animal exploitation AND feeling bad for having a vagina all in one commercial.

Fuck off, Vagisil

The commercial is gross and the tagline about 'feeling feminine' is dumb. A non-itchy vagina is not high on my list of feminine characteristics. How about just not feeling like you want to scratch your vagina off? Honestly, the stuff should sell itself.

I'M SO GLAD TO NOT SMELL LIKE A LOBSTER, ANYMORE. THANKS VAGISIL FOR CURING MY STINKY VAGINA . . . oops, I mean my stinky down there.

. . . just for the record, though, Vagisil stinks an awful lot worse than my vagina ever has-- yeast infection or no.

I'm sorry, after seeing that in its entirety, with the puffer fish and the sad wittle lobster and his despondent claws, I just laughed. I didn't know so much marine life existed "down there"!

The line I find most interesting is "I'm just glad to be me again."

Dammit ladies, you are not sexy, whole or feminine if you are not perfumed, smoothed over and free of any "down there" issues.

Oh thank you Vagisil, for getting that skunk out of my vagina for me.

What exactly does Vagisil treat?I swear I'm not an idiot, but all the commercial talks about is itching and feeling "flirty" and "feminine". It's not exactly direct.

Mild itching and irritation of the vulva. I've never had a need to use it except when a yeast infection is first starting and I haven't gotten to a doctor to get some diflucan yet (creams don't work for me).

I just think it's really inappropriate to air a commercial during the day (when children can see it) about female business.

/sarcasm

Nothing "down there" has ever been vaguely lobsterlike to me. I've never had a yeast infection, but dear god, I can't imagine anything going on in my skivvies that would make me think "depressed lobster".

The best part? the fact that they're not selling this stuff based on its abilities to make your vulva stop itching, it's all about what other people might think of your vagina. I dunno about you ladies, but I've been around a lot of women, in large groups, and I've never noticed anyone's bits smelling through their clothing. Hell, I rather like the smell of my parts, and that of most girls I've had the joy of being close enough to to notice such a thing. More proof that it's all about pleasing others and your comfort is secondary to some stranger smelling you on the subway. Jesus Christ.

"I'm sorry, after seeing that in its entirety, with the puffer fish and the sad wittle lobster and his despondent claws, I just laughed. I didn't know so much marine life existed "down there"!"

Well, Austrailia does have that big reef. ^^ Couldn't resist.

lol. ok, so I admit I don't think that was a very good commercial.

and they really need to learn to use the word "vagina"... I mean, "down there" just doesn't cut it.

but I don't think it's actually as offensive as all that.
My personal interpretation? It's an over-exaggeration on purpose. When you're not comfortable, you don't perceive things the way they really are.

So you feel gross because you itch like mad? You end up feeling unattractive and awkward.
You notice a smell yourself, maybe when you change or go to wash? You maybe worry other people will notice it, even if it's not really that bad.

Our perceptions of ourselves are often unreasonable, and I think that's what the animal imagery gets at. And then the Vagisil people play on that with "Vagisil makes me feel like myself again!"

I guess when I think about it, it's Consumerism, playing on our insecurities and telling us their product will give us self-confidence.

But really, how would you present (with intent to sell) a cure for vaginal itching?

"Don't you just hate vaginal itching? Try our tea bag of garlic clove! Gets rid of more than just vampires!"

Heeellp! There's a lobster in my panties.

I love the "100% woman, 100% of the time." Because, you know, you could always be 83% percent woman. Or a woman only 67.5% of the time. *rolls eyes*

The lobster is just ludicrous.

The whole thing looks like a parody of what an awful Vagisil ad would be.

Ok, interesting thing to try; watch it with the sound off. Here's my thought process (had I not known what the commercial was for):

"Hey, I didn't know porcupines were that cute! Aww, puffer fish! Skunk... lobster? Is this for Animal Planet? Or, god forbid, some show on the Food Network? Wait, Vagisil? Where'd that come frome? .... and now some lady sitting on a couch, riding a bike, putting on thigh highs and talking to the camera furtively. ummm.... Vagisil again... Excuse me?"

