Melon Farmers

phantom    [29187.   Posted 19-May-2013 Sun 07:29]
  Hm, not sure, Cor.
Now, I`ve not really formed a strong opinion on this one for or against censorship. Frankly, if anything, I`m rather muddled.

But I don`t think one can just write off the dangers as exaggeration and scaremongering.

This new technology is making something possible which hitherto was not.
Anyone with zero technical knowledge (and education and knowledge are usually very efficient filters) could produce a gun, with a 3D printer and a nail as a firing pin.
True, they still won`t have any ammo. But there`s a reason we don`t at the moment sell guns in supermarkets, saying that without ammunition they`re of no use.
The manufacture of a gun on a 3D printer and its possible proliferation via the internet clearly appears to be a very significant step.
Now true, something tells me that the authorities are wasting their time trying to suppress things (as they always do), because the genie is effectively out of the bottle.
It`s only a matter of time and there will be a nigh on limitless variety of CAD blueprints for 3D guns out there.
That said, this one seems a legitimate reason for concern. Guns are dangerous by definition and are inherently destabilising.
For not merely would such DIY devices be handy for bank robbers, but entire insurrections might happen via this path.

As usual for such developments the threats are both direct (i.e. the guns) and indirect (i.e. the censorship). For it will be easy for the Teresa Mays of this world to argue that `something needs to be done`.
It has the makings of a perfect storm, the political will of both government and opposition united and the press closing ranks in vociferous support.

Whichever way one looks at it, there is no denying that this hands more ammunition (no pun intended) to the censorship lobby. It is certainly very relevant to anyone interested in what gets censored online. And any legislation that comes along may have unintended consequences which the Dianne Abbots and Claire Perrys of this world could exploit.

It`s very much a case of `watch this space`.

cor    [29186.   Posted 17-May-2013 Fri 12:41]
  phantom [29185]

i tend to think these things are blown out of proportion in order to take rights away from common people. Sure throw some kid in jail for owning a copy of the anarchists cook-book, but real terrorists will learn what they need from chemistry books, in library`s or on-line... the next logical step is to ban education. And not because idiots are easier to rule, but rather to `protect` people from themselves.

Similar with the 3D gun, anyone with little knowledge of CAD and a schematic or just a clear picture of any working gun can make one, gun powder is another matter, but are we going to ban pictures of guns next?

Basically i don`t think any legislation restricting information could make the world a safer place. In fact i think such legislation would be counter productive. Its worth knowing how to make nitroglycerin or plastic explosives, so i will know to inform the police if i see anyone buying the ingredients. Just like its worth knowing how easy it is to print a gun, so i will be adequately cautious around people who might have access to the necessary tools, and might be nuts enough to try.

phantom    [29185.   Posted 17-May-2013 Fri 03:45]
  I wonder what people here make of the recent free speech conundrums thrown up in the US. Apparently some instructions on how to make pressure cooker bombs as used in the Boston bombings are online and have been deemed – on free speech grounds – to be immune to any take down orders, etc.

Meanwhile, some gun zealot has produced a 3D printer gun on CAD and put the plans online. They were downloaded over 100,000 times before they were taken down. Right now the authorities seem to be attempting to stall him with legal claims on breeches of gun export licences, etc. But again there seems little chance in the long run of stopping this, unless one creates a new offence.

The overlap between these cases and the traditional anti censorship argument is plain to see. Yet clearly we are in very new and uncomfortable territory.
And it`s also only a matter of time until Maria Eagle, Diane Abbott or some other harpie compare the `dangers` of online porn to 3D printer guns or pressure cooker bombs.
After all, I bet they`ll feel that it`s `just as bad`.

But yes, here we do seem to be faced with a freedom of speech argument which protects the publication of information which has potential for truly lethal outcomes on an unprecedented scale.

The believers of the utility of guns (`guns don`t kill, people do`, etc) would argue that this is an idea the authorities do not like and thus which they seek to suppress. The very fact that the powers that be seem to have silenced the gun plan maker with rather specious legalistic argument just for the time being, seems to back up that point.
It is in essence a case of not liking the message and thus quashing it.
That said, I find myself rather dismayed by the message too. And I`m a wishy-washy libertarian...

I`d hence bee interested how people here see the arguments of freedom of expression and the possible consequences thereof in this context.

IanG    [29184.   Posted 15-May-2013 Wed 14:15]
  braintree, like they say, power corrupts and, these holier than thou types are the worst. At least the Judge seems to have been a little more level-headed.

braintree    [29183.   Posted 15-May-2013 Wed 13:24]
  I opted to plead guilty to various charges due to the fact that the police had created 87 charges - basically one for every dvd they found when searching my house - even my solicitor and barrister agreed this was an unusual move - so even if I had gone for a trial on the fisting/urination dvd`s I didn`t think it was worthwhile because there were plenty of other charges I couldn`t fight , although none related to "obscene" material , so my argument was why bother to go through more months of stress when I was guilty of other charges anyway . In the end I think the only thing that would have changed would have been that my sentence would have been longer. The 2 cases I was thinking of were the controversial prosecution of the gay guy ( can`t recall his name) who held a job of importance and the other case (last year ?) where similar content was put in front of a jury and in both cases the defendant was found not guilty because the content was deemed to be not obscene / extreme.. I would expect that the police and CPS routinely break their own rules and create spurious invented charges in order to get defendants to plead guilty to lesser ones . In my case the officer in charge of the case presented a file that was about 4 inches thick in which he writes down the content of every dvd they seized which lead to 87 charges .I wonder how many hours that took . I bargained the 87 charges down to 21 but the CPS insisted on keeping 2 for the OPA and refused to budge when I asked for those to be dropped . I think the Judge who sentenced me saw through the stupidity of the case . He gave me 4 months for each charge to run concurrently but Trading Standards and the CPS were refused any costs and any fines - I didn`t pay a penny . In an outright lie the prosecuting barrister stood up and claimed my computer contained porn in an attempt to keep my computer - and it never contained even one shred of any porn - not even the usual run of the mill stuff - but the Judge , clearly annoyed at their nonsense told them to simply delete the porn and return it to me . In the end they did get to keep a couple of dvd players , dvd recorders and a satellite receiver . After they seized the original dvd recorder and satbox they returned months later and claimed that because I had replaced the devices with new ones it showed I was still selling porn , furthermore they unearthed a box of dvd`s in my garage that I had completely forgotten about and went ahead and invented charges of intent to supply relating to some of those discs too . Unfortunately I was able to see first hand that criminals do actually work in the police and will break their own rules to further their careers.

sergio    [29182.   Posted 15-May-2013 Wed 05:03]
  BBFC R18 cuts for April 2013
Number of items= 55
No. Cuts=9
Cuts ratio=16%

Cuts of interest:
FUCKED! - DOUBLE DRILLED
Cuts required to remove non-consensual scenarios in which performers are chased, caught, and forced to submit to sex. Cuts made in accordance with BBFC Guidelines and policy and the Video Recordings Act 1984.

IanG    [29181.   Posted 14-May-2013 Tue 18:04]
  braintree, I don`t know when or if fisting has ever been put before a jury for `obscenity`. I believe you had the chance to do so but opted to plead gulty instead. What I do know is that the City of London Police cleared photos of anal fisting for public exhibition at the Barbican in 2008, presumably after consulting with the CPS.

To understand what`s going on at the BBFC we must understand what the VRA requires and what`s already been decided in court. The BBFC are required to "prevent any harm which may be caused"..."with special regard to viewing in the home where children may see the material". As we know, explicit vanilla consensual adult sex, as currently passed at R18, was declared safe for under 18s to view by the High Court in 2000. It is clear then that the BBFC/CPS believe that R18 type material MUST be safe for under 18s to view, thus ANY type of extraordinary sexual activity, such as urolagnia, fisting, choking, bondage, extreme insertions etc. which may be seen and copied by children, have some potential to "corrupt and deprave" - i.e. they are as the BBFC put it "potential obscenity".

In their annual report, the BBFC state that all harmful material is removed from R18 such that R18 contains only common (read `normal`) sexual activities such as cunnilingus, felatio and anal/vaginal penetration. Any potentially dangerous activities such as extreme insertions, choking/gagging, restraint etc. have been removed, along with any `potentially obscene` material - that is, IF seen by minors - such as fisting, urolagnia etc.

UK Juries do not believe hardcore porn can "corrupt and deprave" adults. Even scatalogical material was aquitted of obscenity in 1999 (Perrin v R) where only paying adults could access it. Perrin was only found guilty for the free clips on the website that could be viewed by anyone including children.

It is simply the fact that children might see something other than ordinary/common/`normal` sexual activities (that have been declared safe for them to view) that prevents the BBFC allowing `proper` hardcore material at R18. R18 only contains explicit consensual adult sex, it does not contain `hardcore` material which features activities which could well be `potentially obscene` if viewed (and copied) by youngsters.

This is of course why I`ve been saying OFCOM and ATVOD are acting totally illegally since they decided R18-type material was `harmful` to children. It isn`t and it never has been, as was confirmed in 2000 by order of the High Court based on the evidence from 30+ child welfare experts from around the world. Both OFCOM and ATVOD are acting contradictory to the way the UK`s media certification body, the BBFC, were ORDERED to interpret the law with regard to pornography by the High Court.

braintree    [29180.   Posted 14-May-2013 Tue 13:01]
  Surely the BBFC and the CPS should now remove fisting from the list of so called obscene acts , mainly because both times I know of when the footage has been shown to a jury it`s been cleared. Seems the CPS think they know better.
When was the last successful prosecution of fisting being found obscene by a jury ?

phantom    [29179.   Posted 14-May-2013 Tue 04:21]
  Regarding the CPS` professed change of heart.

"There has to be a likelihood of serious injury - this is more than just a risk ."

That is the point I`ve been banging on about since the year dot.
I recall writing letter after letter about this very point. What constitutes a likelihood? What is the difference between a likelihood and a risk? How likely must a likelihood be?

I always argued that it was the addition of the `likely` which turned this from a bad law into a law of nigh on limitless potential for harm.
After all, anything can be deemed likely. Just pay the prosecutor enough money and he`ll argue that vigorous coitus may cause physical harm.

It is nice to see that they now - five years into this debacle - actually acknowledge that they have a problem with that point, albeit that I`m sure they feel that this is merely a detail which can be dealt with by issuing some more arbitrary guidelines, plucked out of thin air.

I would like to take this opportunity to highlight the view of former Labour MP Eric Martlew (he didn`t contest his seat at the last election, having chosen to spend more time with his family, after his expenses were published), whom I met regarding this law and who at the time proved very hostile to any criticism of anything issued forth by the Blair/Brown duumvirate.

He assured me that no law was really comprehensible (thus, this one didn`t need to be) and that any problem or lack of clarity would be thrashed out and defined in the courts (thus, obvious errors or broad ambiguities I was pointing out needn`t be amended by parliament).

So, after such lackadaisical parliamentary scrutiny and five years of legal farce involving tigers, Frosties and mayoral aides we now finally are getting to a point where the CPS are at least beginning to concede there is a problem.

We all know now that this law is going to stay. We all know that it has supplanted the OPA as the punitive tool of choice of the police and CPS by now. We all know that the LibDem carrot of the Great Repeal Act is never going to happen (Clegg thought it too much hard work (!!!) and handed it to Theresa May`s Tory Home Office, where it has died an inevitable death.).

But at least now some of the most frightening potential of this Blairite horror story is being cropped back with the prosecutors beginning to acknowledge that it can`t be made to fit anything to which they choose to apply it.

But it is frustrating to think that, had some MPs like Eric `Expenses` Martlew listened to the warnings, then people like Simon Walsh would not have had their lives ruined for no reason at all.

So I think we should consider the fiascos surrounding the Dangerous Pictures Act so far as a fitting monument to Eric `Expenses` Martlew and friends.

Yes, you were right, Mr Martlew, the courts are thrashing things out and gradually the statute is becoming more defined.
And, I guess, the destruction of people like Walsh is a price worth paying in this evolution.
After all, the alternative would have been for MPs to apply proper scrutiny to the law at the time of its transition through parliament. Unthinkable.

sergio    [29178.   Posted 14-May-2013 Tue 02:17]
  `The chokers and the "idiots" and the men who are still happy to have sex with a tired, unhappy, defensive woman all exist. And if you are a sex worker, how do you know whether your next client will be one of them?`

How do you know when you will die! GEt out of this totally unsafe `profession`! Your next client will kill you!

Feminism 101.
------

`The inevitable response to the Invisible Men Project will be that these opinions have been cherry-picked, and are not representative of what I imagine is probably now referred to as "the punting community". While there is some truth in that - from what I can see, the majority of posts on Punternet are merely quietly depressing...`

Truth? There is some truth in that the comments have been cherry picked?
OMG! Men really are depressing.

sergio    [29177.   Posted 13-May-2013 Mon 07:22]
  My email to BBFC:
The CPS seems to have altered/changed/rethought their attitude to
fisting images.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/extreme_pornography/
b) An act which results in or is likely to result in serious injury to
a person`s anus, breast or genitals; this could include the insertion
of sharp objects (although in some circumstances this can be done in a
way that is not likely to result in serious injury) or the mutilation
of breasts or genitals. It is likely to be difficult to prove that
cases of `fisting` involve images that show activity that is likely to
result in serious injury so these cases need to be handled with
particular care. Serious injury is not defined in the Act and should
be given its ordinary dictionary meaning, being a question of fact for
the District Judge or jury.

Will the BBFC being altering/changing/rethinking their attitude to
these video images?
---------------------------

Reply from BBFC:
`The guidance you have quoted from relates to the offence of possession of extreme pornography under the terms of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. However, the BBFC does not cut images of this particular practice on those grounds. We cut such images from sex works, and did so long before the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act was introduced, on the basis of potential obscenity. Current advice from the relevant enforcement agencies suggests that sex works containing images of this practice remain likely to be considered obscene under the terms of the Obscene Publications Act. `

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [29176.   Posted 13-May-2013 Mon 07:03]
  Sergio, many thanks, an interesting update.

The CPS have a disgraceful attitude that they will never say that they accept that fisting isn`t likely to be harmful, and so not prosecute it. They seem to have their own morality in which fisting is harmful, but they are only backing off because (non existant) harm is unsurprisingly hard to prove.

phantom    [29175.   Posted 12-May-2013 Sun 13:07]
  Alright... who`s going to tell the Daily Mail? lol

sergio    [29174.   Posted 12-May-2013 Sun 12:00]
  Cps changes law
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/extreme_pornography/
b) An act which results in or is likely to result in serious injury to a person`s anus, breast or genitals; this could include the insertion of sharp objects (although in some circumstances this can be done in a way that is not likely to result in serious injury) or the mutilation of breasts or genitals. It is likely to be difficult to prove that cases of `fisting` involve images that show activity that is likely to result in serious injury so these cases need to be handled with particular care. Serious injury is not defined in the Act and should be given its ordinary dictionary meaning, being a question of fact for the District Judge or jury.

sergio    [29173.   Posted 12-May-2013 Sun 11:48]
  http://lawandsexuality.wordpress.com/2013/05/12/extreme-porn-event

Not sure of date.

--------
Jackofkent still not published his article on shit play extreme porn Simon Walsh case.

cor    [29172.   Posted 12-May-2013 Sun 10:22]
  Spiderschwein[29171]

Just a few counter points you`ve probably already thought of..

"it is genuinely unhealthy to be as thin as is demanded"
well, I`ve seen reports stating that underweight people will live longer and age slower due to a process in the body that slows the Hayflick phenomenon during periods of fasting. This may be controversial but no one is arguing that fat people live longer..

"a lot of the pressure amongst teenage girls to lose ridiculous quantities of weight.."
and a lot of pressure amongst teenage girls and boys to gain ridiculous quantities of weight from the fast food industry "I`m loving it" slogan should be "I`m getting fat".

"I`m a fat bastard anyhow" - yes me too, and enough people are like us that they call it an epidemic, so where the hell is all the thin people? maybe we need more pressure from the magazines lol.


phantom[29170]
Just to point out, i see very few beards on men in porn... where is the moral outrage lol.

Spiderschwein    [29171.   Posted 12-May-2013 Sun 02:35]
  Although Gustave Courbet`s "L`Origine du Monde" did have a full on bush, and the lady in question was no stick insect either. Mainly because he was trying to break from the smooth, idealistic nudes of academic artists, and was considered a lot more erotic as a result of this, and Shakespeare referred in his "Venus & Adonis" to "sweet bottom grass."

And indeed, in pr0n and erotic art for a long time after that, everything was hairy, pretty much, and the lawn wasn`t really mowed on a widespread basis until the 1990s, and waxing, eletrolysis, and multi-bladed razors had already been around for many years by then.

I do think that a lot of idealised body images nowadays are rather unrealistic and deeply unpleasant in what is pushed, and I do think something should be done about it, but I. this is usually in mainstream advertising and fashion photography, not pr0n, II. it is genuinely unhealthy to be as thin as is demanded, III. the thing that should be done is clearly not to ban it or adopt a sledgehammer-to-crack-a-nut regulations like compulsory minimum sizes for models but to spread awareness that it`s all because of photoshop and self-induced vomiting that this happens, IV. the fashion industry is a plastic-walled money trench ruled over by snobbish he-bitches so nobody with any sense takes it seriously, V. a lot of the pressure amongst teenage girls to lose ridiculous quantities of weight and look like supermodels comes from, yes, other teenage girls, not from external influences, or from their boy friends, who are just thankful on the whole that any female would give them the time of day, and VI. I`m a fat bastard anyhow, so what do I know :P

phantom    [29170.   Posted 11-May-2013 Sat 15:09]
  Ah yes, the shaved fanny... :)
It`s simple.

- People see shaved genitalia in porn.
- Porn is bad and makes people do bad things.
- Thus, people are shaving due to porn. Manipulated. Devoid of free will.

Hence the alliance of feminists and the religious against the denuded pubis. These days the universal evil is no longer `the devil drink`. It`s porn. And they`re seeking to establish an altogether new prohibition era. No doubt, because the first one worked so well.... ;)
And they`ll clutch at any argument.

But please, someone take a look at art. Yep, I`m all highbrow again. My apologies. The pure aesthetes of artistic creation never seemed much taken by the idea of a woolly nether region. If anything it tends to be a whisp.
So one might say that, from a aesthetic perspective, the denuded - or at least thoroughly trimmed - pubic area has been established for the past five hundred years. So don`t blame Heffner. Blame Leonardo.

It thus can be argued that people were waiting for the right technology to come along, rather than it being the malign influence of internet porn.

And talking of technology, it`s worth pointing out that it was one of those technology providers - namely Wilkinson Sword - who were at the source of ladies shaving their armpits. Apparently it was some PR guru`s brilliant idea to market shaving kit for female underarm grooming on the basis of aesthetics and hygiene.
It caught on and nowadays people here make jokes about many continental ladies not doing the same thing.

So yes, if the religious decry porn as evil for inducing pubic shaving then - by the same logic - they must do the same for Wilkinson Sword.
Else they`re logic is flawed. God vs Wilkinson sword would be an interesting contest....

