Why does a pro-vegetarian organisation treat women like meat?

[Guest guest]

Why does a pro-vegetarian organisation treat women like meat?

 

 

For an organisation that's so passionate about chicks, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has a shaky reputation with women.

On Monday the high-profile animal rights organisation held a demonstration out the front of the George Street KFC, involving three young women wearing nothing but lacy knickers and nipple tape in a cage with the sign "Chicks Agree: Boycott KFC".

PETA has also invited a former Big Brother housemate, Brigitte Stavaruk, to strip for its campaign, said a report in The Daily Telegraph yesterday. PETA offered the job to her because of her "big assets" - including her big personality, of course.

This is the sophisticated publicity technique the organisation has been perfecting over the past decade, with scores of their campaigns using the female body to try to raise awareness about animal rights. Not in a John-and-Yoko, dimply-bottoms-out-for-peace kind of way, but in a "put a hot naked chick next to a product you're trying to sell" way.

Last year in the United States a semi-nude woman painted to look like a snake protested outside an exotic leather goods store in Florida, while in Washington, bikini-clad protesters sat in cages, holding egg-shaped signs that read, "Chicks Suffer for Eggs". Then there was their internet video campaign, which featured a young women addressing Congress about animal rights - while stripping.

Closer to home, the Australian pop star and actress Sophie Monk appeared naked, lying on a bed of chillies, encouraging people to "spice up your life - go vegetarian".

Unsurprisingly, they've had more impact raising the ire of progressive young women. More than one feminist blogger has asked why a pro-vegetarian organisation treats women like pieces of meat.

Whether or not you think the campaigns are sexist, they do raise a bigger question of whether this is really an effective way to get a message across to your audience.

Communicating any message to a highly media-savvy, cause-weary audience is a challenge that faces all groups wanting to effect social change. The ABC show The Gruen Transfer attests to the modern audience's knowingness and cynicism about publicity techniques. But the success of the show also demonstrates that most of us have a secret admiration for those advertisers or publicists who can really surprise us, and capture our imagination.

So, in this environment, it is hard to understand why PETA still uses the oldest, laziest and, many would argue, most sexist trick in the book. A feminist commentator, Ann Friedman, summarises the message behind these ads: "It's OK to buck the stereotype of real men eat red meat, because here are some naked ladies to reassure you that you're still a superhetero manly man!"

Indeed, the not-so-subtle message behind these ads is that animal rights are not just for those with hairy armpits and dreadlocks, but are sexy, fun and mainstream. Or it could just be, "Hey look over here! Boobies! And by the way, battery farming is bad!"

But it's the last part of that message that usually gets lost, as most people tend to focus on the first half. If it did work, every 14-year-old boy in Australia would be demanding tofu for dinner.

A straw poll on the meaning of Monday's PETA demonstration among friends at the pub threw up responses including "the Catholic church's treatment of women" and "an ad for a new line of lacy underwear". Attention was grabbed, but the message was lost.

It's always hard for activists to get the media attention they need without resorting to stunts. The five-day Climate Camp protest in Newcastle this week, targeting the biggest single issue facing the planet, only made the papers once there had been conflict with the cops.

In a society so obsessed with female youth and beauty, it's almost understandable that those wanting to communicate an urgent message would go for what's easy and cheap and proven to get the media's attention.

However, the point of activism and advertising is not just to get people to look; it's to encourage them to change their behaviour. And for that purpose, humour, creativity and God forbid, an appeal to our intelligence, are going to win every time. For the sake of chicks everywhere, let's hope PETA gets that message soon.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/why-does-a-provegetarian-organisation-treat-women-like-meat/2008/07/16/1216162951208.html

 

[Guest guest]

I actually find articles like this more degrading to women than anyone

that is usually being complained about in the article. (It's on par

with someone coming to my rescue because a 6 year old told me an

off-color sexist joke.) While I don't agree with much of anything

that PETA does and I think their general tactics are disgusting and

immature, I definitely don't think PETA treats " women " like meat.

Those women had a choice in their actions, and personally I think it's

funny.

 

The greater crime is that PETA just looks so stupid so often on so

many levels. Their use of half-dressed women in protests or

advertising is the least of their problems IMO.

 

Maggie

 

 

On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 5:30 PM, Ahimsa <vgcare wrote:

> Why does a pro-vegetarian organisation treat women like meat?

>

[Guest guest]

I just think it's such bad taste that they don't deserve my support!

 

As I have said before - the only people taking any notice will be

looking at the women and it won't change what they eat or change

their mind on how animals are treated. It does make them look silly,

and is definitely immature.

 

Jo

 

 

 

, " Maggie Vining "

<Maggie.Vining wrote:

>

> I actually find articles like this more degrading to women than

anyone

> that is usually being complained about in the article. (It's on par

> with someone coming to my rescue because a 6 year old told me an

> off-color sexist joke.) While I don't agree with much of anything

> that PETA does and I think their general tactics are disgusting and

> immature, I definitely don't think PETA treats " women " like meat.

> Those women had a choice in their actions, and personally I think

it's

> funny.

>

> The greater crime is that PETA just looks so stupid so often on so

> many levels. Their use of half-dressed women in protests or

> advertising is the least of their problems IMO.

>

> Maggie

>

>

> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 5:30 PM, Ahimsa <vgcare wrote:

> > Why does a pro-vegetarian organisation treat women like meat?

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Maggie

 

I think everyone has a right to comment on whether people are being treated

like meat, or whether they approve of the use of people in a particular way.

 

When a part of the human race is demeaned, I am demeaned by that action - it

has nothing to do with " coming to the rescue " of women, it has to do with

highlighting the disrespect shown to all living beings, of which I am part,

and therefore have every right to comment.

 

And, yes, the women in the adverts had the choice to say yes or no - but the

other people that those adverts effect, by perpetuating the concept that

women (and humans in general) are not worthy of respect, did *not* have that

option.

 

BB

Peter

 

-

" Maggie Vining " <Maggie.Vining

 

Wednesday, July 16, 2008 11:29 PM

Re: Why does a pro-vegetarian organisation treat women

like meat?

 

 

>I actually find articles like this more degrading to women than anyone

> that is usually being complained about in the article. (It's on par

> with someone coming to my rescue because a 6 year old told me an

> off-color sexist joke.) While I don't agree with much of anything

> that PETA does and I think their general tactics are disgusting and

> immature, I definitely don't think PETA treats " women " like meat.