Seriously, it makes less than no sense. Maybe if I'd seen some women sitting uncomfortably, getting up to go to the ladies looking irritated I'd get it. But wildlife? No. Porcupines, blowfish, skunks and lobsters do not now, nor have they ever had, anything to do with a vagina. A wilting flower would have been more symbolically appropriate, if that's the route they wanted to go.

Okay, so let me get this straight. Its like the SATs, feminine : odorless, as _____ : smelly..... OMG! I get it! Vagisil is trying to tell men that they need to invent a product for their stanky stuff! Oh no wait... it was a group of men that wrote the commercial. Well shit....
And as for the lobster... Sigh...

Thaaaank you for posting this. This commercial has been driving me mad. As if the porupine/puffer fish isn't bad enough, by the time it gets to THE LOBSTER it's just...unbelievable.

I have to agree with dinogirl here.

The whole thing looks like a parody of what an awful Vagisil ad would be.

This is EXACTLY what I thought when I first saw it. I was waiting for Phil Hartman's voice to be doing the voiceover as a capybara, a T-Rex, and an electric eel came on screen.

This entire ad plays as if created by twelve year old boys. Hehehe, "down there!!!" Hehehe, GROSS it smells like...lobster!!

i have NEVER understood ads for womens anything.
Herbal Essences commercials, while sorta funny in a "OMG do women think this will get them hawt guys?!?!?!?!" sorta way, drove me back to Suave.
"Strong enough for a Man, Ph Balanced for a Woman"?????

i mean, seriously. and, razors! don't get me started. the SAME RAZOR, with pink or neon anything plastic, costs around $2 more!

sigh.

"i feel feminine again"

"i feel flirty again"

"100% woman"

gosh what is this bullshit!

if you want my opinion man a lady ought not to put up with such crap as this.

I love the "I feel feminine again/I feel flirty again" crap. Speaking as someone who has endured more yeast infections than I can count, I do not feel that this is an accurate depiction of the relief one feels when one of those nasty infections is finally gone. I want to hear the actress say "Thank God, my cunt no longer itches like fire!" It's less "now I feel like flirting" and more "I no longer want to claw my way through my underpants and pour ice water into my vagina."

"Heeellp! There's a lobster in my panties."

Now I get it, the commercial is trying to make us (straight) men (and lesbians) form a soft spot in our hearts for lobsters, skunks, blowfish, and porcupines.

I think Genny is on to something, and the commercial is really a pro-animal rights campaign disguised as a Vagisil commercial.

I also saw the commercial without sound, because at work my speakers are blown, and at work I couldn't help but think how cute the animals in the commercial were (and the fact they were associated with vaginas really makes me like them).

If any of you all have an animal in your panties, I am sure most straight men and lesbians would be more than happy to help you gals get it out (in fact I remember a woman using that line on me at a club once, and it was later the best cat I ever tasted (this was of course before I met my wife)).

Please gals I am not trying to stir anything up, I just thought the "lobster in my panties" comment was really funny. My apologies in advance if I offended anyone.

"Now I get it, the commercial is trying to make us (straight) men (and lesbians) form a soft spot in our hearts for lobsters, skunks, blowfish, and porcupines".

I'm pretty confident that was not what Genny intended. In my mind her point was more towards the complete lack of any connection between the symbolic identifiers in the add and the product being marketed.

I don't think anyone is disputing that some of the imagery, devoid of the intended context, could be considered "cute". I think the larger point is that "cute" is usually considered condescending and insulting when it implies negative messages about the cleanliness of womens genital anatomy.

Specifically, when it reinforces the too often considered view that womens vagina's are unappealing because they smell like fish, skunks, or have an otherwise unpleasant odor that is suggestive of being "non human".

I think in that sense the "cute" context just isn't cutting it.

