Friday, 6 December 2013
Apparently there's some program called 'lingerie football'? I have no idea how that works. The football is just an excuse, I'm guessing. Now it's been said that the existence of this is sexist. Ok, here's my argument why it isn't.
The test for sexism is to gender-swap the scenario.
If there was some TV show where, to appear, men had to wear male lingerie, would men refuse? Not for a heartbeat. Men like attention (and money!) just as much as women. I doubt there's any profit in it, however.
Feminists continually emphasise that women just don't care as much about male appearance as vice versa; it's usually in the context of why women are *better* than men. So a show based on the visual appeal of men is just not going to be as profitable, surely. However, the beauty of today's cheap cameras etc is there's nothing stopping a Feminist group from creating this show and broadcasting it, so long as they skip the radio waves. Kickstarter, IndieGoGo et al all exist for this purpose. Digital TV is dirt cheap.
And all you have to do in business is make more money than you spend, and you are a success.
So instead of doing this, Feminists want to ban the lingerie football thing on the ground men looking at women and having teh sexi thoughts means women lose out. That's right, every sexual desire a man experiences ruins the purity of women.
Why is that?
I confess: I like porn.
I have no problem at all with male sexuality, male masturbation, etc. Not particularly keen on observing it, any more than football, but I'm not opposed to it either, just like football.
It does fascinate me how far people will go to repress it.
Look at circumcision. In the west, this was seen by non-Jews as an abhorrent practice, the ritual mutilation of babies as a limited human sacrifice. Then it was plugged as way to stop boys masturbating, and it achieved respectability. Then it was the norm, and almost no-one remembered why they had agreed to it.. it was done because it was done.
Why is it Feminists and other authoritarians are so violently opposed to liberty? To 'live and let live'? To others doing things they don't want to do for themselves? To burning books, instead of writing them, to slapping hatecrime laws on their opponents instead of articulating and refining their arguments?
I saw someone last night, who believed, along with her audience, that arguments for the existence of the Patriarchy were unnecessary, because it was so true that it existed that any argument would only serve the Patriarchy. To doubt is heresy; to reason, satanic.
This is the mentality that lead to the Spanish Inquisition, to the re-education camps of the Communists, to the mental asylums and lobotomies of sane people whose crime was simply that they didn't conform.
We have to do better than that.