosts where they don't exist. I think it is at all clear that the journo is taking about strangers....the fact that you do says more about your demons than his.
Nic

Boganette said...

Jeez that was Trolling 101. Take a chill pill? Any woman who disagrees with you is hysterical and 'frothing at the mouth'? YAWN. Reading comprehension fail dickhead.

Am I allowed to say dickhead?

"Can you honestly tell me that you have never come across decent and respectful people that have tried to get their hands on there partners bits even when they suspected they might not be up for it." - respectful people respect their partners. Not a hard concept mate.

A Nonny Moose said...

Holy crap, that WAS Troll 101. That you attacked me Nic, and refused to address my words says a lot about you and your lack of ability to discuss the point. Here, this may help you: http://derailingfordummies.com/

"Can you honestly tell me that you have never come across decent and respectful people that have tried to get their hands on there partners bits even when they suspected they might not be up for it."

Unfortunately, yes. I know people like this. It still makes them complete morons for not appreciating the autonomy of their partners body. Sexual agency doesn't stop the moment you're partnered or married.

"f you want to take gender politics too seriously then you end up seeing ghosts where they don't exist."

I said it up thread: if I'm taking this too seriously, why aren't you taking it seriously enough? And that's not a rhetorical question. Please tell me what you have to gain or maintain from being able to casually grab a woman's boobs. I'm very interested to know.

Anonymous said...

@ Boganette

"Respectful people respect their partners". Yep...agreed but doesn't make the journo an abuser. Gotta be careful not to project your own issues into others particularly as Nonny points out that we don't have the right to judge whats going on for someone of the opposite gender: "Dude doesn't have breasts". By the way...why do you assume I'm a man?
Nic

Boganette said...

1) Why was A Nonny Moose's reply to Nic removed from the site? It didn't seem to break any of the commenting rules as far as I could see.

2) Nic - you're missing the point by so much and you're derailing on an epic scale.

Here read this slowly. It is problematic - FOR OBVIOUS REASONS - to state in a published article/opinion piece "We love to sneak a peek at a woman's cleavage, cop a feel when we're allowed to (and even when we're not)...". It's not OK to joke about sexual assault. Touching a woman when she doesn't want to be touched is sexual assault OK? If you're not "allowed" to touch someone you don't touch them. We don't joke about sexual assault OK?

I actually do have the right as not only a woman but a HUMAN BEING to say that it's not OK for a man to joke about assaulting a woman. I have that right. I'm not projecting anything (Troll 101 again). You derailing like that is essentially the same as me saying "Hey dude, why do you think it's OK to sexually assault women? Are you like a rapist? Are you projecting?".

And "By the way...why do you assume I'm a man?" - You're not a man. At least not to me. Real men don't think jokes about sexual assault are acceptable.

Boganette said...

Looks like my comment was deleted. I can't be bothered rephrasing it.

So maybe Nic you might like to educate yourself on rape culture and why jokes about sex assault, unwanted sexual attention, inappropriate touching aren't funny.

http://web.overland.org.au/2010/09/28/rape-culture/

A Nonny Moose said...

Hmm, looks like 2 of my comments have gone missing too. *shrug*

Anonymous said...

@ Boganette

Thanks for the education but it just underscores how hysterical your perspective is....this conversation is about an article that has a phrase that can not in all honesty be claimed to be about abuse of strangers. The fact that you are trying to make it into that and then paint me as someone that needs to be educated about abuse only emphasizes your loss of perspective. They is NO excuse for forcing yourself on anyone but there is little justification for claiming abuse based on the paucity of clear evidence in the original article we are debating.
Nic

A Nonny Moose said...

Hysterical...victimization problems...projection...

Nic, may I introduce you to "Derailing For Dummies"

http://derailingfordummies.com

Come back and talk to us when you have something new and useful to say.

If you are invested in apologia for sexual assault - no matter how much of a "joke" or small it is - you are invested in male physical dominance and making sure women do not have agency to their bodies.

"They is NO excuse for forcing yourself on anyone"

You should have stopped there if you truly believe in women's bodily autonomy. "But" is the signifier of someone deliberately missing the point to ensure their privilege.

I'll ask again: why are you do invetested in making sure men are allowed to grab a women's boobs at will?

Boganette said...

Sigh - this will probably get deleted but AGAIN DUDE - Sexual assault/unwanted physical attention isn't funny. The end. Get over it.

Anonymous said...

@ Boganette

Yeh...lets finish it. It ain't sexual assault...it is your back story that leads you to claim assault. Dangerous and intransigent attitudes lead to incorrect and inappropriate judgements. Sorry to be blunt but thats it. End of story.
Nic

A Nonny Moose said...

"it is your back story that leads you to claim assault"

Jay-SUS. Keep dog piling with the victim blaming Nic!

Thanks. That's all I needed to answer my question.

A Nonny Moose said...