Al

I said I thought the animals in the commercial were cute. I'm sticky to that one. I think animals are cute, and I want to see more of them living healthy and happy in the world (Genny said she thought that with the sound off it was a commercial for Animal Planet).

My "soft spot for lobsters, blowfishs, porcupines, and skunks" remark was meant to be a joke that complemented Jessica's "lobster in the panties" comment (which I thought was very funny). And I apologized if anyone found my joke/comment offensive.

I get what you're saying Itazura, and I don't think you were trying to be offensive. Sure, small furry animals can be cute. But really, so what? In terms of an analogy it sounds similar to saying:

"wow, that 747 that just went crashing into the ground was painted a really pretty blue wasn't it".

Because, we all know that blue can pretty. See what I'm saying?

Al

I never ever (anywhere) said I thought the message of the vagisil commercial was cute. Don't try to put words in my mouth.

All I ever said was that I though animals were cute (beavers, skunks, lobsters, blowfishs, and porcupines).

Come on Itazura, you know full well I didn't imply you thought the commercial was cute.

What I actually said, was that your point about how cute small furry animals are, is about as relevant to this discussion as the color of an airplane is at the time it crashes. I don't see how that is in any way a difficult point to understand.

The animals are relevant to the conversation,because the animals were featured prominently in the commercial, Duhh!!!

If the animals had not been in the commercial, there would be no conversation at all. My point is, it is the message within the commercial that is wrong, not the animals. the animals I am sure had no say in the matter as to weather or not they would be used to negatively or positively represent a vagina.

Whatever. It seems a little absurd to actually be talking about the lack of agency of the animals in the add!

You seem not to be hearing me when I say that the cuteness of the animals is not a central point in either the add, or an analysis of the add. The "message" of the add certainly was not that the animals were cute, and the inferred meaning one can reasonably take away, has nothing to do with the cuteness of the animals.

Thus, brining me to the point that cuteness, in this scenario, is not relevant.

"Whatever. It seems a little absurd to actually be talking about the lack of agency of the animals in the add!"

Maybe we should be looking for the animals agency's opinions on the ad. I can honestly say that I would like to know how they feel.

"You seem not to be hearing me when I say that the cuteness of the animals is not a central point in either the add, or an analysis of the add."

I only addressed the central point of the ad once when I said that I thought that associating the negative traits with vaginas was demeaning to women. I think we all agree on that one, so why are you bringing it back up?

"Thus, brining me to the point that cuteness, in this scenario, is not relevant."

Well, I am pretty sure that animals will continue to be used to represent vaginas. Is that good or bad?

My opinion; yes and no.

I can honestly say I have a fondness for beavers because they are so often associated with vaginas. I think a lot of men feel that way, and I think that is good for beavers. You don't see a lot of hunters literally hunting beavers (you do see a lot of men figuratively hunting for beaver though). Porcupines are cute, and some people keep them as pets (which may or may not be a good thing), blowfish are exotically cute (and a lot of people keep them as pets), Lobsters make just about everybody's month water (and I may be wrong, but I think oral sex is something that feminists want to receive more of consensually), and Skunks can be fixed so that won't spray as pets (which is probably not a good thing), so I think having those animals associated with the very delightful vagina is probably good for them, because people will want to do more to keep them around and give them a habitat where they run free and wild.

Is it good for women to have animals represent their vaginas? I don't have a vagina, so I can't really answer that question, but I don't think having something cute associated with a vagina is bad for a vagina. Doesn't every woman want her vagina petted as if it was a cute, wild, and free animal?

I am sorry gals I really didn't want to stir anything up, but Al provoked me.

Um, I think we've pretty much expressed here that we DON'T want our vaginas associated with wild animals. Cute or not. My vagina is very human, thank you very much.

You know I have to wonder whether you are serious in some of the things you say, and more specifically the way that you say them, or if you are being deliberately obtuse.