I say this only about the religious, as the feminists more than likely refuse to shave their underarms anyhow. Which is much the way they feel about trimming nasal hair, controlling body odour - or dieting....

Spiderschwein    [29169.   Posted 11-May-2013 Sat 03:37]
  I have to say, although I`m no fan of the shaved quim (I much prefer a nice muff) it is a mountain out of a molehill. What business is it of others if some people choose to denude their genitals?

mediasnoops2    [29168.   Posted 9-May-2013 Thu 14:24]
  Feminist organisations have aligned themselves with Christian groups to try and supress sexuality and free sexual expression. However the motivation of feminists and Christians are different but aim for the same censorship and bans.

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [29167.   Posted 9-May-2013 Thu 07:00]
  Shaun

Yes I think that is she. The cap seems to be the mayoral hat

http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&ie=UTF-8&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.antarafoto.com%2Fperistiwa%2Fv1341387025%2Fpelantikan-walikota-banda-aceh.

It will ne interesting if she replies. I bet she hardly hears a dissenting voice

Shaun    [29166.   Posted 9-May-2013 Thu 06:23]
  https://www.facebook.com/hjilliza.saaduddindjamal

Is this the same woman who wants to give gays 100 lashes in public ?

I`ve just told her what I think about her, with apologies if it isn`t the same woman.

It`s completely barbaric.

Therumbler    [29164.   Posted 8-May-2013 Wed 13:03]
  The Christian organisations have their own MPs too. Perry for the internet, Fiona Bruce for abortion. CARE for instance pays £3000 a year to a pro-life committee of MPs and Lords.

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [29163.   Posted 8-May-2013 Wed 10:41]
  Therumbler

I guess the Christian organisations are quietly funded from the US and somehow appear to be a lot larger than they really are. Grass roots feminists aren`t backed and have to make do with low numbers and low resources. However I reckon the feminists win the day when they have a friendly government minister to push ther demands, thinking Harriet Hatemen and Vera Baird

IanG    [29162.   Posted 8-May-2013 Wed 10:30]
  Harvey, I know what you mean but, lets not get sexist about it, porn is not just a sex aid for men. There`s a whole range of pornographic materials out there that appeal to all tastes and sexes - some is even made by women for women as, indeed, some is made by gay people for gay people.

On a more general note, one question that still goes unanswered is: What exactly is so wrong about enjoying sex? And: What is so offensive about the human body and sex?

The anti-porn lobby seem to assume anything to do with sex and nudity is automatically offensive but, I can find no reason or rationale for this point of view. Indeed, there is no reason or rationale behind this point of view. Children show no shame or bashfulness so, one must conclude they are taught to feel shame and that this is deemed `right` - of course that`s something Naturists and porn lovers manage to overcome (or never experience at all) without suffering any ill effects.

Indeed, studies show that anyone can overcome that learned `offended` response to public nudity, and overturn their belief that nudity is `just wrong` - all that`s required to put people`s minds striaght again is a few hours exposure to naked people. One suspects that the same is true for other `pornographic`/`offensive` imagery and that through regular exposure we can all come to accept that sex and nudity are perfectly normal and natural and nothing to get our knikers in a twist about. It is simply a matter of desensitisation, enlightenment and the realisation that something so fundamental to our very being and existence is not `harmful` nor should it be seen as `offensive`.

Therumbler    [29161.   Posted 8-May-2013 Wed 10:05]
  Who else agrees with me that almost all attempts to oppress sexual activity and media in this country appear to stem from Christian organisations? Feminist organisations appear to run a distant second compared to them.

MichaelG    [29160.   Posted 7-May-2013 Tue 22:52]
  The `Professionally Offended` make their voices heard yet again:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2321054/Fifth-TV-viewers-offended-violence-sex-screens-past-year.html

Therumbler    [29159.   Posted 4-May-2013 Sat 17:14]
  It`s the age old tradition of spinning opinion into fact.

Remember the Manhunt controversy years ago. Every person with an opinion on violent games wanted it banned when it was said to have belonged to the murderer. Then it turned out it belonged to the victim.

In this case it should be noted that the victim also owned the game, yet he`s been described as `polite` in some reports.

mediasnoops2    [29158.   Posted 4-May-2013 Sat 15:50]
  The article quotes someone from the Scottish Police Federation as saying video games contributed to this tragic murder. That has been taking as some kind of proof by the Daily Mail that a video game caused this murder. But it is not proof it`s just an opinion.

Therumbler    [29157.   Posted 4-May-2013 Sat 12:35]
  In regards to that DM article on the wi-fi filtering did you notice that there was a couple of quotes from a campaigner?

Which campaigner, you say?

I don`t know. Why?

Because they aren`t named.

MichaelG    [29156.   Posted 3-May-2013 Fri 22:56]
  Daily Mail Bullshit Blame Bingo 67,905:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2318846/13-year-old-Xbox-player-slashed-friends-throat-knife-row-met-online-playing-ultra-violent-game-Gears-War-3.html

So, the attacker is 13 and he`s already a father? And his parents obviously think the `18` cert on these games is there purely for decoration. Zero responsibility taken for anything as usual nowadays. So here`s a radical concept that could put paid to this once and for all - if a child under 18 is caught playing their own copy of an 18-rated game then fine the parents. If a parent is caught buying an 18-rated game in a shop for their child (and I`ve witnessed this first hand, mother and 11 year old kid take game to counter, shop assistant asks "Are you buying this for your son?", "Yes", "Did you realise it`s an `18` cert game?", "But he wants it!") then fine them. £1,000 ought to be a suitable deterrent. After all, shopkeepers get fined for selling age-restricted games to kids, why should parents escape prosecution for buying them for them or allowing them to play them?

Might put an end to these bullshit headlines too...

Harvey    [29155.   Posted 3-May-2013 Fri 16:56]
  IanG [29153]

Great post.

Yes. It`s a sex aid.

For men.

Some women may enjoy it, but predominantly, that`s the case.

The political feminist wants to change the gender power balance, so taking men`s porn away makes perfect sense.

Therumbler    [29154.   Posted 3-May-2013 Fri 16:48]
  Modesty hotline launched by London rabbis

http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/106984/modesty-hotline-launched-london-rabbis-0

IanG    [29153.   Posted 3-May-2013 Fri 08:33]
  DarkAngels/Dave/Harvey, the effects of porn are pretty straightforward. They`re the same as those we experience when having sex and/or masturbating. Sex and masturbation are completely normal and natural activities enjoyed by millions worldwide every minute of every day. Porn is simply a substitute for, or supplement to real sex. It is a sex aid.

I do not see any difference in being turned on by looking at pictures of other people and being turned on by looking at my partner, a mental image of a partner (an ex say) or, even a complete fantasy involving someone you fancy at work. There`s clearly no concern over a partner turning you on, so why should there be any over pictures of other people turniong you on?

Sex is so fundamental to our existence that it cannot possibly harm us in any way, shape, or form barring STIs and complications during pregnancy. Evolution and natural selection cannot produce creatures that are harmed by the sight or sound of their own means of reproduction.

Sexual repression is far more harmful than sexual openness and free expression. How many more paedophile priests and child abusing TV personalities brought up in the golden era of porn-free Britain, will it take to convince people that sexual repression, sexual abstinence and denial of our sexual needs is extremely bad for us?

There is no evidence that porn is harmful for the simple fact that porn is not harmful. It is simply an aid to sex and masturbation, which we all know to be good for us and, indeed, is backed up with clinical studies proving the health benefits of relieving sexual tension physically, mentally and emotionally.

Of course this has all been pretty much accepted as common sense. However, the anti-porn lobby has now climbed on the `objectification` and `degradation` bandwagon. My question to them is: What`s so degrading about using our sexuality to bring pleasure to others? This is after all the crux of ALL relationships (and not just in humans). Many intelligent animals have sex just for pleasure and to strengthen social bonds.

Moreover, the whole crux of the `objectification` argument relies upon a stereotype of `men` that is utterly demeaning and degrading to men. These PC fascists claim to be against stereotyping (at least of women) but, they`re just fine laying into some non-exiestent `knckle dragging Neanderthal` every man that likes porn is characterised as. I am an avid porn fan and I`m absolutely certain I`ve never treated ANY of the women I`ve ever known as anything but fellow human beings. If men were anything like this `objectifier or womem` the rabid PC fanatics claim, then the world would be a very different place indeed. Women would be treated like sex slaves. They would NEVER have been given the vote. Young girls would sent off to learn all the arts of the prostitutes. And women would be publically flogged for dissent.

Males and females are hardwired to seek out each other`s company and indulge each other`s sexual needs. Most of us are absolutely fine with this arrangement. So just what`s going on inside that rabid PC feminist `brain` beats the hell out of me and, I`ve no doubt, most normal right-minded women too. One thing`s for sure, if moms and dads hadn`t been getting together for countless generations before us, none of us would be here today.

Spiderschwein    [29152.   Posted 3-May-2013 Fri 04:44]
  @Therumbler

I think you`re onto something with the poverty angle. The old school establishment types, Daily Mail/right nutter groups find the idea that the little people have disposable income to be galling towards them, because it means they`re less reliant on them. The church mob don`t like it because of the whole "blessed are the meek" etc., and the Bollinger Bolsheviks from whom a lot of the PC/left nutter groups emerged don`t like the idea that people have disposable income because they`ll be at risk of somehow betraying their class and/or joining the bourgeoisie or otherwise failing to support them.

At times, they openly brag about how ordinary people having disposable income is bad. Google "affluenza" if you will. But at its root, disposable income means independence, which means less ability to be controlled by the powers that be of whatever stripe through financial means. It`s exploded the "which side are you on" politics of the past and that makes politicians uneasy.

Therumbler    [29151.   Posted 2-May-2013 Thu 10:47]
  In my opinion there is a Christian element working behind the scenes in both the press and parliament.

Claire Perry`s inquiry was sponsored by a Christian organisation for instance.

We know the Mail is pro-Christian, as demonstrate by the recent headline than said it was an insult for minority faiths and lifestyles to have equality with them in the work place.

Also, I`ve noted that in recent articles on the subject on the Telegraph`s websites that a few tweets that refer to the articles (found at the bottom of the pages) are from members of CARE, and usually they of an alarmist nature or pessimistic. CARE provides staff for MPs, and some MPs don`t even know so.

Additionally, I think there is a definite feeling in the political class that the general public has too much money. Take any issue commonly seen on Melonfarmers or in the media in general, and you could probably describe them in part as people expressing their wealth as they see fit and/or trying to emulate those with wealth. This is particularly so in issues regarding fashion and beauty.

In my opinion, there are probably a few MPs out there who would prefer to see most people poor just so that their `moral character` could be kept in check.

sergio    [29150.   Posted 2-May-2013 Thu 06:16]
  I reckon there is more to the `porn might be harmfull` narrative. There is some social engineering aspects to it. Compare with the `cars are harmfull` narratives.

MichaelG    [29149.   Posted 1-May-2013 Wed 12:29]
  Re: Violence and guns in best-selling video games

...and with STILL nothing after all these years by way of any real evidence that violent video games lead to real life violence, the point of this is what?

Nicely drawn though...

Harvey    [29148.   Posted 1-May-2013 Wed 11:22]
  DarkAngel [29144]

First, you need to be clear about your definitions of things such as `porn` and `harm` BEFORE you start collecting data about whether `porn` causes `harm`.

Second, simply looking for correlation isn`t really helpful. Draw a graph of insurance loss to fire damage versus number of fire brigade call-outs and you`ll see a striking correlation. Does this imply calling out the fire brigade results in greater fire damage? Obviously not, but that`s pretty much the `Reading Penthouse causes rape` result you mentioned.

Third, inferences are no better. To say that because we observed X, and later observed Y, that Y must have resulted from X. Complete nonsense, but a favourite of politicians. And that`s pretty much the University of Hawaii`s study of sex crimes in Japan. I`m not even sure whether they looked at whether porn use or porn availability actually changed when the law was eased, or they just assumed it was likely.

A scientific approach would be to create a randomised control trial where groups of subjects would be selected to receive varying `doses` of porn and then studied to measure the occurrence of harm. There must be a control group who think they are being given porn, but actually it`s just a sugar pill. It`s also important that the people measuring the effects don`t know to which group the subjects belong. Then you look to see if the result is statistically significant, then you publish your results. Then someone else tries to replicate the same thing in a different RCT study. Then if you have established a relationship between porn and harm you really need to find out WHY and HOW porn causes harm, otherwise you might just make a decision which has unforeseen and undesirable consequences.

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [29147.   Posted 1-May-2013 Wed 07:15]
  Re Daily Mail

I missed this from a couple of weeks ago. The topic is more to do with issues such as pressure for girls to slim but the Daily Mail is taking a good knock from the Guardian. And it`s about the same old female hacks that spout about internet porn and the like.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/apr/04/samantha-brick-thrown-to-wolves

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [29146.   Posted 30-Apr-2013 Tue 20:02]
  DarkAngel

I find it tough to grant much significance to any of them. They are always trying to study marginal effects amongst a sea of major influences such as wealth, life style, and upbringing.

They say drinking red wine is healthy...but it probably just means that being wealthy is healthy.

It seems that you are not the only one thinking that porn studies are in need of more stringgent criticism

http://lawandsexuality.wordpress.com/2013/04/30/new-journal-porn-studies/

The editors, Feona Attwood (Middlesex University) and Clarissa Smith (University of Sunderland), and Routledge are pleased to announce the launch of a new journal devoted to the study of pornography.

Porn Studies is the first dedicated, international, peer-reviewed journal to critically explore those cultural products and services designated as pornographic and their cultural, economic, historical, institutional, legal and social contexts. Porn Studies will publish innovative work examining specifically sexual and explicit media forms, their connections to wider media landscapes and their links to the broader spheres of (sex) work across historical periods and national contexts.

mediasnoops2    [29145.   Posted 30-Apr-2013 Tue 12:51]
  Thanks for posting my piece about the liberal media and anti-sex attitudes.
I truly believe The Guardian is turning into the Daily Mail when it comes to sex. Except they hide their prudishness behind concern for women`s rights.

DarkAngel5    [29144.   Posted 30-Apr-2013 Tue 10:56]
  Hi there

There are a lot of studies on the net claiming to demonstrate that porn is either good or bad.

I`m aware of the one published by Milton Diamond on the University of Hawaii website that shows that sexual related crimes in Japan decreased once porn was legalised there and I`m aware that theres a few showing how widespread internet usage appears to have lead to an overall decrease of sex crimes, presumably due to the ability to download porn.

However, theres a few studies on the other side of the fence claiming that porn is bad, one which is constantly being banded about by anti-porn campaigners is the one from the University of New Hampshire, which showed that the states with the highest readership of pornographic magazines like Playboy and Penthouse, also had the highest rape rates.

So, being objective. How do we know which studies are mostly likely to be accurate? I personally don`t think porn is harmful, but being a man of science have to be open to the possibility I might be wrong. So, is there any easy way of sorting the wheat from the chaf? Google just brings up loads of random studies.

I`d particularly be interested in reading a rebuttal piece to the University of New Hampshires claims (google not being very helpful).

phantom    [29143.   Posted 29-Apr-2013 Mon 06:06]
  re: A Little Spat...

Superb.
I`m beginning to wonder how many people in my lifetime are going to be offended by statuary.
Wasn`t it John Ashcroft, the Attorney General of George W Bush, who had the allegorical statues of justice in the atrium of his department hidden behind drapery to avoid being offended by them?

I will never quite understand the ability of some to find offence in statues. After all statues are inanimate. They possess a certain nobility. Usually they represent a spiritual ideal, in an idealised physical form.
It is very hard to imagine them as `real`. In that regard they are as far removed from pornography as one really can get.
But nonetheless some (usually the fanatical) can somehow find fault in marble. All I can imagine is that achieving such a state of offendedness with statues must take considerable effort. I wonder how many calories it burns...

If I`m not mistaken old Plato is known to have criticised Greek statuary for its `pornographic` realism. He much preferred the stylised, less realistic stuff, apparently.
No doubt, in-keeping with all prudes through the ages he will have deemed the latter `more tasteful` and `less offensive`.
But then dear old Plato is generally viewed as the father of western morality. It`s thus only fitting that he is also seen as one of the first prudes on record.
But then Plato at least has the excuse of being a fourth century BC philosopher. You know, back in the fourth century BC there were still plenty of odd ideas around.
I`m not sure if with those living 25 five centuries later we can be quite that forgiving...

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [29142.   Posted 27-Apr-2013 Sat 20:39]
  Goatboy

Interesting to hear that Ren & Stimpy is still making the censorship news.

There is probably a bit of a psychological battle about the censorship of online content. At the moment it is not required but the authorities are keen to push for voluntary submission.

I should think the BBFC are quite used to their rulings being ignored, as TV companies often come to different decisions about censorship. However the issue of posting a PG when its not, is probably an issue

goatboy    [29141.   Posted 27-Apr-2013 Sat 06:10]
  Was unsure whether to post this or not, but as I assume it`ll be pointed out to them eventually anyway, what the hell. In recent weeks Netflix UK has been praised by the broadsheets for getting it`s original series cleared for internet by the bbfc- but there are one or two things on Netflix UK that the bbfc might not be as happy about. For a start, the Lord Loves A Hangin` song from the end of Ren & Stimpy s01e09, which the bbfc said was unsuitable at any rating due to the work`s otherwise appeal to kids, is there in all it`s glory, listed as having a PG rating. Whoops!

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [29140.   Posted 26-Apr-2013 Fri 22:22]
  Phantom, re fall in violent crime

Interesting indeed...perhaps it should be pinned as a background article to be recalled whenever the nutters claim that their pet grievance will lead to the end of civilisation as we know it.

Therumbler

I loved the Anne Frank story. It seems ironic that such a petty whinge about obscenity is somehow more important than the subject of the book, one of mankind`s greatest obscenities.

Thanks for the broken link tip, it was deleted by my system as it thought it was a paywall site. I have updated the settings.

phantom    [29139.   Posted 26-Apr-2013 Fri 07:55]
  Did any of you catch this story on the BBC the day before yesterday?
It made the telly news, not merely the beeb`s online pages.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22275280

And note it states that this come about despite a reduction in police numbers...

But the elephant in the room throughout this piece was the missing question:
If we`ve got all these violent movies and computer games and all the porn is turning every man into a potential rapist, pray, how can it be that the entire western world - including fair Albion - is becoming a more peaceful place with less violent crime?
Could it just possibly be that the Saw franchise or Gears of War are not turning people into serial killers?

Sadly though the BBC didn`t see fit to annoy the usual suspects in that way. So we were simply presented with the news that the world is becoming a better place. :)

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [29138.   Posted 26-Apr-2013 Fri 02:37]
  IanG

Here`s a study that supports your stance of asking how can the depiction of something so natural, so commonplace, and so central to our lives, be harmful

http://www.inquisitr.com/635026/pornography-isnt-as-bad-for-teens-as-previously-thought-study/

Its a good job really, we already have a whole generation of people brought up on easy access to porn. It seems to me that that most obviously harmful result is that young people seem to have adopted an excessively PC attitude to life. I blame the porn!

