The WTF moment of the day, brought to you by Playboy...

... yet another good reason to "bin the bunny"!

And yes, this is supposed to be some creative form of advertisement... *sigh*

Via Feministing.

Newsflash: PETA confirm they're anti-fur, anti-women

Actually, it's no news that PETA has frequently resorted to objectifying women as a medium to get its message across.

To my eyes, this blunt and often quite gory objectification of the female body, and the distasteful sexualization of violence against women could already be characterized as pornography.

But now they've officially crossed the line between the radical feminist interpretation of what constitutes pornography, and that of the mainstream public.

As a matter of fact, PETA has teamed up with Suicide Girls, a so-called "alternative" pornography website for its new campaign against fur. Seemingly nubile, skinny pornography models strike falsely coy poses, and are tagged with the slogan "I'd rather go naked than wear fur."

Please do complain to PETA if you feel shocked by their exploiting women to promote their ideas. (And prepare yourself to get a patronizing, "you should know that there's nothing shameful about the female body, you should learn to love yourself", touchy-feely kinda crap of an answer.)

***

Just a few quick facts about Suicide Girls (no, I won't link to their website).

• Although they flatter themselves for allegedly featuring "alternative porn" and models, they mainly feature very young, skinny, conventionally beautiful, able, hairless, White women (though apparently, some of the models are "alternative" to the extent that they've got tattoos, piercings or still a little pubic hair left);
• They objectify women for money;
• Suicide Girls is - no shit - run by men;
• The company's managers have been accused of exploiting their female employees - yes, the very same people who are being objectified in such a progressive way;
• And please, what's with the name? Since when is suicide considered as sexy? Since when one's self-destruction gets people off? WTF.

Yet another rant on (or constructive criticism of) pornography...

I've already said before that, at a purely personal level, I don't get it. I don't understand what people like about porn. I don't understand what people find arousing about it.

First, it's just so artificial. It's fake because it probably depicts people who are only doing it for money, not primarily because they enjoy it, or because it's so graifying. It's fake because it's also likely to depict - or evidence - non-consensual sexual activity.

The pleasure is fake, the desire is fake, the love (if any) is fake.

How can a person enjoy looking at images of fake pleasure? How can a person get off on people faking, on people pretending to find sex pleasurable?

The inevitable answer to this question seems to be: the people who get off at this type of stuff :

1. do not understand what pleasure is, and what it looks like in reality, OR
2. make themselves believe that the fake images are in fact real; OR
3. obviously don't care about other people's pleasure but their own when it comes to sex...

In any case, if that's how you think, there's something seriously wrong with you. Either because you've got a fucked up notion of what constitutes someone who genuinely willing to participate in sexual activity, or because you don't care about other people's enthusiasm, willingness or consent.

Which, of course, makes you a sicko and a wannabe rapist.

Most people accept the argument that, in child pornography, the minor participants are not *exactly* enjoying themselves, and that people who get off at this are would-be criminals who are sick enough to make themselves believe that this is for real.

Why don't people then also accept that the same is true with respect to "adult" pornography, and that the people who use it and get off on it are equally sick?

Quote of the Day

A Christian website on how to deal with porn-addicted Christians:

"The church needs to expose this snake and cut off its head before more lives are ruined. "

By "snake", they mean "penis", right?

Rant of the Day

"If I had a cock..." - A rant on pornography by Oni Baba

It's no secret for those of you who read this blog that I'm deeply opposed to pornography.

From an ideological point of view, I think it's at odds with the egalitarian and non-exploitative values that feminism - in my opinion - stands for.

I also think that it is morally - and should be treated as legally - wrong. It's wrong because it's about making objects out of women - you know, those uppity female human beings. It's about using women, and trying to make them fit into the mold of unrealistic fantasies. It's also morally wrong because the goal of pornography is to use static interactions with representations of women as a way to reach sexual arousal/satisfaction. This necessarily entails that such arousal of satisfaction is not conditional to the male pornography consumer's negotiating the terms of the sexual act with the woman. The static nature of pornography make her consent entirely irrelevant. The women featured in pornography are always willing partners. We find the same attitude towards women in men who consume porn to get off, and those who rape women to achieve the same end.

