(no subject)

[celticdragonfly]

Take a look at this:

Another view of the "Lysistrata Project"

I love it.

Has an image from my current favorite t-shirt, too.

Perhaps I should spend my evening as she describes she'll spend hers.

Comments

(blinks in disbelief)

[patgund.livejournal.com]

*wow*. Talk about clueless. Why do I suspect that the people behind the "Lysistrata Project" are the same types that condemm any form of erotica, (or, for that matter, anything they don't like, down to and including least favourite breakfast cereals), as some weird mutant form of "patriarchal control and/or dominance of women"????

Gak. This may very well fall into the silliest idea I've heard of all day. (Shakes head)

Mind you, the idea of a counter-protest against these twits does sound nice. (Laugh) Not overly doable for me right now mind you, but still......

Re: (blinks in disbelief)

[tygerr.livejournal.com]

Actually, a certain feminist pacifist pro-smut sex-activist of my acquaintance is rather tickled by "Lysistratic nonaction" as a nonviolent method of promoting social change. Though I ought to mention that it's not always *women* trying to pressure *men* using this tactic. And of course, her positive attitude is simplified by the knowledge that everyone she's sleeping with is *already* against the war.... (giggle)

Re: (blinks in disbelief)

[celticdragonfly.livejournal.com]

Then perhaps she hasn't really looked at this and what it would mean.

If a woman is in a relationship and she says "we've got differing convictions, therefore I can't stay in this relationship" that's her choice and right, and I can only respect the strength of her convictions, whether I agree with them or not.

However, if a woman is saying "I'm staying in this relationship, and I expect you to stay in it and keep doing nice stuff for me, but I won't sleep with you because you won't give up your strongly held convictions and take mine instead" I find that incredibly cheap and sleazy. I believe that woman is showing very little self-respect that she would stoop to such tactics and certainly showing no respect for man and his convictions in the least.

Don't they see what they're saying to the man? (Or woman, in the opposite situation - but I'm primarily talking about the woman's pov here) "I think *my* convictions are incredibly important - but I think *yours* are nothing, and your desire for a quick lay have more weight." That's incredibly insulting.

Debate with him by all means but doing the deny sex thing is cheap.

I for one do not want the role of women in world affairs to be nothing but some kind of sexual equivalent of a doggie treat, to be given as a reward or withheld as a punishment. I have a mind, I have a voice. Women fought for so long against being viewed as nothing but a sexual object. That women would now turn it around dismays me.

Re: (blinks in disbelief)

[patgund.livejournal.com]

The main problem I see with this whole notion, (other than the fact it's been tried in the past and has a misrable record), is that it's encouraging women to use sex and their sexuality as some form of commodity. Which it is not and not supposed to be seen as that. Gak. The word "hypocrites" comes to mind.