Can we talk about feminism?

I was very young in the 1960 so I suppose I didn't notice the prudery of the time. I do remember some sexually suggestive ads from the 70s (I'm Candy, fly me) but they were probably more titillating that explicit.

Were people outraged at such things at the time?

How is a woman showing her body disparaging to other women?

Is Le déjeuner sur l'herbe disparaging towards women?

How is this kind of thing the same as having a minstrel show at a white owned business?

Are drag shows disparaging towards men or women?

I'm not trying to be contrary, I'm really curious.

Yeah, indecent exposure was treated as a serious social crime, and it was enforced. There was a big stink about Fire Island near New York in the late 50s because people were making one beach there a nude beach. There were men and women--partly because it was a popular destination for gay men (weren't yet called gay), and partly because women who wanted to sunbathe nude knew they wouldn't be bothered by the men there. I don't remember exactly when it was, but there was a big stink raised in the late 50s about it. I think some ambitious politician was raising the issue to get some positive press.

In the 60s, lots of hippies took a casual attitude toward nudity, and there was a good deal of outrage in the "straight" community over that. (Keep in mind that then, straight was not opposed to "gay," but rather, it was straight as opposed to the drug culture. Originally, of course, straight meant those who were not a part of a criminal community.) There was an incident in which a university professor took a group of young men and women to a theater (paid their tickets so that they could get in without incident), and then the young people stripped and began walking through the theater. It was a very bizarre incident. Some of the kids were reluctant to walk into the crowd, and the crowd pretty much ignored the naked men. But one young, attractive, blonde woman walked boldly down the aisle, and someone shouted "beat her, she's naked!" after which the crowd took it up as a chant.

The musical Hair had problems taking the show on the road because of the nudity in the production, and that was after 1968. The straight community condemned young people, generally labelling them hippies because they were (allegedly) dirty, lazy, took drugs and went around nude in public. The public nudity was seen by some people as as grave an offense as drug abuse.

In the 50s and 60s, a girl could be sent home from school (i've know this to happen more than once) for wearing "immodest" clothing. A few girls in my high school were sent home because they had decided not to wear brassieres.

Interesting. I've been thinking about this in terms of books. Early in the summer "Gone Girl" caused quite a sensation. Many people who liked the book hated the protagonist -- a sexually manipulative woman. A lot of discussion was about having such an unsympathetic female character.

And now they're pissed about "Tampa" -- a book about a female pedophile.

It seems like some people will only accept women as victims, or they'd at least better have a good backstory of abuse to cause them to be so awful.

I agree with your opinion which is probably why I find is so puzzling when such debates are raised under the banner of feminism.

Why would a woman want to stay with a man who abuses her (or a man stay with a woman who abuses him)?

Why would anyone want to have sex with someone who was too drunk to know what they were doing?

I don't get that kind of thinking at all.

My (very much) ex wife is a teacher; I once heard her saying to her friend how sexy 14 year old boys were; I said afterwards that I felt she shouldn't talk like that; she said "It's different because I am a woman". This was the 1980s, I suspect she wouldn't allow herself to be heard saying that now. She was and is a keen feminist of the old Betty Friedan/Germaine Greer school.

Thank you for the explanation!

do people need to understand and approve if your choices before you are allowed to carry them out? it is not your life that these other women are living, so how is you not understanding relavant?

re drinking, my point is that the state has removed your right to drink and be sexual at the same time, though it is not you who will be punished for the failure to comply it is the man. currently the man will not be punished unless you bring the crime to the states attention but allowing you that control over the power if the state will not last. why would anyone want to have drunk sex??!! are you really unfamiliar with how much fun this can be?

I think some women, usually ones with weak self-esteem, prefer "bad guys" over "nice guys" because bad guys have more of an edge to them. Once the couple is together, a women of this disposition will get cut by the bad guy's edge as he turns bad on her, true to form. But the woman remains psychologically attracted and doesn't break up for a long time after the relationship turned bad. I'm not saying it's reasonable on the woman's part, but I've seen it happen.


Why not? If you don't have a conscience that will trouble you for taking advantage of an unconscious woman in this way, I imagine it still beats masturbation. And I, for one, find masturbation quite pleasant.

Because no one who is sober is willing?