And on a personal level, I really don't get it. Maybe it's just because I'm a woman.

Maybe my female upbringing didn't teach me that it was OK and socially acceptable to get off on unknown persons of the opposite sex because I want instant, easy sexual gratification, or just to boost my self-confidence.

Maybe it's just that I don't have a cock, where, as everybody knows, male self-confidence resides. If I had one, maybe I'd be tempted to exercise my god-given right to use women without their consent to satisfy my personal needs.

Maybe if I had a cock, I'd feel so lousy about myself that I'd rather play with myself and fantasizing about my virtual sexual performances than have real, consensual sex with an actual human being, with *gasp!* feelings, an *gasp!* intellect and even an *GASP!* ability to criticize my pathetic performances.

Maybe if I had a cock, no life and a fast Internet connection that allowed me to access loads of porn on demand, I'd do society a huge favour and I'd shoot myself.

Fighting teh Porn around us

A little while ago, I was shopping for birthdays cards at a Carlton store. I noticed a display of 2008 calendars near the entrance, and among them, many featured -Brazilian-style-bikini-clad-almost-naked bombshells, happily cavorting in the sand, or striking pouty poses.

Besides the obvious "why would Carlton be selling porn?" question, I was shocked by the fact that those calendars were in plain sight, and close to the ground, where small children can freely see them, pick them up and flip through their pictures.

As I paid my purchase, I told the cashier that it was, in my opinion, unacceptable that pornographic calendars be displayed in such way as to be easily accessible for children. She looked at me as if I was crazy. I then went on to explain that in most stores where pornographic magazines are sold, they are usually harder to see, and hidden at the back of the displays.

The cashier was still looking at me with a glazed, "does-not-compute" look in her eyes.

Her (female) colleague then intervened: "Those are not pornographic. It's just naked women."

I decided not to push the discussion any further and left the store.

***

A few days ago, I found myself at a calendar stand in the middle of a mall, trying to find something cute or funny enough to ornate my wall for a whole year.

I noticed - again - pornographic calendars on the lower shelf of the display, at the ground level, in plain sight. I looked around. The cashier, this time, was a young man.

There was no chance in hell, I decided, that he'd be more sensitive to my arguments. After all, he had made the business decision to order, display and sell such products...

So I opted to fight the sneaky fight. I picked up a few "Studs and Spurs" calendars and placed them in front of calendars that pictured naked women.

***

OK. Fighting porn that objectifies women (i.e. very popular porn) with porn that objectifies men (i.e. less popular porn) is arguably not the best way to eliminate it. But at the very least, it may help, for a few hours or even a day, decrease the sale of pornographic material.

Violent Porn: Now in a Lingerie Store Near You

The British lingerie retailer Agent Provocateur has recently opened a store in Vancouver, and is apparently planning to open new locations in Toronto and Montréal.

Well, this can only mean one thing, ladies: Get your torches and pitchforks ready.

But what, you might be wondering is so wrong about Agent Provocateur? Or is it just me, you know, the no-fun anti-sex, ever-frustrated feminist?

If you don't know the company yet, let's just say that it sells very expensive (i.e. between $140 and $160 for bras, and between $70 and $90 for thongs and panties) "exotic" lingerie. And by "exotic", we're talking porn/escort services-grade underwear.

Like, for instance, bras with no cups that expose the breasts, nipple pasties and tassles, and the like.

You know, the kind of delicate and impossibly uncomfortable stuff that are not made to be worn all day by real women, and that are solely designed to be put on shortly before coming into the bedroom, only to be removed and thrown on the floor by one's drooling partner seconds after.

***

(Side note: Do men really know the difference anyway between average female underwear and the really expensive kind? That is, when they're not buying it as "presents" for their girlfriends?)

