Republicans patronise "Eyes Wide Shut" S&M club

[Peregrine]

However to resort to insinuations that people who see the larger picture as “sex negative” tells me you are part of the problem.

Jeeze, I missed this... I take it you're referring to yourself as a person that "sees the larger picture" & I am not. What "problem" am I part of?

On edit, I must apologize to Semper for contributing to the hijacking of his thread to blow off steam. Sorry man...

[82_28]

Peregrine, read that article McC posted (that was awful!). This is exactly what I have a problem with -- it has nothing to do with being "sex-positive". I've seen that final scene in Requiem For A Dream, I have happened upon a friend being raped and far too many of my friends relay to me that in their pasts, they too have been sexually abused, raped or molested. I have no problem with your "position" on this issue and I am not arguing with you nor do I want to come off as rude or caustic. But you do not know the minds of men very well. You do not understand how many men do not give a shit about you as a human and even as a guy myself, if I called them on it, they would kick my ass or worse. You do not know how many men and boys that are out there who are like that. Vacant eyes, predatory, opportunistic, unctuous. Obviously not all men! Obviously not. But you reap what you sow I suppose. I simply do not like any human being put up to or putting themselves up to as an object in any way, shape or form. It sends mixed signals to psychopaths. This is all IMHO. Apologies for any offense. . .

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2001/ma ... artinamis1

[Blue]

Says Stephen Morgan:

Women and sex are treated far too especially. Feminists seem to think all women have the inherent right to a life akin to that of a privileged American university girl, and I suppose I don't need to point out the special position sex hold in society.

Blatant bigotry towards feminists. Would this statement be allowed to stand on RI if one replaced "feminists" with a racial minority or a homosexual? Broad brush hatred and all.

Obviously, there's no such thing as a patriarchal world.

What planet does Stephen live on?

If all else fails a woman who can't afford her degree can strip, at least if she something of a looker. For a man this isn't an option, the only option available to a man would be not getting an education. See that as a sign of oppression of women if you want.

Such bullshit that you don't see all the high paying job opportunities available for men to take (name a job that pays women more than men other than the sex industry) that don't include selling their bodies and privacy in order to obtain a higher education while at the same time condemning the ugly women to just not having that career path available to them. This is the epitome of sexism.

[Blue]

The latter comment from a woman who has been in the industry for 30+ years. She hardly strikes me as someone who is naive or foolish. These women, as well as myself, work in a facet of the industry that is vastly different from the one that is being described in this thread.

Personally, I don't give a rats' ass what the market demands. I don't dress or groom a certain way & don't act in a "pornified" manner. I don't put on a "show" or "facade", I'm myself, I don't feel the need to be dishonest or phoney, I'd say I'm pretty damn classy. And so far that seems to be working pretty well for me.

Peregrine, I never called you foolish, phoney, or unclassy, adjectives I'm sure that do not apply to you. However you, yourself, are acknowledging that there is quite a difference in the world of small scale work like you are engaged in and the large scale "sex industry" which is no different than any other Corporate mindfuck that convinces people of one thing or another, in this case that women "fuck" in very specific ways. Apologies for offending you personally.

Oh, and Stephen has many, many posts here at RI which are hateful towards women. Wonder why he's allowed to continue to do this?

Through familiarity I'm quite aware that women aren't of superior moral fibre, but there's more to them than sex, which really doesn't interest me.

Would you please expound on this? I think you've made some valid points here, but this strikes me as quite misogynistic. It seems pretty obvious from this statement that you are not fond of female company, other than for sexual purposes. What's the deal with that?[/quote]

[freemason9]

but, remember the republicans in sex clubs

[barracuda]

the prevalent hegemonic view of sex as a problematic, dirty, disruptive and dangerous force in the world

Barracuda, this is complete [ON EDIT: and utter] bullshit. We are not living in 1890, nor even in 1950.

Oh dear me, I guess I've somehow forgotten that we now live in a world where sex in all it's wonderful permutations is taught and viewed as a healthy, normal, fulfilling part of each human's life. Thank god we've finally reached the point where one can be truly honest and open regarding "country matters".

But yes, you are certainly right about there being business possibilities.

Oh, and Stephen has many, many posts here at RI which are hateful towards women. Wonder why he's allowed to continue to do this?

