CT's blogs are getting to be a drag. What is the point of reading about the tawdry and tired subjects she bangs on about ? The office secretary has got more intelligent things to say. (And she's about 10 years younger than CT).

Last time Catherine was saying she did tonnes of charity work. Sleeping with half the men in London doesn't count Catherine.

There is nothing witty or ironic or feminine in the article she wrote here. Why is she even being paid to push mindless rubbish here?

Catherine Townsend.

Rest In Peace.

Put this tired, crappy old blog to rest now.

Get a proper job.

Thanks for pointing out how the Christian right are starting this campaign against Wikipedia. I agree with you that I'd rather my kids found out about sex on Wikipedia than by trying out searches on the open internet. Wikipedia is closely policed by users and the images there are unlikely to be considered outrageous by anyone but the ultra "everything sexual is bad" brigade who think ignorance is purity is good.

I'm a Wikipedia addict myself, and I hope that they stick to their policy of not allowing censorship...allowing anyone to edit the entries is not a perfect system, but it's what has allowed the site to thrive in the digital age. This was a posting about Internet censorship, so I don't understand the mentality of those who find Ms Townsend's blog so 'boring' or 'offensive' that they a) come back to read them again and again, and b) take the time out of their day to post such personal responses.

Dear Catherine,

In response to the many of your blogs that I have now read, I find the fact that you are so openly promoting casual sex without discussing the negative aspects of your lifestyle very disturbing.

The atmosphere of your blogs belies the intended message that you are an independent woman enjoying a free lifestyle, instead conveying the impression that you are actually insecure, internally questioning your lifestyle but also seeking encouragement and approval from others in an attempt to console yourself, much in the way that a drug addict will attempt to promote drug use and seek solace with other addicts rather than face their own problems. Maybe you also think that you are a pioneering icon of femininity, in which case may I point out that the sexual revolution of the 60s was forty years ago and that you have been preceded by plenty of "high-profile" supersluts, many of whom have questionable self-esteem and states of mental health.

In reference to a comment on your blog "Sleeping around: What will the neighbours say" (in which you describe masturbating while your neighbour is watching you whilst the son of your ex-boyfriend, who you are also currently sleeping with, is away in the US) by Brigitta, I agree that your blogs do absolutely nothing to help the problems of men and women in society today. Have you ever considered that there are probably many young and insecure girls who read your blog? If I was an impressionable girl who was in a stable long-term relationship, reading your blog would make me feel that there was something wrong with me, that I was boring or unadventurous. Many of your blogs glorify promiscuity, without mentioning the increased risk of STDs, low self-esteem, psychological and financial insecurity, broken relationships and the possibility of being looked down on in society (whether you think this is right or wrong, it is a fact and applies to men as well; a quick look at many of the comments to your blogs provides some starting research).

I am not anti-sexual freedom in any way at all. I am also not anti-alcohol. But then I would also oppose someone writing blogs on behalf of a national mainstream newspaper about how great it was to be heavy drinker without stating the negative aspects of their lifestyle. What you do in your own life is your own business. However what I am opposed to is promoting your views as a role model with absolutely no regard for the consequences of your readership.

I have absolutely no idea how you managed to get your job at the Independent or why they feel that reporting such as yours is an asset to what is otherwise, for me, the leading newspaper in the UK. Is this some kind of crazily mistaken effort to make news cool for kids?

My final point (that I feel I need to make after reading some of your comments from male "fans" about up-tight, sexually-frustrated biddies etc.) is that I am a 24-year old heavy metal guitarist who has had several girlfriends and an active sexual life. I am not religious, do not support any government and fiercely promote independent thought. I completely agree with freedom of choice. What I do not agree with is using a powerfully influential position such as yours to encourage impressionable people that promiscuity is exciting and fun without making them aware of the many negative effects of this lifestyle.

Please resign.

