Germanine Greers New Book features Naked Boyflesh

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

they say boys but it is really between the ages of 16 and 25, which makes me ask the question--when is a pedophile not a pedophile, is a 16 yr old capable of giving consent, a 15 yr old ?

what are the implications of a woman 64 making a new book about sexuality explicit photos ? would it make a difference if she was a man ? a man taking photos of girlz.

am i a prude to be made felt uncomfortable this ?

― anthony easton (anthony), Sunday, 17 August 2003 10:19 (twenty-two years ago)

germaine greer and her neo feminist chums = dud.

― Bob Shaw (Bob Shaw), Sunday, 17 August 2003 11:37 (twenty-two years ago)

as for the naked boys, well i mean the lines are very fine at that age. im sure if it was a man of that age producing the pictures, there would be some shocked reactions from the press.

― Bob Shaw (Bob Shaw), Sunday, 17 August 2003 11:40 (twenty-two years ago)

What is 'neo'-feminism? How does it differ from feminism? And who exactly are Germaine Greer's 'chums'?

― Andrew L (Andrew L), Sunday, 17 August 2003 12:08 (twenty-two years ago)

The age of consent for het sex has been 16 in the UK for ages, so I can see why that is the limit. Where the limit should be is another matter, but I don't think that is an unreasonable figure. I've not seen the book, but I think most of what Greer has said in recent years has been foolish.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Sunday, 17 August 2003 12:10 (twenty-two years ago)

neo-feminist is mostly just what i brand strong minded women who piss me off. and yes germain greer talks a lot of shit and is convinced she is right. therefore she is one.

― Bob Shaw (Bob Shaw), Sunday, 17 August 2003 12:15 (twenty-two years ago)

So you are you Bob, judging by yr posts on this thread

― Andrew L (Andrew L), Sunday, 17 August 2003 12:17 (twenty-two years ago)

ah yes but my motivation is purely out of bitterness. these people are idealists.

― Bob Shaw (Bob Shaw), Sunday, 17 August 2003 12:18 (twenty-two years ago)

Anthony: "Ephebophile" is the proper word for a person who is attracted to adolescent males. And there is a whiff of a double standard in the idea that it's okay to treat males in a way that would be branded exploitation if it were to be applied to females.

― j.lu (j.lu), Sunday, 17 August 2003 12:20 (twenty-two years ago)

I like Germain Greer. Apart from her ideas and books, I like the painting of her in the National Portrait Gallery. It's a really good picture. She is wearing black opaque tights. I think I have a black opaque tights fetish. It's probably a good picture apart from the tights, but that's the best bit, for me. The way her brow is creased and her glasses perch low on her nose is well drawn too. It's better than I could do, anyway.

― Eyeball Kicks (Eyeball Kicks), Sunday, 17 August 2003 13:03 (twenty-two years ago)

I don't think Germaine Greer can fairly be labeled a neo-feminist; "The Female Eunuch" was published in 1970.

I don't know what her current philosophical position is, but if it leads to sexeh boypix, dude, rockin'.

― Layna Andersen (Layna Andersen), Sunday, 17 August 2003 15:10 (twenty-two years ago)

"strong minded women" = the ladies of ilx, surely

― rosemary (rosemary), Sunday, 17 August 2003 15:16 (twenty-two years ago)

yeah i think it should be pretty clear that my hatreds are far from rational by now.

― Bob Shaw (Bob Shaw), Sunday, 17 August 2003 16:27 (twenty-two years ago)

i dont hate the women of ilx though. i really dunno what it is about germain greer that make me want to cover myself in my own stomach acid whenever i hear her voice.

― Bob Shaw (Bob Shaw), Sunday, 17 August 2003 16:38 (twenty-two years ago)

I read somewhere that the book was about women (or rather, a woman) owning up to what gay men have been fairly open about for quite a while: namely, that young, impressionable-looking males can be very attractive for the very reason that they look young and impressionable. It's hardly rocket science feminism, but I don't think it's that wacky to attempt to subvert the myth of masculine hetero attractiveness ("myth" not insofar as it's not true, but insofar as it's presented as the totality of the male's hetero attractiveness).

Yes it's a double standard, but a very deliberate one - and come on it's not like we object to the sexualisation of 16 year old (or younger) girls everywhere.

― Tim Finney (Tim Finney), Monday, 18 August 2003 01:27 (twenty-two years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.