Now that's a very interesting question.

but, remember the republicans in sex clubs

Ah, yes! I remember them well... How dare they! And with our tax money! This is outrageous!

[Blue]

Oh, and Stephen has many, many posts here at RI which are hateful towards women. Wonder why he's allowed to continue to do this?

Now that's a very interesting question.

Sez barracuda, the mod. Okay, can you answer my interesting question?

[barracuda]

In my opinion, Stephen's discourse has bordered on, and edged up on, and sometimes crossed the border of, hate speech towards women. Disposition of the rules for determining the constitution of hate speech on this forum do not, however, rest with me. Would that it were so, in which case I would be of the mind to sanction such offensiveness.

My suggestion to you is that you flag offensive posts using the little button in the lower right hand corner of the post box, which allows you to tag such comments and report them to the admin. If you are persistent, hopefully there will be some action. A pm to Jeff might prove just as forceful if not moreso.

I am all for dissuading Stephen from his less likable self, and am certain his anti-feminist polemic would survive some self-restraint with no diminishing effect on its power to repulse.

[jam.fuse]

from wikipedia.org:

Quote:
Originally, prostitution was widely legal in the United States. Prostitution was made illegal in almost all states between 1910 and 1915 largely due to the influence of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union which was influential in the banning of drug use and was a major force in the prohibition of alcohol.

Ushering in vast, incalculably wealthy and powerful organized crime syndicates which, as prohibition of the sex, drug and gambling industries has grown, now arguably control the entire planet.

How is this analogous? Are you saying that whisky bottles and cigarettes and gambling chips are analogous to women? Are you saying they should all have equal rights?

To state the obvious: One of the things about heroin is that it never objects to being imported in airless containers, and it never worries about its life or its health or its wages or its children. The analogy makes no sense.

The drug, gambling and sex trades are similar in that they all feed off the potentially destructive and insatiable addictions of those who choose to purchase the goods and services offered by these trades; in that they are all vilified, stigmatized, demonized and/or criminalized by society at large; and in that, because of this stigmatization/criminalization, the economy of goods and services offered are dominated by organized crime syndicates, who, due to their monopoly, reap monstrous sums of filthy lucre, thereby perpetuating the atrocious situation.

I doubt whether the fact that, as you note, of the three, only the sex trade deals with actual humans as product enters into the thinking of these prostitutes' reptilian handlers, who no doubt view their subjugated 'stable' as indeed analogous to so many vials of drugs to be sold, and whose systematic dehumanization and degradation renders them, in their handlers' eyes, as manageable as cattle.

I am saying that imo, those who run gambling operations, non violent drug dealers and prostitutes should indeed have the legal right by to proffer their trades as private professional individuals, be protected by law, have the right to organize unions and run their businesses and lives as they so choose, and that anybody who doesn't like it should have the right to fuck off.

Those with gambling, drug and sex addiction problems should furthermore have access to affordable therapy and health care to manage and hopefully cure said problems.

[AlicetheKurious]

Not to really point this remark at you in particular, Blue, but this thread is another reminder to me that even a group of people with a fairly liberal view of social issues, such as those on this forum, can be ridiculously prudish when the subject of sex comes up. For some reason it always surprises me when I see it, but I guess it shouldn't. It's the way of the world.

It's got nothing to do with prudishness, because the subject really isn't sex, but power and exploitation, and an industry that normalizes pathology and profits from it. If you can't tell the difference, you may be proving my point.

I have no problem with your "position" on this issue and I am not arguing with you nor do I want to come off as rude or caustic. But you do not know the minds of men very well. You do not understand how many men do not give a shit about you as a human and even as a guy myself, if I called them on it, they would kick my ass or worse. You do not know how many men and boys that are out there who are like that. Vacant eyes, predatory, opportunistic, unctuous. Obviously not all men! Obviously not. But you reap what you sow I suppose. I simply do not like any human being put up to or putting themselves up to as an object in any way, shape or form. It sends mixed signals to psychopaths. This is all IMHO. Apologies for any offense. . .

Peregrine, I also respect you very much, and believe we'd get along great in real life. But that makes it even more difficult for me to understand how you could be so unaware of how the sex industry nurtures attitudes for which all women pay a price, one way or the other, with the most vulnerable paying the most. To me, there is no difference at all between a strip show and a minstrel show. None whatsoever.

