Reply #37: Oh no, not again.....

[mongo]

First of all, let me say that the person who is the subject of the article is a SCUMBAG. No doubt in my mind about that.

But...

Here's where I go radical: EACH AND EVERY ONE of the conditions in the contract, from shaved body hair, to lingerie, to female submissiveness has its own seemingly more innocent counterpart in the lives of people who may not feel strongly enough to write out a contract, but who are NEVERTHELESS victims of the propaganda of pornography.

So, women did nothing to attract men before porn?

Every leg hair that is shorn, ever brazillian wax, every piece of lingerie that is intended to present a woman as a "gift" is a stamp of approval on this culture -- and anyone who signs on to this thread to trumpet the derrangement of Mr. Frey, and who doesn't accept that, or continues to either view someone else's sexuality through that filter, or who casts their own sexuality through this filter is a hypocrite or an enabler.

Every woman I know is a victim, or has been a victim of these constructs, in some way. Despite that knowledge, they continue to shave (it just feeeeeeeels nicer. WTF?), put on eyeliner, powder up, prance around in lingerie, and play the CONSTRUCTED role that the patriarchy has developed for them. It's sick, and is a neverending prison for women -- even the ones who supposedly "choose." I say to those people, then, is it permissible to sell oneself into slavery?

What about women who feel empowered by flaunting their sexuality? Women can and do use their sexuality to CONTROL men. But somehow this makes them the victims?

What about men? Should they stop shaving too?