> Those women had a choice in their actions, and personally I think it's

> funny.

>

> The greater crime is that PETA just looks so stupid so often on so

> many levels. Their use of half-dressed women in protests or

> advertising is the least of their problems IMO.

>

> Maggie

>

>

> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 5:30 PM, Ahimsa <vgcare wrote:

>> Why does a pro-vegetarian organisation treat women like meat?

>>

>

> ---

>

> To send an email to

> -! Groups Links

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 6:32 AM, Peter <metalscarab wrote:

 

> When a part of the human race is demeaned, I am demeaned by that action - it

> has nothing to do with " coming to the rescue " of women, it has to do with

> highlighting the disrespect shown to all living beings, of which I am part,

> and therefore have every right to comment.

>

 

 

Hiya Peter,

 

I think that's the rub is that I don't see it as inherently demeaning

or belittling. (But I do respect that you see it as such, so I'm not

trying to change your mind, just explain my perspective a little

more).

 

I think it's about context, and in this context I don't find what PETA

did as offensive toward women. Just immature and uncreative. What

upsets me is the reaction to a partially exposed woman as

automatically representing offense and lack of respect. To me that's

demeaning. For example, when there was an outcry at Janet Jackson's

accidental exposed breast. The negative reaction to her breast was so

horrible, IMO. I think it's reactions like that which do way more to

demean women than the media-hyped superstar world of partially dressed

performers. I don't see sex and eroticism as inherently demeaning

toward anyone, (just really dumb sometimes) so when it's used in

advertising or any media I don't feel the need to defend anyone

because I see no harm being done.

 

There is actually a few great quotes from Boston Legal on these

subjects that I enjoy (yeah it's a fictional TV show but they make

good points).

 

On topless protesting, a closing argument:

 

" Shirley Schmidt: (She reads from a sheet of paper.) Jake Watson

convicted of molesting an eight-year-old girl,

served two years, then convicted of molesting an eleven-year-old girl.

John Bauers, convicted of multiple counts

of rape. Calvin Stevens, convicted of sodomizing and molesting over a

dozen boys ages six to ten. This is a list

of registered sex-offenders. This is the list that the prosecution

thinks Ms Levine should be put on. This is the

company they think she belongs in. Do you? Do any of you think that a

woman who bared her breasts at a

political rally poses the same risk to the community as rapists and

child molesters? Of course you don't. And I'll

let you in on a little secret. (She looks to the defenses' table.)

Neither do they. You see they arrested Ms Levine

and the other women before and charged them with disturbing the peace.

When a woman is arrested for

sunbathing topless in a public park, she's either charged with

disturbing the peace or more likely the cop says,

" Hey, lady put your shirt back on. " And then he goes off to deal with

real crime. So why is Ms Levine different?

Because she was protesting redistricting. Now, I know that may sound

arcane and theoretical to you. But I

assure you that to the politicians in power, there is nothing more

dear to their hearts. If Ms Levine had written a

scholarly article about redistricting for an obscure journal that

nobody would ever have read, the District Attorney

wouldn't have cared at all. But she and the other women made their

argument topless. People paid attention

because let's face it when two hundred women take their tops off

people are going to look. But after they've

gawked for a minute they might ask, " Why have they taken their tops

off? " And then they might find out it's

because of redistricting. And then they might say, " Well, what is

that? " And then when they find out they might

say, " Oh my God! Our politicians have high jacked our Democracy. " The

prosecutor's charged Ms Levine for

violating our community standards. This is Boston. Home of the Tea

Party. Home of the people and the spirit of

freedom that literally created this country. Our community standard is

that we won't be silenced by the King of

England, much less the District Attorney! Our community standard is

that we speak the truth to power. And if

those in power don't like it. Too bad. "

 

And another closing argument, on provocative dolls (again fiction but

makes good points):

 

Jerry Espenson: (Almost softly.) I think these dolls are despicable.

But drawing the line here would strike

me as arbitrary. I mean, what's new? Twenty-five years ago Madonna

rode her sexual, raunchy,

promiscuity to iconic status. The country, and I believe feminism,

celebrated her. Paris Hilton might have

intercourse on the internet, but our most prominent actresses

routinely simulate sex acts on seventy

millimeter at a theatre near you. Sometimes they get Oscars for it. I

suppose you could draw the line with

these dolls, but how about the clothing stores that sell sweat pants

with " Juicy " on the butts? What about

the t-shirts that say, " Do me " ? What about the sexually explicit music

videos and television shows that

target the tweens. And if we really wanna crack down on the

sexualization of our minors, we might

consider their role models. Our female CEOs and lawyers and doctors,

women of real power who routinely

get boob jobs just to feel better about themselves. And what about the

mothers, many of whom wear the

low-cut jeans and the midriffs?

Kaye Kent: How dare he?

(Alan puts his hand on her arm.)

Judge Gloria Weldon: Are you a parent, Mr. Espenson?

Jerry Espenson: No, Your Honor. It is my most profound hope that one

day I shall be.

Judge Gloria Weldon: Do you think that you would stand before me as a

father of a young girl and say that

these dolls don't trouble you?

Jerry Espenson: (Softly, but emphatically.) No. They bother me now.

But it's nothing new. We're always

gonna worry about our kids, thinking in today's world they've got no

chance. But the reality is, Your Honor,

rates of teenage drinking, smoking and drug use are declining. Teen

pregnancy rates are down thirty-five

percent from 1990, many teens are abstaining from sex. And most see

Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan

for exactly what they are. Young woman now earn fifty-seven percent of

all Bachelor's degrees, fifty-nine

percent of all Master's degrees. Congress now has ninety female

members, including the Speaker of the

House. I don't think we're doomed, just yet. And should doom ever

come, I doubt very much it will be

brought about by a doll. "

 

I don't know if those stats are true but I do know we almost had a

woman in the White House. : )

 

Maggie

[Guest guest]

Ahimsa! I am horrified. I am speechless. WHEN will our country EVER view women as human beings? When women are finally in positions of power equal to men.

 

If I see an organization using sex to sell their product I boycott it. Carls Jr. is one. Their commercials are sexist. The Las Vegas commercials talk about no one ever knowing what goes on there. But for animal activists to use it, I am shocked. Sigh

 

Shelley H

[Guest guest]

Hi Maggie

 

> I think that's the rub is that I don't see it as inherently demeaning

> or belittling. (But I do respect that you see it as such, so I'm not

> trying to change your mind, just explain my perspective a little

> more).