You know, looking over this thread, the impression I am getting is that women who choose to work in this profession are unintelligent, naive, don't know any better & "oh how sad".

No, my motivations are much, much more selfish than that. I'll give you an example, just one. Many years ago, in the middle of a deep recession, I hit the jackpot and was hired for a great job. It was very intellectually challenging and demanding work, but being smart and very determined, I worked extremely hard, quickly got up to speed and made it my own. I felt proud of myself, but it wasn't long before my immediate boss began sexually harassing me -- he expected the work to be done to the highest standard, but the fact that I was a young woman, to him, meant that he could also put his hands on me and make suggestive comments, treat my body like a thing. I've told this story here before in greater detail, but in a nutshell, I felt furious, miserable, sad, helpless, afraid and trapped. I found his behaviour repulsive and embarrassing, but although this man was otherwise very sensitive about his pride and demanding of respect, he seemed to have no shyness, no shame in his behaviour with me. That was because to him, I was not really a person who mattered, or perhaps even a person at all. In the truest sense, there was nothing genuinely "sexual" about it -- it was about power, specifically economic power, only.

That same boss was a major consumer of porn magazines and a frequenter of strip joints, and whenever important visitors came to the city from abroad, he always made sure they had a stash of porn magazine placed on the night table of their 5-star hotel rooms. Business dinners always included a visit to a strip club, where all their preconceived ideas about women were reinforced and legitimized, ideas for which I was paying a very high price, through no fault of my own. I really believe that my boss and his buddies had serious self-esteem issues, but going to those clubs allowed them to feel a satisfying contempt for others that relieved the suffocating sense of inferiority they felt elsewhere.

At least I never internalized any of it, although for a while I did feel consumed by rage, and not only against them. I remember once getting in the elevator for work and standing next to a woman who worked in the same building. She wore tons of make-up, a very low-cut top and a very short skirt with sheer stockings and black high heels that she could hardly walk in. All the way up, I was fuming. I could barely restrain myself from grabbing and shaking her, and yelling, "How the hell am I supposed to prove that women aren't some piece of meat with people like you announcing that you are??!!!" I knew it wasn't my business how she chose to dress to go to work, but I couldn't help feeling that in a way it was, because others made it so.

I know you say you don't do that, but I wonder how much of that is self-delusion. Men who pay for sex are not, in my opinion, just paying for sex, but for the chance to use another human being. When you pay money for something, you feel entitled in a way that you wouldn't if it were freely given, as sex should be, as it must be, otherwise it is something else. That something else is very dehumanizing and destructive, not only to those who engage in it. As Blue has said more than once, it affects all of us one way or another and it has made millions of the most vulnerable women into animals literally hunted for their meat. I wish it weren't so, but it is.

[MacCruiskeen]

the prevalent hegemonic view of sex as a problematic, dirty, disruptive and dangerous force in the world

Barracuda, this is complete [ON EDIT: and utter] bullshit. We are not living in 1890, nor even in 1950.

Oh dear me, I guess I've somehow forgotten that we now live in a world where sex in all it's wonderful permutations is taught and viewed as a healthy, normal, fulfilling part of each human's life. Thank god we've finally reached the point where one can be truly honest and open regarding "country matters".

Now now, barracuda, you know perfectly well that that is not what I was saying. Why did you quote me so selectively? You are being a naughty boy again, and you know what happens to naughty boys:



Payment in cash, as usual. And bring your own towel next time.

[barracuda]

Not to really point this remark at you in particular, Blue, but this thread is another reminder to me that even a group of people with a fairly liberal view of social issues, such as those on this forum, can be ridiculously prudish when the subject of sex comes up. For some reason it always surprises me when I see it, but I guess it shouldn't. It's the way of the world.

It's got nothing to do with prudishness, because the subject really isn't sex, but power and exploitation, and an industry that normalizes pathology and profits from it. If you can't tell the difference, you may be proving my point.

The trafficking of women for any purpose is an internationally unlawful and despicable practise. The exploitation of women for the mere sexual tittilation of men with money at hand is equally unpardonable. No one should be forced by their economic circumstance to do something they consider degrading, or that causes them harm.

