Blog of Feminist Activism Against Porn

This is a blog of the feminist activism of Charliegrrl and others. This is not a blog to debate the ins and outs of feminism, this is a blog to inspire people to get active and take it to the streets! This blog was started to challenge lads mags bringing porn into the mainstream...who knows what the blog will become...

Sunday, August 06, 2006

Argos and Playboy

Argos are selling a variety of Playboy merchandise, including Playboy bedding suitable for a single bed for a child...

Apparently they have had meetings with child protection experts and decided to withdraw the bedding for children...but still have Playboy Single Bed Sets...

Hmm...

So, do Argos think it is fine for a young girl to sleep in a Playboy bed whilst her father/uncle/brother or male friend of the family jacks off in their own bedroom to Playboy mags..?


To find out, click on
http://www.argos.co.uk/static/StaticDisplay/includeName/ContactUs.jsp.htm
and scroll to the bottom, click 'email customer services' then click 'feedback', then 'service I have received' then email your complaint (there is no simple contact address to complain...)

Image Copyright Argos Ltd 2004

32 Comments:

  • At Sunday, 06 August, 2006, Blogger CopyPasta said…

    If she wants to, and spends the money on it... yes.

    Sounds to me like you're oppressing these poor girls who just wanna buy some nifty pink trendy bedsheets.

     
  • At Sunday, 06 August, 2006, Blogger charliegrrl said…

    'Oppressing these poor girls..?'

    Let me remind you, the playboy bunny is a symbol of pornography and is the brand of a pornographic magazine.

     
  • At Sunday, 06 August, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    This is totally over the top. Argos sell playboy bedding for single beds, children sleep in single beds, therefore they're inappropriately aiming it at kids?!?! That's a bit of a leap isn't it? Is this stuff of no interest to adults?

    It's quite clear you object to Playboy per se. Why don't you just come out an say Argos shouldn't sell Playboy stuff full stop? Your attempt to complain about this, WHSmith stationary, and lads' mags on the basis of child protection just strikes me as totally disingenuous.

    Th is a feeble argument. And the reason you're making it - you can't say in public you think it's wrong to sell this stuff to adults because people would ignore you - is very telling.

     
  • At Sunday, 06 August, 2006, Blogger CopyPasta said…

    You are right. It is.

    Who's forcing you to sleep in this girl's bed, now? Clearly she's fine with the bunny's head. We can argue all we want about what that bunny's head means, but at the end of the day, she, not you, will be sleeping in that bed. You disapprove of the sheets, don't buy them. Done. Please do not expect others to hold true to your standards of morality. It's not your life and it's not your place.

     
  • At Sunday, 06 August, 2006, Anonymous Reetta said…

    I wrote a pretty long comment which was a bit off topic and in which I argued why porn doesn't celebrate female sexuality but somehow I DELETED it! XD
    And now I only say that every time I see that bunny,I want to scream out loud,bit my toenails and hide under my bed and never see sunshine or meet any people!Doesn't that sound like Playboy has managed to make me love my female body and my sexuality!Yay!
    And...female sexuality does not mean that a woman(womyn?is that plural?) makes herself as "beautiful" as possible and does all the strange things that the partner wants.A frigid woman can do that too!
    Look at that bunny!Look at its eyes!They are creepy,spiritless and cruel and they are staring at you!They are laughing at you!Snif...
    I like your blog and I'm sure I would like you if I knew you.
    And I don't think you oppress poor girls.
    And this comment is still off topic!XD
    Cheers,
    Reetta

     
  • At Sunday, 06 August, 2006, Blogger charliegrrl said…

    Playboy merchandise is attractive to young girls because of the bright pink, and has been marketed towards young girls...although retailers are now trying to distance their Playboy range from kids sections...

    You are right, I don't wish Argos to sell Playboy merchandise, I'm not hiding this.

    She may be sleeping in the bed and view the Playboy Bunny as cute, but male family/friends most likely will associate the Playboy Bunny with porn.

     
  • At Sunday, 06 August, 2006, Blogger CopyPasta said…

    Actually, try browsing the internet. Compared to the everday fare on here, Playboy is rather cute.

    And does it really matter what her male peers think? Is that not the whole beauty of symbols, that they mean different things to different people? Forgive her for looking at things optimistically. Besides, bunnies are cute. And animals in human suits are even cuter.

    reetta, it sounds to me like you're playing directly into the hands of the worst examples of mankind, there. If there are people that want you to cower and hide, it's not Playboy (or really a good 95% of the male population, for that matter). They just want money, is all.