***

I know, I know... Isn't that just precisely what the business of any lingerie retailer consists of?

Maybe it is, although it's not my personal opinion. But in any case, what differentiates Agent Provocateur from other lingerie brands is its absolutely disgusting attitude towards women.

First, it uses porn as a form of publicity. If you go on their website (at your own risks - it might trigger very upsetting feelings), the first thing you'll see is three naked females bathing together and lascively posing for the camera. If you enter the website and actually check out the products, you'll notice that they can't just show you the picture of a bra, or even the picture of a fashion model wearing said bra. No, Ma'am. Every single product is displayed via pictures of models shot in soft porn postures or attitudes.

As a woman, I find the suggestion that I can't distinguish between bona fide lingerie advertisements and gratuituous online porn incredibly insulting.

The further you go, the worst it gets. The misogyny is extreme, and its everywhere. On the website, you'll find shoes that will suit you from the "boardroom to the bedroom" (seriously: WTF?!?) and, in the "jewellery" section, you'll find that the only proposed item is a metallic dog collar, complete with a fancy leash and matching (optional) handcuffs. There's even a blindfold with the phrase "Treat me like the whore that I am" written across it.

Classy, I know.

***

As a matter of fact, violent sex and sexual domination/submission seem to be a recurrent theme in the Agent Provocateur imagery. The website namely features "Adventures", i.e. pornographic stories illustrated by pictures and videos, in which L.A. debutantes and 1920's French maids are confined, exploited (in terms of the work they do and in terms of the sex acts they have to perform), disciplined and "taught" to "enjoy" sex.

Yuck. (And this is just a mild one, from the few that I've seen. Yet, it sends a chill down my spine.)

My point is not to make an argument against "rough" sex, certain types of fantasies or erotic scenarios, or even S&M practices.

I just don't like sexual violence against women and the sexual exploitation of women being used in a pornographic manner as part of an advertisement.

Even though there's not a hint of penetration of any kind, and that Agent Provocateur's pornographic advertisements are - mostly - confined to (fake*) lesbian sex, it's not just "soft" porn to me. It's violent and degrading porn, where women are humiliated, hurt, thrown to the ground, and whipped like beasts.

To a certain extent, I can tolerate the ambient sexism and misogyny of our culture, for the simple reason that otherwise, I'd probably shoot myself. But I can't tolerate the mere suggestion that violence against women generally is acceptable, and that sexual violence in particular can be branded as sexy for base mercantile purposes, turned into incredibly violent and degrading - yet easily available - porn and marketed towards women as "luxury" or "empowerment."

For these reasons, I will boycott the Agent Provocateur brand, and will protest by all means (legally) available to me the opening of a Montréal location.

***

* Fake as in "not just some guy's wacky patriarchical, sexist, androcentric view of lesbian sex..."

The End of Real Women

I'm not making this up. The signs are everywhere. Real women - of the thinking, feeling, natural kind - are facing extinction.


We are being replaced. We are being replaced by pictural and mechanical versions of ourselves that are better than we'll ever be. The pornography industry is more powerful than ever on its own. In addition, it is fueled by the creativity of misogynistic inventors from all over the world, and by the fierce marketing of products that target to women.


Slowly but surely, real women are being replaced. The notion of genuine womanhood is being replaced, with a more aggressively marketed, manufactured femininity ideal, that is impossible for real women to compete with, let alone attain.


Real women are facing a choice: they can either try to run with it and try to commit to the rules of this pornified femininity, or disappear.


Or rather, the notion that it is acceptable to call ourselves women when we cannot or do not want to conform to these norms will disappear.


***


After all, the utility and likeability of rea women is so limited. We don't come anywhere close to being acceptable, porn-grade women.


Real women think, feel and express themselves. We are not silent, passive and cannot be shut down at will by our male owner.


Real women are complex sexual beings. We do not orgasm at the mere push of a button, and we don't have knobs and switches that make us moan.


All real women don't moan.