I understand that. And yet, there's no denying that there exist women who enjoy stripping, and enjoy it a great deal, and there are men who enjoy watching, and enjoy it a great deal, and vice versa. It is the balance of power weighted for millenia in favor of the male end of nearly every social equation you can name that has pathologised sexual relations in very nearly every sphere of human contact imaginable. It is a balance that I believe, at some point, is pinioned upon the threat of violence. I have no idea if relations between the sexes were ever predicated otherwise. Some say that there once existed, and still exist in some places, a matriarchal society. I have never lived in it. This is my world, such as it is, and I work to even this balance in hopes that the women I love won't be exploited or oppressed by it. Nonetheless, the question of whether or not strippers should exist at all might not be answered negatively even in the most equitable world I can imagine. Though I've been only a very infrequent visitor to your typical strip joint in my youth, here's no question that I enjoy watching a woman undress slowly and provocatively. Better that woman be my wife or girlfriend, yes, but I won't lie and say the sight of other women taking their clothes off while the music plays innately repulses me from the bottom of my instincts as a feminist. It does not.

If my response to strippers has then been pathologised, it's a pathologisation I shall have to suffer with. In general, I think we might indeed do away with strip clubs, and instead direct that activity to a less formal setting. But then again, the formality of the milieu can be an intergal partt of the fetishisation of the activity for some people on either side of the stage, so perhaps we could institute government-run stripping facilities, sort of on the order of community swim-clubs, where individuals inclined to disrobe in front of strangers might be safely permitted the fulfillment of their needs. I'm all for that, in the interrum, in the name of safety and against the oppression of women, while we await the day when, god forbid, women no longer enjoy taking their clothes off in front of men in a sexy manner, and men no longer enjoy watching women do that, and even vice-versa, god forbid again.

But then, I was raised a catholic: if sex isn't dirty it's not really any fun.

[Stephen Morgan]

Through familiarity I'm quite aware that women aren't of superior moral fibre, but there's more to them than sex, which really doesn't interest me.

Would you please expound on this? I think you've made some valid points here, but this strikes me as quite misogynistic. It seems pretty obvious from this statement that you are not fond of female company, other than for sexual purposes. What's the deal with that?

No, I was meaning the opposite of that. I'm not just interested in female company for sex. Or for sex at all. Or for anything else. I'm not particularly fond of my own company and other people, whether male or female, is something I prefer to avoid.

[Simulist]

I'm not just interested in female company for sex. Or for sex at all. Or for anything else. I'm not particularly fond of my own company and other people, whether male or female, is something I prefer to avoid.

This guy really wants to get away from it all.

Do you have a travel agent?

[Stephen Morgan]

It's the exact same language used by religious fundamentalists who have gotten "Pro Life" into the mainstream conversation thus implying Pro-Choice adherents are actually "Anti-Life" which is of course absurd.

I'd just like to take the opportunity to recommend Nick Davies' Flat Earth News at this point. Good book. Chronicles both the rise of the term "pro-life" and "pro-choice", both as the blatant propaganda they are. Also convinced me drugs should be legalised.

I am guessing one sufficiently wealthy and depraved could indeed purchase the actual sexual organs of another human; in the USA one could probably at some point legally purchase genitalia originally belonging to a slave or native american like some kind of trinket.

You could buy a certain brand of anti-wrinkle face cream which contains foreskin fibroblasts extracted from the circumcised foreskins of male American infants. There's a clinic in the Caribean (cf. BBC Radio 4 "Stem Cell Swindle") where you can buy stem cells extracted from the dismembered corpses of murdered Ukrainian newborns, snatched by doctors from the arms of their mothers (literally), and have them injected into your face as a cosmetic beauty treatment.

Peregrine, read that article McC posted (that was awful!). This is exactly what I have a problem with -- it has nothing to do with being "sex-positive". I've seen that final scene in Requiem For A Dream, I have happened upon a friend being raped and far too many of my friends relay to me that in their pasts, they too have been sexually abused, raped or molested. I have no problem with your "position" on this issue and I am not arguing with you nor do I want to come off as rude or caustic. But you do not know the minds of men very well. You do not understand how many men do not give a shit about you as a human and even as a guy myself, if I called them on it, they would kick my ass or worse. You do not know how many men and boys that are out there who are like that. Vacant eyes, predatory, opportunistic, unctuous. Obviously not all men! Obviously not. But you reap what you sow I suppose. I simply do not like any human being put up to or putting themselves up to as an object in any way, shape or form. It sends mixed signals to psychopaths. This is all IMHO. Apologies for any offense. . .