 

Absolutely - and it's what makes for good conversation. Likewise, I

completely respect your views, I just have a slightly different angle :-)

 

> I think it's about context, and in this context I don't find what PETA

> did as offensive toward women. Just immature and uncreative. What

> upsets me is the reaction to a partially exposed woman as

> automatically representing offense and lack of respect. To me that's

> demeaning. For example, when there was an outcry at Janet Jackson's

> accidental exposed breast. The negative reaction to her breast was so

> horrible, IMO.

 

I think this must have been made more of in the US than it was in the UK! In

fact, as far as I recall, the coverage in the UK media pretty much agreed

with what you have said, and couldn't understand why the US media were

making such a big thing of it

 

In terms of what is demeaning or not - this is purely cultural. In tribal

cultures where they don't have these cultural hang-ups around nudity and

sex, the concept of pornography is completely meaningless!

 

However, what we have in our culture, and what PETA do is actually quite

harmful. Not only does it perpetuate the idea that women are commodities, it

also perpetuates specific ideas of what should be considered attractive. Why

do we never see naked fat, balding men in PETA advertisements? If the

advertisements weren't prejudiced, and disrespectful, we would see a whole

array of different shape, size, sex, colour, etc. in their campaigns.

Actually what we get is invariably hour-glass shaped women.

 

I don't feel that perpetuating stereotypes like this is healthy for our

culture, or for the people in it!

 

BB

Peter

[Guest guest]

The papers and magazines here said Janet Jackson's breast-baring was

done on purpose, and in no way looked like an accident. Also it was

done in a public arena where millions of children would have been

watching.

 

You might not mind this, but the vast majority of parents do not want

their daughters to be encouraged to think it normal to go around

baring their breasts in public.

 

As I said before, the way PETA conducts itself shows extremely bad

taste, and does nothing to endear itself to the average person.

Therefore it's advertising is not working. If you ask anyone over

here about PETA they say " oh, the animal rights nutcases! "

 

Jo

 

, " Maggie Vining "

<Maggie.Vining wrote:

>

> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 6:32 AM, Peter <metalscarab wrote:

>

> > When a part of the human race is demeaned, I am demeaned by that

action - it

> > has nothing to do with " coming to the rescue " of women, it has to

do with

> > highlighting the disrespect shown to all living beings, of which

I am part,

> > and therefore have every right to comment.

> >

>

>

> Hiya Peter,

>

> I think that's the rub is that I don't see it as inherently

demeaning

> or belittling. (But I do respect that you see it as such, so I'm not

> trying to change your mind, just explain my perspective a little

> more).

>

> I think it's about context, and in this context I don't find what

PETA

> did as offensive toward women. Just immature and uncreative. What

> upsets me is the reaction to a partially exposed woman as

> automatically representing offense and lack of respect. To me

that's

> demeaning. For example, when there was an outcry at Janet Jackson's

> accidental exposed breast. The negative reaction to her breast was

so

> horrible, IMO. I think it's reactions like that which do way more

to

> demean women than the media-hyped superstar world of partially

dressed

> performers. I don't see sex and eroticism as inherently demeaning

> toward anyone, (just really dumb sometimes) so when it's used in

> advertising or any media I don't feel the need to defend anyone

> because I see no harm being done.

>

> There is actually a few great quotes from Boston Legal on these

> subjects that I enjoy (yeah it's a fictional TV show but they make

> good points).

>

> On topless protesting, a closing argument:

>

> " Shirley Schmidt: (She reads from a sheet of paper.) Jake Watson

> convicted of molesting an eight-year-old girl,

> served two years, then convicted of molesting an eleven-year-old

girl.

> John Bauers, convicted of multiple counts

> of rape. Calvin Stevens, convicted of sodomizing and molesting over

a

> dozen boys ages six to ten. This is a list

> of registered sex-offenders. This is the list that the prosecution

> thinks Ms Levine should be put on. This is the

> company they think she belongs in. Do you? Do any of you think that

a

> woman who bared her breasts at a

> political rally poses the same risk to the community as rapists and

> child molesters? Of course you don't. And I'll

> let you in on a little secret. (She looks to the defenses' table.)

> Neither do they. You see they arrested Ms Levine

> and the other women before and charged them with disturbing the

peace.

> When a woman is arrested for

> sunbathing topless in a public park, she's either charged with

> disturbing the peace or more likely the cop says,

> " Hey, lady put your shirt back on. " And then he goes off to deal

with

> real crime. So why is Ms Levine different?

> Because she was protesting redistricting. Now, I know that may sound

> arcane and theoretical to you. But I

> assure you that to the politicians in power, there is nothing more

> dear to their hearts. If Ms Levine had written a

> scholarly article about redistricting for an obscure journal that

> nobody would ever have read, the District Attorney

> wouldn't have cared at all. But she and the other women made their

> argument topless. People paid attention

> because let's face it when two hundred women take their tops off

> people are going to look. But after they've

> gawked for a minute they might ask, " Why have they taken their tops

> off? " And then they might find out it's

> because of redistricting. And then they might say, " Well, what is

> that? " And then when they find out they might

> say, " Oh my God! Our politicians have high jacked our Democracy. "

The

> prosecutor's charged Ms Levine for

> violating our community standards. This is Boston. Home of the Tea

> Party. Home of the people and the spirit of

> freedom that literally created this country. Our community standard

is

> that we won't be silenced by the King of

> England, much less the District Attorney! Our community standard is

> that we speak the truth to power. And if

> those in power don't like it. Too bad. "

>

> And another closing argument, on provocative dolls (again fiction

but

> makes good points):

>

> Jerry Espenson: (Almost softly.) I think these dolls are despicable.

> But drawing the line here would strike

> me as arbitrary. I mean, what's new? Twenty-five years ago Madonna

> rode her sexual, raunchy,

> promiscuity to iconic status. The country, and I believe feminism,

> celebrated her. Paris Hilton might have

> intercourse on the internet, but our most prominent actresses

> routinely simulate sex acts on seventy

> millimeter at a theatre near you. Sometimes they get Oscars for it.