Christ, I can't stop laughing. Not wanting to be groped against my will is such a "dangerous and intransigent attitude"!!

Anonymous said...

@ Nonnie Moose

Pleased to make you laugh....god I was concerned for a minute there that you were taking things far too seriously, particularly this authors missive...what with claims of abuse and what was that phrase you used, "apologia for sexual assault". Never said that a women's body should be grabbed with out permission. What I did say was that 'inside' relationships this sometimes happens. Think of someone who touches to instigate intimacy knowing their partner was tired or potentially not up for it. In loving and respectful relationships you say no and it’s all good. No abuse. I just think it is really sad that you reduce everything in gender politics to the lowest possible denominator. Now maybe you are just a black and white kinda person or have had experiences that make you paint everything black but I'm not convinced that gender politics is that simple. I think humans are deeply complex. In this particular instance I genuinely think it is a real stretch to be claiming this journo is talking abuse. Way too many things we don't know and way too many assumptions that have to be made to arrive at that call.
Nic

Boganette said...

"it is your back story that leads you to claim assault."

Why don't you come out and say what you really mean by this mate.

Craig Ranapia said...

Sorry for coming late to this, but here's my thoughts.

1) The only breasts I "own" are my generous man-boobs.

2) Yes I might feel a wee bit uncomfortable with breast-feeding in public. That's my problem and I need to deal with it - as Kanye tweets, it's a process. Since a breast-feeding woman is breaking no laws, and doesn't meaningfully impinge on my personal space, health and safety that's as it should be. Averting you gaze isn't that hard.

3) This might be dreadfully old fashioned, but I was taught that it's just rude to stare at strangers. Good general principle, IMO.

4) In the end, a happy (and quiet) bub attached to Mama's tit is more enhancing to my calm that a hungry, distressed one expressing its displeasure with Wagnerian force. Offensive? Breast feeders are doing a bloody public service, and more power to them.

A Nonny Moose said...

Nic, in a way I feel sorry for you. You've been so indoctrinated into the normalization of sexual assault and removal of female bodily autonomy, that you buy into the idea that what we say is "hysterical" or "dangerous".

It's sad, and it's why we fight it so hard. We understand how difficult it is to get your head around that the things you have been told are normal, the things that happen every day, are not right.

Whether you're a man or not (you haven't said one way or the other, and I'm not going to assume, because women can be buried in the normalization of kyriachy too), your experience and cognisence is not ours, and not that of a woman who has experienced assault. And this definition of assault doesn't have to be as simple as the "creepy guy who leaps out of the bushes".

It's the way your male family members look at you, talk to you, touch you, as you grow up.

It's the way boys look and touch you at school.

It's the way strangers look at you on the street.

It's the way people feel obliged to comment on your breastfeeding, or what you're wearing in public.

It's the way casual sexual assault can happen within a relationship, because you are socialized to accept that your husband/partner is supposedly your equal. Hell, we didn't get spousal rape as a crime until the 1970s. Yes, you can get what, as you say, "intimiate touching to escalate closeness" that may be rejected in a kind and respectful way. But you will also get partners who will persist, and do it in front of friends and family "because it's funny to make the woman uncomfortable", and think they're entitled to access to their partners body all the time by virtue of "ownership".

I am not offended by you. I am contemptuous. And saddened. Because you could be a Nice Guy (TM) but even nice guys have been socialized to think women belong to them, even the ones closest to them.

Deborah said...

Great comment, A Nonny Mous. I find it utterly frustrating that what Nic seems to think is just normal bahaviour and is therefore acceptable, is something that is predicated on the idea that women's bodies belong to someone else, that someone else can assert ownership rights over a woman's body. Nic is simply not hearing what you and Boganette have been saying i.e. that women own their own bodies. Full stop. End of story.

Of course, this is a change from the old way of doing things, where it was fine for men to assert ownership rights over women's bodies. Maybe that's why Nic is so resistant: (s)he doesn't understand that the world has changed, and that means that bahaviour that was previously tolerated, even encouraged, must change too.

Hugh said...

It's the way casual sexual assault can happen within a relationship, because you are socialized to accept that your husband/partner is supposedly your equal.

Huh? Could you explain this bit a bit more? I was following you up until then, but now I'm just confused.

A Nonny Moose said...

Hugh, cheers for pulling me up: fingers must've been going faster than the brain.

The expectation is that in a relationship everything is on an even keel when it comes to a power dynamic. Of course we know this is not true, because we're still here arguing women's rights today.

In a relationship, there is the expectation that you are "safe": the person who is supposed to love, respect, support you the most could not possibly do something like "this", whether that "this" ranges from Domestic Violence and Rape, through to simple unwanted attention and "grabbing boobs".

Of course, we also know that relationships being "safe spaces" is not the case either. The point I was trying to make, and the cognitive dissonance that Nic is having, is challenging the idea that supposed good relationships also come with their fair share of negotiating body autonomy issues.