There are unpleasant and dangerous people around, female as well as male, but I rather doubt that to be news. And your pontificating on "the minds of men" contradicts you disclaimers of "not all men". You seem to mean to imply that men are a group of dangerous and atavistic savages, barring the chivalrous band to which you belong as one of those few to whom women can safely make themselves available. I also have trouble, in that I don't entirely comprehend, with this notion of objectification. Then I do have a tendency to anthropomorphise the inanimate.

Blatant bigotry towards feminists. Would this statement be allowed to stand on RI if one replaced "feminists" with a racial minority or a homosexual? Broad brush hatred and all.

The correct analogy would be to white supremacists or Black Panthers and Zionists. The difference is that these are political movements, not birth groups. One can't choose whether to belong to a racial minority, nor has any perfidiousness been provably linked to ethnic origin. The same can't be said for adherents of hate movements such as feminism.

What planet does Stephen live on?

A common question, with only one answer: the only planet with wi-fi connectivity.

Such bullshit that you don't see all the high paying job opportunities available for men to take (name a job that pays women more than men other than the sex industry) that don't include selling their bodies and privacy in order to obtain a higher education while at the same time condemning the ugly women to just not having that career path available to them.

I assumed I wouldn't have to specifically mention the existence of the ugly. As for wages, as you'd know if you'd done some academic research on gender issues, so-called, rather than just absorb the ambient climate of feminist rage, women doing the same work already get the same pay, if not more. Women also make up the majority of new university graduates and post-graduates. Unemployment figures are also higher for men. Wages for never-married individuals are also higher for women, in the same situation (ie, job). True, women earn x pence in the pound compared to men (the figure changes depending on who you ask and how old their figures are), because women choose those jobs which pay slightly less well (although recent legal actions in this country have forced local authorities to increase wages for predominantly female jobs to those of predominantly male positions, for example school dinner ladies despite doing a less unpleasant job and despite the bin men having won those wages through decades of concerted and democratic industrial action). And if women are willing to sacrifice a few years of seniority for a few years of staying home and looking after children, as I understand often happens, I'm sure you'll choose to see that as their conforming to pressures placed upon them by a patriarchal society, while I see it as women being in the privileged position of having a choice as to whether to work or to stay at home and do what any sane person would much prefer doing, while men don't have that choice (well not here anyway, I don't have a global expertise on rights to parental leave allocations). These two positions are unlikely to come into accord.

This is the epitome of sexism.

For those reasons enumerated above, and others, I was having similar thoughts about yourself. Of course I suspect my definition of sexism is somewhat different to yours. Definitions are something of a pet hate of mine. Poplarism, defined by the dictionary as a policy of irresponsibly high taxes, was actually the opposite, an attempt to lower taxes on the poor which were being used to subsidise the rich. Sexism, often defined as prejudice against women but which my habitual use of the English language leads me to believe may in fact indicate any prejudice upon the basis of sex, whether against men or women. Or hermaphrodites, for that matter. Not sure about those who undergo the sex change operations, probably a matter for debate. A movement for equality would probably shy away from a term so similar to "womanism", too. And feminism is generally defined as a movement seeking equality for women, seemingly a comical error in that equality, by its nature, must be for both men and women or neither. Would be less of a concern if it, like Ronseal, did as the packaging describes, but alas it does not. Would create difficulties. Would all those money spinning feminist authors be so well off if they wrote books advocating joint custody of children in cases of parental seperation? Would Women's Studies colleges attract students to read about women handing out white feathers to men who declined to fight unjust wars, while themselves of course refusing to fight? No, if feminism sought as a movement to bring about equality it would find hard work in recruiting women who wished to worsen their own position in society. Hence the failure of the Equal Rights Amendment.

Oh, and Stephen has many, many posts here at RI which are hateful towards women. Wonder why he's allowed to continue to do this?

I suppose somewhere there's someone who recognises my position as a simple love of reason, freedom and democratic socialism. I'm certainly not paying bribes to anyone. Could be my winning personality I s'pose, but I'll stick with option one: someone reads my posts and sees that they aren't hateful to women. Maybe they even have some bizarre ideas about people not being censored for holding unfashionable political opinions. Sepka's still here, after all, and his opinions are fashionable around this place. Well, I don't like them anyway.

In my opinion, Stephen's discourse has bordered on, and edged up on, and sometimes crossed the border of, hate speech towards women.