I

> suppose you could draw the line with

> these dolls, but how about the clothing stores that sell sweat pants

> with " Juicy " on the butts? What about

> the t-shirts that say, " Do me " ? What about the sexually explicit

music

> videos and television shows that

> target the tweens. And if we really wanna crack down on the

> sexualization of our minors, we might

> consider their role models. Our female CEOs and lawyers and doctors,

> women of real power who routinely

> get boob jobs just to feel better about themselves. And what about

the

> mothers, many of whom wear the

> low-cut jeans and the midriffs?

> Kaye Kent: How dare he?

> (Alan puts his hand on her arm.)

> Judge Gloria Weldon: Are you a parent, Mr. Espenson?

> Jerry Espenson: No, Your Honor. It is my most profound hope that one

> day I shall be.

> Judge Gloria Weldon: Do you think that you would stand before me as

a

> father of a young girl and say that

> these dolls don't trouble you?

> Jerry Espenson: (Softly, but emphatically.) No. They bother me now.

> But it's nothing new. We're always

> gonna worry about our kids, thinking in today's world they've got no

> chance. But the reality is, Your Honor,

> rates of teenage drinking, smoking and drug use are declining. Teen

> pregnancy rates are down thirty-five

> percent from 1990, many teens are abstaining from sex. And most see

> Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan

> for exactly what they are. Young woman now earn fifty-seven percent

of

> all Bachelor's degrees, fifty-nine

> percent of all Master's degrees. Congress now has ninety female

> members, including the Speaker of the

> House. I don't think we're doomed, just yet. And should doom ever

> come, I doubt very much it will be

> brought about by a doll. "

>

> I don't know if those stats are true but I do know we almost had a

> woman in the White House. : )

>

> Maggie

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Shelley

 

I agree with you. I will not support PETA, I would much rather

support VIVA.

 

Jo

 

, Shelley <moondrop000 wrote:

>

> Ahimsa!   I am horrified.   I am speechless.  WHEN will our country

EVER view women as human beings?   When women are finally in

positions of power equal to men.

>  

> If I see an organization using sex to sell their product I boycott

it.   Carls Jr. is one.  Their commercials are sexist.   The Las

Vegas commercials talk about no one ever knowing what goes on

there.   But for animal activists to use it, I am shocked.   Sigh

>  

> Shelley H

>

[Guest guest]

I am perhaps a minority opinion, but I really do think we as a society have an extraordinarily dysfunctional and myoptic view of the human body. Other countries were laughing at how out of proportion this country took the Janet Jackson incident and rightfully so.

This country has serious, serious issues. :POn Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 2:45 AM, heartwerk <jo.heartwork wrote:

The papers and magazines here said Janet Jackson's breast-baring was

done on purpose, and in no way looked like an accident. Also it was

done in a public arena where millions of children would have been

watching.

 

You might not mind this, but the vast majority of parents do not want

their daughters to be encouraged to think it normal to go around

baring their breasts in public.

 

As I said before, the way PETA conducts itself shows extremely bad

taste, and does nothing to endear itself to the average person.

Therefore it's advertising is not working. If you ask anyone over

here about PETA they say " oh, the animal rights nutcases! "

 

Jo

 

, " Maggie Vining "

<Maggie.Vining wrote:

>

> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 6:32 AM, Peter <metalscarab wrote:

>

> > When a part of the human race is demeaned, I am demeaned by that

action - it

> > has nothing to do with " coming to the rescue " of women, it has to

do with

> > highlighting the disrespect shown to all living beings, of which

I am part,

> > and therefore have every right to comment.

> >

>

>

> Hiya Peter,

>

> I think that's the rub is that I don't see it as inherently

demeaning

> or belittling. (But I do respect that you see it as such, so I'm not

> trying to change your mind, just explain my perspective a little

> more).

>

> I think it's about context, and in this context I don't find what

PETA

> did as offensive toward women. Just immature and uncreative. What

> upsets me is the reaction to a partially exposed woman as

> automatically representing offense and lack of respect. To me

that's

> demeaning. For example, when there was an outcry at Janet Jackson's

> accidental exposed breast. The negative reaction to her breast was

so

> horrible, IMO. I think it's reactions like that which do way more

to

> demean women than the media-hyped superstar world of partially

dressed

> performers. I don't see sex and eroticism as inherently demeaning

> toward anyone, (just really dumb sometimes) so when it's used in

> advertising or any media I don't feel the need to defend anyone

> because I see no harm being done.

>

> There is actually a few great quotes from Boston Legal on these

> subjects that I enjoy (yeah it's a fictional TV show but they make

> good points).

>

> On topless protesting, a closing argument:

>

> " Shirley Schmidt: (She reads from a sheet of paper.) Jake Watson

> convicted of molesting an eight-year-old girl,

> served two years, then convicted of molesting an eleven-year-old

girl.

> John Bauers, convicted of multiple counts

> of rape. Calvin Stevens, convicted of sodomizing and molesting over

a

> dozen boys ages six to ten. This is a list

> of registered sex-offenders. This is the list that the prosecution

> thinks Ms Levine should be put on. This is the

> company they think she belongs in. Do you? Do any of you think that

a

> woman who bared her breasts at a

> political rally poses the same risk to the community as rapists and

> child molesters? Of course you don't. And I'll

> let you in on a little secret. (She looks to the defenses' table.)

> Neither do they. You see they arrested Ms Levine

> and the other women before and charged them with disturbing the

peace.

> When a woman is arrested for

> sunbathing topless in a public park, she's either charged with

> disturbing the peace or more likely the cop says,

> " Hey, lady put your shirt back on. " And then he goes off to deal

with

> real crime. So why is Ms Levine different?

> Because she was protesting redistricting. Now, I know that may sound

> arcane and theoretical to you. But I

> assure you that to the politicians in power, there is nothing more

> dear to their hearts. If Ms Levine had written a

> scholarly article about redistricting for an obscure journal that

> nobody would ever have read, the District Attorney

> wouldn't have cared at all. But she and the other women made their

> argument topless. People paid attention

> because let's face it when two hundred women take their tops off

> people are going to look. But after they've

> gawked for a minute they might ask, " Why have they taken their tops

> off? " And then they might find out it's

> because of redistricting. And then they might say, " Well, what is

> that? " And then when they find out they might

> say, " Oh my God! Our politicians have high jacked our Democracy. "

The

> prosecutor's charged Ms Levine for

> violating our community standards. This is Boston. Home of the Tea

> Party. Home of the people and the spirit of

> freedom that literally created this country. Our community standard

is

> that we won't be silenced by the King of

> England, much less the District Attorney! Our community standard is

> that we speak the truth to power. And if

> those in power don't like it. Too bad. "

>

> And another closing argument, on provocative dolls (again fiction

but

> makes good points):

>

> Jerry Espenson: (Almost softly.) I think these dolls are despicable.

