A Response to Peter Lloyd of The Daily Mail.

Peter Lloyd of The Daily Mail wrote this today. Here's my response. 
HelloPeter!
Ihope you're well. I'm fine. Thank you.
Justa few teeny weeny notes on that there article you wrote in responseto my blog:
1)MichelleThomas was hailed a feminist hero for criticising a Tinder date whorejected her because of her size.
Thething is, I didn't. I criticised him for sending me a 400 word textafter one date, detailing, in forensic detail, that he didn't fine mesexually attractive because of my figure (I'm a size 14). As I writein the blog, it's fine to have a physical preference. That's biology.What's not fine is to make your physical preference someone else'sproblem. Sending that meticulously crafted, 400 word message (readhere) which twisted and turned between condescending tenderness(“baby....honey...I adore you”) and breathtakingbrutality (“my mind gets turned on my someoneslimmer....I'd marry you like a shot if you were a slip of a girl”)is an act of cruelty. It's an assertion of power. It says “I couldlove you thiiiiiiiiiiiis much...if only you were different”.
Iwrote the blog to redress that imbalance of power which he assertedby imposing his views about my body upon me uninvited. To let him andreaders know that I know that the language he used - ofmanipulation, of control – was transparent in its intention towound. And to let them all know, while it worked briefly, it neverwill again.
2)...herresponse reinforced the odd, unwritten rule that women can saywhatever they want about sexual desire and attraction, but mencan't.
Prettysure that men have had quite a large say in shapingthe rules ofsexual desireand attraction over the last 1000 years or so, Petemate.Youknow? Artists. Filmmakers. CEOs for multi-national companies thatprofit fromconstantly, covertly andovertlytellingwomen that they are physically inadequate. I don't want to patroniseyou, but youmight want to Google that one.
3)….sheclaimed his behaviour was somehow 'body shaming' and 'objectifying'the female form, but, sorry sisters, I disagree...
Youdisagree? Really? Because I think that sketching out a detailedhypothetical situation where I'm lying naked in bed next to him,pleading with him to make love to me, it pretty objectifying.
4)Infact, the only thing he's truly guilty of is having an honest opinionabout women - one that isn't deemed 'on message' by the sisterhood -and actually voicing it. Somethingwomen have long done to modern men.
Thisis wrong. The examples you give (especially the John Prescott one)are horrible. IT'SNOT ALRIGHT FOR WOMEN TO BODYSHAME MEN.It'snot. It's just not. Bur progress is slow. And decades ofobjectification (I mentioned that earlier Peter, it'll still be upthere near the top of the article if you need to refresh your memory)are going to provoke a response. First of all, simply YONKS back, wedidn't know we were oppressed. Then we DID know we were oppressed(and we were, rightly, quite cross about it). Now we're slowing,slowly moving into knowing we're not oppressed. We should aim for notknowing we're not oppressed. And this won't happen unless untileveryone treats everyone else with respects, kindness and compassion.(N.B. I concur with Ms. Allen. Her songs are about specific men, soit's not hypocritical. I'm sure she's written songs about how lovelyspecific men are too, and how excellent they are at the old biblical.Balance, Peter. It's important)
5) It'shypocritical. You know, like when we're told strip clubs are harmfuland degrading - by women thumbing a copy of Fifty Shades of Greywhile in the cinema queue for Magic Mike XXL.
Peter.Ican't wait to see Magic Mike XXL. I haven't seen the first one, butsomeone posted a traileron mysocial media pageandOH.EM. G-STRING. It was as sexy as a sexy number of sexy things having asex-off is Sexville,Sexylvania.And yes, in the trailer I saw, you could argue that the two gentlemenperformers are being objectified. That their bodies (their beautiful,beautiful bodies) are being used as a commodity, with noconsideration for their personalities, their strengths, theirweaknesses, their hopes, dreams and aspirations. BUT. The difference,Peter love. THE MASSIVE GLARING,DIFFERENCE. THEDIFFERENCEBIGGER THAN CHANNING TATUM'S GLORIOUSLY BITEABLE BICEPS – is thatmen who DON'T look like Channing Tatum have been andare fairlywidely represented in the fields of politics, medicine, science,culture, sports, arts and literature. Men who don't look likeChanning Tatum haven'thad toendure watchingteen moviesabout boystheirage whodon't look like Channing Tatum, taking off their glasses, getting ahaircut, miraculously BECOMING Channing Tatum, then landing a richgirlfriend, rending any academic or social qualificationssuperfluous. Menwho looklike ChanningTatum arenot the most widely-documented definition of male power and malesuccess that young boys have as a role models.Menwho don't look like Channing Tatum –as well as men who do in fact - aren'tpaid £100per week lessthan women, irrespectiveofwhether they look like Charlize Theron (GodI lovethat woman).
Doyou understand that now, Peter? Do you?
Nowthe thing is, I know that you think you've got something in yourartillery (or at least you would have if you'd read the blog,something I can't see much evidence of.)
This:
“P.P.S.You're not 5”11”.
BODYSHAMING.HEIGHTSHAMING. MANSHAMING.
Well....no.
Thiscomment was made to highlight to this chap that while he was happy tocriticise my body (which, by the way, I had been upfront and honestabout on my dating profile with full body pictures), he had fibbedabout his own. His profile said he was 5”11. He wasn't. I even(very gently) broached this with him on the date. He needn't havelied because I didn't agree to go on a date with him because of hisheight (in fact, most of my boyfriends have been 5”9 or shorter).However, without that background information, I can understand howthat comment could be misinterpreted. Please forgive me, Peter. I'venever gone viral before. If I'd known the blog was going to be readover 170,000 times all over the world, I would have made that bitextra clear.
Ifyou'd like to read the blog, tharshe blows:

Ifyou'd like to know more mycampaign against bodyshaming and bullyingplease visit my website for  Healthy.Happy. Hot.