And here`s another peice accepting that porn isnt all bad

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/10019617/School-pupils-should-be-taught-not-all-porn-is-bad-advise-experts.html

Therumbler    [29137.   Posted 25-Apr-2013 Thu 11:32]
  Here`s something you`d never expect to read: A mother complains about pornographic content in Anne Frank`s Diary.

http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/story/22056965/northvillle-mother-files-complaint-about-passages-in-the-diary-of-ann-frank

Therumbler    [29136.   Posted 25-Apr-2013 Thu 10:36]
  FYI - The link for `Afghan clerics ask for televised drama to be banned` is broken.

IanG    [29135.   Posted 25-Apr-2013 Thu 06:22]
  So, despite the FACT that there`s no evidence to show `adult material` is harmful to anyone, its now politically expedient to violate everyone`s Right to Freedom of Expression if they don`t have access to a private Internet connection?

In Cameron`s `better world` it will be impossible for anyone in a public library to carry out reaserch via the internet involving anything deemed/pertaining/regarding `adult material`.

NOBODY WANTS OR NEEDS THIS TYPE OF BASELESS CENSORSHIP!

Needless to say, the folks calling for this type of violation of basic Human Rights are stuck at the anger/protest stage of the process of change from their pointless sexually repressed book burning Victorian/Religious `values` mindset, to the sexually open and interconnected 21st century. We`ve had unfettered access to porn via the Internet for almost 20 years yet these mindless little shits still can`t get over it. It`s time Britain threw off its backward, hateful, pointless aversion to sex and porn, and accepted that its ALL part of life and, indeed, CIVILISATION. Porn has been around for thousands of years and in all that time its never done anyone any harm. Indeed, it is those who pretend to be `clean living` or of a `higher moral standard` than the rest of humanity that seem to go about abusing women and children to satisfy what should be their normal, natural, inherant sexual desires. We are sexual creatures and it damages us physically, mentally and emotionally to deny that fact and neglect our inherant sexual needs. This is PROVEN scientific FACT.

MichaelG    [29134.   Posted 25-Apr-2013 Thu 03:46]
  Daily Mail Bullsh*t Blame Bingo 7,893:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2314461/Violent-games-led-knife-gang-lose-touch-reality-slayed-budding-footballer-15.html

So many things wrong about this it`s difficult to know where to start, but for openers, how about a copper making statements like this with nothing in the way of evidence to back it up - doesn`t generate a great deal of confidence in police procedures, does it?

This is just another crass sweeping statement of the kind that led to the banning of `Child`s Play` and subsequent burning of videos in the street. I`d like to think that we`ve moved on (even if the Mail haven`t) and that kind of thing won`t happen again off the back of pig-ignorant (pun intended), off-the-cuff, overly-opinionated remarks like this...

sergio    [29133.   Posted 25-Apr-2013 Thu 02:27]
  "Pornography is an industry... [it] is the literature of prostitution," she said - Germaine Greer

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-22261144

Is it `feminist` thinking or just Germaine Greer thinking?

Anna Arrowsmith seems to like to talk about the (to my mind) mythical `feminist porn`.

Why does Germaine Greer limit it to `literature`? Isn`t this meaningless? Do prostitutes write best sellers? (hey! Brooke Magnanti!).

If prostitution involves money then what about free books? Is it not pornography because no one gets paid? What about film. If no one gets paid making it then it is not pornography?
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography - amazing bit, that live sex shows are not pornography!)

Even with this definition `Pornography is the representation of the human body form or human sexual behaviour with the goal of sexual arousal` http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography_%28disambiguation%29 - it seems unsubtle and plain wrong.

Therumbler    [29132.   Posted 24-Apr-2013 Wed 10:44]
  http://news.sky.com/story/1082274/porn-bid-to-block-sex-sites-on-public-wifi

I wonder why Sky pulled the article on the wi-fi filtering plan.

sergio    [29131.   Posted 24-Apr-2013 Wed 01:05]
  Tube people are different.
They have different standards there.
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/theatre-dance/news/investigation-launched-over-offensive-sexually-suggestive-mies-julie-poster-8575944.html

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [29130.   Posted 23-Apr-2013 Tue 22:20]
  Re pecs and `everything a "woman" does is good, everything a "man" does is bad`

The Fifty Shades of Grey film has just started generating a few stories from the production. Perhaps this will provide a few more examples of `whatever turns you on...as long as you are a woman`

sergio    [29129.   Posted 23-Apr-2013 Tue 09:59]
  Is there a word for `everything a "woman" does is good, everything a "man" does is bad`?

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/features/street-art-is-like-a-dog-urinating-on-a-wall-rare-female-street-artist-deedee-cheriel-describes-working-in-a-mans-world-8579135.html

phantom    [29128.   Posted 23-Apr-2013 Tue 05:32]
  News from the movie front.
The Sunday times contained a lovely article on page 34 this weekend. (I can`t provide a link as online it`s a pay site)

The article was called `Pecs appeal woos women film fans`.

In essence it spells out how in more and more mainstream Hollywood movies there nowadays is a moment when the male lead actor `casually discards his shirt to reveal a toned torso`.
To illustrate this the article comes with a shot of Matt Damon peeling off his vest in the movie `Elysium`.
So ubiquitous has this feature now become it has its own Hollywood terminology: `the upshirt`.
Moreover scriptwriters have been told that it`s `essential` to have at least one such scene in a movie these days.
Apparently the term was coined when Eva Longoria on the set of `Desperate Housewives` insisted on ever more retakes for a scene with the hunky gardener removing his shirt.
Vincent Bruzzese, chief executive of the film consultancy Wordwide Motion Picture Group which advises major studios is quoted saying this:
“Old plot devices to get a woman to drop her clothes are stale, and women do not like them. The new way is to make it look accidental, as if the strong, independent woman just stumbled in on a guy undoing his shirt. Then she can walk away without appearing diminished, threatened or even attracted.”
Karen Steinheimer of the University of Southern California, ` men did not mind being watched, as some women do, because it reinforces their sense of power`.

Now I`m not too sure if women showing flesh is `stale` these days, but I know that the vociferous wimmin`s lobby always decry it as abhorrent exploitation.
However, the male of the species has no pressure group to decry such `objectification`. Frankly, we don`t really care. Objectification, schmobjectification... :)
Thus, here we are. It`s a brave new world. All so Julia Roberts can be `the strong independent woman`. You see, it`s not that women are as shallow as men. No, this is all about girl power. Yeah!

The double standard here is so blatant, it`s almost scary. But hey, if Matt Damon showing off his six pack suffices to shut up Dianne Abbott and her fellow feminist martyrs, then why not? So go on, Matt. Make `em happy...

But please ladies. The deal is clear. Next time some movie contains a `stale` scene with a woman flashing a better set of buttocks than you have, shut up and think of Brad`s pecs. Ok?

Thank you. :)

mediasnoops2    [29127.   Posted 20-Apr-2013 Sat 13:10]
  Guns don`t kill people footballers do...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2312008/Jay-Bothroyd-Anger-Premier-League-star-shows-gangsta-tattoo.html

I don`t mean to be disrespectful to a man who lost his son but I am tired of Richard Taylor being held up by the right-wing media as the unquestionable all knowing voice on gun and knife crime.

This is just like Richard Betts the father of Leah Betts who died after taking an ecstasy pill and was made the oracle on drugs!

sergio    [29126.   Posted 19-Apr-2013 Fri 10:19]
  `the Harriet Harman devotees around here`

You are joking, right? This document is so old.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/4949555/Harriet-Harman-under-attack-over-bid-to-water-down-child-pornography-law.html

jackdeth    [29125.   Posted 18-Apr-2013 Thu 13:27]
  May be of interest to some of the Harriet Harman devotees around here -

http://spotlightonabuse.wordpress.com/2013/04/18/the-pie-manifesto/

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [29124.   Posted 18-Apr-2013 Thu 01:23]
  MichaelG

Its a pretty innocuous list too. A bit much if we are supposed to worry about people watching Thelma and Louise

MichaelG    [29123.   Posted 17-Apr-2013 Wed 11:23]
  Here`s a non-story if ever there was one:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2309985/Hospital-Britain-s-evil-serial-killers-held-catalogue-DVDs-scenes-brutal-violence-kinky-sex.html

At least they`re not trying to blame the movies for them being in there in the first place this time...

phantom    [29121.   Posted 15-Apr-2013 Mon 06:08]
  mediasnoops2 [29120]
`Now so called liberals are calling for all ads aimed at under 11s to be banned...`

I`m not quite sure why you open with the tag of `so called liberals`.
The article doesn`t really mention liberals.
And the Greens - well, I guess they`d call themselves (that wonderful contemporary misnomer): `progressive`.

mediasnoops2    [29120.   Posted 13-Apr-2013 Sat 15:47]
  Now so called liberals are calling for all ads aimed at under 11s to be banned...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-22108722

Both people behind this campaign are Greens. It`s amazing how so many green activists think banning things is the answer to everything.

This is an attempt to impose an anti consumerist ideology on society.

Panic about consumerism destroying children is prevelent amongst middle class parents who want to appear superior to the parents of working class children buy not buying their kids expensive gadgets even though they can afford them.

Harvey    [29119.   Posted 13-Apr-2013 Sat 11:01]
  MF (Dave) [29116]

A perverted view of art

The article covers all the ground I`d expect. The author criticises the Tate`s decision to remove the Ovenden prints from their online collection as if it is a final judgement. I think we are still waiting for that.

But the author really should get a better understanding of the law. Describing an image of a 10-yr old Brooke Shields she says; "Although it was a provocative exploration of celebrity, it depicted nothing illegal." That might be so, but the subject being depicted is not the legal test which is applied to images of children, rather whether the image itself is indecent (if a photograph, or pseudo-photograph) or pornographic (if it is a drawing or painting)

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [29118.   Posted 13-Apr-2013 Sat 07:05]
  Therumbler
.
I loved the story about the one sided equality. Best irony for ages, has a wonderful sense of inevitability about it

mediasnoops2    [29117.   Posted 13-Apr-2013 Sat 03:45]
  Even though the BBC is still going to play a bit of the song the Mail is still screaming that they won`t ban it...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2308370/Craven-BBC-wants-cake-eat-it.html

The Mail whine that the BBC won`t ban a song bashing Thatcher but will ban anything they deam racist such as racist jokes and "debates" about immigration.

Of course because in the DM`s world racist jokes and bashing immigrants is all freedom of speech and anyone who complains is a PC lefty Guardian reading killjoy fascist censor. But songs making fun of the death of a Prime Minister loved by them and their army of Tory readers is out of line and should be banned.

The Mail is for free speech when it suits. Free speech to attack their hated groups like immigrants, Muslims and homosexuals but no free speech to make fun of things they find sacrosant like Christanity, the Queen and Margaret Thatcher.

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [29116.   Posted 12-Apr-2013 Fri 23:51]
  Re the debate about Ovendon and Caravaggio

Tiffany Jenkins writes a piece on Spiked:

A perverted view of art

It was daft of the Tate to remove Graham Ovenden’s paintings after his indecent assault conviction.

http://www.spiked-online.com/site/article/13516/

phantom    [29115.   Posted 12-Apr-2013 Fri 18:10]
  So the BBC don`t like `Ding Dong, the Witch is dead!`. They`ll only play a few seconds of it and talk over it. It`s official. That`s their policy.
This because it`s all in very poor taste.
Er, of course it is!
But, pray, is anything that `One Direction` has produced so far in good taste? And they play that drivel non stop....
Whose taste matters here? And why?
Today they even had some talking heads (all BBC people of course) telling us how `it`s been a long time since the beeb banned a song. One needs to go back to the 1980`s.`
Really???
I recall a very recent track by Rihanna getting itself into trouble with the BBC, merely because of its title.
So much to editorial honesty.
The truth is, even in 2013 this nation is still not able to let things be.
You may be free. But only if you use that freedom in a way which has been condoned.
Or as that well known fascist Jack Straw once put it, `People have rights. But they also have responsibilities.`
So, listen to Jack. It`s your responsibility not to make use of your rights.
Would I buy that record?
No. I think the it`s all very nasty.
But not play it? Well, then why have charts, if you`ll only play things of which approve.

So please, can someone tell me whether the song `Hitler only has one ball` is in too bad a taste for the BBC to play it? I`d like to know.

Obviously the principle of freedom of expression is no longer relevant.

Can someone please stop the planet. I want to get off....

Therumbler    [29114.   Posted 12-Apr-2013 Fri 10:52]
  http://www.ottawasun.com/2013/04/10/for-some-feminism-no-longer-about-equality

"Canadian Association for Equality is a group that’s been hosting events on men’s rights — the idea that males aren’t getting a fair shake in certain aspects of society. One event last month featured Professor Janice Fiamengo arguing women’s studies isn’t real scholarship but activism.

Some may take issue with these ideas, but ultimately they’re just public lectures featuring serious academics. Anyone can attend (and critique!).

But instead of letting free thought prevail, agitators barricaded the doors, harassed attendees, pulled fire alarms, chanted curses at speakers and more. Police had to get involved. On a related note, the University of Toronto Student Union — funded by student levies to represent all students — held a town hall on shutting down men’s rights events on campus. Some attendees reportedly wanted to expose where men’s rights advocates lived and worked. Other student unions have since moved to ban the creation of men’s groups and one student group called for physical confrontation. I apologize to national readers for all my examples being from Toronto, but it’s the city that apparently breeds this stuff."

MichaelG    [29113.   Posted 11-Apr-2013 Thu 23:02]
  Can anyone explain what the hell this is all about?:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2307833/Wu-Tang-Clan-reunite-dates-UK-release-new-album.html

The Daily Mail doing a quite excitable article about the revival of one of the dirtiest, nastiest, sweariest hardcore rap acts of all time? Are they now trying to be `down with the kids` or something?

phantom    [29112.   Posted 10-Apr-2013 Wed 18:02]
  Not really sure how to interpret your post, Harvey...
I`m essentially elaborating the point on what seems to drive those who seem to be keen to censor and you say it`s not about opinions...
Given that we`re on the same side of the argument we`re hardly contradicting each other...
That said, I suspect we`re somehow talking past each other right now... lol

Harvey    [29111.   Posted 10-Apr-2013 Wed 09:09]
  phantom [29110]

It`s not about differing opinions. Everyone should be free to think whatever they like when they look at a painting or photograph, watch a film or read a book.

It`s about censorship and more recently, the criminal law as it relates to possession.

phantom    [29110.   Posted 10-Apr-2013 Wed 05:21]
  Well, actually the painting of Amor vincit omnes by Caravaggio really proves very little.
There has always been a gaping double standard between the condemnation of pornography and the celebration of art. As we all know, the definition of what actually makes something porn is hardly definitive.

But more so than to Caravaggio I`d point to Donatello, one of the very fathers of rennaissance sculpture and his famous bronze of David. So pretty much the first rennaissance sculpture per se was one which would get UK prosecutors excited today.

But why stop there? The Ecstasy of Blessed Ludovica by Bernini is another one of those where a great many observers might ask what is really going on. Mary Whitehouse on a bad day would certainly have found fault. Meanwhile others would say it surely must rank among one of the finest examples of the sculptor`s art ever conceived.

The truth is you see, what you want to see.
In Caravaggio`s Amor I see an accusatory painting by the artist: Amor, the mischievous, lecherous tormentor of man who just will not leave us in peace. He`s as much a devil as an angel.
It doesn`t take any major insight into Italian art to see this.

But others will just see a willy and an underage child. They`ll put two and two together and holler.

I`ve said it before and I`ll said it again.
Much of the accusation of filth and depravity stem from a marked inability to see beauty. (or should that be `disability`?) Some people either can`t or won`t see that there is a joyous and life affirming side to seeing and experiencing beauty.

Beauty can be found in either of the pietas of Michelangelo, but so too in the sight of Gianna Michael`s tits. Sure, one is more crude than the other. Without doubt.
But be one crude and the other not, both are beautiful. And beauty attracts by default.

Throughout it all the inherent truth remains that those at war with beauty more often than not tend to be those who are themselves possessed of none, or by those who know theirs to be on the wane. This tends always to be dismissed as a mere personal jibe. But there is most likely something to it. Porn and controversial figurative art tends almost exclusively to be opposed by those who would not stand a chance of featuring in it.

sergio    [29109.   Posted 10-Apr-2013 Wed 03:30]
  BBFC R18 cuts for March 2013
Number of items= 41
No. Cuts=5
Cuts ratio=12%

Cuts of interest:
SEXY BITCH
Cut required to remove sight of sex with one participant fully restrained and gagged and so unable to indicate a withdrawal of consent. Cut made in accordance with BBFC Guidelines and policy, and the Video Recordings Act 1984.

Harvey    [29108.   Posted 9-Apr-2013 Tue 10:49]
  sergio [29106]

I wasn`t saying anything about Caravaggio`s work.

As it happens, I saw that painting when I went to The Staatliche in Berlin and nothing about it should suggest indecency. Its subject is allegorical - symbolic, and it`s an amazing image. If you want a memento, you can buy the postcard.

But... if you dared to paint something like that today, in Britain, and make it available to the public, you`d be likely to be arrested and there`s an outside chance you`d be charged with possession (it`s the possession that breaks the law - a fact of which the Tate will be aware) of a pornographic image of an imaginary child.

Ovenden was targeted first on the basis that he was creating indecent images of children. On both occasions, the prosecutors failed, dismally to get their man. That leaves me suspicious that the charges of of actual indecency and indecent assault have been somewhat elaborated, but he`s had his day in court and who are we, really, to second guess a jury composed of ordinary people with no particular axe to grind?

So, to the extent it`s now apparent that children were exploited by Ovenden, let`s allow the Tate review which work they think should be in their collection.

From what I`ve seen of Ovenden`s work, it isn`t even in the same room as Caravaggio`s. Not that that`s a reason for removing it from a national collection, but if you want to compare and contrast, the contrast is stark.

sergio    [29107.   Posted 9-Apr-2013 Tue 08:47]
  The Erotic Arts by Peter Webb - 1980

Page 239
... Graham Ovenden has devoted his life to collecting Carroll photographs and to painting, drawing, and photographing young girls. His own works have a meticulous attention to detail which gives them an unusual directness of communication (see illustration 186 - Belinda 1971). His little girls are certainly very sexual, but they are not painted as titillations for old men; they express a romantic nostalgia for the mystery of childhood, although they carefully avoid any hint of sentimentality. Basically, they express Ovenden`s conviction that sexuality is an essential ingredient in childhood, a still unpopular belief and the cause of much bigoted criticism of his work. He is disarmingly honest about his feelings: `I think that little girls are very romantic creatures ... one paints the thing that moves one most in life ... of course I fall in love with them, ... I would be an absolute hypocrite if I said my work was lacking in any sexual feeling. It`s paramountly obvious that they are very sexual things to me ... I have to admit to myself that I`m involved with something that can never be consummated ... It`s a very painful experience`

The Ovenden quote Peter Webb took from `One paints the thing that moves one most: Chris Robbins talks to Graham Ovenden`, from `The Image, No. 2, 1972, pp 32-39.