First of all, when I pointed out the futility in discussing the agency of the animals in the add, I was not referring to the "talent variety" of agency. I was using "agency" to refer to their role in self determination.Thus, the futility.

"Well, I am pretty sure that animals will continue to be used to represent vaginas. Is that good or bad?"

You state both. I'm going out on a limb and saying that referring to vagina's as animals is never a good thing, unless it's done in the confines of specific talk within consensual sexual relationships, or perhaps jokingly between female friends who are on the same page with the term. Beyond that, I can't see the benefit in substituting what are actual terms for anatomy with cute, furry things.

Secondly, I simply refuse to get into a discussion about whether calling a vagina the name of a furry animal is somehow good for the animal. Because really, I don't give a shit. In the context of this discussion, that is a point which simply devalues the original reason for the discussion.

Though as a point of clarification, I will comment on your "beavers are not hunted" assertion. I don't know where you live, but I live in Canada, and beavers are most certainly hunted. Aggressively so.

I'm not sure why you are not connecting with the idea that, whether inherently well intended or not, talking about vagina's in a slang that is suggestive of small furry animals does nothing but minimize the importance of the topic by suggesting playfulness, and "cute" analogies, as well as increasing our discomfort with using actual correct terminology. It also inappropriately sexualizes womens anatomy, in a discussion that is not always specifically sexual.

Whether or not that is the intention is not the point. These are very common themes in this culture that have long been a part of the dynamic that minimizes womens issues, be they health, sexuality, or personal politics. That is why your personal view of "cute" or not cute, means very little in the grand scheme of how the issue ultimately affects women.

"I don't know where you live, but I live in Canada, and beavers are most certainly hunted. Aggressively so."

I am sorry to hear that. I live in a place where there are no wild beavers, or rivers for that matter. I do know a lot of main-land USA hunters though, and I have never heard of them hunting wild beaver (they talk about cougars, bears, elk, dears, boars, and varmints).

Yeah, I was trying to be more comical than serious, and I thought that was obvious.

"I'm not sure why you are not connecting with the idea that, whether inherently well intended or not, talking about vagina's in a slang that is suggestive of small furry animals does nothing but minimize the importance of the topic by suggesting playfulness, and "cute" analogies, as well as increasing our discomfort with using actual correct terminology."

Do slang terms for sex organs make you uncomfortable, why? Yeah I will admit I like to talk about slang terms regarding sex organs, sex, and sexuality, because I think it is healthy to discuss those issues, and people should discuss them more. My first gripe with the ad was that the word "vagina" was never used. I don't think vagina talk should be a taboo topic.

"Secondly, I simply refuse to get into a discussion about whether calling a vagina the name of a furry animal is somehow good for the animal. Because really, I don't give a shit."

As a person who loves everything wild and natural in the world I give a shit. But it is better for women to answer the question about whether animals being associated with a vagina is good or bad, not you or I (which is why I gave the arguments both ways).

"That is why your personal view of "cute" or not cute, means very little in the grand scheme of how the issue ultimately affects women."

I certainly don't deny that, but I will admit that I am far from an expert on the issue, do you?

To be totally honest I really have no idea what your position on the ad is, Al. I know you think that associating negative animal traits with a vagina is bad, but what else do you think?

Anyways I got to go fly a kite with my son.

"To be totally honest I really have no idea what your position on the ad is, Al".

You have got to be kidding me.

Understand that what I'm about to say is really not meant to be snarky or sarcastic. But....If you truly don't know what my opinion on the add is, start with the first comment I made, and read them all again. This time, with a goal specific to actual comprehension.

And just to be clear, no I don't have a problem with "slang terms" as you seem to imply. What I do have a problem with, is slang terms that diminish the level of importance applied to specific issues, often medical, that are concerning to women.

My position, if you want it expressed clearly and directly, is simply yes, I think the add is wrong, and is offensive to women. In both the message, and the reducing of serious issues to a level on par with a style of discourse more appropriate for children's picture books of furry animals or children's programs starring cute furry animals.

