"Women must 'cover up'" - must be the Taleban again...

I've no problem with men posing topless or showing a bit of arse - doesn't do it for me but it's not illegal

Female sexuality is an essential tool for any member of the fairer sex-and one they are experts at using. To ban it's use is desciminatory IMO.

 

Give me an example of men using sex to manipulate women that is illegal where the opposite (women using men) wouldn't also be illegal.

Michael.

 

Quite. there is a similar injunction for women to cover up, cover their hair, etc. and not speak in church, in Corinthians.

 

What do you think would happen to a manager or collegue of a female worker if they pushed the flirting further than the woman thought was acceptable, (which in some cases would be any at all), for the purpose of "greesing the wheels" at work and get that woman to do work she otherwise might be unwilling or reticent about doing? He would be sailing very close to a sexual harrasment case would he not?

Now tell me there is equality in the work place if the roles were reversed? ie you try and take your female boss to court over sexual harrasment.

GTM

 

You try walking down the street wearing as indiscrete clothes as some women wear and see how long it takes for you to be picked up by the police and charged or cautioned on indecency laws.

The use of sex, (or the inuendo of sexual favours), to manipulate people is never an acceptable tool IMHO. Women do use it to good effect you are right. But they only get away with it because essentially authority is male and males love their egos being polished by young attractive women. It's as simple as that. Women get let off infringments of the law, (and plenty of unacceptable workplace behaviour too), that men would never be, purely because they bat an eyelid and show a bit of cleavage.


GTM

 

The underlying flaw in Michael's argument is that in Israel you're allowed to use such material for advertising. Elsewhere in the Middle East you'd be in jail.

Paul

 

Absolutely. There have been at least two successful cases of males winning cases of sexual harrasment against female bosses in the companies I have worked for that I'm aware of. There are probably a lot more than I'm not aware of.

In any case whether people take the cases or not sexual harrasment is illegal regardless of the sexes of the people involved. You were suggesting that there were cases where the law is unequal in this respect.

So you're saying that fundamentalism is OK as long as there's someone else around who's even more fundamentalist than you are?

Michael.

 

The most fundamental rights are those of free will and free expression. Orthodox Jews objected to an advertisement. The company changed its advert since the complainants were a big market. Simple commercial pressure. Exactly the same thing happens in the UK, and presumably also in Portugal.

Are you actually criticising the Orthodox Jews for their beliefs? I'm very surprised, surely they're mildly wacky as opposed to outright offensive.

Paul

 

Devout Catholics have similar views on "women wearing immodest clothes" but an advert like the one in question wouldn't even raise an eyebrow here in Portugal or any other Catholic country I can think of. I'm not criticising the views of Orthodox Jews anymore than I would those of devout Catholics. Also, if they objected to women wearing skimpy clothes inside a synagogue, as happens in many Catholic churches, I wouldn't have an issue with that either. It's their house of worship, they can make the rules.

I do think it's outrageous though when precisely the freedom of expression of, in this case, an advertising company has been muzzled by a few extremists. If their influence is powerful enough to do that what next? Women can't wear bikinis on the beach? Women have to be covered from head to toe in public? Women have to wear a burqua?

Michael.

 

I think the Mayor of the Italian town who has decreed that fat women can't wear bikinis on the beach has got the balance just about right

 

If you read the story the Rabbis called for a boycott of Unilever products and Unilever responded. I really don't see the problem. If the Rabbis were able to make it illegal, that would be a problem. The decadence of Portuguese Catholics really isn't relevant. It's just how capitalism and a free market work.

Paul

 

Paul is absolutely right of course.

Just to clarify, Unilever responded to a threat of a boycott from these ultra-orthodox Jews and changed the poster. There is no question that the poster itself is illegal under Israeli law. It isn't.

As the advertisement is for soap, it would seem to me to be quite appropriate if Sarah Jessica Parker was pictured completely naked. Would a full frontal be legal in Portugal or the UK? It does seem to be a question of where one draws the line.

In my younger days I was arrested in Greece for going without a shirt (I thought you'd want to know that). And, by the way, my favourite was Samantha. She had an honesty and upfrontness that was fabulous. Perhaps you could use a little of that, michaelab - Taliban indeed!

 

I doubt whether it would be illegal in either country. However it would almost certainly be unacceptable in the UK but I can't imagine it causing a problem here.

I never suggested the poster was illegal under Israeli law and I'm quite sure that Israeli women wear bikinis at the beach too which makes the whole thing all the more ridiculous. Don't they have lingerie adverts in Israel? Why don't the Orthodox Rabbis cause those to be effectively banned? What's legal or not is not all that relevant if a minority pressure group can have this kind of impact. I'm quite sure the vast majority of Israelis think the (effective) banning of the ad is as absurd as I do.

Steve, I just wrote a provocative thread title about an issue that irritated me

Michael.

 

I know, Michael. Hence my comment which was meant to be taken in a 'Jeremy Paxman on a humourous day' tone of voice.

Of course, I agree with you that the whole thing is fairly ridiculous. Mind you, I've just started reading "The Welfare State We're In" by James Bartholomew**, which is really focussing my mind on how UK society has deteriorated in many ways over the last few decades. I seriously doubt whether the increase in 'permissiveness' is anything to do with this but SOMETHING has gone wrong with our modern society, IMO.

**You would HATE this book by the way, Michael. I suggest you don't go there.

PS: I'm off to Italy on Sunday, delivering some speakers and I will probably be out of commission for a few days. So if I don't respond on this forum where I should respond, it's not because I don't care.