Compare with
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-21899695

`But he denied allegations he abused his subjects, said his work was not of a sexual nature, and that there should be "no shame" in depicting children in what he described as their "state of grace".`

-----------
I wonder if realism is the problem - his pics were too realistic? Say he was a more abstract, stylized artist. Would he have had so many problems? I`ve been looking at them and from the thumbnails the paintings look crap and badly drawn, a weak anatomy. But looking closer at some of the paintings, they have an amazing shading stylization, unreal colours. They are unreal.

sergio    [29106.   Posted 9-Apr-2013 Tue 08:17]
  Harvey [29099]- are you saying that this is not an `indecent` image?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Amor_Vincet_Omnia.jpg


I am not sure if Graham Ovenden abused all the children he photographed or painted. So why would they take off line all the images? Just to be sure that the person(s) that were abused is not shown? The benefit of the doubt?

sergio    [29105.   Posted 9-Apr-2013 Tue 08:09]
  How to think like Susan Greenfield
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/brain-flapping/2013/apr/09/susan-greenfield-article-how-to-guide

phantom    [29104.   Posted 9-Apr-2013 Tue 04:01]
  Well, as far as Margaret Thatcher`s death is concerned...
I would say that she did get it wrong at times where our subjects of freedom of expression and civil rights are concerned.

We shouldn`t forget that Mary Whitehouse was something of a political ally. The whole video nasties saga happened on her watch, I believe. Hers would have been that irritating, paternalistic view of `protecting Britain` from the sordid influences of undesirable material.

Also in matters regarding Northern Ireland I don`t think she necessarily covered herself in glory. That said, it would have been hard to see beyond the personal losses she had suffered due to the struggle with the IRA.

But to her credit, she was not a Tony Blair. That means a great deal and I do not think she`s been given much credit for it.

For all the struggle with the IRA, Thatcher never concluded that the country could not afford basic civil rights any longer. The game never `changed` in her mind because of this attach or that.
Not even when they tried to blow her up. Fundamental liberties remained untouched by Margaret Thatcher. In that regard she was a child of Churchill`s.
She knew why she opposed communism. It was not merely because of its different economic model, but because it denied people vital freedoms; freedoms she was not going to take from her people, if she had any say in it.

Furthermore, Thatcher was not party to the era of macho home secretaries trying to outbid their predecessors in how tough they could be.

The contrast with Blair`s government could not be more stark.

His was a struggle with Islamist terrorism rather than Soviet communism. But he had no qualms about eroding civil rights at all. Rights were of no value if they made the work of the security services more difficult.

His and his cabinet`s paternalistic protectivity of the nation`s morals were no lesser than Thatcher`s. By Blair`s time the internet however had made such `protection` virtually meaningless.
Which is why he and his people concocted the thoroughly nasty Dangerous Pictures Act, - as though to punish British society for not agreeing with them.

Even his supposed kick-starting of the resolution of the Northern Ireland conflict was in fact an accidental side effect to act of petty political revenge (on the Unionists who had propped up Major`s government). It is hard to find much merit in malice, even if its unwitting effects are beneficial.

And Blair`s was definitely the era of high octane home secretaries, determined to be seen to be clearing up Britain, with ever longer prison sentences and ever more prisoners.
From 1997 to the exit of Gordon Brown`s government prison population rise from 55,000 to 82,500. that`s an increase of 50%. And who would forget all the new offences? Thousands upon thousands.

Margaret Thatcher was a harsh woman. She was very divisive. There is no doubt, she did get things wrong.
But I think it is by comparison to Blair that we must recognise her a reasonably benign influence where censorship, freedom of expression and civil rights are concerned.
For in the end her instincts were to protect the ancient rights and freedoms of the people.

It is true that the malevolent glee of those celebrating Thatcher`s death seems nasty and undignified. But I do, to an extent, understand those people`s sentiments. For I must admit I might be struck by similar emotions when Tony Blair and a few of his colleagues shuffle off their mortal coil.

Spiderschwein    [29103.   Posted 8-Apr-2013 Mon 12:29]
  Oh, the temptation to troll up these "Thatcher dead" parties with a bucket of soapy water and a sign saying "Wash a Crusty, £1.00 for 3 sponges."

Harvey    [29102.   Posted 8-Apr-2013 Mon 12:04]
  phantom [29100]

Yes. It was the particular issue of having the work depicting the exploited children displayed, which distinguishes the Ovenden case.

Otherwise I think you`re quite right to point to the phenomenon of the disgraced individual`s work being cleansed from history. Chris Langham - very talented writer, a less talented actor, but nevertheless a star of a popular, topical and clever TV program, The Thick of It. Following his conviction his association with anything became toxic. I mention him specifically because although he was convicted of downloading indecent images, on the more serous charges of indecent assault, which he strongly denied, he was cleared by a jury. But even if he had been convicted, I don`t see why any crimes he`d committed should devalue his work. It`s very odd and quite irrational.


If a bricklayer is convicted of beating someone to death with a baseball bat, do we knock down all the houses he`s worked on?

mediasnoops2    [29101.   Posted 8-Apr-2013 Mon 08:01]
  Thatcher`s dead and already the Mail`s filling their boots with left-wing celebration outrage....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2305760/Margaret-Thatcher-dead-George-Galloway-leads-chorus-celebration-left.html

phantom    [29100.   Posted 8-Apr-2013 Mon 07:31]
  I understand what you are saying, Harvey.

And as such you are right that the case of Ovenden is different, insofar that it actually depicts some of the victims and that these victims seems unwilling to further see themselves depicted. (at least as I understand it)

However, I think there is a point beyond that fact at which Sergio does seem to be right.

There does seem to be a tendency to write people out of history these days if they have fallen foul of the laws (on child protection).

The BBC can screen documentaries on glam rock and somehow completely fail to mention Garry Glitter. It seems the biggest selling exponent of that very music no longer exists. He simply has become persona non grata.

It thus does seem that in today`s society any contribution or success will be written out of history, no matter how unrelated to the offence, if a person is found to have crossed the line on paedophilia.
(Again Caravaggio is a somewhat hamstrung example as he was merely a violent duellist - without the paedo connection)

But I think we can only imagine what might have occurred if Michael Jackson had been convicted. The world`s best selling musical artist would suddenly have ceased to exist. He would retrospectively have wiped from history. All without the help of a cock-up, a defective flux-compensator and a DeLorean, but with equal efficacy.

The truth seems to be that, once the paedophile line has been crossed, the culprit is deemed to have done nothing of worth.

So the question surrounding Ovenden might indeed be, `when is art actually art?`

Is all he ever did now suddenly without merit? Or does it only affect the works which depict his victims? And even with those works which depict his victims; if they were art prior to the revelations, are they still after? And if they are, does art trump offence?

So, for the sake of hypothesis; if it emerged that Leonardo had raped the lady, would the Mona Lisa be less of a work of art?

Or is it just the stigma of paedophilia which steamrollers everything?

If so, are we in danger of breaking down Trajan`s column in Rome one day, because the man had a liking for little boys?

What is pretty clear is that we do live in a time of utter over-reaction toward everything regarding the paedophile subject. History will look back at the paranoid mania in bemusement, no doubt.

Personally, I find it odd that paedophilia is almost seen as an infection which one might catch from something which has nothing whatsoever to do with the matter.
At times one almost hears the Daleks cry of `Exterminate! Exterminate!` through all the clamour surrounding the subject.

On a personal note, I`d add that there is a certain irony of this happening to the modern art of photography. `Art` these days being an entirely intellectual construct, it is thus much more prone to collapse if the artist later emerges to be `a bad man`. Somehow I don`t think it matters whom or what Bernini or Rembrandt shagged....

Harvey    [29099.   Posted 7-Apr-2013 Sun 18:49]
  sergio [29096]

There`s a glaring difference between the art of Caravaggio and that of Graham Ovenden.

In the case of Ovenden, the evidence which convicted him was that he engaged in indecent acts and indecently assaulted at least some of the child models who posed for his paintings and prints.

Given that those children are still around, though now adult, I can`t see it would be right for the works to be on public view. The Tate says it`s reviewing their collection of Ovenden`s work, in light of the trial. Given the evidence of his activities, the presumption has to be that the child models are likely to have been exploited by Ovenden, so for each work, unless it can be shown that`s not the case, surely the only thing to do is remove it from the collection.

Analogous to requiring stores to remove their stocks of cheap sportswear if it`s found to have been made by child labour. That`s quite a different thing to suggesting that art collections should be `cleansed` on the basis of taste or whether the artist was a bit killy or otherwise a bad person.

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [29098.   Posted 6-Apr-2013 Sat 22:46]
  Sergio

Indeed, at what point will the gender extremists demand that people choose their sexual partners according to the Rule book of political correctness. Perhaps we could see a large body sized model, rejected from casting, sue a porn company for discrimatory employment policy

sergio    [29097.   Posted 6-Apr-2013 Sat 07:42]
  An amazing amount of bullshit in this article.
http://jezebel.com/5993788/porn-performers-agree-the-porn-industry-is-racist

sergio    [29096.   Posted 6-Apr-2013 Sat 06:40]
  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Amor_Vincet_Omnia.jpg
`On 29 May 1606, he killed, possibly unintentionally, a young man named Ranuccio Tomassoni from Terni (Umbria).`
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caravaggio

Compare and contrast

http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artists/graham-ovenden-1730
(Available with pics on the waybackmachine - archive.org)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2304791/How-art-establishment-helped-paedophile-painter-Graham-Ovenden-away-20-years.html

Therumbler    [29095.   Posted 5-Apr-2013 Fri 17:01]
  http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/men-buy-sex-for-many-reasons--as-a-sex-worker-i-can-tell-you-they-dont-deserve-to-be-criminalised-8562185.html

Might be of interest.

Therumbler    [29094.   Posted 5-Apr-2013 Fri 12:45]
  http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/philpott-wasnt-a-symbol-of-welfare-uk-but-blame-the-state-for-letting-his-depravitygo-unchecked-8560192.html

Ann Widdecombe is off on one again. Kids should be taken away due to their parent`s `immoral` sex lives is the message and that a good dose of Christianity is the cure for `free choice.`

MichaelG    [29093.   Posted 4-Apr-2013 Thu 23:26]
  And the latst social evil we all need protecting from today is... dogging. That`s right, a decades-old sexual practice that the Mail has just cottoned onto now:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2303622/From-woman-daily-dog-walk-Surrey-woods-ruined--Why-police-think-OK-people-sex-public.html

MichaelG    [29092.   Posted 4-Apr-2013 Thu 23:07]
  Just to confirm my suspicions about the Hate Mail censoring/blocking comments on Chris Tookey`s blockheaded film reviews, I had a look this morning and everything new he`s reviewed today has the line at the bottom `We are no longer accepting comments on this article`. One-star reviews, as usual, abound, despite the usual contradictory opinions from the likes of Empire magazine.

When I took him to task with my comment after his review of `Stoker` a couple of weeks back, I received over 250 green arrows of approval - we clearly can`t be having that, can we? I`ve also noticed a rather funny comment on his recent review of `The Croods` which read "If Tookey`s throwin`, I`m goin`!" has been removed, even though others are still there. Press freedom, my arse!

This man is a fucking joke, the Mail disgust me for entertaining this ridiculous notion that he`s somehow beyond criticism and so must be protected from hurtful comments by their thoroughly nasty readership (just shows the utter contempt both Tookey and his employers have for their readers). So, I hope that now Tookey will be able to sit and chuckle at his own clever use of words and pat himself on the back over his wonderful reviews, safe in the knowledge that he`ll be shielded from any nasty comments. I also hope that he`ll be the only fucker reading them, because that`s what he deserves.

mediasnoops2    [29091.   Posted 4-Apr-2013 Thu 15:57]
  Wahhh thousands, no millions, no billions of children have seen porn! We`re all going to hell in a handcart! It`s all those leftist Guardian readers fault!

The thing is there are many kids who have seen porn. But the relgious, right-wing moralists make out all these kids have stumbled upon it by accident or have even been forced into viewing it.
The fact is many kids view porn because they have searched it out for themselves and because they WANT to! And even more so many MIDDLE CLASS kids search out porn and look at it because they want to! Middle class adults make out their innocent kids are inadvertantly stumble across porn and that porn websites are luring them in like perverted old men with sweets.
But the truth is their kids are seeking it out for themselves and looking at it because they want to and that`s what these middle class adults cannot take. So they join campaign groups and write to right-wing newspapers demanding something be done to save their little tykes from the "evils" of porn without even considering that little Tarquin is downloading "filth" from his laptop in his room at gone midnight because he wants to see some porn.

phantom    [29090.   Posted 4-Apr-2013 Thu 06:42]
  Fantastic.
So 100% of nine year old boys are watching porn. Of course. 100% of them.
I think I know how that was determined. I very much doubt this was a secret questionnaire.
Asking a classroom full of lads if they`ve watched porn, just encourages peer pressure and one-up-manship. It renders any result meaningless. Especially of the result suggests unanimity.

And 50% of 14 yr old girls have also watched porn; all involuntarily, forced by the boys.
So, let me get this right: At 14 yrs old all girls are still `sugar and spice and all things nice`?
Any knowledge of porn has only come about by the bad, nasty boys making them see it?
Err... isn`t the received wisdom that girls mature earlier sexually? Would that not suggest that – dare I say it? – plain curiosity might be driving them to sneak a peek?

The very fact that this `research` has the boys down as the malign influence which has forced girls into watching porn (thereby deliberately corrupting them, of course) suggests that the researchers don`t think too highly of boys. I wonder why that is. Could it – perhaps – hint at their having certain preconceived notions?

So boys now feel they had an entitlement to sex with whomsoever they wished and do not understand the issue of consent. Really? So all boys are delusional, thinking they can demand sex with the fittest female teacher and get it, irrespective of whether she wants it or not? I`d like to see them try. I think there could be great comedy potential in that situation.

But comedy aside, seriously? This is supposed to be `research`? Boys are being turned into unthinking, uncaring sex-zombies? Aren`t these conclusions just a little far fetched? Desperate, even? Wouldn`t – if these conclusions were true – one expect there to be mayhem in our schools and on our streets?
Surely, the scenario sounds much like the end of civilisation as we know it.

I`m sorry, but once again it all just sounds like something a militant feminist would want to conclude, no matter what the evidence.

If pornography has such a profound effect, are we seriously to believe no one would have picked up on this yet? Or is the contention that this is the first ever generation so affected? Has porn previously been unavailable?
Why is it affecting 9-14 year olds now? Why did it not affect the same group five years ago? Not that much has changed on the net since then, surely? And that group would now be in adolescence and approaching full adulthood. Thus, they`d have much greater capacity to rape and pillage.
Therefore the question must be, where are the savage hordes of 19 to 20 year old barbarians recently produced by the net who are roaming the streets raping anything that moves?
Pray, where are they?

This nonsense is getting ever more tiresome. The exaggeration and hyperbole of this sort of `research` is plain ridiculous. We all know that – if need be – academics can be found who will produce such biased nonsense. Who`d forget the DPA`s frantically put together meta analysis to provide academic credibility to a lie?

But surely at some point someone on the feminist side of the argument must realise that in order to gain credibility, research has to have at least some force of argument about it?

Because, frankly, this sort of crap is just embarrassing.

Therumbler    [29089.   Posted 4-Apr-2013 Thu 05:55]
  I see Christian organisations are in a feeding frenzy over that Telegraph article on twitter.

MichaelG    [29088.   Posted 3-Apr-2013 Wed 22:54]
  Re: freeworld [29084]:

There`s a lot of variables to consider before we jump to any conclusions here, dude!

The two news stories that you cite are from last year and they basically amount to nothing more than certain people within CommuNuLabour having a whinge that the Coalition are doing nothing to introduce some Iranian-style internet blocking system (no prizes for guessing who the whingers would be!). The second article in particular smacks of utter desperation and more than a little `toys-out-of-the-pram`, as extremely unlikely bedfellows Harman and the Mail collectively bemoan the lack of interest in blocking, the latter even turning column space over to Harman so she can vent her spleen.

So, up to now, I`m not overly concerned. In order to start worrying, we have to assume that firstly the Coalition`s time is up come the election and they will be replaced by Labour again - under the leadership of Mister Ed, and given that current public opinion regarding politicians is at an all-time low, I`d say that Labour being re-elected is anything but a given and indeed, pretty much anything could happen. We also have to assume that Harman, now being over 60 and probably not short of a bob or two, is still going to be around in two years time, although I`m not underestimating the fact that politicians often hang around for years past normal retirement age as they get paid a sodding fortune for doing very little real work (Harman is also in a very safe seat), and also the fact that even if Harman isn`t around, there will undoubtedly be many more feminazi bags within the party ranks ready to replace her (although probably not in a position as lofty as Deputy Leader, at least not straight away).

We have to bear in mind also that Cameron seemed keen on the idea of blocking for a short time then suddenly decided that it wasn`t going to happen. There has to be a reason for that, and it could be anything from it being unworkable to pressure from the ISPs, or perhaps even the realisation that it would be a hugely unpopular move (not that this would have any effect on Harman, were she in power!).

So in short, I think it`s a little early to be getting ourselves worried about this just yet.

Harvey    [29087.   Posted 3-Apr-2013 Wed 17:04]
  @Therumbler

That`s a classic link.

"access to adult pornography among children is now so widespread that it should trigger “moral panic” among parents, schools and the Government about what should be done."

`Moral panic` being the knee-jerk, herd response to unexpected sociological change, the Children`s Commissioner has just asked parents, the government and schools to behave completely irrationally, out of fear and ignorance.

I`m sure they won`t disappoint her.



"How can we even debate it...?"

I don`t think you`re being invited to debate.

Therumbler    [29086.   Posted 3-Apr-2013 Wed 14:48]
  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9970190/Entire-school-year-groups-have-seen-porn-childrens-watchdog-says.html

`Unpublished research.`

How can we even debate it without the data?

If this was global warming, there would be cries of foul.

Spiderschwein    [29085.   Posted 3-Apr-2013 Wed 11:03]
  Oh look! First item in the Sidebar of Shame on that Daily Mail article, it`s a model with her bikini falling off!

freeworld    [29084.   Posted 3-Apr-2013 Wed 09:10]
  MichaelG {29075. Posted 1-Apr-2013 Mon 22:41}
"The Mail`s latest load of bullshit - seems they still can`t accept that a block on internet porn just isn`t going to happen"

Sadly, it seems likely that the attempt will be made to introduce "blocks" based on an ISP opt in system in 2 years time, depending upon the election result. Hateman is, of course, deputy Labour leader -

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2135835/Online-porn-Now-Labour-joins-battle-opt-adult-material.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2248839/As-David-Cameron-rejects-automatic-blocks-online-porn-Deputy-Labour-Leader-Harriet-Harman-bitterly-attacks-latest-broken-promise.html

sergio    [29083.   Posted 3-Apr-2013 Wed 05:03]
  I didn`t know the that Redemption `ousted` BBFC chairman James Ferman - http://www.strangethingsarehappening.com/nigelwingrove-jessfranco.html

phantom    [29082.   Posted 2-Apr-2013 Tue 18:21]
  Therumbler {29081}
`What are the odds on the Mail printing an article about his internet activities?`

Sure not! In his case it will have been that he watched the wrong films... lol

Therumbler    [29081.   Posted 2-Apr-2013 Tue 16:02]
  Anyone else here expecting the Philpott story to be used as a morality tale against certain sections of the media and certain lifestyles?