    Yes, a frigid woman can do that, but necrophilia is generally frowned upon by both genders.

    If your comment is any indication, you are doing precisely the opposite of what a woman os strength should be doing. You let fears and assumptions get into your head and hide from what you perceive as the injustices of the world.

    There are other ways of approaching such things. For example, when I see stereotypes of blacks in the media, I don't want to hide. I am driven to work that much harder to prove the stereotypes wrong.

    There is a difference between fantasy and reality. Do your part to make the reality of womankind dignified and proud and it shouldn't matter what the fantasy is. Most men know this which is how we're able to separate the fantasy of porn from the reality of our girlfriends/wives/mothers/daughters/sisters/friends...

    Those that cannot are a different matter all together, and have to do with damaged minds moreso than revealing pictures.

     
  • At Monday, 07 August, 2006, Anonymous Jodie A.C said…

    It is frightening in paedophillic way because it subtely encourage insest and child abuse by associating young girls with a pronographic label.

    I am appalled and disgusted (as someone who was sexual abused as a child by men using porn) that they are trying to sell these products to young girls, regardless if it does not contain any porn itself.

    I am glad the bedding was pulled. That was so wrong on all accounts.

     
  • At Monday, 07 August, 2006, Blogger sparkleMatrix said…

    I have said all there is to say on this insidious little brainwashing tactic-- let me repeat what coolaunt commented on my blog, after my swastika post...which I feel she puts -oh -so- succinctly

    The bunny logo means porn.
    The swastika means racism.
    The cross means Christianity.
    The six pointed star means Judaism.
    The golden arches mean McDonalds.

    There's a great deal of meaning in symbols and logos. If that weren't so, there'd be no need for graphic artists and brand marketing. For that matter, there'd be no point in putting the PB bunny logo on stationary or anything else because it would have no meaning. WH Smith knows this. They also know that they're promoting porn to little girls by selling products to them that bear the PB bunny logo. From a marketing point of view, however, it makes sense. WH Smith is making a killing as a porn retailer. So, it only makes sense that they ensure a profit off porn in the next generation of porn purchasers by starting their marketing of porn to them NOW

     
  • At Monday, 07 August, 2006, Blogger stormy said…

    There are actually two Playboy designs available "Playboy" and "Borders Playboy", both available in double or single duvet sets (item numbers 106/0018, 100/1273, 106/0025 and 100/1280). Not only do Argos sell the Playboy-branded bedding, but also jewellery and items such as lamps (do a Google image search: site:argos.co.uk playboy).

    Charliegrrl: I think you put it beautifully with your summation:
    "So, do Argos think it is fine for a young girl to sleep in a Playboy bed whilst her father/uncle/brother or male friend of the family jacks off in their own bedroom to Playboy mags..?"

    Which clearly (but obviously not to the previous posters Copypasta and Anonymous) that the marketing of a well-known logo of pornography to children, either directly or indirectly, is paramount to encouraging paedophilia. It is immaterial whether or not the child is aware of the significance of the iconography, the adults around her should. That is a deliberate use of the female pronoun, as almost ALL of the Playboy-branded merchandise is PINK, and obviously marketed towards females, primarily YOUNG females (girls and young women, the latter presumably aspiring to be models, or advertising their sexual availability, as conditioned by the continual messages via the various media).

    The Playboy logo, whilst in itself a distinctive and successful example of graphic design, is inseparably linked with Heffner's pornographic empire – just as the symbol of the burning cross is synonymous with the Ku Klux Klan (or a crucifix the symbol of Christianity, or inverted crucifix the symbol of devil worship, etc.). The iconography is (now) inherent within the symbol, within the context of Western society. Therefore, anyone bearing the 'symbol' of whatever organisation, is stating to others in that society that s/he supports the ideals and beliefs of that organisation. In the case of children who are unaware of the significance of any given symbol, it is up to the parents/guardians of that child to make the informed choice (e.g. just as they should discourage giving children loaded rifles). If the said parents/guardians are unaware of the impact of promoting a pro-pornographic environment to minors, then they should have their guardianship revoked, or in the case of the biological parents, be sterilised.

