She's serious, too. In an interview with a TV presenter, to publicise a forthcoming book full of glossy photos of nubile young boymen, she said: "Well, I'd like to reclaim for women the right to appreciate the short-lived beauty of boys, real boys, not simpering 30-year-olds with shaved chests." This article is scathing:
Once you get over the hypocrisy of the godmother of 1970s feminism salivating over boys as sex objects, you are left with the fact that Greer is using the language of pedophiles.
However, another article is more down-to-earth:
Greer, 63, says 'The Boy', which looks at male children in Western art, is about reclaiming the right of women to enjoy the beauty of boys. "Everyone thinks the only people who like looking at pictures of boys - and I mean boys, not men - are gay men but that's not true. I, for one, love looking at them," Greer told British newspaper the Daily Express.
She's not the only one. I thought. But I'm a bit confused. I like boys, boyz, y'know? By which I mean: men. But she actually means *boys*. Or does she?
I hope she makes clear in her book what boys are and what men are, and when they stop being boys and start being men. If she's talking about photography and art, an age-limit won't cut the mustard. Let's say androgynous, with a patina of 'the child' over them, then. Good enough definition? Maybe. Oh, no, I'm wrong: asked on Canadian television what attracted her to "boys" rather than men, she said: "Sperm that runs like tap water will do." But I'd always thought that a boy stopped being a boy when he was sexually mature.
Hmmmm.
I'm not knocking the woman. But there is something slightly hilarious about the most loudly militant feminist of her era saying, "I like boys. No, sorry, I *like* *boys*." Why, Germaine? Because they're not men yet? Hehe. :o)