Real women don't always want to have sex with their partners. Nor can they follow their husbands wherever they go just so they will be sexually available if and when he feels like getting off.


Real women have a mind of their own, a life and a history, with which their life partner necessarily has to cope.


Real women don't have "perfect," plastic bodies. Real women have hair, wrinkles, and uneven skin. Real women don't wake up in the morning with their hair done and their make-up on. Real women don't perpetually look like they're 14. Real women age.

The WTF Highlight of the Day

Don't tell me we don't live in a pornified society.

This toy stripper pole (below) - yes, you've read correctly: a toy stripper pole - was available in the UK up until recently.

Seriously: Who are you supposed to play this "game" with? In what outfit - let alone the garter thing - are the little kids supposed to "dance"?

"The Tesco Direct site advertises the kit with the words, 'Unleash the sex kitten inside...simply extend the Peekaboo pole inside the tube, slip on the sexy tunes and away you go!

"'Soon you'll be flaunting it to the world and earning a fortune in Peekaboo Dance Dollars'.

The £49.97 kit comprises a chrome pole extendible to 8ft 6ins, a 'sexy dance garter' and a DVD demonstrating suggestive dance moves."

(If, after reading the above, you still think that the Peekaboo stripping pole is just good, harmless, tongue-in-cheek fun, and that it's suitable for your 10 year-old, click here.)

This "toy" was removed from the shelves after Tesco received numerous complains of outraged parents and health profesionals.

Predictably, Tesco attempted to justify itself:

"Tesco last night denied the pole dancing kit was sexually oriented and said it was clearly marked for "adult use".

"A spokesman added: 'Pole dancing is an increasing exercise craze. This item is for people who want to improve their fitness and have fun at the same time.'"

"Exercise," eh?... Yeah, right... *rolls eyes*

Is it just me or that statement doesn't really convince me that they weren't trying to market sex work to grade-school kids?

Tesco's attitude is an insult to the intelligence of the parents who complained and of the members of the general public who are offended by this toy. Do they actually expect us to believe that a toy, called "Peekaboo" was "clearly marked for adult use"?

This is really fucked up...

... not to mention incredibly disturbing.

What more is there to say? Besides the fact that it's hateful and creepy? That it makes you want to kill the guy in the picture, the genius who came up with this brilliant concept, and every person on this earth who considers this funny and/or socially harmless?

More about creepy commercial uses of dismemberments of the female body here and here.

One step forward, one step back...

On the one hand, a post on the omnipresence in pornography of degrading and violent behaviour.

On the other hand, a case digest titled "degrading and rude behaviour not necessarily sexual harassment."

***

So, if a judge says to a female defence lawyer, in open court, that she has a "nice butt", does that constitute sexual harassment? Or is it just "degrading and rude behaviour"?

***

On a related topic, here is an article discussing recent sexual harassment cases in the U.S. and arguing that the fact that the complainants won in those cases is attributable to a "change of climate" in the workplace, in that corporate milieus in the U.S. are becoming increasingly less tolerant towards such behaviour.

The article also includes a list of things you can do if you are sexually harassed in a professional setting.

This is a fine and thorough list, but when you're confronted with someone who physically threatens you, who touches you without your consent, who makes you feel like you're there for his personal (sexual) enjoyment, and when this person is a position of authority or power vis-à-vis you, such that you might lose your job or get dragged in the mud for complaining about the unwanted behaviour, it begs the question: to report or not to report?

As with many other things, it is easier said than done. Not that women lack reasons to come forward. But still... Having to balance the shame, embarrassment and personal risk to one's reputation, with the guilt that the perpetrator might strike again, and prey on another victim, is an unbearable exercise.

***

"See, I don't know what to do.

"I keep having fantasies about leaving her dictaphone under the pillow. Or following her when she goes to work.

"I've been lying about where I'm going, just in case I can bump into her..."

What would you do it was the case? What if your weren't sure it was so? Would you risk everything you have, everything you have become, for the (potentially remote) possibility that someone you don't know might suffer the same fate?

