When you look at internet dating communities, people seem to be “marketing” themselves rather blatantly, but it’s for sexual and emotional reasons, not money. And without that commercial buffer, the stakes are higher. Egos and hearts are directly in the line of fire! I know a lot of people who use Nerve.com or Match to meet prospective boyfriends or girlfriends. I frankly wouldn’t have the courage to do it!

To what do you refer? Date-rape or other such atrocities, or ugly kinds of things which aren’t generally thought of (by men or women) as being wrong?

Like The Pickle (see above), I’m not entirely opposed to Andrea. To me, she was an eccentric, wild-eyed poet whose political influence was unfortunate — I wish she had spent more time focusing on her art, and less time being a shill for antisex legislation.

Having said this, I find Cosmo a bit sinister — the current strapline screams “Hottest sex moves ever.” I don’t find that empowering, it just smacks of an extra pressure that I really don’t need. So, on top of worrying about debt, grooming and everything else I now have to concern myself that maybe I’m a bit rubbish in bed and I need to buy a magazine to help me with this? Great!

I feel really saddened by some of the other posts in response to this article, though. Are there women out there who really want to knock Ariel Levy for being a prude? Seriously? I think they need to read the book. This is Levy:

“If you happen to be a person for whom this incredibly specific form of sexual expression [the ultra-consumerist porn-star ideal] is authentic, then this is your moment, and you should enjoy it. But if you’re anyone else, then you may as well be back in the 1950s, because there’s no other sexual model on offer to you.

It’s crucial to make a distinction between sex workers and the “ultra-consumerist porn-star ideal” (which they are not responsible for — Levy lays the blame, quite convincingly, for this at capitalism’s door), but Levy has a point. Female Chauvinist Pigs has articulated something that I’ve been trying to explain to men for years. It’s an imperfect book but I’d argue with anyone who tries to claim it’s not a necessary one. Admittedly, I have no objectivity on this: worrying about being neither a scold nor someone who is grossly compromised by her sexuality is a dilemma that is as real to me as worrying about paying my rent.

I am glad, though, that Tracy’s pointed out how attractive Ariel Levy is because this really, really matters. Levy has publicly said that she doesn’t want to lead a third wave of feminism because she’s a writer and not an activist but if there is to be someone who will spearhead a third wave then I’m afraid they have to look something like Ariel. I don’t want to listen to someone who looks like the late, much-maligned Andrea Dworkin theorising about my position in the sexual marketplace because, really how could she understand? Equally, I’m not going to take seriously someone who looks like a cheerleader. It’s horrible but it’s true — the visual matters and I’m afraid that Ariel Levy’s argument has that much more conviction because she looks like someone who wants to have sex but not be defined by it.

This nicely sums up everything that bothers me about Levy and ilk