Then that just makes it even worse.

In all honesty, his girlfriend showed up tonight. Maybe I am judging it on a personal level, but of I had felt my man had done me wrong I would not have turned up to applaud him.

On another point, when I was their age, I would have felt desperately inadequate, and so insecure that I would have begged for assurance.

Someone posted this in another thread, which I think sums it up perfectly:

I did see her tonight, my first thought was... dump him, you have so much more going for you.

He never spoke about her in the house, never mentioned her by name. If you are away from somebody who means anything to you for three weeks, you cannot but talk abot them. He never mentioned her, if at all, in the third person.

The excusing of behaviour is the first step to making it acceptable. Abusing the trust of someone is never excusable, and Stu - I think you are absolutely right, but then morals aren't fashionable, obviously!

And he was even proud of it - "no shame!"... Nasty little rat isn't he (even looks like one)

He did say in the begining he wants kids his g/f didnt as her work was more important..so it was never going to work...you both have to want the same things in life..or resentment will set in..

Oh absolutely!

I guess the people justifying it are the same people that think jodie Marsh is a good role model and that Chantelle is in some way "innocent" - yeah innocent enough for a woman who's done nude "modelling" (for porno mags )

And you're talking about misogyny in other threads?

Yes, I am. Do go on..........

Suffice to say, if that was the man I shared my life with (and I do), unless there was a prior agreement on flirting to win, I would be wholly offended, especially because, despite the flirting and cosyness, as his girlfriend I was never actually mentioned, not once, not even as an excuse not to flirt.

Well, I would have previously had to have agreed to the flirting and pretense that I did not exist, therefore never an acknowledgement. So... the man I love and share my life with....free to flirt and wish to marry a female he has shared a house with for two weeks...but it's ok, cos it's only a game...does sheknow?? ... shit.....do I know?????

Do you even know what misogyny means? You can't accuse Preston of being that way, and then make loaded statements about Chantelle posting for men's magazines.

I didn't say Preston was a misogynist. I was talking about female misogyny, not male. Female misogyny is the hatred of women by women, as exemplified by the justification for Preston's behaviour towards his girlfriend - she has been wronged but "Preston is fit innit", so who cares really!

And that is a perfectly reasonable statement to make about Chantelle. There is nothing liberated or wholesome about posing for nude pictures, which have the sole purpose of being used as maturbatory material in men's magazines. It's simply objectification for sexual purposes.

Jodie Marsh has argued in interviews that she hates being called names for "being a liberated woman who likes sex". There is nothing liberated about objectifying yourself for the pleasure of men, it is quite simply further entrenchment in the victimhood of women as the objects of pleasure for men - that's fine if that's all they want to aspire to, but you cannot say Chantelle is "innocent".

You should read The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood. Very interesting points.
The liberty is that women CAN pose if they want. It's not what I would do personally, but...
Actually, I just can't be bothered. We're never going to agree over Preston and Chantelle, so I'm giving up.

I preferred The Female Eunuch by the wonderful Germain Greer

I think it all depends on the person.

jodie marsh used to get called ugly in HS. her being a 'model' is all about the fact she's got no self esteem.

other people in the sex industry have been abused as children & their line of work is as a result of this.

others, like Chantelle, just want a quick way to fame and/or money.
======

I personally think that a more 'tolerant'/open society is best.

BUT what is really telling is that men still think it's a big deal to see naked women in mags.

=========

another telling thing is Jodie no longer wants to be what she got famous for. she's scratching around for more money & more credibility by becoming an author. Jordan too (by wanting to become a singer).

if their choice of career is so great then why are they opting out.

they only used it as a stepping stone.

a means to an end. in desperation until something better comes along.


everyone's first job out of school or while studying is a dead end job. Topless modelling is the same IMHO

The fundamental points of the book is that sometimes people need freedom from something rather than freedom to do something!

It also concludes that women are not objects and not purely there for functional (sexual) reasons, but ultimately emotions are what drive us and make us who we are. Lack of respect was the downfall of Gilead, so I think you've used the wrong example!

I'm just looking at it from the perspective that the speaker tells us that before she would get wolf whistles down the street, but now they're protected from all that, and that's not necessarily a good thing. Of course it's not good to be objectified in that way, but when it's taken away, a freedom is taken away.
My example was that stulancs is obviously disapproving of topless modelling, and it's that kind of attitude that prevails in patriarchy. You know, he wants women to be one way only. Okay, I'm confusing myself here, I'm too tired, but I know what I mean myself.

The point of the book is that Offred was used as an object for functional reasons and without any due regard for morals or her emotions. The epilogue proves that the Gilead society did not survive and that a society can not exist on the self interest of the few to the detriment of the emotions and feelings of the many and that basic morals are needed for society to exist sucessfully.

Respect for others is a key theme throughout the book and is reflected in the lack of regard for the relationship of the Commander and his wife due to the need of procreation. Offred's feelings and respect for her and the other characters are what suffer in order for the behaviour of the few in charge to suceed.

In short it's not a healthy way to behave!

Yes I do disapprove, but in patriarchy that is wrong, because in that situation, women are there as objects. By posing for nude pictures - intended for porno mags - Chantelle is saying "this is all I am".

For her to reduce herself to a sex object, which is what anyone who appears in porn is (including men), she is effectively cutting herself off from any intellectual aspect of equality and is instead appealing solely to the base instinct of men. It propogates a cycle of misogyny in which women cannot rise any higher than what men allow them to be - objects for their pleasure.

Are you a priest by any chance... or norris from corry...

I love the fact that to disapprove of porn for very valid and rational reasons, means you are somehow frigid or religious.

Is norris frigid...

He comes across that way.

Stop blaming the tweenies! I've read a lot of posts on a girlie board that I visit where girls have been really upset by Preston's behaviour and they have not voted for him because of the flirting.