Mrs. James has a second blog post up in response to the discussion on her blog and elsewhere. Pity is, she still (rather deliberately, it seems) misses the point. While she pays lip service to the need for precautions, "to keep our relationships on the up and up" she avoids any further word on the subject, quickly going on to the deeper issues. In typical religious feminist fashion, certain things are admitted but when it gets down to defining what they mean by it, every precaution is dismissed as being part of a laundry list (read: pharisaical) or part of a wish men have to place all the blame on women (read: misogyny) lest the men lose their precious positions of power (and isn't it funny that the religious feminists who are after one thing and one thing only accuse the other side of being too power-hungry?). You will see the same sort of admission/evasion rhetorical ploy when the issue of sex differences comes up.
What was interesting about this second post was Mrs. James' illustration about the difficulty of walking with an injured toe. It's an analogy I've used rather frequently, having broken at least four toes in my lifetime (I'm a bare-footed klutz, you see). She is absolutely right about the body needing all parts in working order, fulfilling their function.
However, (once more with feeling) Mrs. James rather spectacularly misses the point. All bits of the body have their function and you wouldn't get very far by walking on your hands nor do you see many people drinking through their noses. Hands are not for walking nor are noses made to easily and effectively take in fluids.
So why, will some one please tell me, do religious feminists insist on applying their mascara by holding the wand in their toes?