If what I have said is not clear to you this time, that's just going to have to be, as this is fast becoming ludicrous.

I never read any of your comments, because I didn't care (you're a man, so why would I care for your opinion on this specific topic), until you called me insincere. It seems to me that you spend more time attacking me than the ad.

"My position, if you want it expressed clearly and directly, is simply yes, I think the add is wrong, and is offensive to women. In both the message, and the reducing of serious issues to a level on par with a style of discourse more appropriate for children's picture books of furry animals or children's programs starring cute furry animals."

Very similar to my position (except that I came to the conclusion that the ad was offensive to women after I read their comments on the ad at this site), except that I think it is OK to talk casually about sex, sex organs, and sexuality if slang terms and animal references are all that can comfortably be used, and are used to promote respect of women and their vaginas. Ideally mature conversation would be mature in scope, but we are not there yet (at least not on TV or in the public air ways). In the mean time I am going to make fun of people who can't use the word "vagina" for self repression reasons, by talking about sex, sex organs, and sexuality as often as I politely can.

"except that I think it is OK to talk casually about sex, sex organs, and sexuality if slang terms and animal references are all that can comfortably be used, and are used to promote respect of women and their vaginas."

And how does reducing genitalia to cute animals promote respect of women, or make discussing the issue less awkward? What will make it less awkward is not to call anatomy "pet names". A common theme when one is embarrassed.

Beavers and ding a lings are not vagina's, and to use the terms implies that by their nature, vagina's need to be disguised when we talk about them.

Itazura, I'm a woman. Take it from me. You know what I want people to say when they're talking about vaginas? Vagina. If they can't manage that, they need to grow the fuck up and learn to talk like adults. And that's not even fair, because I know lots of children who know how to use the proper terminology for parts of the body. My vagina is not an animal. It is not a fish. It is not a cute furry anything, and I detest having those types of comparisons made.

My vagina is a vagina. Nothing more, nothing less. Sometimes it is a sexual thing. Sometimes it is not. I do not want it always referred to in a sexual way, because that minimizes my existence as a being with other-than-sexual purposes in life.

There. A woman said it. I think I could say with fair accuracy that many other women would agree with me. Do you believe the claim now?

A vagina is a vagina. It is never a beaver.

Thanks Kimmy.

I was tired of that conversation with Al.

That guy really annoys me. I hate having my jokes dissected, having words put into my mouth, being told that I don't know what stage 3 syphilis looks like, or having my sincerity questions. Leave me alone Al.

Kimmy I agree with you entirely, in fact my joke was to emphasize that people who can't use proper terminology with sex, sex organs, and sexuality are silly. Maybe I didn't make that aspect of my position clear. I want mature conversation to be mature in scope, and I hope we can bring TV and the public airways up to that leave.

However I think cuteness in sex talk is OK, if the conversation is not meant to be informative, but rather a matter of communication between educated adults. Also I recognize that a lot of people want to talk about sex, sex organs, and sexuality, but are ashamed to be interested in the topics, and thus only speak with slang terms and animal references (like the Vagisil commercial did). The fact that they talk about sex, sex organs, and sexuality at all is good in my opinion (it's healthy for society to take those topics seriously, and talk about them is the first step towards making them serious issues).

Kimmy is Al right when he says animals cannot be used to promote respect of women and their sex organs? Throughout history animals have always been used to represent the good qualities in people; Lions represent pride, dominance, and status of authority, Horses represent strength, Cows represent health consciousness, Monkeys represent playfulness, Snakes represent transformation, etc, and etc. I don't see the use of animals to represent traits, qualities, and characteristics to disappear anytime soon.

Sorry I menat to write; I want mature conversation to be mature in scope, and I hope we can bring TV and the public airways up to that *level* (not leave).

I don't know how to make this any clearer. I agree with Al 100%.

MY VAGINA IS NOT A BEAVER.