So, as I was saying, I understand how it would be tough for guys who think they are nice, or (arbitrarily) normal, to be challenged to rethink their attitude. You don't see casual grabbing or groping (even with a partner) as bad because that's what you've been socialized to expect as normal.

It's inextricably linked with discussions about consent.

A Nonny Moose said...

Actually, I want to expand on something I said: "your experience and cognisence is not ours, and not that of a woman who has experienced assault."

You may have experienced unwanted sexual attention or assault. You may have dealt with it and moved on. You may have not. You might not have recognized it as unwanted or assault, by virtue of the normalization.

Whatever the case, you still have no right to deny the experiences of others fighting unwanted attention or assault.

Hugh said...

Thanks A Nonny, that's much clearer now.

However I think you're being a bit pessimistic when you say relationships between men and women are never equal. It's true that when the relationship begins the power dynamic is unequal because, as you say, we're in a patriarchal society. But I think it is possible, through hard work and self-analysis (from the man mostly, but also from the woman) to get a relationship that does work within itself on an equal basis. Not that that's a solution for all the woman's problems.

I won't go around claiming any of my relationships have ever got to this status - that's for the ladies in question to determine - although I have tried. But I'm sure some of the ladies here can testify to the fact that they truly are equal with their male partners within the context of the relationship.

Deborah said...

I'll try to respond to that, Hugh, but do bear in mind that I'm not a lady!

Yes, our relationship does function well, but that's after 20 years of working at it. It took my husband a long time to get the body autonomy point I was making (NB: he has always, always, respected "No."): he only really internalised it when we had to explain to one of our daughters that it wasn't fair to cling on to someone when she had said that she wanted to stop hugging.

(It took me a long, long time to get the provider-pressure point he was making, but that's a topic for another day.)

A Nonny Moose said...

Oh you're absolutely right Hugh, and it's Nic is trying to make that point in part. You, me, hir understand the concept of respect and working on a relationship, but his dissonance happens at the point where he claims we're "hysterical" for saying "all men" will assault their partners.

No, I'm saying SOME men will casually reinforce sexual ownership because they haven't been, and don't want to be, taught otherwise because of the power privilege it affords them.

I'm like Deborah. My relationship (of equals) is a long term, ongoing education. Consent and body autonomy did not stop the day we became partners.

Anonymous said...

@ Nonny Moose

You see the thing is...there is this element of indulgence in your perspective that is so deeply ridden in taking oneself and ones politics so seriously that any argument you put up sounds like a party political broadcast. I would hate to be in a relationship that you and Deborah describe..prescriptive and rigid with the notion of respect being the disempowerment of one of the things that makes this world go around and that is the fundamental differences between men and women. You don't seem to get that men are different and their overt sexualisation is part of being a man. This fact doesn't make them abusers it makes them men and most women get this. I have been arguing for respect of anyone's body but also for some common sense and diversity within gender roles. 'Consent and body autonomy'....come on...what is that? May I touch you tonight darling? Yes please do? Hell. What is next...drawing up a contract to ensure your rights are not infringed. Sadly you seem to have your head so far up your comfortable, self affirming, rhetorical togetherness on this that you can't divorce the notion of abuse from normal male behavior and it is that sort of attitude that fuels the sort of intransigent firebombing that has wrecked many men's lives.
Nic

Boganette said...

"You don't seem to get that men are different and their overt sexualisation is part of being a man."

I AM A MAN HEAR ME ROAR! MY OVERT SEXUALISATION IS ON DISPLAY! BOW DOWN!

Sigh. I feel like we've been here before.

And dude you really don't get what consent is do you. OR MAYBE - MAYBE we're all blinded by your overt sexualisation. Yeah, that's probably it.

Anonymous said...

@ Boganette

haha...live by the sword die by the sword... true to form, when your perspective is challenged you revert to the most appalling gender stereotypes...good on you..I thought you were advocating respect and intelligent discussion of the issues but instead it seems you demonstrate your views are just a simple pot calling the kettle black....deeply unimpressive stuff.
Nic

Boganette said...

Gender stereotypes? Coming from the guy showing off his "overt sexualisation"? Don't make me LOL!

Anonymous said...

@ Boganette

Keep digging...you really don't get men. Please don't claim the right of respect for your gender and then fail to give it...you haven't yet responded in any rational way to any of the points raised... you going to give it a go or do you want to continue the arm wrestle?
Nic

Julie said...

Ok Nic and Boganette, think it's chill pill time, although Deborah can feel free to override me on that as it's her post. B, feel free to take this up further at your own place if you like, and post a link to show Nic where to go to engage with you there.

Kindly asking that neither of you comment further on this post (other than B can stick up a link to her own blog post on it if she likes, or indeed Nic if he has one) for 24 hours, others can still comment, although I'd appreciate it if no one attempts to enflame things.

Deborah, feel free to make your own ruling and delete my comment if you disagree. :-)