> But drawing the line here would strike

> me as arbitrary. I mean, what's new? Twenty-five years ago Madonna

> rode her sexual, raunchy,

> promiscuity to iconic status. The country, and I believe feminism,

> celebrated her. Paris Hilton might have

> intercourse on the internet, but our most prominent actresses

> routinely simulate sex acts on seventy

> millimeter at a theatre near you. Sometimes they get Oscars for it.

I

> suppose you could draw the line with

> these dolls, but how about the clothing stores that sell sweat pants

> with " Juicy " on the butts? What about

> the t-shirts that say, " Do me " ? What about the sexually explicit

music

> videos and television shows that

> target the tweens. And if we really wanna crack down on the

> sexualization of our minors, we might

> consider their role models. Our female CEOs and lawyers and doctors,

> women of real power who routinely

> get boob jobs just to feel better about themselves. And what about

the

> mothers, many of whom wear the

> low-cut jeans and the midriffs?

> Kaye Kent: How dare he?

> (Alan puts his hand on her arm.)

> Judge Gloria Weldon: Are you a parent, Mr. Espenson?

> Jerry Espenson: No, Your Honor. It is my most profound hope that one

> day I shall be.

> Judge Gloria Weldon: Do you think that you would stand before me as

a

> father of a young girl and say that

> these dolls don't trouble you?

> Jerry Espenson: (Softly, but emphatically.) No. They bother me now.

> But it's nothing new. We're always

> gonna worry about our kids, thinking in today's world they've got no

> chance. But the reality is, Your Honor,

> rates of teenage drinking, smoking and drug use are declining. Teen

> pregnancy rates are down thirty-five

> percent from 1990, many teens are abstaining from sex. And most see

> Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan

> for exactly what they are. Young woman now earn fifty-seven percent

of

> all Bachelor's degrees, fifty-nine

> percent of all Master's degrees. Congress now has ninety female

> members, including the Speaker of the

> House. I don't think we're doomed, just yet. And should doom ever

> come, I doubt very much it will be

> brought about by a doll. "

>

> I don't know if those stats are true but I do know we almost had a

> woman in the White House. : )

>

> Maggie

>

 

 

 

---

 

To send an email to -! Groups Links

 

<*>

/

 

<*> Your email settings:

Individual Email | Traditional

 

<*> To change settings online go to:

/join

( ID required)

 

<*> To change settings via email:

-digest

-fullfeatured

 

<*>

[Guest guest]

Hey, this is the place for minority opinions.

 

Years ago, a couple of my aunts visited one of the beaches on the

Black Sea in the (then) Soviet Union and were amazed that *all* the

women, no matter what size or shape, wore bikinis. They would never

have thought of wearing anything like that, coming from a culture that

preaches only barbie-bods can be seen on the beach. But for years

after that, one of my aunts talked about how other countries don't

hide the body, with all its lumps and bumps. She never dressed

scantily herself, but preached on and on about how the body is nothing

to be ashamed of.

 

I thought the JJ incident was a piece of performance art! IIRC,

it was during some event that was guaranteed to have millions of

viewers, and was more a nose-tweak at skewed notions of women's bodies

than some sort of exhibitionism. I didn't see it, but I had the

impression it lasted for a split second. What was abnormal was all the

media blather about it, as if it was a big deal.

 

/snark on/ Imagine that: children seeing a woman's breast. /snark

off/

 

I haven't heard of one recently, but a few years ago Berkeley,

Calif., hosted a mass breastfeeding event, where hundreds or thousands

of women with babes in arms breastfed in public. So, yeah, it *should

be* normal for children to see bared breasts in public, not as

something to have a cow about or call in the prurience cabal, but as a

part of normal everyday life.

 

(Uh oh -- if they haven't already, PETA are going to have a

campaign where they show a breastfeeding mom and a calf suckling from

a cow, with the tagline " Don't have a cow. Drink your own

species' milk. " )

 

 

 

At 6:29 AM -0400 7/21/08, Blue Rose wrote:

I am perhaps a minority opinion, but I really do think we as a

society have an extraordinarily dysfunctional and myoptic view of the

human body. Other countries were laughing at how out of

proportion this country took the Janet Jackson incident and rightfully

so.

 

This country has serious, serious issues.

 

On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 2:45 AM, heartwerk <jo.heartwork

wrote:

 

The papers and magazines here said Janet Jackson's breast-baring

was

done on purpose, and in no way looked like an accident. Also it

was

done in a public arena where millions of children would have been

watching.

 

You might not mind this, but the vast majority of parents do not

want

their daughters to be encouraged to think it normal to go around

baring their breasts in public.

[Guest guest]

Hiya Jo,

 

I have two daughters. I am not sure if you have kids but in my

experience they are way smarter than they get credit for. I do not

think that most children would be ok with exposing themselves in

public just because they saw it on TV. I know mine wouldn't. I think

the self-esteem issue has two extremes and neither viewpoints are

healthy. One side is ashamed of their body and can't handle intimacy

on any level, the other flaunts it as a cry for attention. I think

most kids are better at picking up on healthy people than adults!

 

If Jackson did it on purpose then I don't see it as an issue of nudity

but one of boundaries. I didn't see it happen. IMO, to pose in an

adult magazine is different than exposing oneself on purpose to people

who are not expecting it because with the magazine there is a chance

for people to make a choice before looking at a body being depicted in

an erotic way. In either case, the breast isn't inherently disgusting

or offensive. Women can be arrested or fined for breastfeeding in

public, for example. I just think that is crazy! I think that sends

such a horrible message to female children about their bodies.

 

Maggie

 

 

On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 2:45 AM, heartwerk <jo.heartwork wrote:

> The papers and magazines here said Janet Jackson's breast-baring was

> done on purpose, and in no way looked like an accident. Also it was

> done in a public arena where millions of children would have been

> watching.

