That's the inherent strawman of this entire debate all across the internet though; the false claim that anyone who doesn't like or takes issue with the song/lyrics either thinks women don't enjoy sex, or that they shouldn't enjoy sex, or that they shouldn't express an enjoyment of sex. When of course, obviously, very few people are actually saying that but hey it's easier to pretend than to actually discuss the criticisms that are raised, I suppose.

Spot on.

It's what my opinion of what wap is, as opposed to Brands comparison to porn. Which if you take the focus away from yourself for a second you will see is what the thread is really about.

And it isn't a strawman that you have just projected that into the conversation...where's the inference that anyone has suggested that?

Personally I clearly reacted to your 'new misogyny' comparison and the comparisons to porn made by Russell Brand.

I commented on the article. YOU quoted me and made it all about your opinion, which had no relevance to what I was picking out of the article. Again, work on your self awareness.

Bleat on about whatever you want to, but don't pretend it relates to an argument anyone has actually made because they haven't.

And the jist of every other article about WAP that's been posted to the thread :think:.

I gave my opinion on the thread and within around ten minutes you had quoted me to challenge me on my view..

You can hear yourself getting increasing more offensive every time you respond to me can't you?

That was resolved a while ago Kizzy. You quoted me when I commented on the article, responding to my opinion with a response that had nothing to do with it. Unless you believe my comment was directed at you? In which case, it wasn't.

You expected to come into a thread, be rude and personal and get politeness in return?

So you read into that quote that because that's what the songs about it means all those that are 'uncomfortable' with a song about female pleasure its because the person doesnt think women shouldn't enjoy/ sing about sex? That's a bit of a reach.

I took it to mean they were uncomfortable that it couldn't be pigeon holed as easy as some. So they render it tittilation or new misogyny.

Oh right that was resolved .. but you're still aggrieved by something? Tell me specifically why you are so affronted and I'll try to help.

Are you referring to when I told you to calm down? I called myself a boomer in that post ..Sometimes you just have to stop taking yourself so seriously.

Kizzy I made a comment about an article posted in the thread and now you keep posting asking me why I am "following you" or telling me I am arguing a point I am not.

Your reading skills are absolutely appalling based on all of these replies. YOU started this exchange over a post that was not directed at you to start with, in which you stated I'd made a comment I had not.

Move along.

Thank you Niamh. :hee:

I wanted to know how I have misrepresented you here so I can respond.
It's unfair to just mock my reading skills and not explain what it is I've misinterpreted parts of your post.
Not going to risk derailing the thread further, I'm glad too that Niamh intervened.

I actually saw that Russell Brand clip wtf :facepalm::skull: , he was off his head on smack aswell .