What are the odds on the Mail printing an article about his internet activities?

phantom    [29080.   Posted 2-Apr-2013 Tue 12:55]
  Quagmires Dooflab {29077}
`I`m just curious but how would people go about getting a law changed or scrapped? One man can`t do it alone so it would need a big rally of support. Where would you start? I want the Extreme Pornongraphy and Dangeous Pictures Act scrapped.`

Here are two links to organisations which oppose the DPA.
Backlash was the first to form, but I`m not sure how active they still are.

http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/wp/
http://caan.org.uk/

I hope that`s of help.

Therumbler    [29079.   Posted 2-Apr-2013 Tue 11:19]
  http://www.newstatesman.com/voices/2013/04/are-schools-really-expelling-15-sex-bullies-day

An article on that DM headline, worth a read.

Therumbler    [29078.   Posted 2-Apr-2013 Tue 06:21]
  In regards to the Mail they appear quick to blame the internet, but they cite no data from pre-internet years.

Surely one of the first things a rational person would do when trying to find the source of a problem is find when the problem suddenly surged in numbers.

I can`t help feeling that there`s a feedback loop of paper>campaigner>paper>campaigner> circulating information and alarmist attitudes.

This from the same paper that showed people hung to death recently too, surely something also inappropriate for kids. It would amuse me no end if the Mail found itself behind a block and under attack from Object et al, aided by the very filters it demanded.

Quagmires Dooflab    [29077.   Posted 2-Apr-2013 Tue 03:51]
  Hi everyone

I`m just curious but how would people go about getting a law changed or scrapped? One man can`t do it alone so it would need a big rally of support. Where would you start? I want the Extreme Pornongraphy and Dangeous Pictures Act scrapped.

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [29076.   Posted 2-Apr-2013 Tue 02:48]
  MichaelG

The Daily Mail claims 15 exclusions per day (school day). I reckon if this was put another way, it would amount to one expulsion every couple of years for a typical school of 1000 pupils. Hardly anything to get so worked up about.

MichaelG    [29075.   Posted 1-Apr-2013 Mon 22:41]
  The Mail`s latest load of bullshit - seems they still can`t accept that a block on internet porn just isn`t going to happen:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2302561/Schools-expel-15-sex-bullies-day-Even-primary-pupils-driven-assaults-internet-porn.html

And their evidence for this?

`Campaigners say the increasing sexualisation of society, fuelled by easy access to internet pornography, is behind the disturbing figures.`

Well, campaigners WOULD say that, wouldn`t they? Doesn`t make it the truth though...

mediasnoops2    [29074.   Posted 1-Apr-2013 Mon 12:45]
  You can`t take anything Christopher Tookey writes seriously. This is the film critic who in 1997 wrote that Batman and Robin would destroy children`s innocence and turn them gay.

Shaun    [29073.   Posted 1-Apr-2013 Mon 12:27]
  pooch
I can`t be bothered to argue anymore. Especially against your defence of some of the odd statements you made, for example that the penis is a secondary sexual trait of a male.
To quote your assertion:
"because the male secondary sexual trait is the penis"

No it isn`t. Sex organs (penis, vagina in mammals) are considered primary ones.
See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_organ
where it clearly states as much.

Don`t get the idea you convinced me, or you won the debate or anything. I just think it would be a waste of time and energy to continue that`s all.

Via Galaxy Note 10.1 Android Tab

phantom    [29072.   Posted 1-Apr-2013 Mon 07:15]
  MichaelG [29071]

I think I can see why Tookey got his knickers in a twist.
It`s all contained in that sentence `Conservatism is wrong, you see.`
It seems to be that which has got him rattled.

That said, it seems a stretch to get from an animated movie to a perceived criticism of the Conservative manifesto. But somehow Mr Tookey manages it.

One is reminded of Mary Whitehouse. Her condition – and lets face it, the woman was ill – got worse as the years went by.
Her obsession eventually led her to see filth and depravity everywhere. No matter how innocent the subject, it contained something subversive. There was something dark and dangerous lurking within. Something which she must warn people about.

I can only assume that Mr Tookey is similarly afflicted.
Clearly `The Croods` is just another animated movie, somewhere between `Madagascar` and `Ice Age`.
But no! It contains a hidden message!
Who knows, perhaps if you play it backwards it will seduce children into taking drugs....

This just seems a classic case of seeing evil wherever you look. Another example of how those arguing for censorship, be it for reasons of taste and decency, public protection or feminism, only see ugliness wherever they look.

Perhaps it`s something like the glass-half-empty phenomenon. But whereas that usually is a sign of pessimism over optimism, these people instead emphasise in their minds the nasty, the ugly, unsavoury in the world.
Beauty is in their minds only an abstract which can be achieved by purifying the world from all the vile filth that pollutes it.

In a way they are classic misanthropes, as they don`t seem to credit man with much goodness or worth at all.

Thus everything anyone does in their mind is for ulterior motives. It cannot be innocent, because – somebody - is behind it and they must have an agenda.
All is malevolence, malfeasance.

That is of course, unless one belongs to the vetted, cleared, accepted group/party/cabal/faith, etc.
Any member of such group on the other hand can do no wrong. No matter what action any member of that group will undertake will be excused – no matter how disproportionate or objectionable – as it is done `for the right reasons`. The ends justify the means, after all....

MichaelG    [29071.   Posted 31-Mar-2013 Sun 23:28]
  Re: phantom [29070]:

Couldn`t agree more - you couldn`t make it up. Even more ironic when you think that the Mail, the most vociferous objectors to press censorship, are effectively censoring their own newspaper by not allowing their readers to have their say. Just exposes them for the reactionary fascists that they truly are.

What actually gave the game away on this for me was when horror remake `Maniac` came out around two weeks ago (to the predictably dreadful review from Tookey), and, upon scrolling down to the bottom of the article, I came across the statement `we are no longer accepting comments on this article`. They often do this with older stories, but on a brand new review, just published that day? A rabbit off there, to be sure.

Past experience of Tookey has led me to understand that he`s not a man who takes kindly to criticism of his opinions. He hates fanboys, as they often get stuck into him quite viciously following his dreadful reviews of movies like `The Dark Knight Rises` and `Watchmen` - to which he sometimes responds by crying out that by baying for his blood and issuing death threats (we only have his word on that, I believe), then it proves the Mail`s stance on violent movies has been vindicated - these fans are obviously psychos, and were probably perfectly sane before exposure to the horrors of violent films (a theory also known as `Daily Mail Bullshit Blame Bingo`). In fact, in a recent review of a horror or violent action film I can`t remember, Tookey made this ridiculous statement - `psychopaths will love it.` His assumption that all people who watch violent movies are psychopaths is clear for all to see.

But still the greatest example of his inability to take criticism came over his dire review of `Kick-Ass`, in response to the flak he received, he came forward and accused some of his critics of attempting to brand him a paedophile (all fanboys are psychos, remember). I suspect this came about (if it ever actually did) from his comments about Chloe Moretz, who plays pint sized assassin Hit Girl in the film and was around 11 at the time. Tookey referred to the publicity shot of her in school uniform brandishing a pistol as demonstrating a `classic schoolgirl pose`. Being rather perplexed by this odd turn of phrase (I`m sure I wasn`t alone), I actually attempted to be kind to Tookey and, in a blog where he was attempting to defend himself, suggested that it may have been this statement that led to the `paedo` thing and that now might be a good time to clear this up and explain exactly what a `classic schoolgirl pose` actually was, for the benefit of those like myself who clearly don`t have sufficient experience of schoolgirl poses to be able to spot a `classic` one when they saw it. Predictably, he didn`t respond.

I guess the way to tackle this, at least for real fans of cinema who understand exactly the Mail`s hateful approach to most of the arts, is to simply stay clear of it and treat it with the contempt it deserves. Tookey is clearly now above criticism, and the cunt has been peddling his thinly-veiled anti-cinema claptrap for at least almost 20 years from a national platform (he`s done about as many positive things for the film industry over the years as Keith Vaz has done for the gaming industry). The Mail clearly aren`t interested in getting rid of him as he totally fits their thuggish, blinkered and pro-censorship stance on cinema. It`s a match made in heaven and they`re fucking welcome to each other.

Finally, if you want to witness the kind of rubbish for which Tookey has become famous, take a look at this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2297281/The-Croods-A-crude-attempt-makes-The-Flintstones-look-sophisticated.html

An attempt by Dreamworks to `radicalise the young`? Really? And what the fuck is this last paragraph all about?

`So now you know what to do, kids. Cross the road without looking. Enjoy sex without thought of the consequences. Disrespect your elders, because they have nothing to teach you. Got the message? Okay. Now go off and play with that nice old man who keeps offering you sweeties.`

Only a thoroughly unpleasant, twisted individual could read an agenda like this into a kids animated feature. Was just about to post a comment on there telling him so, but alas and unsurprisingly... `we are no longer accepting comments on this article`.

Adolf Hitler didn`t do film reviews, but if he had...

phantom    [29070.   Posted 31-Mar-2013 Sun 16:24]
  MichaelG [29069]

There is something wonderfully ironic about a reviewer not allowing anyone to review him, no? :)

MichaelG    [29069.   Posted 31-Mar-2013 Sun 13:37]
  Re: The Inside:

Oddly enough, I had the misfortune to sit through this last night and it`s one of the most uniquely dreadful movies I`ve seen in ages. Do yourself a favour and don`t go anywhere near.

On a slightly different note, and as a serial online abuser of resident Daily Mail film critic Chris Tookey, I`ve now just noticed that the Mail are, in a very subtle and underhanded way, no longer accepting comments from we, the Great Unwashed, on Tookey`s online film `reviews`. It`s doubly annoying as the fucker needs to be taken to task on virtually every clueless, unnecessarily damning review he churns out, but the fact that he seems to not only know so little about cinema but seems to have a pronounced dislike of the medium is just further insult to injury. He`s been in his job long enough to have had the opportunity at venting his moral outrage at David Cronenberg`s `Crash` (1996), but still doesn`t seem to have learned very much about cinema over the years. Now, real fans of cinema, who are incensed by his incompetence and lack of taste (and going from past comments, there are many of us), seem to be no longer allowed to submit comments on his reviews. From receiving regular, numerous comments on most of his `reviews` a few weeks ago, we are now faced with only 2 comments on over 8 reviews from the last two weeks. People just lost interest? No, because I have still been submitting them and he`s been so wide of the mark this last couple of weeks or so that I cannot believe that no-one has put forward comments on the staggering ineptitude of his writing... however, nothing has been published.

So, for whatever reason comments are not being published (be it preserving the saintly white of Tookey`s cotton socks or just preventing abuse so hurtful that it makes him cry into his `Toy Story` dolls every night), one thing has become abundantly clear (if it wasn`t already) - that real cinema buffs should avoid the Mail as a top priority. You`d be more likely to get a film review you can trust in `The Beano`...

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [29068.   Posted 30-Mar-2013 Sat 21:50]
  Phantom

Yes I totally agree with you that Femen are light weight with their forgettable `issue of the day` publicity seeking.

However they sometimes hit a nerve and some of their stunts have generated effects beyond the merits of the group. There was the `attack` on the Russian patriarch that got the group drummed out of Ukraine. The felling of the crucifix had quite an impact too. The photoset showing a topless woman felling a large public crucifix with a chainsaw was genius. And the silliness in the Paris cathedral caused ripples. Maybe their silliness might spark something more serious when they foolishly take on the muslim world.

The Egyption naked blogger and the more recent topless Tunisian girl have made quite significant political impacts. Whereas Femen use nudity to seek attention, the muslim protestors have a far more meaningful point to using nudity to symbolise disobedience to their repressive society.

But I do find Femen interesting, not for themselves, just for the fact they swim in dangerous waters and `anything could happen in the next half hour`

phantom    [29067.   Posted 30-Mar-2013 Sat 13:03]
   Melon Farmers (Dave)    {29064}        
`The Femen `titslamic` confrontation with Tunisia seems to be showing quite a serious. wind up over naked breasts. Femen are now calling for a Topless Jihad Day on 4th April. Totally tangential to the Page 3 issue being discussed here, but it does rather show how potent the naked breast is as a symbol of political struggle.`

Not sure, Dave. Tits to me aren`t that political.
I don`t think much of Femen.
Many people have heard of Femen, but few could actually tell you for what they in any particular case have been campaigning.

People will know they claim to be feminists and that they take their kit off in order to `highlight issues`.
But Femen don`t seem to be coherent on much.
One is keen on the publicity, that much is clear. And girls taking their clothes off in public while claiming it`s `for a cause` will get that without much trouble. (Who`d forget Jim Hacker`s daughter threatening to do so in order to save the badgers of Heywood Spinney in `Yes, Minister`.)

I`m not sure confronting Islamists with naked breasts is very clever. Although it`s no doubt designed to gain maximum publicity and have them claim political martyrdom, whatever happens.

The breast is as such not political per se. Female nudity is.
It finds itself in a pincer movement by the traditionalist morality of the right and the feminist ideology of the left. Attacked from both the political right and left it has few political allies.
(Remarkable how politicians can thus both demand the same thing, but claim it to be for different reasons.)
But the political prudery, whether it is said to preserve taste and decency, or liberate women from the yoke of oppression, hardly reflects the wider public view. Were it to do so, nudity would have long since ceased to be depicted.
The opposition to nudity merely is part of the prerequisites to being allowed into the hallowed ranks of the political establishment. Opposition to nudity goes hand in hand with opposition to drugs, anti terrorism rhetoric, the claim of fanatical devotion to punishment of wrongdoers, etc, etc.
We need to remember that politicians operate much like a pack. He who doesn`t sound like them, talk like them, smell like them, will be torn to pieces. They certainly won`t allow such a person among their ranks. Thus everyone sings from the same hymn sheet, claiming complete conviction.

But to get back to Femen. Their stunts seem not really aimed at highlighting any issue with nudity. Nudity far more is their means by which to get themselves noticed. However, the actual message thereafter is far from clear.

I struggle similarly with groups such as Pussy Riot, etc. They seem exceptionally talented at getting themselves noticed, but it`s pretty unclear what it is they have to say.

It is a reflection of the fact that in our world the talent to sell, to be good at PR, the ability to get yourself noticed is increasingly prized above and beyond the message or product.

Femen and Pussy riot are brilliant self publicists. The problem is they don`t have that much to publicise.

sergio    [29066.   Posted 30-Mar-2013 Sat 10:08]
  "Come look at this woman, or rather her breasts, and rather than seeing her as a person, with thoughts, feelings and opinions, see her as nothing more than a pair of tits for your male, masturbatory pleasure! And in so-doing, let`s see all women as nothing more than vacant nobodies, whose sole purpose is to cook, clean and tender after men."

`and rather than seeing her as a person, with thoughts, feelings and opinions`
Maybe you could say that about most pictures. If we have a full length nude would that change your `argument`? If we only crop the top then they are `reduced`?

`see her as nothing more than a pair of tits for your male, masturbatory pleasure!`
Strange thing is I don`t think I`ve ever actually masturbated over page 3 images. We could have a pole of the most masturbated over page 3 image.
Page 3 is only there for masturbatory pleasure seems a bit reduced as a thesis. Page 3 does have amazing power if you think that it causes all men to think that women have no thoughts.

Pooch    [29065.   Posted 30-Mar-2013 Sat 05:56]
  @Shaun [29056]: The very fact that you start off your post with "After reading your latest drivel..." implies that you don`t care what I say to try and make my argument, you`d stil disagree with it. The only point you`d agree with me, is if (and only if) I agreed with everything you and others have said. And as I don`t agree with it, then as far as you are concerned everything I write is automatically wrong.

My relationships and friendships with women, have all been unproblematic and delightful. So your aspertion that I somehow don`t know what I`m talking about, is to be frank, completely misguided. Though, to be fair, it`s also entirely irrelevant.

I keep repeating myself, and none of you want to listen to a single word I say, and then you complain that I don`t listen to you. In fact, I DO listen to you. I`ve listened, and read carefully and clearly. However, as I`ve said before, if someone misinterprets what you`ve written, then why is that the fault of the interpreter and not the author? All of you have said that Page 3 isn`t sexist. Yet, you`ve demonstrated NOTHING that proves it isn`t. You`ve tried to widen the discssion into other avenues, but that`s no more a deflecting tactic, than the ones you accuse me of using.

You then wrote in [29057]: "" If it were truly equal, then men would be allowed to display their penis off, in a daily newspaper."

And I said that because - as I have repeated several times now - breasts are secondary sexual traits. The male equivalent of the women`s breasts, is the penis. Why? Because the male secondary sexual trait is the penis. Again, you keep ignoring stuff I say, and then complaining I ignore stuff others write.

You then said: "f you knew me personally you`d know that." But the fact is, I don`t know you, and neither do you know me. I form an idea of you, from what you write. And the way you, and some of the other men in this discussion have written, is from a view that appears to be of a sexist, sterotypically white, Western, heterosexual male. Whether you are best buddies with your ex-wife or ex-girlfriends means nothing. It just means they like you still. It doesn`t count for anything.

As for "Check the meaning of misogymist", I know exactly what it means - that`s why I useed it. I`m not as stupid as you seem to want to make me out to be. Sorry if that disappoints you, as I know it would make life for you so much easier. You say that it "was a word cleverly hijacked by the feminists to mean something rather less, whilst trying to imply something more IE the real hatred." I`ve used the term as seen in any half-decent dictionary. The fact that you have to claim that the word has been hijacked, speaks volumes.

You then say: "But as far as Page 3 is concerned I don`t believe:
It is at all harmful.
It implies ANY form of HATRED of females whatsoever."

And again, you are looking at it from one point of view. You aren`t even considering (or acknowledging) that some women (and some men) find Page 3 sexist, demeaning and crass. Which was the issue at hand. The issue is not should Page 3 be banned. The issue was what do I, you, we, think of Page 3, and should it remain in THE SUN.

But, you and others, keep trying to widen the discussion into other avenues.

You ended your statement with "Not all feminists are so repressive by the way". Again, you demonise all women as feminists, and all feminists too. More words that imply you are someone who holds sexist attitudes towards women. You don`t see this, because you don`t want too. Just as you don`t want to see that Page 3 may be seen as sexist and demeaning towards women. That`s fine. You can hold those views. But until you are willing to open your mind a little wider, and consider things from other points-of-view (and mean multiple points-of-view, not just the polar opposite one to your own)), then discussions on this issue will just be you and others, versus me.


@DoodleBug [29059]: You clearly don`t read any of my blog articles at all, in detail. You appear to read them, and then see what you want to see, rather than what I`ve actually written. There are of course, occasional exceptions to that, and there are some articles that may appear more like "you will read this and agree 100% and if you don`t you are wrong". But then, I write what I want to write, to get my view out there. If you don`t like those views, then that`s your choice. But then maybe you can start a blog of your own, and you can let the world discuss and dissect your views.