>

> You might not mind this, but the vast majority of parents do not want

> their daughters to be encouraged to think it normal to go around

> baring their breasts in public.

>

> As I said before, the way PETA conducts itself shows extremely bad

> taste, and does nothing to endear itself to the average person.

> Therefore it's advertising is not working. If you ask anyone over

> here about PETA they say " oh, the animal rights nutcases! "

>

> Jo

[Guest guest]

I don't think the papers here went mad over it, just commented it didn't seem like an accident.

 

Jo

 

 

-

Blue Rose

Monday, July 21, 2008 11:29 AM

Re: Re: Why does a pro-vegetarian organisation treat women like meat?

 

 

 

I am perhaps a minority opinion, but I really do think we as a society have an extraordinarily dysfunctional and myoptic view of the human body. Other countries were laughing at how out of proportion this country took the Janet Jackson incident and rightfully so. This country has serious, serious issues.

On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 2:45 AM, heartwerk <jo.heartwork > wrote:

The papers and magazines here said Janet Jackson's breast-baring wasdone on purpose, and in no way looked like an accident. Also it wasdone in a public arena where millions of children would have beenwatching.You might not mind this, but the vast majority of parents do not wanttheir daughters to be encouraged to think it normal to go aroundbaring their breasts in public.As I said before, the way PETA conducts itself shows extremely badtaste, and does nothing to endear itself to the average person.Therefore it's advertising is not working. If you ask anyone overhere about PETA they say "oh, the animal rights nutcases!"

Jo , "Maggie Vining"<Maggie.Vining wrote:>

 

 

> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 6:32 AM, Peter <metalscarab wrote:>> > When a part of the human race is demeaned, I am demeaned by thataction - it> > has nothing to do with "coming to the rescue" of women, it has todo with> > highlighting the disrespect shown to all living beings, of whichI am part,> > and therefore have every right to comment.> >>>> Hiya Peter,>> I think that's the rub is that I don't see it as inherentlydemeaning> or belittling. (But I do respect that you see it as such, so I'm not> trying to change your mind, just explain my perspective a little> more).>> I think it's about context, and in this context I don't find whatPETA> did as offensive toward women. Just immature and uncreative. What> upsets me is the reaction to a partially exposed woman as> automatically representing offense and lack of respect. To methat's> demeaning. For example, when there was an outcry at Janet Jackson's> accidental exposed breast. The negative reaction to her breast wasso> horrible, IMO. I think it's reactions like that which do way moreto> demean women than the media-hyped superstar world of partiallydressed> performers. I don't see sex and eroticism as inherently demeaning> toward anyone, (just really dumb sometimes) so when it's used in> advertising or any media I don't feel the need to defend anyone> because I see no harm being done.>> There is actually a few great quotes from Boston Legal on these> subjects that I enjoy (yeah it's a fictional TV show but they make> good points).>> On topless protesting, a closing argument:>> "Shirley Schmidt: (She reads from a sheet of paper.) Jake Watson> convicted of molesting an eight-year-old girl,> served two years, then convicted of molesting an eleven-year-oldgirl.> John Bauers, convicted of multiple counts> of rape. Calvin Stevens, convicted of sodomizing and molesting overa> dozen boys ages six to ten. This is a list> of registered sex-offenders. This is the list that the prosecution> thinks Ms Levine should be put on. This is the> company they think she belongs in. Do you? Do any of you think thata> woman who bared her breasts at a> political rally poses the same risk to the community as rapists and> child molesters? Of course you don't. And I'll> let you in on a little secret. (She looks to the defenses' table.)> Neither do they. You see they arrested Ms Levine> and the other women before and charged them with disturbing thepeace.> When a woman is arrested for> sunbathing topless in a public park, she's either charged with> disturbing the peace or more likely the cop says,> "Hey, lady put your shirt back on." And then he goes off to dealwith> real crime. So why is Ms Levine different?> Because she was protesting redistricting. Now, I know that may sound> arcane and theoretical to you. But I> assure you that to the politicians in power, there is nothing more> dear to their hearts. If Ms Levine had written a> scholarly article about redistricting for an obscure journal that> nobody would ever have read, the District Attorney> wouldn't have cared at all. But she and the other women made their> argument topless. People paid attention> because let's face it when two hundred women take their tops off> people are going to look. But after they've> gawked for a minute they might ask, "Why have they taken their tops> off?" And then they might find out it's> because of redistricting. And then they might say, "Well, what is> that?" And then when they find out they might> say, "Oh my God! Our politicians have high jacked our Democracy."The> prosecutor's charged Ms Levine for> violating our community standards. This is Boston. Home of the Tea> Party. Home of the people and the spirit of> freedom that literally created this country. Our community standardis> that we won't be silenced by the King of> England, much less the District Attorney! Our community standard is> that we speak the truth to power. And if> those in power don't like it. Too bad.">> And another closing argument, on provocative dolls (again fictionbut> makes good points):>> Jerry Espenson: (Almost softly.) I think these dolls are despicable.> But drawing the line here would strike> me as arbitrary. I mean, what's new? Twenty-five years ago Madonna> rode her sexual, raunchy,> promiscuity to iconic status. The country, and I believe feminism,> celebrated her. Paris Hilton might have> intercourse on the internet, but our most prominent actresses> routinely simulate sex acts on seventy> millimeter at a theatre near you. Sometimes they get Oscars for it.I> suppose you could draw the line with> these dolls, but how about the clothing stores that sell sweat pants> with "Juicy" on the butts? What about> the t-shirts that say, "Do me"? What about the sexually explicitmusic> videos and television shows that> target the tweens. And if we really wanna crack down on the> sexualization of our minors, we might> consider their role models. Our female CEOs and lawyers and doctors,> women of real power who routinely> get boob jobs just to feel better about themselves. And what aboutthe> mothers, many of whom wear the> low-cut jeans and the midriffs?> Kaye Kent: How dare he?> (Alan puts his hand on her arm.)> Judge Gloria Weldon: Are you a parent, Mr. Espenson?> Jerry Espenson: No, Your Honor. It is my most profound hope that one> day I shall be.> Judge Gloria Weldon: Do you think that you would stand before me asa> father of a young girl and say that> these dolls don't trouble you?> Jerry Espenson: (Softly, but emphatically.) No. They bother me now.> But it's nothing new. We're always> gonna worry about our kids, thinking in today's world they've got no> chance. But the reality is, Your Honor,> rates of teenage drinking, smoking and drug use are declining. Teen> pregnancy rates are down thirty-five> percent from 1990, many teens are abstaining from sex. And most see> Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan> for exactly what they are. Young woman now earn fifty-seven percentof> all Bachelor's degrees, fifty-nine> percent of all Master's degrees. Congress now has ninety female> members, including the Speaker of the> House. I don't think we're doomed, just yet. And should doom ever> come, I doubt very much it will be> brought about by a doll.">> I don't know if those stats are true but I do know we almost had a> woman in the White House. : )>> Maggie>---To send an email to -