Well, I disagree with your opinion.

My suggestion to you is that you flag offensive posts using the little button in the lower right hand corner of the post box, which allows you to tag such comments and report them to the admin. If you are persistent, hopefully there will be some action. A pm to Jeff might prove just as forceful if not moreso.

You didn't give her Jeff's e-mail address, that might have been useful too. Perhaps if you were to picket his home with a brightly painted placard that might bring about what they call in government circles "favourable regulatory action".

I am all for dissuading Stephen from his less likable self, and am certain his anti-feminist polemic would survive some self-restraint with no diminishing effect on its power to repulse.

More which is beyond my comprehension. Firstly I don't have more than one self. If you look you'll see I basically do two types of post, one is a short post containing information I believe to be relevant to whatever I'm replying to which that replyee has elicited from my mental archive, the other is an entirely civil post denouncing the evils of anathema political movements such as capitalism, zionism and feminism. These latter posts often bring about equal and opposite denunciations, although only the feminists go so far as lobbying to have me banned. These posts, nonetheless, have the same motives and ideological and intellectual backing, and are in the same tone. The only difference is my "target", if you will. So if my conduct is unobjectionable when I'm on your side, perhaps you are merely biassed against this one of my positions, causing your subjective experience of my conduct to be more visceral than it has reason to be. Too psychologically identified with feminism. Well, with being left wing and freedomist, which people tend to misguidedly associate with feminism. I'm not going to list the evils of feminism again, which I'm sure you'll be glad to hear, but it is both an inherently authoritarian, moralist and capitalist movement and, as is usually the case with so called identity politics, both a distraction from true socialist advancement and a divisive concept which serves only to split and isolate groups which would otherwise tend to work towards more desirable goals.

Do you have a travel agent?

No. I'm too cheap to go on holiday, I prefer cold weather and even when I was a child I always hated holidays. I mean, if your daily life is so miserable either do something different or just top yourself and get it over with. Don't go defiling the parthenon with your burger wrappers. I don't like theme park rides either. Even when, as a child too small to physically resist compulsion, I was dragged unwillingly to Skegness and Ingoldmells I'd just spend all my time in the arcade on those slot machines for the coppers that they only have at the sea side. The bells and whistles make it easier to alienate oneself from the crushing masses of humanity. Find me somewhere cold, dry, twilit, cheap and near my house and I might think about it, as a new home rather than a holiday, mind. And it would have to not require anything to do with travel agents, as travel agents form part of the humanity that, as I pointed out, I'm very enthusiastic to avoid.

Sunkissed nudist beaches with roller coasters, plentiful recreation drug supplies and a lively night club scene is pretty much how I imagine the abode of eternal perdition. Keep 'em. Even those places it would be not unpleasant to become acquainted with, such as the cathedral of Simon Stylites or the catacomb churches of Lallibella would be ruined by the people, or the heat, or that funny foreign food. They don't do chips in some parts of the world, you know (I like reading about exotic climes, even if I would prefer to avoid them in actuality). Make bread out of funny things. Millet. Oats. Manioca. Make cheese from milk of animals other than jersey cows. And I understand Jaffa Cakes and proper tea are impossible to put ones hand upon in the uncivilised lands past the Folkestone ferry terminal. Might catch malaria. Or guinea worm. Or yellow fever. Dysentry. Existentialism. Typhoid. Yes, you can keep your Buddhism and your olives and your horsemeat and your "fun". Let those of the horse riding, chinless, inbred classes do what they like with their "gap years" and "grand tours", I'm staying here where the food is agreeable bland, the weather agreeable moderate, the waters agreeable free of disease and at almost all times of year the most agreeably clothed. As am I, of course, very agreeably clothed. I've got a nice black t-shirt, serves me well both in the blessed winter and those terrible months of warmth.

And let this be a lesson, simulist, not to get me started when I'm in one of those moods.

You too can reduce your carbon footprint, bills, and stockpile of sins, engrams and/or "things to work through with my therapist" by avoiding holidays and simply cheering up. Your therapist, that is. I was once coerced into discoursing with a psychiatric professional, but that was worse than going on holiday and I made successful endeavours to avoid a repetition of the event.

But I was planning on denouncing the counter revolutionary nature of feminism, rather than the id-centric nature of the holiday culture. Maybe another time.