You claim "he really doesn`t know his subject matter". Maybe you`d like to post comments or e-mail me, via my blog, and I can then discuss them with you? I`d genuinely love to know what "holes" and "mistakes" you think I`ve included, because I don`t feel that there are as many as you claim, and merely wish to point-score over me, by slagging me off. Hey, if that`s what floats your boat, you go for it.


@mediasnoops2 [29060]: You said: "Pooch you are complaining that female nudity in films is allowed but male nudity is not. So what are you advocating then that female nudity in films is banned? Or do you want male nudity allowed as well?"

I`m saying that things aren`t equal. That the media is inherently sexist, because most of it is run by men, for men, for men`s pleasure and enjoyment. I`m certainly NOT advocating that female nudity should be banned. I am merely pointing out the double-standards that exist: namely that full-frontal female nudity is allowed, but frontal male nudity is pretty much verboten!


@Sergio [29061]: You asked: "I wonder if that what Pooch means by page 3 being `sexist`? That page 3 fosters sexual harassment, rape and other forms of sexual violence?"

No, that`s not what I mean at all. Sexist, as in the Oxford English Dictionary meaning of the word, namely: "A person (or object) which advocates, implies, or practises sexism". In other words, I am saying Page 3 (in my view) says to its (predominantly male) readership, "Come look at this woman, or rather her breasts, and rather than seeing her as a person, with thoughts, feelings and opinions, see her as nothing more than a pair of tits for your male, masturbatory pleasure! And in so-doing, let`s see all women as nothing more than vacant nobodies, whose sole purpose is to cook, clean and tender after men."

As I`ve argued before, if the world were a place where men were seen, shown and treated as the weaker, lesser sex, men would be livid and demanding to be seen as more than just a "penis". Well, guys, that`s what many (though not all) women (and no, I`m not talking about feminists, I`m referring to many, ordinary women) feel you see them as - nothing more than a pair of tits to ogle over - when you buy and look at Page 3. It`s cheapening women to be reduced to nothing more than a specific part of their anatomy; a part of their body`s that implies that this is how we should define them as.

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [29064.   Posted 30-Mar-2013 Sat 01:12]
  Re naked breasts, politics and violence.

The Femen `titslamic` confrontation with Tunisia seems to be showing quite a serious. wind up over naked breasts. Femen are now calling for a Topless Jihad Day on 4th April.

Totally tangential to the Page 3 issue being discussed here, but it does rather show how potent the naked breast is as a symbol of political struggle.

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [29063.   Posted 30-Mar-2013 Sat 01:01]
  Therumbler

Thanks, yes that article makes things clearer. I was a bit confused after reading the original and was almost thinking that the sexualisationists had now started to whinge at sexy clothes for college students

Therumbler    [29062.   Posted 30-Mar-2013 Sat 00:04]
  An interesting article on the panic over Victoria Secret underwear:

http://jezebel.com/5992818/the-right+wing-disinformation-campaign-against-victorias-secret

sergio    [29061.   Posted 29-Mar-2013 Fri 05:06]
  ` Extreme sexism may foster sexual harassment, rape and other forms of sexual violence.`
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism

I wonder if that what Pooch means by page 3 being `sexist`? That page 3 fosters sexual harassment, rape and other forms of sexual violence?

I think Lynne Featherstone seems to think that page 3 has `a great bearing` on domestic violence.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/lynne-featherstone-we-are-the-whipping-boys-even-though-were-the-good-guys-8165965.html

Does she actually point to any evidence of this `belief`?

mediasnoops2    [29060.   Posted 28-Mar-2013 Thu 16:41]
  Pooch you are complaining that female nudity in films is allowed but male nudity is not. So what are you advocating then that female nudity in films is banned? Or do you want male nudity allowed as well?

DoodleBug    [29059.   Posted 28-Mar-2013 Thu 10:23]
  @phantom

I would recommend you look through pooch`s own blog and you will see many articles written in such a way that reads to me as "you will read this and agree 100% and if you don`t you are wrong"
I know I`ll get flack back from pooch but I have to say he really doesn`t know his subject matter I.e extreme cinema, and sounds more like someone starting out on it for the first time. In fact parts of the posts remind me of me when I was 16 and just discovering banned movies 24 years ago. Later on as I learnt more I discovered and admitted my mistakes in my research. His blogs are full of holes and mistakes.

phantom    [29058.   Posted 28-Mar-2013 Thu 09:27]
  Pooch {29054}

I`m beginning to wonder whether things are altogether genuine here.

Generally the approach seems to have changed to being deliberately annoying. The amount of invective has gradually increased to the point where now it seems to substitute argument.
Albeit that the complaints about personal attacks of course still remain. (see addendum)

Meanwhile – and this is the crux of the matter - a debating device is being employed whereby any point made is being deliberately misunderstood. Then vociferous criticism of the misunderstood concept is provided, thus undermining the other party`s attempt at a perfectly valid argument.
Sure, misunderstandings happen in arguments, but this seems a little too conspicuous.
One is trying to entangle the opponent in the `that`s not what I meant` dilemma on just about every substantial point made.
It`s a device I`ve seen used by some who have attended things such as debating courses and it is a rather devious slight of hand designed at securing `victory` in debates. I`m assuming these tricks of the trade get around and some are willing to apply them (though they are widely deemed underhand).

Nonetheless, it just doesn`t make for a real debate if one side is not partaking in good faith.

So note that in Pooch`s last post I`m being torn to shreds for stating Pooch didn`t know the meaning of the word `debate`. Yet anyone casting an even cursory glance at my post can see that nothing of the kind was ever said. Not even remotely. My point was an entirely different one. In fact one that is pretty impossible to misinterpret. But one which it is very hard to return to when first having to fend off the `misunderstanding`. Thus I suggest a rhetorical tactic is being employed here.

As though to prepare the ground for any such complaint of mine, a paragraph has already been inserted stating that it`s my fault if I cannot express myself clearly.
Thus the ground has already been prepared in advance.

I`m even having criticism hurled at me for things other people have said. Again, this would take time and effort for me to explain on a point by point basis. It would deflect from the thrust of what I`m actually wanting to say, turning my posts ever more convoluted. As said, this is a debating device used to tie your opponent up in knots.

This is pretty cynical. But it`s not surprising given that I`ve already been told several posts back that I`ve `lost the debate in the worst possible manner`.
Winning seems important here and techniques seem to be being applied to ensure victory at all cost; techniques rather than arguments.

I have extensively tried to argue a case here but in this last reply I have simply detected a deliberate shift of tactic. In essence nothing of substance I had said was being addressed at all. Instead it`s all just misdirection.

I`ve already mentioned the change of context on points previously made in order to maintain an argument in a prior post of mine. Looking back, this too now rather looks like a deliberate device rather than a mere unwitting error of logic.

People can read what I said in my posts. They can clearly see that I have been trying to address matters broadly on issues of censorship in general, of the principle, or lack thereof, in opposing all censorship, and the relativism some will employ to justify `some censorship`.

I have spoken with some passion on the matter and invested some time in doing so.
But such attempts are either ignored altogether or just derided as a tirade. But they are most certainly not addressed.
One is instead engaging on the peripheral. Again, this seems intention rather than chance.

All effort now seems entirely targeted at deflection and misdirection.

This is not a way in which I am willing to have a debate with anyone.
There thus seems very little point in continuing on.

I thought however I would explain myself, as otherwise my retirement from this would be heralded as some great victory on someone`s part.

--

Addendum

I`ll leave you with a little list a decided to compile. I simply pasted all the invective in Pooch`s last post, one by one. For all I know I might even have missed some. But please, let`s consider; this is just from one post.
Now I`m not one to cry and whimper. I can take it. I too use invective in debate. We all do. Although most use it somewhat differently.
But it clearly remains that the person everlastingly complaining of being personally attacked is the person who is doling out most. Enjoy.

- your narrow-minded views.
- the exact views of a stereotypical white, Western, heterosexual male.
- The kind of view a knuckle-dragging neanderthal might hold,
- only cares about himself,
- is both patronising, highly laughable, deeply ignorant, and factually inaccurate.
- shows how utterly igorant you actually are.
- You really do see women as meat, as something for men to use/abuse,
- You almost seem to champion chauvanism!
- Ohh, handbags at dawn, folks!
- if you have an inability to explain exactly what you mean, then that`s hardly my fault.
- Are you seriously that desperate to point-score,
- Now who`s talking out of their arse?!
- you display a staggering ignorance of language.
- Is that simple enough for you to grasp?
- The problem is that as men, you are displaying staggeringly weak knowledge about concepts
- You just seem to want to ignore it all.
- as you so crassly implied.
- who has no actual defence to the subject under discussion.
- demonstrates amply you have no case to argue.
- It`s a childish, and truly pathetic attempt from someone who clearly hasn`t grown up much!

Shaun    [29057.   Posted 28-Mar-2013 Thu 08:30]
  @Pooch incorrectly wrote regarding women showing their breasts:
" If it were truly equal, then men would be allowed to display their penis off, in a daily newspaper. They can`t. Why? Because the law (as far as I know) doesn`t allow this"


AGAIN the above is complete and utter bunkum. Simply because women don`t show their VAGINAS and clitorises in newspapers either, which would be the equivalent of men showing their dangly bits NOT female boobs. I am unsure if they could or not. Ladies can (and men too, can show erect penises) in mags bought from newsagents, but it`s never been done in newspapers. I guess it would be frowned upon, given that newspapers serve a wider readership than nude mags in a paper shop would.

By the way - I am far from a misogynistic dinosaur.

If you knew me personally you`d know that. I never wolf whistle at girls or objectify them. I have enjoyed looking at nudes I admit it, and I am unashamed of it. I never saw the nudes as objects (that most men do is a complete myth I think) but as beautiful people. If I ever had any sexual thoughts about the pictures I`ve seen, it was related to HER, and never IT.

Oh, and I am still friends will all the girlfriends I`ve ever had in my life. Even my soon to be ex wife. None would tell you I was sexist or anything remotely like your description of me.

Check the meaning of misogynist. It means dislike or hatred of women. In the old days it meant only hatred and was a word cleverly hijacked by the feminists to mean something rather less, whilst trying to imply something more IE the real hatred. I don`t hate women, or dislike them. 99% of heterosexual men (and most gay men too I reckon) DON`T HATE WOMEN.

But as far as Page 3 is concerned I don`t believe:

It is at all harmful.
It implies ANY form of HATRED of females whatsoever.
It has no place in the lives of people who want to look at it.
That papers who want to publish it should not be free to do so.
That models who wish to appear in it shouldn`t be allowed to do so.

But of course I believe in both equality and freedom. Unlike some posting on here lately.

Freedom means people like you putting up with the existence of page 3. Even if you don`t like it.

Maybe it`s true you wouldn`t ban it. But your feminazi friends might well do given half the chance, and that would be repressive and plain wrong.

Not all feminists are so repressive by the way. Feminists against Censorship for example.

Shaun    [29056.   Posted 28-Mar-2013 Thu 07:52]
  Pooch -

After reading your latest drivel it makes me wonder if you have ever had any sort of close intimate relationship with an ordinary run of the mill woman to know how they really feel, and what they really want ?

Were all your girlfriends rampant repressive feminists I wonder ?

In fact most women privately like their male to be benignly dominant, but otherwise equal. They want him to be kind and generous, especially to have time for them, to LISTEN to them, to be a FRIEND, to be a decision maker but not to leave them out of the decision making process. IE they want their opinion sought and considered carefully before a decision is made. There are differences between the sexes but that doesn`t mean women are less equal. But they actually WANT their men to behave like FINE DECENT gentlemen have done throughout history rather than uncouth YOBBOS. Mr Darcy comes firmly to mind here. If feminism is incompatible with the ways and attitudes of Mr Darcy then feminism is firmly in the minority!

BUT the vast majority of women DON`T want to be domineered, shouted at, bossed around, abused, tormented, raped, sexually inimidated or anything of that kind. I suggest you have a deep loving relationship with one or two and you`ll then understand what I mean. In all the relationships I`ve had (including one 22 year marriage) they have ALL been this way. I cannot speak for the modern young woman of course, but according to my 19 year old daughter, and her interaction with her long standing boyfriend, not much has really changed here.

And yes many (not all I guess) do want to take their bras off on public beaches etc. I never had a girlfriend that didn`t. Go on holiday to a place like St. Tropez and you`ll understand that. Or even a hot day on a british beach. I remember when an old girlfriend and I went to Southern France on holiday with her mother and brother. The mother kept her bra off nearly all week. At home she didn`t like me (the daughter`s boyfriend) to even see her in a dressing gown. But that was her prerogative.

In my day (to use a phrase often employed by older people) women were quite often put on a pedestal by men. In public at least. People were quite shocked if a lady came into a pub alone, or if suitably accompanied, she drank pints of beer rather than the (then) obligtory half pint, usually of lager with lime or blackcurrant in, in a LADIES beer glass (which we never see nowadays) or maybe a feminine drink such as a babycham. We used to hold doors open for ladies. All ladies We gentlemen used to give up our seats on buses for them, and stand up when the bus was full. We`d also often stand up politely if a lady entered a room full of friends or family. I am sure the older fellows on here would verify that all this is true. I am talking about less than forty years ago by the way.

People never believed that girls ever swore. In my teens they never did at least not when the lads were around. Too unladylike. The revelation that they often did, was a little strange really! However it seems that the girls never really wanted to be placed on such a pedastal. They just wanted to be HUMAN the same as the rest of us. Nowadays if you hold the door open for a young woman you`re as likely to get sworn at for being in some way sexist, as to get thanked for some gentle kind politeness. Maybe they were placed too highly but it is almost one extreme to another. Not all changes have been for the better really. However I am all for equality of the genders, if that equality is real. But not your kind of equality, where women are still treated as if they really are something very different.

Females not being able to bare their chests IF THEY WANT TO is what really is the complete sexist bunkum in this debate. Either none of us should be able to show our chests or we all can. That`s true equality. They are only mammary glands after all. Not sex objects. They have a function just like ones nose, or ones ears. Why is it necessary for them to be covered up in public all the time ?

If I was a girl I think I`d just about hate you for your sexist ideas about equality.

Pooch    [29055.   Posted 28-Mar-2013 Thu 07:44]
  @Shaun [29051]. You said: "The main thing I have to say to you is that there are many women who are completely sick and tired of people like you telling them what they are free to do in the name of "respecting" them and their so called equality."

And once more, we have someone in this discussion who is reading what he wants to read, rather than what I said. How many more times do I have to repeat this?!

Women are free to go topless in a newspaper, if they wish to do so. Women are free to have photos of themselves topless taken, and be paid for it, for any publications they so wish, if that is what they would like to do. I am NOT stopping them or trying to stop them. At no point have I ever argued this. All I have said is this: PAGE 3 IS OUTDATED, SEXIST MATERIAL THAT SHOULD NOT BE IN A DAILY NEWSPAPER IN 21ST CENTURY BRITAIN! (I`ve place it in capitals, so there will hopefully be no misunderstandings on where I stand.)

You rally about "equality", and yet, you don`t see the hypocrisy of what "equality" actually entails, and what it means. If it were truly equal, then men would be allowed to display their penis off, in a daily newspaper. They can`t. Why? Because the law (as far as I know) doesn`t allow this. But that`s not because large amounts of men are wanting to show-off their appendages in a daily newspaper. Nor is it because women are clamouring to see men`s penises in their newspapers, because they aren`t.

Society wouldn`t allow it. Rupert Murdoch wouldn`t allow it. Men wouldn`t allow it.

But Society allows topless women. Murdoch allows topless women. The male editors of THE SUN allow it.

Do you not see that women, are therefore being treated unequally?

Men and women aren`t equal. In fact, there can`t be true equality, with everyone being equal. That`s an impossibility. However, we can strive to all be treated equally. For all of us to have the same rights, the same respect, to abide by the same laws. That`s what equality for women is about. It`s not about stopping them from doing someething, it`s purely about giving them more respect than they currently receive.

Again, that`s not putting them up on a pedestal and worshipping them. It`s not saying "women need to be given special treatment".

It`s purely, solely, and ONLY about women being seen and treated as equals, as far as humanly possible. It means not treating them as sexual objects. It means not wolf-whistling at them. It means not saying "Show us yer tits, love". It means being respectful towards them. It means seeing them as equal: the same as you, not the same because of you.

I am not the one that dictates what is or is not sexual. Science does. It`s a scientific fact. The breasts, the penis and the vagina are secondary sexual characteristics. That`s just a given. I can`t change that. Science can`t change that. Humanity can`t change it. God can`t change it. It just is what it is!

You moan: "I am sick and tired of this gender related sexist claptrap from people like you. So tired of it in fact that I can`t really be bothered arguing with it. It is so tedious reading the rubbish you have written I don`t want to even try anymore."

Fine. Well, I hate sexist, misogynistic dinosaurs who seem to think Page 3 isn`t sexist, and that women are equals, when there`s pages and pages of evidence to the contrary. I hate seeing men saying women are equal, when it`s blatantly obvious to anyone with an IQ marginally bigger than their shoe size, that women don`t get treated equally, that women have things tougher than men. That`s not me (as a man) being patronising to women, it`s me stating a fact.

So, there we go. We`ve both said our pieces. We`ve both stated our cases. And the world goes on. The world will continue to remain a deeply one-sided place, when men continue to think that Page 3 is not an issue worthy of discussion, and trivialise it as just "a bit of harmless fun".

You can continue to misguidedly believe that Page 3 is acceptable and okay, but you will meet other people - of both genders - who will vehemently disagree with you, and will fight for a more equal status for all women. You don`t have to like it. You don`t have to accept it. But it will continue with or without your help. And one day, maybe when someone treats you badly or in a manner you don`t like, because you are a white, heterosexual male, maybe, just maybe, you might rethink your attitude towards others.

Pooch    [29054.   Posted 28-Mar-2013 Thu 07:24]
  @Phantom: [29049] You said: "Generally your argument largely seems to circle around the use of rather tired old, feminist rhetoric. It`s the sort of sloganeering which has been around since the 70s."

So in your view, because it`s "tired" and "old", you seem to think it`s wrong. And I`m guessing that as a white, heterosexual male, you`ve probably never had to fight for any rights either? Why? Because the world treats men more favourably than women. That`s a simple fact.

You then turn back into the issue of my use of the word "subjugation" and start bringing in issues that aren`t relevant to the discussion at hand. The very fact that - as a (presumably) white, Western, heterosexual male you don`t see sexism as a form of subjugation, and claiming that if it is, it`s "preposterous" is the typical attitude I`d expect to hear from an average, White, Western heterosexual male. You deny it`s an issue, because:
1) You don`t care about it.
2) It doesn`t affect you, so you dismiss it as insignificant and a waste of time.
3) You seem to be under the complete disillusionment that Page 3 doesn`t contribute in any way, shape or form, to sexism in the world at large.
4) You trivialise the issue, to try and ignore it, and then trivialise anyone who brings it back up, because it doesn`t fit-in with your narrow-minded views.

