Isn\’t this amusing

Tits should not be on or in magazines because this is the objectification of women.

Vulvas should be on the cover of a magazine because this is celebrating the freedom and sexuality of women.

Or summat.

Our student newspaper was taken off the shelves from showing vulvas. But what is offensive about a body part that over half of the world have?

12 comments on “Isn\’t this amusing

  1. Isn’t it the usual, feminist intellectuals demanding the option to flaunt while insisiting disgusting males don’t look.

    So now it’s the “pube pride” wing in the ascendency. Won’t be long before the hairy armpit makes a comeback, only for it all to reverse again in a couple of weeks time, when the deep-thinking and not at all fashion-swayed feministas will start “reclaiming” porn. Or summat.

  2. How can society both refuse to look at our body part, call it offensive, and then demand it look a certain way?

    Simple; you just have to dive headlong into the trap of assuming that “society” is an amorphous collective with a single opinion. I could just as easily ask, “How can women be both so proud of their nether regions that they want to display them on a magazine cover, and so ashamed that they refuse to let anyone photograph them?” These are different people who just happen to fall into the same artificial overall grouping. Once you take the enormous, frightening leap of regarding people as individuals rather than members of some category with a specific template, your confusion should disappear in a puff of logic and common sense.

  3. It’s not the display of tits or vulvas the feminists object to, it’s the idea that men might enjoy it.

  4. If you ladies want the natural look downstairs how do you feel about me growing a mujahideen beard? After all, that would be the natural look. Or do you prefer your men clean-shaven?

  5. @JamesV, it’s not just feminists flaunting themselves in their own publications and demanding that men don’t look. They also demand that other women don’t flaunt themselves in other publications. The only true publication is one that is arty and lefty and covers topics in with a socialist attitude. Anything else is giving in to the capitalist male pigs.

  6. …because without license, you don’t have liberty.

    Well, sort of. License itself means “being allowed to do things” whereas liberty means “doing things and nobody has the power to stop you doing them”. Which are different.

    But when most people bring up this “license” vs. “liberty” thing, what they mean by “license” is stuff they don’t like, which is generally something that offends puritans- “licentiousness”. And liberty means “the right to do things that are not licentious”. In other words, a fake form of liberty.

    If you have liberty, people will be licentious. Liberty and license are the same thing, if you really want liberty.

  7. @ Ian B
    licence means *a particular set of people* being allowed to do *a particular set of things* like driving licences or a licence to sell ale and spirits to be consumed on the premises or Microsoft licensing me to use a bit of their software on just one computer.
    That is *not* the same as liberty.
    The most frequent use I’ve seen of that quote is to refer to a small group that wants to dictate what they and other people are allowed to do. You either have a very different experience or you are misinterpreting the purpose of the quote.

  8. @ JamesV

    “If you ladies want the natural look downstairs how do you feel about me growing a mujahideen beard? After all, that would be the natural look. Or do you prefer your men clean-shaven?”

    Ok. I’ll bite.

    If you don’t like your Mary Hairy, then feel free not to fuck her. I think she’ll be fine with that. If you want to grow a giant beard then feel free to do that. Women, however pubed they may be, can decide whether they want to fuck you.

    On the offchance that you meet a woman who expects* you to shave some part of yourself, whilst asserting her wimminly right not to shave any part of herself, then tell her to go and fuck herself.. but until you find one, that’s a strawman.

    (*as distinct from one who happens not to fancy blokes with beards but is ok with your choice and is happy to go find someone less bearded)

    Lots of women believe that there is a social pressure to shave places that they don’t think there should be a social pressure to shave. I’d say there are bigger issues in the world.. but never mind. This is a thing they like to shout about. They probably don’t really care about the social pressure on men to shave stuff.. but, if pressed, I expect they’d say that they don’t much agree with that either.

    Having an opinion on social pressures to shave things, and the desirability thereof, are, however, entirely independent from ones own preferences for oneself and whomsoever one wishes to fuck. The most feministy people I’ve “known” have kept things in good order. Now.. I kinda take issue with them for fighting other people’s battles without having been asked (i.e. saying, in essence, “I am an woman capable of deciding how to style my nethers without the patriarchy interfering, but I think that many other women are less capable than me and therefore I will be angry on their behalf”), but I wouldn’t accuse them of hypocrisy or double standards.. even if they didn’t fancy blokes with big beards.. because that’s not what they are.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.