    The biggest personal problem that I have with this current Playboy merchandising campaign is that it is ONLY directed at females, particularly the young females. This to me says that the mechanism of Patriarchy is attempting to brainwash young girls/women into the mainstream acceptance of the industry of pornography, to become in essence, spunk fodder, and to discourage any other real ambition apart from the undue focus of appearance and sex-appeal.

    Do not underestimate the power of advertising (including iconography and logos) as a form of brainwashing. If anyone is told something often enough, they will believe or start to believe it, or at the very least conform in some way. Multinational corporations do not spend billions (pounds/dollars) on advertising and corporate image for nothing (I bet you could all draw the Nike logo!). BTW, wearing branded clothing is completely stupid - if a company wants me to walk around as a living billboard, THEY have to PAY ME to do it.

    (Returning vaguely to the thread!) Women are constantly bombarded by media messages that their only worth is in their appearance and sex appeal. The marketing of the Playboy logo specifically to (young) women is an extension of the process already in place, and to ensure that pornography is accepted into the mainstream, and as stated above, to ensure a new generation of very young women to supply the porn-machine (hence 'spunk fodder').

    Paedophilia is rife (with an estimated 16-25% of children affected in some way). It was probably not the primary intention of marketers and retailers (to encourage paedophilia), but the likely intention was to condition young girls and young women into accepting pornography as mainstream. However, Charliegrrl's original summation was right on target when she points out the likelihood of child abuse being encouraged/sanctioned, as this is a totally unacceptable risk.

    It is also a shame that an image of a rabbit ("bunny") has been co-opted by such a seedy organisation. Particularly because children (generally) do like animals.

    To Argos I say:
    I can totally see through your INDIRECT marketing to children. The marketing of a known pornographic icon in a family store is UNACCEPTABLE, especially because I am sure that WOMEN make up the larger percentage of your shoppers, do you really want to piss us off in great numbers?

    It is a sick, sick world.

    Stormcloud

     
  • At Monday, 07 August, 2006, Anonymous jo said…

    Copypasta, of course young girls can choose what to sleep in/wear etc. but that really isn't the point. I'm sure it wasn't a young girl who saw the bunny on a magazine and suddenly wanted it on her pencil case. The point is that Playboy have deliberately created a range of merchandise for children. Why?

     
  • At Monday, 07 August, 2006, Blogger Sarah Louise Parry said…

    Kids don't realise the politics behind the bunny symbol, therefore it is down to the parents of children to act responsibly by not parting with their cash for this trash. I find the naturalisation of Playboy seaping into the sphere of stationary products and bedding - both aimed at a youth market disgusting.

     
  • At Monday, 07 August, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "I can totally see through your INDIRECT marketing to children."

    What do you mean by 'indirect' marketing? Isn't it just a really thin justification than can be applied to almost everything and used to supress the sale of anything you don't like? Because that's what it sounds like...

    Charliegrrl - when you wrote to Argos did you say 'I hate porn related stuff, stop selling it' or did you concoct a more elaborate justifiction based on child protection? Because I'm guessing your message is going in the bin if you said the first, but they'll listen to the second. Did you express your real views (and risk being ignored) or say something disingenuous but useful (which will be more effective at getting what you want)?

    And this stuff about young girls and no-one else being fixated on the colour pink, if anyone wrote it but you I'd think they were a misogynist.

     
  • At Monday, 07 August, 2006, Blogger charliegrrl said…

    I was told by a campaign group that Argos had withdrawn their Playboy bedding after meeting with child protection experts. Then, someone on this blog, pointed out that they still in fact sell them. So yes, when I emailed Argos I pointed out the child protection issue as they are not holding up to their word.

    I'm not sure what your problem is..? There are two angles from which to criticise Playboy merchandise- one is that porn is misogynist and shouldn't be promoted in stores, and the other is that it is unethical to promote a porn brand to teen girls. And lets be clear, Playboy is promoted to teen girls, as the merchandise is pink and often fluffy.

    Would you ever see a school boy with a Playboy stationary set and a Playboy folder..? Would you ever see a teen boy sporting Playboy jeans and a Playboy belt with his midriff slightly exposed to reveal his Playboy tatoo..?

    I don't think so...

    Both arguments are valid. I class the child protection issue as also feminist because it concerns young girls. You should be able to accept the child protection issue without accusing feminists of using it as a cover up for a supposedly 'secret' anti-porn agenda.