Like I say, the exact views of a stereotypical white, Western, heterosexual male. The kind of view a knuckle-dragging neanderthal might hold, because he only cares about himself, and no one else. In your world, women aren`t equals, because you continue to allow things to go on unchallenged, as part of the status quo. Hey, Page 3, it`s only a bit of a joke. What harm does it cause?

To even try and suggest that "sexism" isn`t a form of subjugation, is both patronising, highly laughable, deeply ignorant, and factually inaccurate. Look in the dictionary. Or are you trying to tell everyone on here, that the OED and Websters are all wrong in how they define that word, because that is how it seems? The fact it tires you, and you then have the gaul to say "In the same way a woman having her bum pinched is not being subjugated. It`s an exaggeration beyond reason. Hence the call for perspective." shows how utterly igorant you actually are. You really do see women as meat, as something for men to use/abuse, and you don`t give a tinker`s cuss about it! You almost seem to champion chauvanism!

You then said: "To pretend that this is a debate that`s being had among the women of Kabul is just fanciful. So when I ask white, western, heterosexual, female you know fulwell what I mean. So let`s not pretend."

Ohh, handbags at dawn, folks! Phantom seems to think I don`t know the meaning of the word debate, and that I "know full well what I mean" too. Sorry, but if you have an inability to explain exactly what you mean, then that`s hardly my fault. Do you really need me to explain what the words "debate" means and the context in which I have been using it? Are you seriously that desperate to point-score, that the only way you can win your argument is to say I didn`t understand you? Give me a break! Now who`s talking out of their arse?!

As for your fact that "Sexism and gender issues are academic subjects in recent western tradition. I think you`ll struggle to find too many academics on the subject in – say – China or Japan.", you are probably right. But that doesn`t mean they aren`t valid issues that affect everyone. In the West we rallied against Communism, because we realised that it doesn`t make for a very good way of life. But in China and Korea, Communism is alive-and-well. So should we in the West reinstate Communism? Or could it be safely argued, that maybe, some countries haven`t quite caught up with modern changes in thinking?

You then continued with: "But no doubt I`m about to be told that I`m all in the wrong because I`m a petty, ignorant, narrow minded chauvinist and haven`t read up enough on gender and race issues. I`m just not media-literate enough to realise for sure whether someone is contradicting themselves but seeking to dress it up as `give and take`."

Dear-oh-dear, we are getting really desperate now. It looks like I need to explain the basic concepts of "give-and-take" now, because you seem to have failed to understood them. I would hate to think I was patronising you, but for someone who claims themselves to be erudite and well-read, you display a staggering ignorance of language. Give-and-take: the concept of people getting along, and being kind, helpful and productive, for the benefit of everyone. Also, a form of exchange. Also, a way of living within rules and boundaries, legal, moral and ethical. Is that simple enough for you to grasp? Give-and-take is also used to mean, when quoting figures or facts, and you don`t have the specifics available, e.g. "The UK has a population of 60 million, give-or-take".

Look, I`m not trying to paint myself out to perfect. I`m absolutely not. I`m not trying to make myself sound like I`m any better, or cleverer or more knowledgeable than any of you. Again, I`m not. The problem is that as men, you are displaying staggeringly weak knowledge about concepts that I would have expected people on a censorship website to be aware of, to understand. And you haven`t. It`s all so simple for you guys. You seem to be under the illusion that Page 3 is not an issue; that it isn`t sexist; that women aren`t treated worse than men - when there`s a shedload of evidence out there - and none of it from tabloids, nor feminists - but from leading figures in universities and other educational establishments: people who are authorities on these issues. People who are far wiser, than you, than me, than most of us in this forum.

Not all feminists are women, and not all women are feminists. I`m going to assume that as white, heterosexual men, you`ve never had someone tell you that you can`t do something, or can`t go somewhere, because of who you are. I`m going to assume that neither have you had someone treat you in a lesser manner, because you were white, heterosexual and male. I`m also going to assume that you`ve never been paid less, or had to fight tooth-and-nail to stand-up for your rights, as a man.

Those things don`t happen to men. They happen to women. They happen to women every day, every week, every year, in the Western world. You can deny it. You can try and say I`m talking garbage. You can belittle me, and call me names, and argue your case in every way imaginable, but it won`t change the fact that women being treated as inferiors, as lesser people, as people of less-than-equal rights to men, still goes on in the 21st Century.

Type into Google "sexism in the 21st century" and see how many articles and entries come up on this subject. Do the same for "Is Page 3 sexist" or "Is Page 3 demeaning to women"? Look at books on women`s issues, on gender issues, on sexism in your average branch of Waterstones. Look in other publications like journals. The evidence is out there. You just seem to want to ignore it all.

As for your assertion that "some issues are black and white". Yes, some are. They are issues of principle." No, you`re wrong. Some issues are black and white, but whether Page 3 is or isn`t sexist, is not one of them. Nor is it a matter of "principle" as you call it. A principle would be standing up for a right under the law or in society. Women wanting to be seen as equals, not meat. That would be a principle. The right to bear arms in America, might also be a principle. The right to be able to live your life, without the need to prove who you are or why you are doing something via an ID Card. That would be a principle. Page 3 is NOT a principle. It`s certainly not a right!

Do you even know why Page 3 was started? (I`m assuming you, and most others, don`t.) According to Wikipedia (not the best place to get info, but it`ll do for the matter at hand):

"When he relaunched the flagging Sun newspaper in tabloid format on 17 November 1969, Rupert Murdoch began publishing photographs of clothed glamour models on its third page. On 17 November 1970, editor Larry Lamb celebrated the tabloid`s first anniversary by publishing a photograph of 20-year-old German model Stephanie Rahn. Sitting in a field with one of her breasts visible from the side. The Sun gradually began to feature Page Three girls in more overtly topless poses, with their nipples clearly visible. Although these photographs caused controversy at the time, and led to the Sun being banned from some public libraries, they are partly credited with the increased circulation that established the Sun as one of the most popular newspapers in the United Kingdom by the mid-1970s."

So, it was basically included, to do nothing more than to raise circulation in a flagging paper.

Do you really feel that in the 21st Century, that that is a justifiable reason for it to remain? That is, it`s a national institution, part of British Heritage, and that`s why it needs to be kept?

Or perhaps, just maybe, British (and Western) society has moved on from seeing topless women in their daily newspaper; that we`ve matured both mentally and psychologically, and that - in fact - printing a photo of a topless women, is all about crass, cheap and tacky? Possibly even double-standards, when male nudity isn`t allowed?

And your issue that men can go topless, so why can`t women, is farcical. I`ve said before, that scientists, psychologists, people who deal with human development, have stated that breasts on women, are classified as "secondary sexual characteristics" or "traits". The male equivalent is the penis. They are not just features of the human form, like the face, or limbs. Their primary purpose is for child-birth and child-rearing, and to entice men. The penis is the same.

This is a fact. It`s not me saying it. It`s science!

If men were able to show off their penises in newspapers, then maybe, their might be the slimmest chance of an argument to retain Page 3. But you can`t, and so it isn`t. If the law says that "flashing" (either a women showing her breasts, or a man showing his penis) is illegal, then why do you think most people don`t go around doing these actions?

When Robert Mapplethorpe photography books are prosecuted for obscenity, why do you think this might be?

Why is female nudity (full or just toplessness) seen in films, but male frontal nudity isn`t?

It`s to do with double-standards. It`s to do with subjugation of women by men, for the benefit of other men.

This is not about me thinking I`m a victim, as you so crassly implied. It`s not about stopping men seeing pictures of naked or topless women, nor for that matter stopping women seeing naked pictures of men. It`s nothing to do with principles. It`s nothing to do with rights.

It`s solely and only about equality. About women and men being equal. About both genders being treated with the same respect, the same courtesy, the same decency.

That`s it. End of!

Comparing me to the likes of a filthy, insolent and mind-numbing wrag like the Daily Mail, is hilarious. You`re comparing chalk with cheese. It`s a petty attack, by a petty person, who has no actual defence to the subject under discussion. I`d respect you more, if you`d simply said "I like Page 3. That`s why I want it to remain".

The fact that you had to resort to such a cliche as "Calm down dear" demonstrates amply you have no case to argue. It`s a childish, and truly pathetic attempt from someone who clearly hasn`t grown up much!

DoodleBug    [29053.   Posted 28-Mar-2013 Thu 06:56]
  Pooch, I said I don`t take life seriously , I never said you did. Stop twisting things around.

As for not wanting a debate I`m talking about the pages and pages of drivvle you are posting.

One more thing .... BOOBIES !!! Sorry was I being sexist :-)

Pooch    [29052.   Posted 28-Mar-2013 Thu 06:26]
  @DoodleBug [29048] You said: "The "arse" thing was a JOKE. I don`t take life seriously, and no I don`t want a serious debate about it !"

Well, that "joke" was almost as funny as syphillis. You really need to try harder. And please don`t give me that bull about me taking life seriously. It wasn`t me that made the "joke" in the first place. Like I said before, you seem to want to be allowed to throw metaphorical stones at people, then when they throw them back at you, you start saying "Stop, I didn`t mean it. It was just a joke".

And the part about not wanting a serious debate, sounds suspiciously more like "I want the right to say something, but I don`t want to have to justify it".

My question to you, is if you don`t want a debate about things, why post on an Internet Forum?

Shaun    [29051.   Posted 28-Mar-2013 Thu 04:56]
  Pooch -

The main thing I have to say to you is that there are many women who are completely sick and tired of people like you telling them what they are free to do in the name of "respecting" them and their so called equality. If they were truly equal to men they could show off their chests if they wanted, just as we males are free to, couldn`t they ? Otherwise they are not equal are they ? How can they begin to be ?

You seem to imply they require some kind of special respect and consideration, which isn`t necessary for men to be accorded. That`s not equal either. If you want women to be equal then start treating them as such. Absolutely so. That doesn`t mean treating them like your mates down the pub either, unless they want to be your mate in the pub. You can start by acknowledging that the right to display ones chest in public should be the same for a woman as it is for a man. No more, no less, and STOP treating the female chest seen in public as something particularly overly sexual. This would be a good start for equality wouldn`t it ? In any case many women do find the sight of a well formed male chest a turn on too.

I am sick and tired of this gender related sexist claptrap from people like you. So tired of it in fact that I can`t really be bothered arguing with it. It is so tedious reading the rubbish you have written I don`t want to even try anymore.

I am hardly a child at 56 years old am I ?

If page 3 does get banned then it gets banned. But I would never consider that to be a step in favour of equality for women. Quite the opposite in fact.

So your argument now is they can`t show their boobs, even though they might look EXACTLY like man boobs, because THIER boobs are somehow sexual when male chests aren`t ? How equal is that for women ?

In fact boobs are there for feeding babies, not to be sexual. That some men might find them so, is irrelevant. That is the problem of some men isn`t it ? But the answer is not to prohibit girls from showing them, it is for men to behave themselves by not getting too publicly worked up about them if they happen to see them, in a newspaper or anywhere else. Treat the girls one meets in ones life, first and formost as FELLOW HUMAN BEINGS, the same as you, and the equality will surely follow from that, not from having them cover their chests up.

And men can grow boobs if they take the correct hormones. Have you ever seen any pictures of transvestites ? They have perfectly formed female looking boobs. Do those MEN have to hide theirs as well ?

I`ve never heard such complete rubbish spouted by any individual in all the time I`ve been on here and that`s something like seventeen years or so.

The fact that women can`t show their boobs in public is the fault of boys like you, not men like me who don`t make such a big deal out of it as you apparently do. I still firmly maintain that you sir, and people with similar views are the problem, rather than the solution.

PS: I`m not a Sun reader, nor the Star, or Sport. But that I don`t read these has nothing to do with the fact that they have boobs in them.

sergio    [29050.   Posted 27-Mar-2013 Wed 14:19]
  Pooch - if we take away page 3 what do you think will happen? Will all men now not demean women? Treat all of them with dignity? Will `sexism` gasp it`s last breath if we remove page 3? Will most men stop raping women when there is no page 3? Will the glass ceiling finally be broken if there is no page 3?

phantom    [29049.   Posted 27-Mar-2013 Wed 09:28]
  Pooch    {29047}        

Brilliant. The intake of sociology and gender issues students seems to have reached intellectual heights hitherto unimagined.

The simple fact that I highlighted how you seemed to dismiss anything that didn`t fit your view as either stupid, chauvinistic or otherwise limited seems to annoy you quite a bit. I think we know why.

And yes, I`m very facetious. I tend to be that grain of sand you can`t get out of your shoe. My old MP hated me.... :)

Generally your argument largely seems to circle around the use of rather tired old, feminist rhetoric. It`s the sort of sloganeering which has been around since the 70s. Some of those mantras you`ve in fact used several times over.

As for `subjugated`. The few women who might be trafficked into Britain and forced into prostitution could said to be subjugated. But for anyone to claim that `sexism` is subjugating anyone here is preposterous. Page 3 or girls shaking their stuff in music videos is not subjugating anyone.
The city of Corinth was subjugated by Mummius. Warsaw was subjugated by the Nazis.
Any other de facto use of the word `subjugation` is just politically correct hyperbole.
It`s the equivalent to the tiring over usage of the holocaust as a simile. People dying in Syria may be terrible. But it`s not a holocaust. It`s really that plain.
In the same way a woman having her bum pinched is not being subjugated. It`s an exaggeration beyond reason. Hence the call for perspective.

And let`s not pretend that this is some sort of global debate. This is not about the views of women in Iran, or Nigeria, or Basra. I think you`ll find that most of those women do not actually have a desire to live by the standards set out in courses on gender issues. They are members of an entirely different culture.
The whole debate is in fact entirely a western debate. Germaine Greer is not a black Nigerian or Muslim woman from Bangladesh. Neither were any of the other leading feminist writers.
So please, let`s not pretend that the talk of white, western, heterosexual, male it not just an overused stereotype for describing the reactionary.
To pretend that this is a debate that`s being had among the women of Kabul is just fanciful.
So when I ask white, western, heterosexual, female you know fulwell what I mean. So let`s not pretend.
Sexism and gender issues are academic subjects in recent western tradition. I think you`ll struggle to find too many academics on the subject in – say – China or Japan.

I won`t even try to deal with all the points where you have now changed the context of an original statement in order to maintain an argument. Time`s just too precious.

But as you`re always saying that you`re not arguing for the banning of anything, let`s just reflect upon that line of yours:
`...but as someone who is against most censorship, most of the time,`
I think most will find that a very telling line.
The let`s add this line of yours to the mix:
`But being for some/any censorship, is not the same is wanting stuff banned.`
Hmm, that`s a really interesting line. Wanting censorship is not actually `wanting stuff banned`.

But no doubt I`m about to be told that I`m all in the wrong because I`m a petty, ignorant, narrow minded chauvinist and haven`t read up enough on gender and race issues. I`m just not media-literate enough to realise for sure whether someone is contradicting themselves but seeking to dress it up as `give and take`.

And I really struggle to see how you didn`t get the point on rape. I deliberately chose a point that I knew would be dear to your heart. But no, you sailed right past the comparison and demanded to know why this was being brought up. And of course, its mention only proved you further right. (seriously?)

Some issues are black and white. They are issues of principle.
I trust you would see rape as such an issue. There is no give and take. There is no compromise. There are no mitigating circumstances. There is no rape that is ok.
On matters of principle there is no give and take. (Got it yet?)
Those who argue for give and take on censorship are not defenders of principle. They cannot claim to be anti-censorship. If so it`s pure hypocrisy.

And please, I love the piece about view point and stance! Yours is the other point of view. Mine is the unacceptable stance. If you`re planning a career in political speech writing I think you might be a great success.

Meanwhile the victim thing is just rubbing a bit thin. You`re happily calling people stupid, but if people take you up on matters, they`re merely attacking you unfairly and personally as they don`t have an argument. Must it really always be this way with feminists? First they come in swinging, but then withdraw behind the petticoat, if arguments are returned. It`s just tiresome.

And the free society is of course one in which murder and rape abound. A paradise for paedophiles (I wondered how long it would be before they`d make a showing), rapists and other ne`er-do-wells.

Funny, how much that chimes here on Melonfarmers. We were here when Labour ministers were assuring the world of the need for the Dangerous Pictures Act. Paedophiles, rapists and other ne`er-do-wells also figured quite highly then. As said, one has heard it time and again.
Freedom is too dangerous. We need give and take. Lest the paedophiles take over.
Of course, of course.....

You cannot even the see the clear parallels between the language of the Daily Mail and some of the things you`ve been saying. Words such as `infesting` and `excretia`. Just throw in the use of the word `depravity` a few times and you`re word perfect.

And of course the final passage was just pure diatribe.
No arguments were needed at all to counter anything I said there. Just diatribe.
Again, rather telling....

And whether I am worthy of `aligning myself with Melonfarmers` whatever that precisely means, I`ll leave that up to Melonfarmers, thank you very much.

But like a true pro, you`ve kept the best for last.

`You`ve lost this debate, in the worst manner possible.`

Superb. Truly. After all, there always must be a winner in these things, mustn`t there?
And it so obviously just has to be you.

If I may quote the Prime Minister at one of his proudest moments,
`Calm down, dear...`

DoodleBug    [29048.   Posted 27-Mar-2013 Wed 08:01]
  @pooch

The "arse" thing was a JOKE. I don`t take life seriously, and no I don`t want a serious debate about it !

You don`t like page 3 and I don`t really care if its there or not. The world isn`t gonna end either way. People have a choice if they want to look at something or not, just like anything in life.

Pooch    [29047.   Posted 27-Mar-2013 Wed 07:13]
  @Phantom [29045]: You said, when I wrote `Well good for her! "That`s the stupid argument."

That`s your point-of-view, to which you are entitled, but that`s not what I meant. It was no more "stupid" than Doodlbug`s girlfriend claiming that I was talking out of my arse - something I think she`ll find is physically impossible. But hey, if people want to throw stones at me, and then don`t like it when I throw stones back, that`s their problem not mine. I believe I`ve more than adequately explained my stance on this issue; my views and feeling were lucid, detailed and forthright, but because they don`t chime with most of the others on here, you then want to demolish my argument, by making out that I don`t know what I`m talking about.

Well, sorry to burst your debating-bubble, but I do know what I`m talking about. I`m not a pushover, when it comes to debating. I can hold my own against the best. I apologise if that doesn`t make your life (or anyone else`s) nice and easy.

You then said: "So, `ingrained chauvinistic cultural attitudes` is really just a substitute for `stupid argument`, isn`t it?" No, it isn`t. Again, you do love to be facetious, don`t you.

Continuing on, you wrote: "Subjugated? Seriously? Page 3? Wimmin?"
The demonstrations of your hypocrisy is astounding! You really can`t see the wood for the trees, can you? Re-read what you`ve just written. You can`t even give women the basic respect of calling them "women". Your own language is demeaning. You`ll deny this, of course, but your own blinkered attitude is shocking in its sexism.

As for your little lecture on what "subjugation" means, you don`t know the half of it! According to the Oxford English Dictionary: "Subjugated: Verb - to bring under control or domination, espectially via conquest, AND/OR to make someone or something a subordinate too, e.g. through gender, racial or ethnic barriers. So please don`t condescend to me about what "subjugation" means!