Referring to the vagina by stupid slang terms and animal cutesyness is ALWAYS wrong (unless it's consensual discussion between two lovers who enjoy that sort of thing as part of their sex play).

My vagina is not a beaver. I'm going to keep repeating it until you understand. I do not want it associated with a beaver. My vagina does not need animal imagery in any way, shape, or form. They do not promote respect, they promote infantalization.

You know what's appropriate on TV? Medically accurate terms. You know what's a medically accurate term? Vagina. Just like liver.

You know what's appropriate in ALL conversations about body parts, both those with adults and those with children? Medically accurate terms. You know what's a medically accurate term? Vagina. Just like liver.

You know what's never appropriate, respectful, or helpful to women in any way? Referring to our vaginas with stupid slang term, cutesy animal imagery, or other inaccurate representations.

I honestly don't know how to make it any clearer. You can think whatever you want about Al (or about me, for that matter), but he's totally and completely correct here.

the laugh I do get from this commercial is knowing that vagisil spent so much money having the ad made without much hope for return on their investment. I know the people posting here probably won't buy it, I won't buy it. So good job vagisil, you've managed to advertise the reasons to be boycotted.

"You know what's appropriate on TV? Medically accurate terms. You know what's a medically accurate term? Vagina. Just like liver."

I agree with you that the Vagisil commercial was inappropriate, because it did not use the word "vagina", but that was society's fault not the commercial's fault, because no other commercial is using the word vagina either. Should no mention of the vagina in correct terminology or slang references ever be used? The airways won't allow the former, and you are firmly against the later. I think both are OK, because at least they stimulate conversation. Inappropriate discourse is better than no discourse, because eventually the inappropriate will evolve to an appropriate footing (it took decades before the word "period" could be used in a commercial, toilets couldn't be seen on TV less than 2 decades ago, and the word "cervix" just recently gained acceptability).

Uh, there is no rule against using the word "vagina" on TV that I'm aware of. I know for certain that it's allowed on cable, and I'm pretty sure it's allowed on network, though I could use confirmation on that. So, once again, the only appropriate term (and the only one that doesn't carry negative consequences for women) is the correct and accurate term - vagina.

"Uh, there is no rule against using the word "vagina" on TV that I'm aware of. I know for certain that it's allowed on cable, and I'm pretty sure it's allowed on network, though I could use confirmation on that. So, once again, the only appropriate term (and the only one that doesn't carry negative consequences for women) is the correct and accurate term - vagina."

Cable isn't considered the "airways", and your right there isn't a law that bars the word "vagina", but socially the word is still considered inappropriate to broadcast, hence why it is not.

Don't get mad at me, get mad at society. I'm just trying to make good with what is allowed. Actually the slang references aren't allowed over the airways either, but in conversation I hear the slang terms used a lot more than the medical ones.

And that would be the problem, wouldn't it? The more people who insist on using proper terminology, the better. Every time you use improper and disrespectful terminology, you make the problem worse.

"Every time you use improper and disrespectful terminology, you make the problem worse."

I'm not convinced all the slang terms are disrespectful. Some (or most) of them certainly are, but not all of them. I also hear women use the slang terms more than the medical one's. My wife's favorite term for vagina is Himitsu-no-hanazono, which means "secret garden" in Japanese.

Goody for your wife. And some people wanted a sign for the Vagina Monalogues changed so it said "Hoo-Ha" or something similarly ridiculous. What's your point?

A vagina is a vagina. A penis is a penis. A heart is a heart. A liver is a liver. A spleen is a spleen.

Anything else tries to change the context of the conversation into something other than what it is - a discussion of a body part with both sexual and non-sexual purposes which should be discussed in a civilized and accurate manner.

The fact that people use slang terms doesn't make it all right. And it doesn't make it respectful. And it doesn't make it proper. And it doesn't make it helpful.