Best wishes,

Marcus

I am writing to apologise for the comment above that I posted earlier today. Having reread the comment, I have realised that, although I think that everything I said is true, it is not at all in line with my personal opinion and is much more aggressive than was originally intended. Many sincere apologies to Catherine for any bother caused.

Marcus

hmm. I notice that the first nasty, seven postings on this thread were all sent within 40 minutes on the same Saturday evening.
Strangely, they all express similar negative comments. Funny that!
If people/a person genuinely don't find Catherine's stuff interesting, why are they here?
I love the fact the fact her column is completely different from the rest of the Indy.
And no, that doesn't mean I don't care deeply about what's going on in Burma...

Not following Russ' sound advice Matt?

I don't see how you can possibly link this blog to the Amstetten atrocity in any meaningful way. It just doesn't work on any level.

Are you seriously suggesting that we should all revert to the 19th century in our attiudes to sexual mores simply because the Fritzl case represents what ultimately happens when so-called "morality" and "boundaries" aren't present? Do you honestly think that these cases of horrific parental abuse don't happen in less permissive cultures too?

One of the things I like best about CT's writing is the fact that she's human and flawed, she admits that she makes mistakes, she's been through her share of heartbreak, and she doesn't try to moralise...reading through her columns, she only discusses a couple of sexual partners in the last couple of months, hardly 'half the men in London' as one woman claimed, and certainly not shocking for a young unmarried woman living in the twenty-first century! A lot of my female friends have been much more active than Catherine, the difference is that they don't admit it. As a man, I can't recall anyone trying to demonise men in this way. And I can't help wondering why this is so personal and not about the wider debate?

What does Catherine think of all this?
HInt, hint.

It's just not good journalism. I can't rate Catherine Townsend as a good journalist not ever. Her mindless blogs have continued unabated for years without scrutiny. Now that some people are actually asking why its being published on The Independent in the first place is a sign that the populace is realising what drivel it always was! I am amazed its been allowed to go on this long. Like I said its just crap journalism.

sorry samantha, don't you know that if you want things changed in life you have to speak out not ignore it

I cant stand why people keep coming back here to slag Catherine off. I read her blog everyday, bought her book and sometimes I even read old posts to amuse myself, its a great way to be entertained during the dull hours of the office.

I would like to know why the people who are so concerned with issues being discussed here keep coming back, I may not agree with everything that is being said however it does not give me right to say what is right or wrong. And no I am not an imoral person, as a matter of fact I am a catholic, attend and respect the laws of the church.

However I also appreciate we live in modern times, things happen around us and we cannot stop the world from evolving, we need education to make society better, we need to teach people about making choices and having principles that goes a much longer way than teaching people how to be "pure"

People should be free to do whatever they feel most confortable with, regardless of their faith, background.

At the end of the day, its all about making choices and trust me no one is going to think more or less about you for having different views.

So you lot who are so narrow minded and judgmental better start reading the bibble as it tells you very clearly - those who have not sinned should throw the first stone! (and if you still havent got the message in modern times it means, stop judging because you will too be judged!)

Catherine congratulations! You are an amazing writer and I enjoy reading your adventures, everyday!

Keep it up!

These people who've nothing better to do than post negative comments on a blog are just sad ... bugger.

I've know Catherine and she's 29 or 30. What would motivate "Phil" - who rarely leaves his bedroom - to place an outright lie and claim she's "almost 40". I suggest "Phil", whoever he or she is, tries to get a life and give up such pathetic rantings.
Remember "Phil", you don't HAVE to read the column if you don't like it. Either get a job or do something more worthwhile with your time.

I am Becks and I'd just like to say my earlier posting was all rubbish and it is I wot is the crap writer! I luv Catherine's work.

To the other Becks has it occurred to you that SOMEONE ELSE could have the same name as yours? I posted earlier and I stand by what I wrote. It is poor quality writing. I wouldn't call this the work of a professional journalist no way.