***

In a class discussion on the difficulties created by our legal system that deterred women from reporting sexual assault (among others, the fact that in many circumstances, evidence of a complainant's sexual history will be considered relevant in court, which allows for the victim to be cross-examined on her past sexual behaviour), one of my professors (an older man) boldly stated that reporting sexual assault did not depend on such legal hurdles, but rather on a victim's individual bravery.

He then went on to say that people in Iraq had gone out to vote, even though they were risking their lives in the process. He said that if the Iraqi people who had chosen to vote could be so brave, then why wouldn't sexual assault victims be able to come forward. After all, it is not, he said, as if their lives were at risk.

When I heard that comment, my heart sank. I felt as if he had just called one in four women in the classroom cowards.

Reporting is an individual decision. Not reporting is not an act of cowardice, but rather an attempt at self-preservation.

How porn (and fashion) feeds paedophilic double standards

One of the sexist double standard I hate the most has to do with the practice of shaving one's pubic hair.

The porn, fashion and cosmetic surgery industries like to pretend that it's something natural, that all normal, reasonable and self-conscious women do. Women are constantly bombarded with images of hairless, child-like women.

We are told that having a hairy pubic area is abnormal and ugly. That a hairy vagina is unattractive to men, that it looks old and "unfresh".

The subtitle to these messages is clear, however. Adult, grown-up, full-fledge women are expected to look, as far as their genitals are concerned, as prepubescent girls.

In short, this "trend" is no less than the acceptation by our society of paedophilic sexual preferences, and the assertion that it is acceptable for men to be sexually attracted by the physical features of female children.

***

When it comes to men, however, this reality is not denied at all.

For instance, when the media reported that the infamous recidivist paedophile Peter Whitmore had forced one of his last victims, a 14 year-old boy, to shave his pubic hair, they did not deny that Whitmore's purpose was to make his victim look younger, like a prepubescent child.

Nobody had the nerves to suggest that the gesture was not paedophilic in itself, but that it was just a way for a non-paedophilic, garden-variety, relapse sexual offender to make his victim look more attractive, or "cleaner" to him.

***

Why then is it so hard to acknowledge that the same practice is as unhealthy when it comes to women?

You say you prefer women who are well "groomed" down there? I say fuck you, you paedophile.

***

"But is it a surprise that men who never thought they would do so end up using child pornography? 'Teen porn' Web sites, videos, and magazines abound, showcasing 'barely legal' young women, fully shaved of pubic hair, cavorting in schoolgirl outfits and pigtails. Many of the sites and films are voyeuristic, featuring peepholes intol girls' locker rooms and showers, slumber parties and schoolhouse toilet stalls. In sex scenes, these 'girls' are typically depicted having sex with much older men. And that's assuming the 'teens' are actually eighteen or nineteen years old.

[...]

"The supply exists to serve the demand. There's an illicit, voyeuristic pleasure to the enterprise. There is also a tinge of revenge.

[...]

"The gazer longs for what he could not have long ago and what he certainly cannot have - at least, legally - today. These girls may not actually be underage, and therefore no 'harm' was done to an actual child in creating the pornographic image. But the desire for a child and the desire for a childlike woman blur and overlap."

[Emphasis added]

- Pamela Paul, Pornified: How Pornography is Damaging our Lives, our Relationships, and our Families (New York: Owl Books, 2006), at 198-199.

They did NOT just do that...

I guess it was bound to happen, sooner or later. Brace yourselves folks, because there's apparently a Bratz movie coming up.

From the trailer, it looks and sounds pretty daunting. Four "best friends" who are separated by an evil classmate and equally evil high school cliques, but who ultimately get (1) revenge over their bitchy classmates and (2) the guy.

I mean, the trailer contains spoilers. Talk about an intellectually challenging films for girls...



***

For those who have been living on another, non-oversexed planet for the past fews years, the Bratz in question are a line of raunchy dolls, who wear too much make uk, strike porn-inspired poses, dress up as hookers, and yet are - du-uh! - marketed at grade-school girls.