You said you wanted to hear what a woman had to say on the subject, but you don't listen. Nor is this the firt time you've behaved this way. I'm 'bout ready to give up on you.

And an ass is a tuckus, Keester,rump, bum, buns, and etc. Breast are tits, jugs, melons, and etc. Legs are gams, and there is probably a slang term for every other body part.

I didn't make these words society did. Are they all bad?

Uh, no breasts are not "tits" "jugs" or "melons". Unless you're a demeaning, sexist asshole. Legs are not "gams" unless you're the same. These are all demeaning and insulting terms for parts of the body. For pity's sake, man, can you read? Do you not understand any of the words I've used here as they've been strung together in sentences? It's not that complicated. Using those terms is demeaning, insulting, and disrepectful. Period. End of story. If you perpetuate the cycle, you are demeaning, insulting, and disrespectful towards women. Period. End of story. There really isn't anything else to it.

Maybe this will shed some light, Itazura. A woman has a vagina. It is hers. It takes on the qualities and characteristics she decides it will have. In this way, she owns her body and it is specific to her personhood. If you start to say all vaginas are cute, or pettable, or need the light of day, or whatever, however well intended, you are stealing a woman's right to self-define her own body. Maybe she thinks her vagina isn't cute at all. Maybe it's mean. Maybe it purrs, maybe it roars. Maybe it's sad. Maybe it has no personality right now because she's not thinking about it as such, any more than she'd think about her nostrils or spleen. It's really up to her and her communication with her lover or doctor or whomever she's communicating her feelings about her own specific body with.

Calling attention to someone's body this way and making it fun for yourself or representative of an ideal, without a thought to what is going on in that person's mind (even when the "person" is "everywoman!"), and disregarding the possibility of self-definition regarding one's own body parts is the essence of objectification. Nonconsensual objectification harms women. Throwing around slang and social codes that objectify women more potentially hurts them more. So until you hear someone pipe up, "hey, my vagina's really cute today, please everyone call it skunkie for me!" no one here has any permission to make any assumptions about the "personality" of a particular vagina, (and NEVER about them generally) because doing so erases the woman who owns it. One would do well to discourage that kind of crap on the "airwaves", too. It's not more open, it's counterproductive.

OK, no more slang terms for body parts, but please don't get mad at me for using them, because I didn't invent them (and I am not the only one who used them).

Personally I like the slang terms, because a lot of them sound poetic, and most of them were invented by actual poets (especially the foreign terms). I don’t think any of the slang terms for body parts were meant to be offensive or disrespectful in their creation, but since you all find them offensive and disrespectful, then I guess they should not be used, but I have a pretty good feeling that they will continue to be used by both women and men in efforts to make talk about sex organs, sexuality, and sex less taboo.

I agree with Al and Kimmy 100% and have been happy to read their posts on several threads here. I consider Itazura a troll who has been posing as a feminist wannabe ever since he was called out on his tendency to use animal terms for vagina and to tell us more than we want to know about his sex life. He's been through his beaver discourse before.

You have both, Al and Kimmy, tried to have a discussion with him, but all he wants to do is say as many words that excite him as possible. I've read him on many threads and weasel would be the animal I would choose for him.

Yeah, I'm a big fan of the "I didn't invent it" defense.
I didn't invent firearms, does that mean it's not my fault if I shoot you?
Go check out what Itazura just wrote on the "blue elephant" thread.
I dare ya.
Then try and stop from hitting yourself in the eyes.
I think I don't need to talk to him/about him any more.

Naah, I never wanted to be feminist. I agree with the politics, but the whole feminist thing just isn't me, and it never will be. I'm too much of a realist for feminism. I do respect all of your opinions and thoughts though, and I hope I have not given any of you the impression that I don't.

No doubt the movement will suffer immeasurably due to your absence.

You agree with feminism but you're not a feminist because you're too realistic for that. You'll leave feminism up to us "gals," right?