[Guest guest]

I do have children - well, they were children once. They have grown up into well-rounded, intelligent, gentle, compassionate people. There are more than the two extremes you talk about. I am neither ashamed of my body (although, of course, I did prefer it when it was a lot younger) and I have always had an extremely enjoyable intimate life - on the other hand, I don't like the flaunting aspect. Too much time is given to public sexuality, when actually, it is a private matter.

 

Jo

 

 

-

Maggie Vining

Monday, July 21, 2008 6:49 PM

Re: Re: Why does a pro-vegetarian organisation treat women like meat?

 

 

Hiya Jo,I have two daughters. I am not sure if you have kids but in myexperience they are way smarter than they get credit for. I do notthink that most children would be ok with exposing themselves inpublic just because they saw it on TV. I know mine wouldn't. I thinkthe self-esteem issue has two extremes and neither viewpoints arehealthy. One side is ashamed of their body and can't handle intimacyon any level, the other flaunts it as a cry for attention. I thinkmost kids are better at picking up on healthy people than adults!If Jackson did it on purpose then I don't see it as an issue of nuditybut one of boundaries. I didn't see it happen. IMO, to pose in anadult magazine is different than exposing oneself on purpose to peoplewho are not expecting it because with the magazine there is a chancefor people to make a choice before looking at a body being depicted inan erotic way. In either case, the breast isn't inherently disgustingor offensive. Women can be arrested or fined for breastfeeding inpublic, for example. I just think that is crazy! I think that sendssuch a horrible message to female children about their bodies.MaggieOn Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 2:45 AM, heartwerk <jo.heartwork > wrote:> The papers and magazines here said Janet Jackson's breast-baring was> done on purpose, and in no way looked like an accident. Also it was> done in a public arena where millions of children would have been> watching.>> You might not mind this, but the vast majority of parents do not want> their daughters to be encouraged to think it normal to go around> baring their breasts in public.>> As I said before, the way PETA conducts itself shows extremely bad> taste, and does nothing to endear itself to the average person.> Therefore it's advertising is not working. If you ask anyone over> here about PETA they say "oh, the animal rights nutcases!">> Jo

[Guest guest]

Catching a glimpse of a breast while breastfeeding is a beautiful and natural thing. Installing fake breasts, shoving them up on the collar bone, bending over, and turning the women intentionally into a barbie doll piece of meat is quite another. Just watch the Emmies or Grammies today and it is all about the women's breasts. Or look at a magazine rack. What do you see? It infuriates me that I, a woman, am defined by my body and not my self, which men ARE. Men are defined by their money, power, and accomplishments. Women are defined by their bodies and breasts.

 

For PETA to embrace this is a disgrace and worth boycotting.

 

Shelley H

[Guest guest]

I agree with most of what you say, especially about the way women are

portrayed in the media, and am glad you have said it.

 

However, I don't think men should be viewed by their income, power

etc. Everyone should be judged on their character and how they behave -

these are the things we can control.

 

PETA disappoints me because I would have expected a group that claims

to be ethical to behave (I judge on behaviour) in an ethical way, not

in such an undignified way. They don't do any good for the animal

rights movement really - most people when they talk of PETA call them

animal rights nutters. Obviously PETA's actions make animal rights

people look like nutters!!! I think they have long lost their way.

 

Jo

 

, Shelley <moondrop000 wrote:

>

> Catching a glimpse of a breast while breastfeeding is a beautiful

and natural thing.   Installing fake breasts, shoving them up on the

collar bone, bending over, and turning the women intentionally into a

barbie doll piece of meat is quite another.   Just watch the Emmies or

Grammies today and it is all about the women's breasts.  Or look at a

magazine rack.  What do you see?   It infuriates me that I, a woman,

am defined by my body and not my self, which men ARE.   Men are

defined by their money, power, and accomplishments.  Women are defined

by their bodies and breasts.

>  

> For PETA to embrace this is a disgrace and worth boycotting.

>  

> Shelley H

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Shelley

 

 

> Catching a glimpse of a breast while breastfeeding is a beautiful and natural thing. Installing fake breasts, shoving them up on the collar bone, bending over, and turning the women intentionally into a barbie doll piece of meat is quite another. Just watch the Emmies or Grammies today and it is all about the women's breasts. Or look at a magazine rack. What do you see? It infuriates me that I, a woman, am defined by my body and not my self, which men ARE. Men are defined by their money, power, and accomplishments. Women are defined by their bodies and breasts.

While I agree with your basic point, men are judged on their bodies every bit as much as women are. Just go scour those magazine racks, and tell me how many magazines you see with an overweight man on the front...

 

BB

Peter

[Guest guest]

And I , a mere sexist pig, will be taking my chiseled abs, and six pack, ( after I have rubbed baby oil all over myself obviously ), sticking a sock down the front of my tight trousers which show off my perfect bum, and go out in the hot street to wash my Ferrari. Chances are I will get wet , and have to rip off my tee shirt, and shake water out of my hair ( in slomo of course ).........

 

:):):):):):):):):)

 

Peter vv

 

Shelley <moondrop000 Sent: Tuesday, 22 July, 2008 9:21:28 PM Re: Why does a pro-vegetarian organisation treat women like meat?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Catching a glimpse of a breast while breastfeeding is a beautiful and natural thing. Installing fake breasts, shoving them up on the collar bone, bending over, and turning the women intentionally into a barbie doll piece of meat is quite another. Just watch the Emmies or Grammies today and it is all about the women's breasts. Or look at a magazine rack. What do you see? It infuriates me that I, a woman, am defined by my body and not my self, which men ARE. Men are defined by their money, power, and accomplishments. Women are defined by their bodies and breasts.

 

For PETA to embrace this is a disgrace and worth boycotting.