Some replies to previous comments:

"DAVID SMITH"

"SHE ONLY discusses a couple of sexual partners in the last couple of months, hardly 'half the men in London' as one woman claimed, and certainly not shocking for a young unmarried woman living in the twenty-first century!"

We don't know if she has had sex with her neighbour yet, or who she's sleeping with without reporting it so let's put the figure at what I believe is a generously low one of 3 men per 2 months. That pans out at 18 people a year. Assuming I had a girlfriend of my age (24) and she lost her virginity at the age of 18 (generously high in my opinion), 6 years of 18 people a year is 108 people. I'm not really sure I would want my 24 year old girlfriend to have already had sex with 108 guys. Sorry, let me rephrase that, I AM sure that I would NOT want to have a serious relationship with a woman of any age who had slept with anywhere near that number of people and I would be highly surprised if I was alone in that opinion
NB just to pre-counter the mind-numbing sexist argument that I'm sure is on its way from someone - if I was a girl I would also not want to have a serious relationship with a guy who had slept with so many girls.

I read in an interview with Catherine that she lost her virginity when she was 15 years old and she is now 30 so, according to the relatively quiet patch figures, she has slept with 270 men. It is true, this is not "half the men in London", but it is certainly a high enough figure to be shocking for anyone living in any century and is also the amount of years ago that King George II was ruling England and Handel was the pop music.

"AS A MAN, I can't recall anyone trying to demonise men in this way."

You don't sound like a man, you sound like a feminist. Please put a link to your website on your future comments to clear up questions that have been raised about your identity. And to answer your point, it seems painfully obvious to me that people would have exactly the same opinion of a man who was boasting about their sexual exploits with hundreds of women.

"I'VE KNOW Catherine and she's 29 or 30. What would motivate "Phil" - who rarely leaves his bedroom - to place an outright lie and claim she's "almost 40". I suggest "Phil", whoever he or she is, tries to get a life and give up such pathetic rantings.
Remember "Phil", you don't HAVE to read the column if you don't like it. Either get a job or do something more worthwhile with your time."

Amazing and hilarious at the same time - looks like Phil hit "David's" hot spot.

MATTHEW

"IT'S NO different than standing on a street corner and shouting out I'm a hoe"

I think it is greatly different to standing on a street corner and shouting "I'm a ho" as someone who did that would not have access to many listeners, would not be portrayed in a positive light and also would not have the backing of a respected newspaper.

"I'M SURE near naked girls on rap music, or slip knot's f**k the world mentality don't nearly as much influence the minds of youngins"

I think it is true that music videos probably do have more influence than Catherine's blog.

However, considering female artists, themselves dressed in revealing clothes - I don't think that the image the female artists are trying to give off by wearing revealing clothes is that they live a promiscuous lifestyle - rather they want to be seen as beautiful and sexy and have the power to attract whichever man they want. I don't think that a woman wanting to look beautiful and wear sexy clothes would lead to as many problems as a woman who was aiming to emulate Catherine's lifestyle.

Considering male artists promoting female models in revealing clothes - I think that the scantily women who are hanging off some male artists arms are not as influential to other women as the above because they are widely seen to be subserviant to the male artist. I believe that role models are those who look powerful and comfortable in their lifestyle, not those who are supporting someone else's success. For example, I am a man and I would be much more influenced by how a male artist was acting than by how a female artist's subserviant dancer was acting (ps for the feminists - there are lots of example's of this eg. Madonna and Britney Spears etc. so I do think that their is a fair balance in pop music media)

Also, music videos are entertainment (there are not many people who don't know that the film was planned and the dancers are paid models), whereas Catherine's blog is fact, on a national newspaper and is therefore representing the London relationship "scene". I think when a newspaper such as the Independent has someone like Catherine covering the relationship section, the result is that the impression of the London dating scene given off is not accurate in any way and provides a drastically mistaken stereotype which will alienate many people who do not feel that are involved in it.