     
  • At Monday, 07 August, 2006, Blogger sparkleMatrix said…

    "So, do Argos think it is fine for a young girl to sleep in a Playboy bed whilst her father/uncle/brother or male friend of the family jacks off in their own bedroom to Playboy mags..?"

    Yes... maybe even in the next room

     
  • At Monday, 07 August, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "I'm not sure what your problem is..?"

    I don't think you're covering up a 'secret' anti-porn agenda. You're very open about your views and I respect you for that. Your problem with promoting a porn brand to teen girls is clearly a subset of your problem with porn full stop. I see why you dislike this. That is not the distinction I was getting at.

    My problem is that you're trying to link this bedspread to child molestation and child protection 'issues' and damn it on that basis. That seems very flimsy to me. To be honest, I think you're bright enough to realise this. So I suspect the argument is just being cynically used.

    It just doesn't cast your campaign in a good light that no-one in influence accepts your main point, so you have to struggle to get your way by concocting dubious arguments of this sort. I think it's dishonest (which makes me uncomfortable). It also shows you're both completely marginal and desperate.

    P.S. You're blurring the 'unethical to market to teens'/'child protection' distinction. Sure marketing it to 16-19 is unethical, but considering what girls that age are legally allowed to do 'child protection' concerns won't get you very far.

     
  • At Tuesday, 08 August, 2006, Blogger CopyPasta said…

    "The point is that Playboy have deliberately created a range of merchandise for children. Why?"

    Because they want young girls to wear and use the symbol to passively advertise their magazines to teens and young adults. And because said demographic tends to be rife with their parent's money that they spend on a whim. And so, when they do grow up and get jobs, they will become loyal customers. And so that they can try and keep the youngins interested in magazine porn before they're washed away by convenient, often free (legaly or otherwise) internet porn.

    More or less the same reasons all companies advertise towards the younger generation. As a rule, teens are easily influenced and none too frugal, so teens are the perfect target demographic.

    Whether or not porn is mysoginst is besides the point. They are free to do so, just as, like it or not, extremist or racist groups are allowed to function and exist (provided they don't break any laws). The same evil patriarchal society that allows porn producers the right to free press and speech is the one that allows you to rage against the machine in your blog.

    As far as ethics is concerned, I won't even bother arguing the obvious point that your view of what is ethical is not necessarily shared by everyone and has no bearing on, of all things, large corporations. We're all proud that you think you're holier, smarter and more ethical than us, but that doesn't matter so long as they are making money. And seeing as how they are well within the law to do so, more power to them.

    If you are really concerned about teaching young girls to abide by your ethical standards, than the first step would be, as always, for the parents to do the parenting. It's not Playboy's, Argos's or anybody elses job to watch the minds of young girls except the parents. If a girl is young enough to still live under parental rule than her mother should have the wherewithal to teach and guide her. If she isn't, then accusations of pedophilia are moot, anyways.

    But that's all bollocks when you have your ethics to impose on others.

     
  • At Tuesday, 08 August, 2006, Anonymous jo said…

    Imposing ethics on others is how laws are made in the first place Copypasta. Your comment really makes no sense at all. Do some proper research or shut up.

     
  • At Tuesday, 08 August, 2006, Blogger CopyPasta said…

    And your comment, jo, does nothing to refute or even properly address my point. When making a pink bedsheets carries the same clear, immediate consquences that shooting somebody in the face or stealing their car does, then we'll see about making your ethics into law.

    But you're right, we should make all ethical demands of any person into law. Let's start with militant Islam. Enjoy your burka.

    Now that we've covered that, where was your response regarding letting parents do the parenting; not stifling free press; or allowing everybody, even multinational corporations, to enjoy the same kind of liberties of speech and publication as you do?

     
  • At Wednesday, 09 August, 2006, Anonymous Laurelin said…

    Whether or not porn is mysoginst is besides the point.
    Actually sweetpea, it is precisely the point.

    Firstly, there is no question of whether or not porn is misogynistic or not. It is. Pornography means 'depiction of the whore', and 'whore' is a judgement based on perceptions of a woman's sexual worth.

    Secondly, porn thrives on woman-abuse. Most women in porn are there because they have been abused. Porn is about the sale of female flesh, and the majority of women involved in porn don't want to be there. It's a fucking human rights issue.