I seem to remember reading that in Maine, a police sting found that bikini baristas were actually selling quite a bit more than caffeinated beverages.

I agree with you--it's not a feminist issue, it's about people being offended by their attire. Or rather the lack of attire--in some cases, the woman wear only pasties on their nipples, and a see-through lace bikini bottom.

I just read some news stories about the protests at these places, and while most of the protesters are female, their concerns have nothing to do with feminism or the exploitation of women.

Most of the concerns are by these women as mothers, who are upset about the influence of these places, and the views of barely covered females they offer, on children and teens in the area--they consider these places not "family friendly" and detrimental to community values, property values, religious and moral values, etc. They see these places as selling sex and a form of suburban porn. They are mainly concerned with the open exploitation of sex in these places, and not with whether the workers themselves are being exploited, or whether women are being "objectified".

This is more like the conservatives, and prudes, and religious right, and the "family values" brigade simply protesting the type of establishment they don't want in their neighborhood--they don't care about the women who work in these places, or about women in general. These aren't feminists, they are just protesters who happen to be female.

I couldn't find a single example of any group, or even individual, protesting one of these places for anything remotely considered a feminist social issue.

I think the objectification of women is a feminist issue and that line has come up in many articles, editorials and online comments regarding the business.

For example: http://portlandtribune.com/pt/9-news/158269-bikini-brewhaha

...


I'm sure I could find many more examples.

There is a bikini coffee bar just down the street from my house. It's a closed structure that you can only see into when you are at the drive up window. I had no idea the baristas only wore bikinis until I happened by there one day and stopped to buy coffee. Though I only chatted with her for a minute she said she loved her job and she did not appear to feel objectified. The coffee was pretty good too.

Hawkeye and Thomas, I said I couldn't understand why anyone would stay in a relationship like that or want to have sex with drunk people.

I'm completely baffled by that kind of behavior.

While feminists might be concerned about women only being seen as sex objects, that's not the issue when women choose to display their bodies, or use their bodies to help earn a living, as is the case here, or might be the case in a strip joint, where you don't see feminists similarly clamoring in protest.

I read that article you just posted before I made my last post. Most of the objections are related to religious/moral, community, property, and "family values", the effects on children in the area, and the exploitation of sex. Almost none of it is an expression of "feminism" or feminist thinking. It's all about morality, and the "bad influence" of places like this in "decent neighborhoods"--that's not feminism.

There's a difference between the protestors who are actually showing up at these places, or civic meetings about them, and those who might make an online comment about whether these places exploit women or celebrate their autonomy. The protestors actually showing up definitely do not seem to fall into any feminist camp--they are motivated by other issues, mostly moral/religious, and the influence on children and the neighborhood. And, as for the online comments, it's the usual range of general opinions, but you don't know that any of them are coming from feminists, or people who identify as, or consider themselves, feminists.

For some people this is kicking up the same sort of morality dust you'd get from putting a sex shop, or peep show, or strip club, in those same parts of town--it has nothing to do with feminism. It has everything to do with very scantily clad sexually enticing females being on display, and that offends some people's values and sense of morality for reasons other than feminism. These places are seen as threatening to those values, and threatening to community values and standards, by the people making the most noise about them.

I don't live near one of these places. Do they actually turn out to be any sort of a blight on the neighborhoods in which they are located?

I just read the article - there's really nothing related to feminism in the complaints. Sounds more like a bunch of what's going to happen to my house price whingers.

Wait just a second!

Places with "bakini baristas" are selling sex. I don't have a problem with it between consenting adults, but I also don't want it happening around my young children. I have no problem with the things consenting adults want to do between themselves, whether it is for free or for a price.

I think it is reasonable for parents to not want their kids to be exposed to this type of sexual exploitation.

There is a difference between nudity and sexual exploitation. You can be naked in public without it being sexual. But to me, using sex to sell coffee crosses a line. There is a big difference between the two.

Maybe it really isn't a feminist issue then. The local chatter seems to be about the exploitation of women, at least among the group I know (or read).

The one nearest me is on a VERY busy, completely commercial street and it is no more blighted than any other block on the same street. It just looks like one of the other million coffee carts around town.

That's the whole question -- is it exploitation.