As for slipknot's mentality - I don't really know what they are about as I don't listen to them, but, as for a "f**k the world mentality", I think it is a healthier mentality than that of Catherine's blog - at least it shows some kind of ability (albeit basic and unrefined) to detect that there are massive problems in the world that you are not happy about and is a breeding ground for independent and questioning reasoning. Conversely the mentality of Catherine's blog is to promote the feeling of well-being without acknowledging that what she is promoting may well lead to problems.

PAULA

"I WOULD like to know why the people who are so concerned with issues being discussed here keep coming back."

Because they are so concerned with the issues being discussed.

"AND NO I am not an imoral person, as a matter of fact I am a catholic, attend and respect the laws of the church."

Being a Catholic does not automatically validate or invalidate anything you say, or make you moral or immoral - please leave religion out of the debate.

"PEOPLE SHOULD be free to do whatever they feel most confortable with, regardless of their faith, background."

Yes they should and very few people on the blog are disputing this.

JAMES

"I'M INTERESTED to understand why you think sex and relationships shouldn't be covered by a respected newspaper."

The impression I get from the comments here is not that people think that these topics should not be covered, but rather that Catherine is the wrong person for the job. My personal belief is that having a radical feminist to cover the relatinship section is akin to having a zionist jew covering topics concerning the palestine-israeli conflict. To balance Catherine out, they should at least also employ a male chauvinist pig to promote stringing women along for casual sex.

JAMES (not sure if this is the same James so keeping it separate)

"HAVE YOU upset anyone recently CT? A disgruntled ex or an encounter who didn't like their write-up maybe?"

If it is me that you are referring to, I can happily and honestly deny all charges!

ANGEL

Angel, thank you so much for your kind support. There are a couple of reasons I apologised.

Firstly, I do think that the first comment I wrote was much too personal and aggressive. Catherine does not give off the impression of someone with high confidence so I felt guilty.

Secondly, I do not think Catherine is the main problem here. I personally really don't mind what she does in her own life and I also think that she genuinely believes that her blogs are not causing any harm but are promoting freedom for women. Therefore I regretted sending such a personal attack on someone who I feel has low confidence and feels that they are doing the right thing. The people who I have a problem with now are Catherine's employers who, in my opinion, are using Catherine's blog of insanity to promote their business, without considering the consequences it will have for readers and also for Catherine (who I'm sure would be unable to continue her career if she settled down and had a family life).

I have read some of your other postings and although there are some topics on which I don't know enough about to add my opinion, it is really great to see someone who has the guts to say what they think, even if it is going against what is falsely considered to be "independent, modern thinking". Please continue to add your interesting posts to these debates.

LAST BUT ALSO LEAST, FERNANDA

Thank you for ignoring the apology I posted just a few hours after posting my original comment and daring to go ahead with an ill-researched attack on my personality which has given me pleny of opportunity to further express my views on this ongoing debate.

"I AM really shocked. Not at the content of Catherine Townsend's witty, interesting and personal take on dating, sex and relationships in modern day society, but at the vitriolic nonsense written by narrow minded uptight people who cast a whole range of aspersions against her and no doubt every woman who dares to enjoy some sexual freedom in their life.

Really amazing that, in your first sentence about casting aspersions against Catherine, you yourself cast aspersions against anyone who dares to question her viewpoint.

You also refer to Catherine's blog as witty, interesting and personal take on dating, sex and relationships in modern day society which not only states your opinions as facts but also implies that you think wild promiscuity is an expected part of relationships in modern day society.

Also interesting (a point that I will be coming back to) is that you describe Catherine's promiscuity as daring "to enjoy some sexual freedom in their life" - Don't you know that a girl who also has one partner for their whole life is also daring to enjoy her sexual freedom?

re. Angel's comment

"CATHERINE DOES not promote herself as a role model and she has mentioned on several occasions the need to practice safe sex and to get regular STD check ups."