    The same evil patriarchal society that allows porn producers the right to free press and speech is the one that allows you to rage against the machine in your blog.
    'Speech' is the stuff that comes out of your mouth, that you write down. As soon as you need to use the body of another human being, it stops being speech, and is a human rights issue. Pornography is not speech, it is hate. It would be illegal for your beloved abusers to depict male members of an ethnic group as women of all races are depicted in porn- it would be hate speech.

    Women are actually people too, and their right to not be abused outweighs your non-existent right to female flesh. You do not have a right to the bodies of women. Capiche?

     
  • At Wednesday, 09 August, 2006, Blogger stormy said…

    Jo: well said!
    copytroll (& anonotroll) seem to have a problem with ethics, and in the spirit of free-speech and free-enterprise, seem to believe that anyone is entitled to do anything they please. So where is this magic line drawn? I would posit that the magic line is drawn when it affects HIM. After all, burglars don't have a problem with ethics, murderers aren't burdened by ethics, surely they are just expressing themselves within their own moral codes?

    But, we are talking about women and girls. The law is made by men, for men, and any benefit that the female half of the population get from the law is purely collateral. We as feminists can see the porn agenda. That's because the inherent hatred of women, women as second class citizens, is sooo bleedin' obvious.

    copytroll – today's homework:
    http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/%7Erjensen/freelance/justajohn.pdf

    anonotroll:
    "My problem is that you're trying to link this bedspread to child molestation and child protection 'issues' and damn it on that basis. That seems very flimsy to me. To be honest, I think you're bright enough to realise this. So I suspect the argument is just being cynically used."
    Ignoring your blatant platitude (with the use of bright, not intelligent, because it would really go against the grain to call any woman intelligent, right?), it IS the child molestation/protection issue in this particular instance that is under discussion.

    "It just doesn't cast your campaign in a good light that no-one in influence accepts your main point, so you have to struggle to get your way by concocting dubious arguments of this sort. I think it's dishonest (which makes me uncomfortable). It also shows you're both completely marginal and desperate.
    Which part of we-are-anti-porn, we-are-anti-porn-marketing-to-minors, didn't you get? Fairly flippin' logical in my book.

    Beyond that point, all mainstream porn is borderline paedophilia anyway. Always 'young girls' used, always referred to as girls not women. Conditioning, or rather 'grooming' teens and pre-teens into accepting a porn-icon as normal, to ensure an ever ready supply of spunk fodder (as soon as they 'turn legal') is fairly transparent. What follows from that is, regular mainstream porn consumers, who are conditioned to seeing young women barely out of their teens as sex objects, could easily make, at least a subliminal, connection when seeing a young girl associated with porn branding (whether it be bedding or a watch). Even if that only happened in ONE case, that is totally unacceptable. I don't particularly care if you have the view, 'well, so she's 14 and she just got some sex earlier…'. It is rape of a minor. And that line of thinking says, women are just put on this earth to pleasure men. The same message that is put forward in porn.

    Final point for anonotroll; if you feel uncomfortable – LEAVE. We really won't miss you. Really.

    Copytroll:
    "If a girl is young enough to still live under parental rule than her mother should have the wherewithal to teach and guide her."
    Blame-the-mother (who is coincidentally a woman). Read Freud much? Parents come in both sexes by the way, but when anything goes wrong with the parenting model, then it is always the mother-to-blame. Not all parents have knowledge of all areas of society and/or parenting. Many are also young. Teens assert their budding independence, and may just buy stuff themselves, without the full knowledge of what the symbolism represents.

    Anonotroll:
    "What do you mean by 'indirect' marketing? Isn't it just a really thin justification than can be applied to almost everything and used to supress the sale of anything you don't like? Because that's what it sounds like..."
    INDIRECT marketing = covert marketing, marketing disguised as for 'general' consumption, and not a specific target consumer. As already stated in this thread (and one of the others on this blog), it is bright pink, some items also fluffy. The merchandise is designed SPECIFICALLY to appeal to teenage girls, but not openly stated as such. Jeeze, take your stoopid pill today? Actually, as far as other items I don't like, I don't like soccer, but don't protest the sale of soccer balls, so no, I don't try to suppress the sale of things that I don't like you dumb-arse-troll.

     
  • At Wednesday, 09 August, 2006, Blogger CopyPasta said…

    It would be illegal for your beloved abusers to depict male members of an ethnic group as women of all races are depicted in porn- it would be hate speech.