Why the shock and outrage? After all, dolls have been used to dumb down little girls for ages and to indoctrinate them into accepting patriarchal norms of female sexual behaviour. (After all, Barbie's ancestor Lili was a pin-up cartoon character/sex toy.

But the Bratz go way beyond that. We live in a world where we are just starting to realize the adverse effect of an oversexed culture on children and teenagers - and particularly, girls. Yet, Bratz maker MGA Entertainment somehow figured that it was cool and advisable to sell, pornified toys to little girls, like say, a thong-wearing baby, or a doll sold with a "secret date", glasses and a bottle of champagne.

***

Lingerie ads should not have to look like porn

Corporations that try and sell their products by using sex/women's bodies piss me off. Seriously. I fail to see how a naked woman, or a woman wearing lingerie, in a sexual posture is relevant to a watch, perfume or pair of jeans. In such cases, it's just plain exploitation.

Because of that "relevance" criterion, I feel more comfortable about lingerie ads featuring - most appropriately - women wearing lingerie, except of course, when the photograph connotes sexual submission, or otherwise seems degrading to its subject.

I noticed an ad on a bus today, for Calvin Klein's "Perfect Fit" line of women's underwear. The ad was composed of three pictures of a skinny woman, with a sad face, and coaly, tired eyes, who was twisting herself on some sort of furry carpet, in a white, blank, dimly-lit room. It reminded me of those awful American Apparel ads, and of the Marc Jacobs series featuring a scared-looking - and 12 year-old - Dakota Fanning.

The ad didn't say much about the products, but it urged its audience to visit a website called "Natalia's room".

Yuck. It really sounded like a "designer" version of your garden variety of mail-order Western Europe brides webcam porn.

When I got home, I checked out the website for Calvin Klein Underwear. I wanted to know more about this publicity campaign and "Natalia". Naturally, I looked into the women's section, but to my surprise, "Natalia's room" was nowhere to be found.

But then I checked in the men's section. And there it was.

Isn't it funny? You'd think men wouldn't be interested in the advantages of a well-fitted bra.

Or could it be that they are in fact interested in looking at dozens of grim, sleazy pictures of a "struggling" Russian girl, in pornographic poses, in downloading larger versions of those pictures, and even watching Natalia's video?

But then again. What do I know? After all, I'm *just* a frustrated radical feminist who sees porn and sexual exploitation of women everywhere.

I should not be disgusted by the rampant racist stereotypes of that publicity campaign (the Russian girl, her "struggling" background, the sleazy decor in the pictures, the cheap-looking satin sheets, the blend, prison-like background). Nor should I feel uncomfortable with the fact that while the product is marketed to women exclusively, it's men who are marketed Natalia's image and "sexuality".

I'm sick of this. I'm off to watch America's Next Top Model.

***

On a related topic, check out Charlie's Blog of Feminist Activism Against Porn, about her crusade in the UK against so-called "Lad's Mags".

Makes me want to hang up my boa too... *sigh*

Comedian Jessi Klein comments on the "Search for the Next Pussycat Doll":



('love the Gloria Steinem joke... Hahaha!)

Because all women dream of being gang-raped... as long as they're wearing D&G, duh!

NBC recently reported that Dolce & Gabbana pulled an ad featured in American, Italian and Spanish publications, due to the public outcry and - for once - governmental pressure, on the ground that it was offensive to women.

The ad shows a woman in a struggling pose and wearing some sort of bathing suit or underwear, with stylettos and blank look on her face, pinned down to the ground by a half-naked man, while four other men are gathered around them, watching.

This ad just make me want to vomit. It's just sick, sick, sick, sick, sick. But what is even sicker is the response from the dimwits at D&G, who justified the ad as merely reflecting an "erotic dream", a "sexual game" or a "fantasy rape". They also went as far as to say that they couldn't see how the ad could be interpreted as representing rape or promoting violence, and quickly added that they really "loved" women.