 

Shelley H

Not happy with your email address?

Get the one you really want - millions of new email addresses available now at

[Guest guest]



Calm down Peter.

 

Jo

 

 

-

Peter VV

Wednesday, July 23, 2008 6:19 PM

Re: Re: Why does a pro-vegetarian organisation treat women like meat?

 

 

 

And I , a mere sexist pig, will be taking my chiseled abs, and six pack, ( after I have rubbed baby oil all over myself obviously ), sticking a sock down the front of my tight trousers which show off my perfect bum, and go out in the hot street to wash my Ferrari. Chances are I will get wet , and have to rip off my tee shirt, and shake water out of my hair ( in slomo of course ).........

:):):):):):):):):)

 

Peter vv

 

Shelley <moondrop000 > Sent: Tuesday, 22 July, 2008 9:21:28 PM Re: Why does a pro-vegetarian organisation treat women like meat?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Catching a glimpse of a breast while breastfeeding is a beautiful and natural thing. Installing fake breasts, shoving them up on the collar bone, bending over, and turning the women intentionally into a barbie doll piece of meat is quite another. Just watch the Emmies or Grammies today and it is all about the women's breasts. Or look at a magazine rack. What do you see? It infuriates me that I, a woman, am defined by my body and not my self, which men ARE. Men are defined by their money, power, and accomplishments. Women are defined by their bodies and breasts.

 

For PETA to embrace this is a disgrace and worth boycotting.

 

Shelley H

 

Not happy with your email address? Get the one you really want - millions of new email addresses available now at

[Guest guest]

That's hawt. Do you have a brother?

 

 

On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 1:19 PM, Peter VV <swpgh01 wrote:

> And I , a mere sexist pig, will be taking my chiseled abs, and six pack, (

> after I have rubbed baby oil all over myself obviously ), sticking a sock

> down the front of my tight trousers which show off my perfect bum, and go

> out in the hot street to wash my Ferrari. Chances are I will get wet , and

> have to rip off my tee shirt, and shake water out of my hair ( in slomo of

> course ).........

> :):):):):):):):):)

>

> Peter vv

[Guest guest]

just have him home by midnite

Maggie Vining Jul 23, 2008 1:20 PM Re: Re: Why does a pro-vegetarian organisation treat women like meat?

 

 

 

That's hawt. Do you have a brother?On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 1:19 PM, Peter VV <swpgh01 (AT) talk21 (DOT) com> wrote:> And I , a mere sexist pig, will be taking my chiseled abs, and six pack, (> after I have rubbed baby oil all over myself obviously ), sticking a sock> down the front of my tight trousers which show off my perfect bum, and go> out in the hot street to wash my Ferrari. Chances are I will get wet , and> have to rip off my tee shirt, and shake water out of my hair ( in slomo of> course ).........> :):):):):):):):):)>> Peter vv

 

 

 

 

With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably.

[Guest guest]

lol : )

 

On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 5:49 PM, fraggle <EBbrewpunx wrote:

> just have him home by midnite

>

>

[Guest guest]

your home or his???

 

 

 

Peter vv

 

fraggle <EBbrewpunx Sent: Wednesday, 23 July, 2008 10:49:33 PMRe: Re: Why does a pro-vegetarian organisation treat women like meat?

 

just have him home by midnite

Maggie Vining Jul 23, 2008 1:20 PM @gro ups.com Re: Re: Why does a pro-vegetarian organisation treat women like meat?

 

 

 

That's hawt. Do you have a brother?On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 1:19 PM, Peter VV <swpgh01 (AT) talk21 (DOT) com> wrote:> And I , a mere sexist pig, will be taking my chiseled abs, and six pack, (> after I have rubbed baby oil all over myself obviously ), sticking a sock> down the front of my tight trousers which show off my perfect bum, and go> out in the hot street to wash my Ferrari. Chances are I will get wet , and> have to rip off my tee shirt, and shake water out of my hair ( in slomo of> course ).........> :):):) :):): ):):) :):)>> Peter vv

With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably.

 

Not happy with your email address?

Get the one you really want - millions of new email addresses available now at

[Guest guest]

I do, but he`s taken.

He is also a meat eater, and about 5 stone heavier than me, at least.

If you could only see th ereal me, thank all dietys for the anonimity of the internet.

 

 

 

Peter vv

 

Maggie Vining <Maggie.Vining Sent: Wednesday, 23 July, 2008 10:20:02 PMRe: Re: Why does a pro-vegetarian organisation treat women like meat?

 

That's hawt. Do you have a brother?On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 1:19 PM, Peter VV <swpgh01 (AT) talk21 (DOT) com> wrote:> And I , a mere sexist pig, will be taking my chiseled abs, and six pack, (> after I have rubbed baby oil all over myself obviously ), sticking a sock> down the front of my tight trousers which show off my perfect bum, and go> out in the hot street to wash my Ferrari. Chances are I will get wet , and> have to rip off my tee shirt, and shake water out of my hair ( in slomo of> course ).........> :):):) :):): ):):) :):)>> Peter vv

Not happy with your email address?

Get the one you really want - millions of new email addresses available now at

[Guest guest]



Are you as sweet as your sheep?

 

Jo

 

 

-

Peter VV

Thursday, July 24, 2008 8:43 PM

Re: Re: Why does a pro-vegetarian organisation treat women like meat?

 

 

 

 

I do, but he`s taken.

He is also a meat eater, and about 5 stone heavier than me, at least.

If you could only see th ereal me, thank all dietys for the anonimity of the internet.

 

 

 

Peter vv

 

Maggie Vining <Maggie.Vining > Sent: Wednesday, 23 July, 2008 10:20:02 PMRe: Re: Why does a pro-vegetarian organisation treat women like meat?

 

That's hawt. Do you have a brother?On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 1:19 PM, Peter VV <swpgh01 (AT) talk21 (DOT) com> wrote:> And I , a mere sexist pig, will be taking my chiseled abs, and six pack, (> after I have rubbed baby oil all over myself obviously ), sticking a sock> down the front of my tight trousers which show off my perfect bum, and go> out in the hot street to wash my Ferrari. Chances are I will get wet , and> have to rip off my tee shirt, and shake water out of my hair ( in slomo of> course ).........> :):):) :):): ):):) :):)>> Peter vv

 

Not happy with your email address? Get the one you really want - millions of new email addresses available now at