    Gay black porn? Really? You want me to find you some?

    Most women in porn are there because they have been abused. Porn is about the sale of female flesh, and the majority of women involved in porn don't want to be there.

    And eliminating porn would somehow fix all the abuse? Your argument asserts that [starring in] porn is the result of abuse. So shouldn't you be trying to stop the abuse rather than the porn? The kind of man that would abuse his daughter/neice/neighbor/whathaveyou is the kind of man that would do it whether or not the 7-11 down the street has a Maxim on their shelves.

    Pornography means 'depiction of the whore', and 'whore' is a judgement based on perceptions of a woman's sexual worth.

    A whore is a woman who engages in sexual intercourse for money. Pornography depicts sexual intercourse, my dear. I'm sorry you find sex so horrible and disturbing but Playboy wasn't the one who designed the human reproductive process.

    I would posit that the magic line is drawn when it affects HIM.

    And the people I love, which, surprising to you as it may be, includes a good number of women.

    with the use of bright, not intelligent, because it would really go against the grain to call any woman intelligent, right?

    Right... you're really grasping for straws now, aren't ya? This the the hallmark of desperation. You refuse, flat out refuse that we could possibly respect women because our opinion differs from yours. You are really quite frightening. I honestly hope that you never gain a position of power. You refuse to even acknowledge the worth of an opposing argument and assume that anybody with a differing opinion is subhuman, antagonistic and out to get you. All issues of porn and feminism aside, God forbid a particular ethnic group's customs were to disagree with yours.

    Blame-the-mother (who is coincidentally a woman).

    No, judging from your track record, if I had said the father should teach her than you'd say he'd feed her with patriarchal male chauvenist propaganda, and probably assume he's a pedophile or something. You'd ask why I didn't say the mother should do the teaching and accuse me of not acknowledging the worth of a woman's opinion. Also, I believe mothers are better suited to talk to a girl regarding women's issues and such. Forgive me.

    Jeeze, take your stoopid pill today?

    Again, not the sign of the world's best debator. Anonymous and I have given you the repect and courtesy and refrained from personal attacks. Please do the same for us, even if (OH GOD NO) we don't agree with everthing you say.

     
  • At Thursday, 10 August, 2006, Blogger charliegrrl said…

    Copypasta
    Laurelin means that porn is misogynist, but isn't viewed in the same light as racism against ethnic minorities.

    It's quite tiresome to nitpick at a person's argument merely for the sake of disagreeing with them.

    By the way Copypasta, we don't refer to women as whores on this blog. Porn isn't sex, it's the crude simulation of sexual activities, in which, in the porn we are concerned about, the woman is used and depicted as little more than a hole.

     
  • At Thursday, 10 August, 2006, Anonymous laurelin said…

    Okay, Copypasta I'm going to say it slowly and clearly for you:

    Porn is not the same as sex.

    Get it yet? Would you like me to sound out the words to you?

    I know it's fashionable to accuse us radical feminists of prudery, but it doesn't make your 'argument' any better.

    And porn is not the 'result' of abuse. Porn IS abuse.

     
  • At Thursday, 10 August, 2006, Blogger stormy said…

    Copytroll:
    "if I had said the father.."

    No, the correct term to use in the previous context would have gender-neutral - PARENT or PARENTS. It is funny that you rehashed this tired point, as (the other day) when I was reading earlier posts from the feminists they used gender-neutral terms (when singling out of one or the other sex wasn't necessary).

    "Jeeze, take your stoopid pill today?
    Again, not the sign of the world's best debator. Anonymous and I have given you the repect and courtesy and refrained from personal attacks."


    I don't claim to be the world's greatest debater. But, yeah, it made me feel good if only for a moment... *reminiscent sigh*

    You and anonymous? Perhaps you and anonotroll are just one and the same, eh?
    No, perhaps you don't do name calling as such, but your manner(s) are passive-aggressive, and (as Charliegrrl says) frequently just nit pick trivial points, just for the 'sport of debate'. Frequently you state that you like debate, and seem to be here for no other reason. Pretty pointless really.

    "And the people I love, which, surprising to you as it may be, includes a good number of women."