The fact that she is writing her blogs on behalf of a national newspaper automatically promotes her to the level of a role model. The fact that she has to have regular STD checkups means that she herself feels she has a greater risk of STD than someone who is not "sleeping around". It is basic probability that if you have sex with 100 people a year then you have a higher chance of getting an STD than someone who sleeps with 1 person a year. I'm sorry, that is not an opinion, it is a fact. If anyone is still disputing this, please pick up a children's maths book or do some research into how sexually transmitted diseases are transmitted.

re - my comment

"MY GOD. May I point out - as you seem to be unsure - you are not a young, impressionable girl. Now, I am sure you are shocked after that bombshell"

No, I'm not shocked at all - sorry to disappoint.

"IF YOU believe that having sexual freedom and liberation to enjoy sex brings you to the brink of financial disaster, makes you psychologically damaged and turns you in to a social outcast, then you need some help. NOW."

I really shouldn't have to explain this one as it is clearly due to you not reading, or not understanding what I wrote - I'm not sure if it is English vocabulary or grammar that you have a problem with, but taking some choice quotes from my comment......

"I am not anti-sexual freedom in any way at all" and "I completely agree with freedom of choice"

These phrases mean that I think that people should be free to do what they want sexually. I do not think that sexual freedom causes any of the effects you have described. Please see below where it is explained that this problem is simply down to you replacing what I wrote with your own phrases.

"Many of your blogs glorify promiscuity, without mentioning the increased risk of STDs, low self-esteem, psychological and financial insecurity, broken relationships and the possibility of being looked down on in society"

Your quote "having sexual freedom and liberation to enjoy sex" has been wrongly attributed to what I wrote "(glorify) promiscuity". The two are greatly different. The fact that you have replaced my meaning of promiscuity with sexual freedom and liberation, strengthens my belief that feminists only promote sexual freedom when it means promiscuity. From your attitude, it seems that if a girl chose to have one partner and become a child-bearing housewife you would not attribute this to her freedom of choice but rather to the "sexist" culture of modern society. You are only promoting sexual "freedom" as long as it's the kind of freedom that you condone (which, by the way, is not freedom).

Aside from that, "increased risk" does not mean that I think it will (referring to your extrapolated extremes) bring someone to financial ruin, make them psychologically damaged or turn them into a social outcast. It does not even explicitly mean that I think there will be any difference in these factors.... It simply means that I think there is a generally higher probablilty of these states occuring if you live a promiscuos, unsettled lifestyle than if you have a long term, stable partner.

Please go back to primary school and learn how to read. NOW.

"I THINK your attitude to women is extremely unhealthy and your rudeness to Catherine just because you disagree with her opinions, is a disgrace."

I also think that your debating style is extremely unhealthy and actually, I don't disagree with Catherine's opinions because she doesn't seem to have any. All of her "opinions" could be constructed by a simple feminist formula that a 4 year old could calculate . The only disgrace here is you insulting my attitude without bothering to read what I wrote and putting false quotes into your discussion of my comment to back up your opinion.

"BUT THEN, we shouldn't be able to think for ourselves should we."

You should be able to think for yourself, but unfortunately, the size of your brain is holding you back from achieving this goal.

The recurring theme of attack against mine and others' comments in this blog is the manipulation that disputing feminism means that you are up-tight, sexist, a religious fundamentalist or have some problem relating to women or a "disgusting attitude" etc. Well I'm sorry, I just don't buy it. I'm quite confident that my attitudes to relationships are nowhere near approaching the aforementioned and frankly, there are a few important women in my life (all of them complete with a brain and independent thought) and I don't think that my attitude towards any of them is unhealthy in any way at all but thank you for your concern, I'll let them know that you are thinking of them in this time of crisis.

Good grief I wish people had brains. Great work as always Catherine. Don't let these prudish, childish idiots who think sex is naughty get you down. They just need to grow up. Fast. Maybe after they get weaned off their mother's milk they'll open their eyes and FINALLY see the world for what it really is. If they don't like your blogs why do they keep reading them?