Ah, but you're missing the point: men aren't judged (at least not by other men, and mostly even not by women) mostly by how attractive they look. Men without sexual power usually have fewer problems in rising quite high than women without sexual power. That's the point that breaks your analogy.

The sad thing is that there are real things to criticize about feminism, but guys like you end up reinforcing all the stereotypes about the 'angry white men' who just can't see anything right in whatever feminism does (hell, you're on record demanding good consideration for the idea of denying women the vote...). The radfems read what you write, they say: 'see? there is still work to be done!'. And you make them sound right. You give them ammo. Well done.

I don't think there's much hope for imnobody, dianita. He read a few outrageous things, heard a few outrageous people make ridiculous claims, and now thinks this is all of feminism and that all their claims hide something ugly, evil and anti-male. Granted, there are extremists who think like this. But he thinks they're the only ones, which is sad.

Think of it like this: to imnobody and others like him, anything with the word 'feminism' in it could as well be the kind of propaganda that Fox News delivers. It's as simple as that.

He won't criticize, he won't present arguments; he won't really read what is there, and he won't talk about the opinion of specific people (after all, Ms Harding is not 'feminism incarnate'), but about 'feminism.'

The worst thing for me in this kind of behavior is: it gives more ammunition to radical feminists who claim men are still all biased and bigotted. That he doesn't even realize that I consider sad.

I don't think there's much hope for imnobody, dianita. He read a few outrageous things, heard a few outrageous people make ridiculous claims, and now thinks this is all of feminism and that all their claims hide something ugly, evil and anti-male. Granted, there are extremists who think like this. But he thinks they're the only ones, which is sad.

Think of it like this: to imnobody and others like him, anything with the word 'feminism' in it could as well be the kind of propaganda that Fox News delivers. It's as simple as that.

He won't criticize, he won't present arguments; he won't really read what is there, and he won't talk about the opinion of specific people (after all, Ms Harding is not 'feminism incarnate'), but about 'feminism.'

The worst thing for me in this kind of behavior is: it gives more ammunition to radical feminists who claim men are still all biased and bigotted. That he doesn't even realize that I consider sad.

Ah, but you're missing the point: men aren't judged (at least not by other men, and mostly even not by women) mostly by how attractive they look. Men without sexual power usually have fewer problems in rising quite high than women without sexual power. That's the point that breaks your analogy.

The sad thing is that there are real things to criticize about feminism, but guys like you end up reinforcing all the stereotypes about the 'angry white men' who just can't see anything right in whatever feminism does (hell, you're on record demanding good consideration for the idea of denying women the vote...). The radfems read what you write, they say: 'see? there is still work to be done!'. And you make them sound right. You give them ammo. Well done.

Ah, but English likes torture. Look how much it has changed since the Normans conquered England...

I can't offer you any statistics, which would be necessary to answer your question, tom, but in my experience the number of women I met and/or slept with and who did have and enjoy sex toys of various kinds was quite significant (more than half). Those who didn't had some bad ideas about it (dirty, not human, etc.) that I don't think were really correct.

As for whether women would answer... Well, I suppose it depends on the woman and on your relationship to them. Those I slept with end up becoming sufficiently intimate to discuss such things without fear. And even among those I didn't sleep with, sometimes there would be sufficient trust for such questions to be discussed. Of course, it's not something they -- or I, for that matter -- would like to discuss on a first date or during the break in a departmental meeting. There's a place and a moment for everything.

To the naysayers like XJS, Ge-ogre and even Stinks: if you dislike so much this kind of post, why the heck do you come here to read it? Don't you like yourselves? Don't you think you'd be having more fun somewhere else, where you don't have to read such stupid posts?

I think the point is that Father Vetter considered what you called 'something rather private' to be something he should emit an opinion about. So the conversation is more about this kind of old-fashioned opinon--i.e. that sex toys are 'evil', they make you 'incapable of handling relationships'--than about whether or not this is something private.

But maybe what you think is that it is not a good idea to do research on the use of sex toys? It is private, but indeed science can and does study also private things. Nothing bad in that, I hope?

I feel like agreeing with you (I even am an ex-Catholic). The only thing that keeps me from doing that is that your post is in many ways just as intollerant and hate-filled as the posts of those you attack.

Tolerance means people are entitled to believe wrong things. It's in some ways a pity, but the alternative is much worse.