No shit. Surely, this picture provides a good illustration of healthy and empowering heterosexual social interactions.

Can't you feel the "love" they're talking about?

In Canada, when a couple of men gather around a woman and pin her to the ground to express their "love" to her, it's called sexual assault, and it's punishable by imprisonment.

I don't know what I find the most offensive: the glamourous depiction of rape in the ad itself, D&G's adamant denial of the character of the ad, or their suggestion that women fantasize about rape.

Oh right, not just rape. Gang rape. Don't we all dream about it?

In addition, D&G made a couple of other deeply troubling statements.

First, they suggested that even if the ad was indeed offensiven and did in fact depicted a rape, absent of overwhelming evidence of the widespread social harm thereof, they were justified in running the ad.

"The effects did not arrive in Italy until after the poor Spanish reaction [to] the ad. We understand that in Spain there is a truly important social emergency as far as violence against women [is concerned], which is why we did not want to offend anyone, so we immediately withdrew the image from all Spanish press."

So what the people at D&G are essential saying is that it's justified to use blunt references to rape, or rape myths or stereotypes, as an advertising medium in any country where violence against women in general, and rape in particular, is "not a problem anymore".

Another creepy thing about D&G's response to the negative public reaction to the ad was the dismissive tone in which they rebutted the criticism and trivialized the issue of sexual violence against women.

"We are sorry that unfortunately other campaigns also weren't understood, but we want to reaffirm that we never had the intention of causing noise or controversy in any way."

For comments, rants and hate mail, please write to the brilliant minds who "love" women so much they want to bring us closer to our true desires at:

http://eng.dolcegabbana.it/corporate.asp?page=CommentsEnquiry

Support your own species!

Today in Ottawa, PETA supporters held a protest in front of the Canadian Parliament against seal hunting. Instead of just sending a bunch of animal rights activists armed with big signs and blowhorns, PETA - once again - chose to vindicate the rights of animals by impeding on the dignity of women.

As a matter of fact, PETA activists stripped, and laid in the snow, at minus 15 Celcius, covered in blood-red paint, apparently for an entire hour.

It seems that PETA just don't get the fact that you won't stop cruelty against animals (whether legally hunting a thriving species is indeed cruel and should be banned is a whole different story) unless you first try and stop cruelty against vulnerable individuals of your own species.





Promoting extreme violence against women, especially if you try to brand it as "sexy", is only going to engender more violence and more cruelty.

What I find to be most troubling is that PETA has taken the bad habit of objectiying women, often in an extremely violent and sexually denigrating context, in order to protest about the non-recognition of fundamental/legal rights of animals in North America.

In recent years, PETA produced, among others, this infamous TV spot, in which a women is randomly beaten up by an unknown - male - assailant in the street with a baseball bat, robbed, and left for dead, naked on the asphalt.

I just don't get it. How do they expect women to listen to their message, and join their ranks if all they won't express anything if it's not in a pornographic form?

The reference to pornography is definitely not an exaggeration. Check out these publicities:

• "Extra Sausage"
• "Milk Gone Wild"

While the first one is squarely distasteful, the second one is just purely gratuitous. Seriously, what the point? I mean, litterally, what are they trying to tell us? The message simply doesn't get through. What remains in the back of your mind is just a nagging sense of having been insulted, and harmed in your sense of dignity, supposedly for "a good cause".

I think my right to dignity and respect, as a woman, should be paramount to that of cows, or the right of animal-rights activists to freedom of speech, for that matter...

For more information: "PETA - Where only women are treated like meat".

Victory! At last!

Telus Mobility has cancelled its pornography download services, due to public pressure.

Apparently, they're being sued for breach of contract. Well, good for them... In fact, losing money to hungry litigators will probably be good for both Telus and the perverts who miss watching porn on the bus on their way to work, or in the waiting area at the hospital...

Sadly, it's obvious that the only reason why Telus chickened out was the financial threat of losing its clients, instead of basic consideration for human dignity and gender equality.