to think women writhing around in suspenders and stockings is...

[hatwoman]

...not really family viewing? I've barely watched x-factor in my life but I had thought everyone said that, for all its faults, it was something that had got families watching telly together. I was expecting wholesome boy bands and gutsy young girls. Clearly I'm naive and a prude.

Lenin

How is how CA prances about (I didn't see her bit, so can't really coment, I thought the Rioanna bit was just a bit boring pop music) anything to do with how womin are seen in sociaty, the things are totally differnt? Surely noone with half a brain equates prancing popstars with real pleple with real lives? Or am I assuming that most pelple are a bit more savvy?

IMO a big reas0 why rapists are so free to rape again and again is because we are told so often that women like nothing more and find nothing quite so enjoyable as stripping down and writhing and making themselves sexually available to strangers. Rapists can go into a courtroom and say, 'yes, she was screaming, and covered in blood, and ran out of her house naked and shaking and was found under a bush crying', but she LOVED it really. And juries will believe them. I wonder why that it is? I wonder where we get to believe this stuff about women? Porn, obviously, and the way porn has influenced cultural and commercial life.

Again, have any of you read the report above?

Kaloki - yes I don't think many people would have a problem with a ballet performance!

It is the whole package - looks/lyrics - "dressing gown" on which reveals pants - then man takes off dressing gown and she has very very skimpy pants and revealing bra and is gyrating round - legs opening and closing.

What would we all prefer our DCs to be copying - a ballet routine or that routine?!

Of course it's hard to "define" in words but really - think to yourselves what would you have thought if you'd see this on TV with your parents when you were 10.

Re beach-wear swimming pool wear - those clothes are appropiate for the setting - hot weather/sports etc.

No chance whatsoever of anyone reading that report then?

I've read the report above

Tbh when i saw Rihannas performance, it was her nasle singing that bugged me the most.

catsinthejinglebelfry - have you read my very long post above which is a quote from a report into the sexualisation of young people - this will go a way to answering your question.

"I will carrying on doing my best to make my daughters feel that their talents and character are more important than their sexual availability, but if the rest of society says otherwise, it is going to make it a lot harder for me. I am trying to raise the self-esteem of my son who has disabilities, but if society goes on paying men a lot fo money to go on TV and call disabled people ugly freaks and wannabe rapists then that also makes my job a lot harder, and I feel entitled to complain about that."

That's a brilliant post nickie

read the report.

You would think Rihanna, being a victim of sexual domestic violence herself, would be interested in the way women are portrayed as things, not people, because 'it sells'.

in the stylie of an old woman I've complained

OK those of you who thought it was ok and appropriate for pre-watershed etc - it's just dancing - no need for panic about wider implications on society.

Answer me this:

Why wasn't there as much male flesh on show. Why weren't the men's performances as "sexual"?

Can you see how this causes a difference in how women are viewed by men v how men are viewed by women?

"young girls should do whatever it takes to be desired. For boys the message is just as clear: be hyper-masculine and relate to girls as objects."

That is nothing new though. It has always been the way. I am not saying i think it's right, but it's not todays society that has made this.

When I was 10 I'd have thought nothing of it, being 10 and quite unaware of what was considered "sexy" about that dance.

Also, they weren't very very skimpy pants, they were high waisted, fairly low legged pants in a style usually seen in shapewear.

sorry Nickie but where did you hear that Rihanna was a victim of "sexual" domestic violence??

MsSparkle - so if you're not saying you think it is right are you willing to come our and say it's wrong?

Can you see how in today's society this culture might be making things worse?

Ok so we got the vote, the right to an education, jobs etc - but many are beginning to see that there is in fact an equality illusion which has crept up under the banners of "choice" and "empowerment".

What did you think huddspur?

It's quite well known that Rihanna was beaten up by her then boyfriend (who hasn't been ostracised by society btw, because it's OK to beat your girlfriend up)

Yes, those of you who think "it was ever thus" - why do you think we don't see male dancers with their pecs out and gyrating their cocks around for our titillation?

And don't tell me it's because women aren't visual, if that were the case, teenage girls would have pictures of Jeremy Paxman on their wall instead of JLS.

Kaloki i agree. When i was 10, i didn't even think about sexual things in programmes. Watching pretty Woman as a 10 yr old, i didn't even question or think about what condoms were. When Julia Roberts sat on his desk and said "i've got green, i've got red, i've got yellow etc" i didn't even question what she was talking about and wouldn't have known they were condoms.

Also watching Dirty Dancing as a 10 year old, i had no idea she was having an abortion, because i had never heard one one and didn't even think about it.

Rihanna pays the bitter price of being a woman in a society that doesn't really regard women as proper human beings.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/4732317/Rihanna-injuries-photograph-leaked-after-alleged-attack-by-boyfriend-Chris-Brown.html

"Why wasn't there as much male flesh on show. Why weren't the men's performances as "sexual"?

Can you see how this causes a difference in how women are viewed by men v how men are viewed by women?"

Obviously there is serious imbalance there.

However, on the other side of it, in this thread I get the impression that women who dress in skimpier outfits are seen as being less equal to men. And in order to be equal must dress conservatively. Which is perpetuating this idea that women should be judged by what they wear and not what they do.

In the same way that can dance provocatively without being condemned, but women can't.

Although it does make sense to say that women shouldn't have to be sexually provocative, it makes no sense to say they are lesser people, and lesser role models if they do.

tabouleh i can't say either way tbh. I think there is a balance somewhere, it's just about finding it because i think you can go too far the other way as well.

I think womens empowerment pretty much grinded to a hault in the 60s tbh.

I admit I read it about 3-4 months ago but my lasting memory of it were that its recommendations were the nanny state at its absolute worst

But Kaloki, we are judged by what we wear. As are men.

Which is why Cheryl and Dani are in beautiful, figure revealing clothes every week and Simon and Louis - both older, more powerful, nowhere near as good looking, less sexually attractive, wear boring suits.

As does Dull Charisma Free Dermot, versus Konnie Huq's sheer beauty.

Where are Matt Cardle's pecs? Where are Wand Erection's wiggling little butts? Why were the girl group told their styling was better when they sexed it up a bit, but the boy group can be casual and comfortable?

There's a reason for this imbalance. It's because men are taken seriously and women aren't and the clothes are part of the demarcation.