what's with all the hysterical pearl-clutching?
seabeyond, you ... female person, you!
If a bunch of men at DU want to rate women on their 1 to 10 scales, that's ... words keep failing me ... free speech, right?
And if a lesbian enters a beauty contest, why, that's progress!
= new reply since forum marked as read
Just head on over to GD. 
And hey! I'm taking a few for the team too!
In fact, I started it all. Were it not for the damned jury service thing, I would never have seen it. Got asked to adjudicate a post scoring a woman 7 out of 10. Guess what I said.
The economic transactions one -- the jury was for the post in the thread saying "you straights" in the subject line, which I thought was badly worded, but the content of the post clarified it.
The paper the thread was about (not that I think the thread itself might not have had evil intent) was actually very interesting and I don't have any problem with it at all. I worship economists.
It was descriptive, not prescriptive. It said that women's value is determined by their sexuality, that they have a market value based on trading sex for "x", not that it should be determined that way -- and the thing is, that's true. It's the heart of the problem, and having it analysed like that is actually good and instructive, I'd say.
Not that any discussion it might prompt hereabouts would necessarily be.
It's about how things ARE, not why they are, or why they shouldn't be.
An analysis of how things are is worth reading. When it's done by economists and not feminists, somebody might even pay attention.
but I want to share it here:
I was there.
Two universities in Canada (the two with the most politically progressive/active student bodies) elected feminists as their "Miss".
A bunch of us at WLU organized a disruption of the pageant to coincide with their planned action.
At the right moment in the proceedings, the two women in the contest denounced it from the stage, we marched out, the show never aired on television as it was supposed to, and there was never another Miss Canadian University.
Well, I shouldn't say never. I googled it a while back, and I think some commercial promoter has actually managed to revive some version of it, but not with university or student body participation.
Now wouldn't it be nice if the lovely lesbian Miss California contestants would do the same?
Ah, wishful thinking.
And obviously missed a lot of fun . . . that said - from piecing it together -
Is it okay with you all if on a regular basis of Tit for TaT and Turn About Is Fair Play mind if I post how much money my fiance makes and note what a hot tight ass he has?
Hear me out - from time to time a single man on DU gets on and whines about how he 'doesn't make enough money' and 'isn't bad boy enough for women' so oh woe is me - women are 'shallow'.
If they want 'shallow' I'll give them shallow.
If they want 'lookism' and 'ageism' in so-called reverse - I'll give it to them.
If they want to be 'sit in the chair and be a good girl now' - then I'll shove it in their faces that yep -- you STILL have to pay when courting because that's what my love did- oh and you ALSO have to hold the door for me.
Is that rotten? Probably. But seriously - you want to see the DU men really flip their lids - be they straight or gay?
Let's start a daily hottie thread. I've got a beautiful pic of The Gio's tush as he's leaning on the terrace railing. From there I elect Idris Elba, George Clooney, etc. etc.
Make a few of them real uncomfortable with women that love a sexy man - and that like pointing them out.
Okay - off my petulant childish soapbox but seriously - it's all I *think* they can possibly wrap their pretty little heads around. 
So I was wrong. (we cross-posted)
Well, I'd say what they were pissed about was really just uppity women thinking they could do what they liked. Not about the attempted objectification, per se.
I really do lead a sheltered life around here. I don't think I've ever seen a tit thread. Back to the gungeon with me. At least there, they are ever soooo concerned about women's welfare. 
eHarmony and the pissing and moaning of men.
The problem is, what you propose would not have the desired effect. Precisely because of patriarchy. Being leered at / commented on / rated etc. doesn't have the effect on men that it predictably (and therefore intentionally) has on women: to intimidate. Because women don't exercise the power over men that men exercise over women.
I'm put in mind of an incident back around 1975. I was working for a prestigious government research agency while I was in law school. I went to work in bare feet and ripped blue jeans, with the hair and body to round out the hot chick look of the day, but that was really just me not giving much of a toss what I looked like. We juniors used to hang out at the high-end classy hotel bar next door after work, looking generally grotty. One day, I was walking up the circular staircase in the lobby to the women's washroom, and some drunken business man called something offensive up after me. I had long since realized that "Fuck off", a retort that had worked well five years earlier to cause the sources of unwanted attention to take great offence and get all pissy, had lost its sting. So I turned around, sneered down at him, and said: "Eat shit." He replied: "I can think of something I'd rather eat, woo hoo."
You can't beat them at their game. You are the object, they are the subject. They know it.
But I might be on here elsewhere proving my point in a different way.
Let them panty bunch all they want. The panty bunchers!
a host would be a good idea? It's been suggested to me that it might now. I know it was felt originally that it might not be necessary, but without the statement of purpose we had before ... well, maybe we should import that too.
So, if that thought occurs to others ... I'm thinking I'd like to volunteer.
edit -- oops. See the thread on the subject!