The GUEST of 15-Aug-02 - 03:31 AM says, "I STILL don't see how that thread ["forms of feminine shaves"] is demeaning to women."

From my point of view, one thing that is demeaning about it is the males' objectification of women's genitalia: the terms "beaver", "muff" and "twat" were used by a couple of male posters there (and the discussion about it in this thread prompted the use of the term "uncarpeted basement"). And objectification is what pornography is all about.

Another demeaning thing is Mr. Happy's "very tasty" comment that I mentioned previously; I did not know about its being an advertising jingle, but I'm sure that Mr. Happy was not referring to breakfast cereal or vegemite when he posted it, but rather making a sexual reference. Even Big Mick's description of paddymac's original post as a "tongue in cheek" effort might be interpreted as a sexual reference within the context of that thread's subject matter.

Again, as Peg had said on the "shaves" thread, its original intent seems to be voyeuristic and titillating in nature, intended to generate responses that men can "get off on" such as the comments about how the shaved female genital area looks and feels and smells as compared to the unshaved female genital area.

Finally, I see a demeaning attitude in paddymac's question, in his second post to the "shaves" thread, "What kind of '-ists' see neither beauty nor humor in the thread?" This implies that those of us who find the tone of his original post objectionable should be labeled and dismissed, and indeed on this thread the term "humorless prude" and the adjectives "over-picky" and "whining" have been used as dismissive labels. And labeling people is demeaning behavior.

Perhaps if men were sexually assaulted and abused as often as women are, men would better understand how demeaning it feels to have one's genitals talked about as if there weren't a human being attached to them.