    Ooh, nearly forgot to respond to this one, reading on another feminist blog (can't remember which, sorry; may have been BB) stated that those men who profess to 'love' women are the ones most likely to hate them in actuality. And the stronger they profess....
    Coz we all know that LM readers 'love' women, right?

     
  • At Thursday, 10 August, 2006, Blogger CopyPasta said…

    By the way Copypasta, we don't refer to women as whores on this blog.

    I noticed. Which is why I haven't.

    You and anonymous? Perhaps you and anonotroll are just one and the same, eh?

    Yes. I am the oppressive male boogie-man, come to attack an online blog using multiple aliases.

    Or maybe I mentioned anonymous because you were, hell, I dunno, referring to anonymous.

    Ooh, nearly forgot to respond to this one, reading on another feminist blog (can't remember which, sorry; may have been BB) stated that those men who profess to 'love' women are the ones most likely to hate them in actuality. And the stronger they profess....
    Coz we all know that LM readers 'love' women, right?


    Well, if it was on the internet it must be true.

    I like how that blog cuts no slack for men. If a man doesn't say he loves women, well, clearly he doesn't love women. If a man says he loves women, then he hates women. So according to this here blog you've been reading, men are completely incapable of loving women.

    This is where radical feminism loses credibly and starts to look downright silly. You've gone beyond the realm of simply discussing inequalities and have turned men, an entire half of the human population, into soul-sucking demons that feel no love and exist only to oppress women. Interesting display of sexism there. Interesting double standard. Interesting use of propaganda to propagate a view of the other sex as lesser beings worthy of little more than scorn. Hypocrite.

    Coz we all know that LM readers 'love' women, right?

    I don't read "lads mags." Internet porn is far more accessable, free and comes more than once a month.

     
  • At Friday, 11 August, 2006, Anonymous jo said…

    Copypants, why exactly are you commenting on this blog again?

     
  • At Friday, 11 August, 2006, Blogger stormy said…

    copytroll:

    "Yes. I am the oppressive male boogie-man, come to attack an online blog using multiple aliases."
    At least you admit it. (yep, that's right, I've stooped to fighting stoopidity with out-of-contexting...) Like I give a fuck.

    "So according to this here blog you've been reading, men are completely incapable of loving women."
    Desperate much copytroll? Doin' the ol' twisty word thing eh? It was refering to the men who continually profess to 'love' women. Those that actually do, do so by action, not by empty word. And just to cut you off before the predictable school-boy come-back of 'sex'. Nope, not sexual love you great moron.

    "You've gone beyond the realm of simply discussing inequalities and have turned men, an entire half of the human population, into soul-sucking demons that feel no love and exist only to oppress women."
    Entire HALF of the population, last time there was a count, those with penises numbered c.49%. Soul-sucking demons..oppress women, (thanks for feeding me this one), is a good description of most of those 49%.

    You see copytroll. I actually don't give a fuck about being a man-hater, trying to call me on it, well, really it's just your stoopid pill kicking in again. (Disclaimer, I actually only hate 95% of them, however, copytroll does make that 95% look pretty damn solid).

    And a strategy note. I noted when you first started attacking, you went after the 'softer' targets. Quite a compliment really. Your stoopidity just makes me feel better and better about myself, and more fucking right that you will ever be.

    "I don't read "lads mags." Internet porn is far more accessable, free and comes more than once a month."
    Hopefully BB will see this. She wrote a lovely piece on "Free XXX girls" (I think that was the title).

    Ahh, sometimes it just feels good to stoop to playground name-calling. (Sorry Charliegrrl !) But I really am a bad, bad, stormcloud. ;-)

     
  • At Friday, 11 August, 2006, Blogger stormy said…

    Jo:
    ROTFLMAO !

    "Copypants", soooo precious, ain't he?

     
  • At Friday, 11 August, 2006, Blogger charliegrrl said…

    Hey
    What does this mean..?
    ROTFLMAO

     
  • At Friday, 11 August, 2006, Blogger stormy said…

    Charliegrrl:
    "ROTFLMAO"
    Rolling on the floor, laughing my arse off..

    (at least I know I'm not over the hill quite yet!)

    The "copypants" just made me piss myself laughing!

     
  • At Saturday, 19 August, 2006, Blogger EloH said…

    Oh come on, lets be a bit more charitable here. The real reason this stuff is made to fit single beds is because Playboy users can't find anyone to share with them.
    I wish.

    ~Nella

     

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home