You've been calling us gals as though you're somebody's grandpa - giving the whole Interwebs thing a try in order to see what "the fairer sex" thinks about life. You've been virtually patting us on the heads for long enough.

I am not "leaving" feminism to anything. How can I leave something that I was never really a part of? Feminism has been around a lot longer than I have been around, and it will be around well after all of us are gone.

Feminism is what feminism is. I admit I do want to contribute, and that's not going to change, in fact I am not leaving (unless people tell me to).

I don't want to be a feminist, because feminism is a form of ideology, and I don't do well with ideologies. I'm not a communist, I'm not a capitalist, I'm not a socialist, I'm not a imperialist, I refuse to be a member of any groups or religions or institutions, and I have never registered with a politic party. I agree with progressives on most issues, which is why I consider myself a progressive, and feminist agenda does jive with the progressive one, which is why I agree with the feminist politics, and support it.

However there are certain aspects of the feminist ideology I can't uphold. I like slang terms (all slang terms), because they are a part of culture that I like, the poetic counter cultural element. And I like all traditions, as long as laws do not enforce them. I think mothers should stay home (and out of the work force) with their small babies, because they produce breast milk, and I think natural feeding is better than formulas (and few women I know who work a job with newborns breast feed). I see no problem with being pro-life as long as abortion is not banned. I think divorce settlements should always favor women, because women socially suffer worse from divorces, and I think women should always get custody of small kids in divorce settlements (and huge alimony and child support payments awarded), because a single man doesn't have the physical advantages that a single mother has (however I do acknowledge that there are exceptions to that rule; not all women are good mothers).

And the list goes on. In short I accept reality before I defer to ideology, and feminism is an ideology.

Also I never thought "gals" was a condescending or belittling term. I never heard either of my grandpas use the expression to denote inferiority. I just thought it sounded better than “guys�, which is the term I use when I am addressing a crowd of men. And I say “guys and gals� when I am addressing both.

Sorry if you thought I was trying to be demeaning or condescending by using the term "gals", because I was not (maybe I should use“gals and Guys� more).

Sometimes you all are a little too touchy.

"I think mothers should stay home (and out of the work force) with their small babies, because they produce breast milk, and I think natural feeding is better than formulas (and few women I know who work a job with newborns breast feed)."

Even if her milk is infected, she can't produce enough milk enough for the baby she just adopted to live on, and/or if her wife is staying at home breastfeeding their baby?

Mina

I acknowledge there are ecceptions, and I don't want that position of my view on reality to be enforced by law. I don't want any of my views on reality to be enforced by law, because they are my personal views, and I don't want my views forced on anyone. But they are the reasons that I don't consider myself a feminist (I don't live like a feminist). Politically I am 100% behind the feminist movement.

Sorry I meant to write;
I acknowledge there are exceptions, and I don't want that position (that women should prefer to stay home with their newborns) of my view on reality to be enforced by law.

It is OK for a woman to work when she has a newborn, and there is nothing socailly wrong with that, but I think staying home would be the better choice for her to make. However I will defend to the death her right to work, and would support legislation that would enforce fairness in her work place (equal pay, and no glass ceilings).

Itazura,

People on this thread and others have told you that your opinions are no longer welcome or appreciated. Do you really want to be where you are not wanted, found to be a troll, and generally annoying to the majority of readers? If you do, that says some telling things about your personal stability.

I could give a shit about your opinion Al, you're a male jerk who follows me around, and I don't like you.

Are you speaking for all feminists (male and female)? It seems like that's your desire.

You know what? Just because I don't like you, I will leave this site.

Happy now? Jerk!!!

That was convenient Itazura.

I really don't want to prolong this bullshit, but here i am contributing to it...
Al, welcome to the family. I will be expecting an exchange of holiday cards and phonecalls at inconvenient times ;0)

My pleasure :)

The only animal in the Vagisil commercial that makes sense to me is the lobster, because sometimes my vagina feels like an expensive dinner...
Am I right, ladies? :)