Amy's Non-Valentines Day, and as a result, her largely Non-valentines related blogpost

(I hate Val-day, and no, it's not because I "don't have anyone"...)

Today, on Non-Valentines Day, I went into Bedford, Town of Dreams with my best friend Lissa.
We had some coffee at Bar Citrus, where I am almost a regular, bought some hair dye for me (rrred!) 'cos I felt like I wanted to temporarily change me hair colour to something crazy. Took some obscenely myspace pictures as we walked down the embankment. Bla bla bla.

But we also stopped in the Mars Shop, so Lissa could buy the latest issue of "More" magazine. I went in with her. To be honest, I'd completely forgotten about the horrors of Lads Mags.

But not for long.

I mean, bloody hell, I was in the shop for two seconds, I turned around to look at the mag shelves, and right on my fooking eye level, there were a pair of breasts. And by a pair of breasts, I mean the o-so-artistic cover of Zoo Magazine. Grrr. Next door, was Nuts.
OK, so the nipples were covered, by how is that any better? It suggests that a woman's nipples are something obscene, something dirty, something to be embarrassed about and not be shown publicly. Whereas, pictures of topless men, it's all nipples-a-go-go. Because, of course, a man's nipples are perfectly socially acceptable.
Believe me, I am not a fan of Lads Mags.

I couldn't just stand there in that shop and not do anything, y'know what I mean? I'm sure there are many women, feminists, who cannot just simply stand in a shop and not do or say something about Lads Mags and their visibility.

And so, I said something. To be honest, I cannot quite remember what I said. There were two blokes and a woman working there. I asked if the Lads Mags could go up on the top shelf, and be covered, or something to that effect. I was told the mags were supposed to be on that second shelf legally. They could sell it to a two-year-old if they wanted. There was no age restriction.

It's not that I thought that my informal complaint would do anything, I just knew I couldn't just stand there silently and not voice my displeasure. And to be quite frank, I personally feel the employees could have been a bit politer and respectful towards me; I got the feeling they thought I was being ridiculous. They were virtually smirking. This angered me. They could've just said apologetically that it was the way things were. But no, it's all smirk-smirk-smirk.

I know there are no legal restrictions for the visibility and distribution of Lads Mags, but surely a customer has a right to complain and get taken seriously, at least to their face? It's rude and unprofessional for one thing to ridicule a customer.

As I left, my anger caused me to shout out something about living in a patriarchy. I can't remember exactly what I said. The woman replied something in a smirking tone.

My friend was then very embarrassed about the whole situation. I felt saddened by it. But, my feminism felt alive inside me in a way which I hadn't felt before. It felt vindicated, it was a feeling of being a second-class citizen, of being ignored and ridiculed for a simple request.

I don't think being concerned about Lads Mags is something to be ridiculed. I don't think that Lads Mags are just "harmless fun". I think their very popularity is a sad indictment of our patriarchal society; that magazines which are often derogatory about women, which constantly sexualise and objectify women can be so popular, and allowed such visibility and to be sold to anyone is - bloody irresponsible - saddening, and is further proof that British society, which prides itself on it's tolerance and equality, is still a society where women are second-class citizens.

(Linkage to some other posts and articles about Lads Mags: http://notafeministbut.blogspot.com/2006/03/is-it-right-for-my-boyfriend-to-look.html
http://www.object.org.uk/index1.html
http://www.thefword.org.uk/reviews/2004/02/nuts_and_zoo_we from a male p.o.v)

"You Suck"

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

"Footballers don't rape women, because they can get anyone they want"

Quoth "Megaman".
On the illustrious BBC's new "Entertainment"programme, The Verdict, about a rape trial.
Because rape trials are, apparently, something like entertainment for the masses; it's OK, it's entertaining - they've bung a load of celebrities together.

I've had major issues with the whole concept of the programme. And I have major issues with Mr "Megaman"'s comment.
"Footballers don't rape women, because they can get anyone they want."
That attitude disgusts me, to be quite frank.
It's a massive, gross, generalisation for one thing. I do not want to fuck a footballer, for example. I may be one person, but I'm sure I'm not the only one.
And I certainly do not like the suggestion that women are just there for footballers to pick out, to have sex with, then to discard them for the next woman. As if they are objects, passive objects, which will just fall at any footballer's feet. And why? Because he's a footballer.
O my God, a footballer!! Oh, golly, I'm so impressed I'm going to open my legs nice and wide for him.
I'm sure there are some women who will quite happily fuck a footballer casually. But the idea that all women are available for footballers to fuck is ... ridiculous. Insulting, offensive. Misogynistic at worst, chauvinistic at "best". Ludicrous.

But then again, many footballers appear to have inflated egos; they're overpaid and almost fanatically hero-worshipped. And for what? Kicking a fucking ball around. I will probably never get people's - especially men's - obsession with football, footballers and teams. They appear to me to believe that they can get any woman they want. And this attitude fucks me off. They have no right to feel entitled to whopping great sums of money or women, just for kicking a ball about.

And making a statement such as "Footballers don't rape women, because they can get anyone they want" is damn right irresponsible. Nobody is entitled to anybody else. Women are not commodities. Not all women want sex with a footballer certainly. This statement is just not true, and it shows "Megaman"'s bias. He clearly believes in the footballers' entitlement, and as a result he clearly believes that this woman was lying.

There are many, many victims of rape out there. We all know that. I personally think it's a bit fucked up that the BBC is making a programme about rape trials for "entertainment".
Enter-fucking-tainment.

(Edited after being corrected by Mr Collymore for incorrectly attributing the quote to him. I quoted him in good faith, people do make errors sometimes, and I accept that I was wrong to put his name down, but this rant was directed at the comment not the commentor)

Come again?!?

'Scuse the pun...

just reading a report about a study of teenagers using condoms.

(Linkety-link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4775243.stm)

The researchers also asked just over 100 teenagers to keep a diary of their sexual activity for six months.

And here's the bit which, quite frankly, amazes me:
"Of the 74 who said they had used a condom, 31% had put it on after penetration had already occurred".

The words "stable door", "bolted" and "horse" come to mind.

Not being funny or anything but it seems to me that either this 31% are incredibly stupid, or they just haven't been taught properly. Maybe they didn't have the woman with the polystyrene penises come round to their school to show how to put on condoms.

It just astounds me, to be honest.

Possibly astounds me as much as when my - very sexually active - friend asked me if, after having uprotected sex with her then-boyfriend, squirting water up the vagina from a showerhead would stop her from getting pregnant.

(And this girl, by the way, is actually highly intelligent and logical, and was in all the same sex-ed lessons as me.)