You then said: "Trust me, very, very few people in this country are being subjugated these days. Again, a little perspective please."

Ask your Mum, your Nan, your sister, your niece if they have ever felt like they have been subjugated, at any point in their life. Go on. I suspect they will tell you "Yes". If you ask by whom, they will probably say by "men", so don`t tell me to get some perspective. I`ve got 20/20 vision on perspective! You`re the one that`s refusing to look at this issue openly and widely.

You then asked: "The other side being `white, western, heterosexual, female`?"

No. I was thinking more along the lines of non-white, non-Western, women. But hey, let`s go for a cheap dig at my expense. Far more entertaining!

You then said: `In your limited view, Page 3 is not an issue.` `In your limited view`? Another euphemism for `stupid argument`, perchance?"

Once more, you demonstrate immense naiveity, and a pigheadedness that is nothing short of astounding. Any other argument or viewpoint is - in your words - always "stupid" - based soley on the fact that you don`t agree with it. I think that demonstrates why you and Doodlebug amply fit my original assertion that no one on here is looking at this argument from any other viewpoint, than a white, heterosexual, Western male viewpoint.

"So women being allowed the choice to appear in the Sun isn`t actually free will? We`re side stepping the real issues, are we? So just who or what is forcing the poor darlings to take their tops off? Let me guess: sexism and gender issues."

Again, an astonishingly ignorant view, from a man who refuses to acknowledge any other view than his own. Again, at no point have I ever said that women (or men) should not be allowed to pose naked. In fact, I think I clearly said that they could in one of my previous posts. However, because your argument is so weak, and so ill-defined, you have no choice but to try and attack me, by deliberately trying to imply and suggest things I have never said, and never written. And you do this, because you can`t (or won`t) actually tackle the discussion (over whether or not Page 3 should continue) in an adult manner. Your view is "Page 3 is fine" and that`s it. That`s not a viewpoint, that`s a stance. And when I ask you to explain why you feel this way, you can`t or won`t explain it. You just sit there and tell me "Page 3 is a choice. Page 3 is not sexist or outdated. Page 3 is harmless fun". You just refuse, point-blankly, to justify your views. Why do you not justify them? Is it because you can`t? Is it because you don`t know how to? Or is it because you simply can`t justify them, because you feel you shouldn`t have to justify them? Is it because they`re your views, and you don`t think you should have to explain them to anyone - least of all someone like me?

Well, hey! Guess what! Debating involves exchanging views, challenging preconceptions (and misconceptions) and not just standing idly by, saying "This is what I believe" and refusing to explain yourself. Any idiot can go "I think Page 3 is fine, and is not sexist" and refuse to explain themselves. That requires no braincells, or intelligence. What does, is explaining why you feel the way that you do.

But as I`ve said before, no one in this discussion seems to want too. The only demonstration of your beliefs, is to attack mine, because you don`t agree with them.

Continuing on. You said: "Trust me, we are looking at it very openly. We even demand non-censorship of the other side."

No, no, no! You are absolutely not! I am NOT and never have said Page 3 should be banned. Once more, you read my views and then twist them into what you want to hear me say, so that you can then turn them against me. Well, it won`t work. I have never said Page 3 should be banned. I have only, and repeatedly said, that I felt Page 3 was sexist and outdated and should no longer be in a 21st Century newspaper. Not wanting something, is not the same as wanting something to be banned. You don`t see that, because you don`t want to see that!

Continuing on, I said: `Being anti-censorship is not the same as saying anything and everything is acceptable. It isn`t.` and you replied: "I think you will find it is. Anti-censorship doesn`t mean anti-censorship, except for the censorship one agrees with."

Again, you are completely wrong. I can be for something without saying I want it. I can be against something without wanting it banned. There is a difference - a marked difference - but you are acting stubbornly, because you refuse to open-up on your own narrow view of things.

Anti-censorship means against censorship. On that we agree. But being for some/any censorship, is not the same is wanting stuff banned. I don`t like pornography. It does nothing for me. Do I want it banned? No. Why not? Because I feel adults should have the right to see and view porn, within certain ethical, moral and legal limits. (e.g. no child porn, as a simple example). I don`t like porn, but I don`t want it banned. Do you not see the difference? Clearly not.

I don`t want to ban Page 3. I would just simply prefer it to not be in THE SUN, because it is outdated and sexist, and perpertuates the stereotyped idea that all women are nothing but meat, for men to gawp at. And, as I have said in a previous post, if Page 3 were removed, then sales of THE SUN would plummet! All SUN readers know this. Most media people know this. Every singel, sensible, adult and intelligent man knows this. Rupert Murdoch knows this.

Moving forward, I said: `I realise my posts are going to stir-up debate, and maybe even hatred amongst some of you, but as someone who is against most censorship, most of the time,` and you responded by saying: "which means `as someone who is against censorship, except for when it happens to suit your agenda...`"

No, it does not mean that at all. Once more, you are twisting what I say, so it suits what you want it to read. I say I don`t want Page 3 anymore. You hear "Pooch wants Page 3 banned"! You really are demonstrating a bewilderingly narrow-minded view of things here, and doing your argument precious little favours.

I wrote: "There`s give-and-take in everything, and as Melon-Farmers members; as adults on here, who I hope are more broadminded, literate, intelligent, sophisticated and tolerant, you would understand that not everything that you see as acceptable or okay, is always going to be seen by everyone in the same manner."

You responded with: "`Give and take`; the relativist`s mantra. Principle is very hard to maintain if everything is `give and take`."

Oh dear, oh dear. You really do have no argument to make, do you? Give-and-take, means "responsibility". Being Anti-censorship does not mean being for unrestricted access of every, single, little thing. If you don`t realise this, or simply don`t want to realise this, then you really do need to start opening your eyes, reading up on the subjects of censorship, the modern media world, being media-literate, on issues of women`s rights, gender-stereotyping, on subjects like racism, sexism and homophobia, and digesting it - in=depth and in-detail.

Where does the issue of "rape" come into things? IN fact, if anything, it strengthens my argument, not yours. Rape is about power, control, subjugation - of a man denigrating a woman, for his pleasure. Oh look, there`s that word "subjugation" again. The word you claimed I didn`t know what it meant. The word you claimed I was misusing. Looks like you`ve struck-out your own argument, and made mine for me.

You then said:"So do we; a free society."

Again, wanting a free society, is not the same as having a society in which anyone can do anything. If that is what you want, then you really aren`t half as well-read as you think you are. If you want a society in which rapists can rape women; in which sexual assault is something to be brushed under the carpet; in which women can continue to be dumped on by men, by doing the same jobs, for a third less of the wages; in which padeophiles can be free to commit heinous crimes - then by all means go for it. But that`s not what you want, is it? That`s certainly not what the Melon-Farmers is about, not one bit! Again, being anti-censorship does not equate to living in a land in which anyone can do anything with impunity. If it does, then you have the right to go out, commit a murder, and not get put into prison. If it doesn`t, then it means that if you kill someone, then unless you have a damn good reason for doing that act, you will go to prison. So which is it?

When I wrote: "I`m sick of lowest common-denominator crap infesting our cinemas, our TV`s and our newspapers.", you responded with: "Hm, or maybe you`re more of a Daily Mail columnist."

Dear, oh dear. You really don`t have a leg to stand-on now. Your argument gets weaker and weaker as it goes on. The fact you then end with this wonderful little diatribe...

"In that same way, you don`t matter with page 3. You don`t. Full stop. The hard working, heavily mortgaged lorry driver who`s driving heavy equipment to Aberdeen in the pouring rain, is 300 miles from his wife and kids, who stops at the motorway services for a bite to eat; the page 3 girl brings a brief smile to his face before he sets off again. He matters. You don`t.

It really is that simple."

... shows how ignorant you are of the world in which we live. I weep for you. I weep for everyone who knows you. You are absolutely not what the Melon-Farmers is about, and you don`t deserve to be aligning yourself with them, if that is your petty, ignorant and narrow-minded view of things!

You`ve lost this debate, in the worst manner possible.

Pooch    [29046.   Posted 27-Mar-2013 Wed 06:31]
  @DoodleBug [29042]. You said: "I treat people as people- man, woman or child, no matter what country they live in or where they come from. Everyone is the same, we all live on this little planet called Earth, and I don`t care what people look like. I don`t look at people as "pieces of meat".

Yet, by continuing to champion Page 3, and saying that "it causes no harm" or "it`s just a bit of fun", you are doing the exact opposite of what you claim. Ask any large numbers of women what they think about Page 3, and most will probably not like you for liking it. Ask any university lecturer in Women`s Studies, Gender-Empowerment Studies, or leading Feminist, and they will agree with me that Page 3 objectifies women. You don`t like that, because you are a heterosexual male, who refuses point-blank to look at this issue from any other angle, than your own. By doing that, you are as closed-minded as the Daily Mail is when it demands films to be banned.

At no point have I said Page 3 should be banned - and I dare anyone to try and prove it. All I have said, and have repeatedly said, is that Page 3 should no longer be in a daily newspaper, because it is sexist, outdated nonsence, and is demeaning to women. You (and others, but I`ll get onto them in a moment) don`t seem to care that Page 3 objectifies women. You don`t care that it continues to deman women. You just care about yourself. You want Page 3, so that`s alright. Well, it isn`t okay.

You then said: "It also sounds to me as though you would be happy if I got rid of my entire 25 year old film, magazine (and any other media) collection just to make the world a better place so there`s a bit less nudity floating about. I will point out also, that the so-called "sexist" material you want to abolish, I sell for a living as well as collect it. So I guess in you eyes that makes me a very bad person !"

No, I don`t need you to get rid of your magazine and movie collection, but to be frank, you`re just being really childish now. If you don`t want to partake in an adult debate, then don`t make childish analogies. It sounds like the whinings of a baby throwing his rattle out of the pram!

As for your claim about "Most of the stuff you`ve just mentioned I haven`t even posted!", I was under the distinct impression you were part of this discussion? You were the one who mentioned your girlfriend reading my post, and said I was talking out of my arse, so I came back at you with a lengthy riposte. Clearly, it`s okay for you to throw proverbial stones at me, and label me a fool (via your girlfriend), but woebetide me doing the same to you, because you then cry "foul"!

Sorry, but either you participate and have to learn to accept that if you throw stones at others, they may throw stones at you, or you leave the debate in full, and then don`t say anything. You chose the former. Learn to deal with it - if you are the wonderful, mature adult you claim yourself to be!

phantom    [29045.   Posted 26-Mar-2013 Tue 19:25]
   Pooch    {29039}        

`Well good for her! …..That`s the stupid argument. ...`

So, disagreeing is using `the stupid argument`? I think you`ll encounter a great many `stupid arguments` in your lifetime then.

`I could also say the same about you, but hey, why let years and years of ingrained chauvinistic cultural attitudes get in the way of a decent, honest and open debate...`

So, `ingrained chauvinistic cultural attitudes` is really just a substitute for `stupid argument`, isn`t it?

`... is becaase you`ve never been subjugated, or demeaned or mistreated for being who you are....`

Subjugated? Seriously? Page 3? Wimmin?
Carthage was subjugated by the Romans. After the butchery the survivors were dragged away to slavery. A heel on your neck; that`s the meaning of the word `subjugated`. Trust me, very, very few people in this country are being subjugated these days.
Again, a little perspective please.

`All of you are looking at this issue, from one side of the coin only: the white, Western, heterosexual, male viewpoint. None of you are even considering the other side at all.`

The other side being `white, western, heterosexual, female`?

`In your limited view, Page 3 is not an issue.`

`In your limited view`? Another euphemism for `stupid argument`, perchance?

`To you guys, it`s just a bit of fun. It`s women being allowed to do whatever they want (which it isn`t at all). It`s silly, harmless stupidity in a newspaper that doesn`t take itself seriously. But you are sidestepping all the issues.`

So women being allowed the choice to appear in the Sun isn`t actually free will? We`re side stepping the real issues, are we? So just who or what is forcing the poor darlings to take their tops off? Let me guess: sexism and gender issues.

`You aren`t looking at this openly. You aren`t taking into account any views from the other side.`

Trust me, we are looking at it very openly. We even demand non-censorship of the other side.

`Being anti-censorship is not the same as saying anything and everything is acceptable. It isn`t.`

I think you will find it is. Anti-censorship doesn`t mean anti-censorship, except for the censorship one agrees with.

`Anti-censorship does not equate to allowing an anything-goes state of affairs.`

I think you will find it does. Anti means against. Against censorship. That`s pretty unambiguous.

`And just because you are anti-censorship, does not mean that you are for allowing anyone to access anything -`

I think you will find it does.

`which is how the Daily Mail would paint many liberals and Melon-Farmer members: namely that if you want to be allowed to see pornography, or watch SAW, then you are somehow abhorrant or freakish, or sick.`

Why, is the Daily Mail anti censorship? :)

`I realise my posts are going to stir-up debate, and maybe even hatred amongst some of you, but as someone who is against most censorship, most of the time,`

which means `as someone who is against censorship, except for when it happens to suit your agenda...`

`I also accept that just because I think something`s okay and acceptable, it doesn`t mean that everyone else should as well.`

Indeed. Nobody must agree with any expression per se. They are free not to watch, not to listen, not to read. They are free to turn off. They are free not to buy the Sun, not to look at page 3. Such is freedom.

`There`s give-and-take in everything, and as Melon-Farmers members; as adults on here, who I hope are more broadminded, literate, intelligent, sophisticated and tolerant, you would understand that not everything that you see as acceptable or okay, is always going to be seen by everyone in the same manner.`

`Give and take`; the relativist`s mantra. Principle is very hard to maintain if everything is `give and take`.
Is there give and take in rape? Or are there actually things in which there is no give and take? Are some things a matter of principle perchance, with no give and take?

`I aspire for a society that is better than it currently is.`

So do we; a free society.

`I want a country that aims for a higer, more intellectually-worthwhile media.`

Let it aim. Better still, produce high-brow content yourself. The world needs a new Brunowski.

`I`m sick of lowest common-denominator crap infesting our cinemas, our TV`s and our newspapers.`

Hm, or maybe you`re more of a Daily Mail columnist.

`We`ve become a nation that seems to be happy to just accept the second-rate, the intellectually-stunted, the most cerebrally-numbing toss in every walk of the media, and we tolerate it as something aspirational, because that`s how we like it. For every BBC4, Sky Arts 1 and 2, there`s a shedload of ITV2`s, MTV`s and E4`s churning-out hour-after-hour-after-hour of utter excretia: the stuff that a sceptic tank explosion would deem too shitty to want to air!`

Definitely a Daily Mail columnist.

`Ultimately, for me it comes down to two things:
1) Page 3 is outdated. It`s not novel, or smart, or clever. It`s not even enjoyable in an "Oh, look how low this paper has to go, to sell itself". It`s just sexist, garbage that serves no purpose other than for neandethalic males to get their jollies on the cheap. We, as men and women, deserve better than this cheap, sexist titillation - pun firmly intended.`

Outdated? What superseded it? 3-D? The wonderbra? Alton Towers? The Trades Descriptions Act?

`2) Women deserve better than the lot they currently have to tolerate. All women deserve to be treated as equals, with equal rights, equal pay, equal roles and chances in society. Unfortunately, most men don`t want women to be their equals, and so they keep women subjugated, because it serves the men better that way. If women were truly equals to men, and society wasn`t so inherently sexist, the world would probably be a better place for everyone.`

`Have to tolerate`... Just what is it that women in the country whose head of state is a woman, whose longest serving prime minister of the modern era was a woman, have to tolerate? Page 3? Builders` wolf whistles? Seriously?
Meanwhile, of course, us blokes have been conspiring for years. We have weekly meetings down at the pub, titled HTKWDMs (How to keep women down meets). I believe the first HTKWMs were instigated by the Mesopotamians. We wouldn`t want to break with tradition. It`s all a big conspiracy, you see. Up the patriarchy!

But just to summarize your point; if the world weren`t so sexist.... (page 3 is sexist... so if the world had no page 3 in it....) it would be a better place for everyone. (i.e. No page 3 = better world.) Hm, interesting. I never knew Samantha Fox was that important.

In the end it all just boils down to this.
Freedom is not the `freedom not to be offended`. That is freedom as Blair, Widdicombe or Dacre would have it. Tehy are the people of give-and-take. No, freedom is the freedom to say as you please. But freedom comes with a duty. The duty to allow that to be said, that to be expressed, which offends you. Freedom requires strength. It requires effort.

Holocaust denial. `Fuck Blair` T-shirts. Page 3. Benetton adverts. Pornography. Child beauty pageants. Preachers of hate. Torture porn horror films. If someone doesn`t like it. Tough. Move to North Korea.
You either choose to be a citizen who makes his own mind up, or a subject who wishes to be ruled by those who know better.

There is no way to intellectualise censorship. Censorship is not high brow. It does not preserve us from the lowest common denominator. It neither enlightens nor educates.
Censorship only destroys. Moreover it denies people their voice, their avenues of expression.
We do not get a choice as to what other people might wish to express. It may be Vivaldi. It may be `cor what a crackin` pair of knockers!`
We do not get a say. They do.
This means freedom. Their freedom. Collectively, it means our freedom. Because in the end all of us are `they`.
The person who says that they support freedom, but...
That person betrays us all. That is the person who doesn`t get it.
That person condemned Socrates. That person crucified Christ. That person burnt books.
This is not hyperbole.
For all those people believed in freedom... but...
These were all people of give-and-take, who didn`t support the principle.

Freedom is indivisible. It either is or it isn`t.
You either can speak or you cannot.
The moment that you may speak, but....
At that moment you are no longer free to speak.

`Sexism and gender issues` are no better than `taste and decency` or `family values` if they are used to silence a form of expression.

All censorship always aims to make the world a better place. Yet the result is always the same.
It doesn`t matter who bans something `for the common good`, it only ever leads to more censorship. For someone is always waiting ready to shout, `But that is just as bad!`
Censorship only begets censorship.

So you think Page 3 demeans women? Fine. Get over it.

I believe that Eastenders and Coronation Street rot the brains of its mainly female audience. But I don`t get a say. That`s good. I shouldn`t get a say. The old age pensioner widow to whom it gives a little joy to watch the latest goings on of this or that street or square; she`s the one who matters. Not me.

In that same way, you don`t matter with page 3. You don`t. Full stop. The hard working, heavily mortgaged lorry driver who`s driving heavy equipment to Aberdeen in the pouring rain, is 300 miles from his wife and kids, who stops at the motorway services for a bite to eat; the page 3 girl brings a brief smile to his face before he sets off again. He matters. You don`t.

It really is that simple.

sergio    [29044.   Posted 26-Mar-2013 Tue 16:30]
  http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/03/our_internet_su.html

MichaelG    [29043.   Posted 26-Mar-2013 Tue 11:55]
  DailyMail Bullshit Blame Bingo - No. 56,786:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2298995/Gary-George-chester-Horror-film-fanatic-jailed-life-torturing-friend-Andrew-Nall-death.html

It`s so second nature to them now, they`re even doing it when it`s so utterly irrelevant it beggars belief. A middle England house demolition being compared to the Vietnam War, anyone?:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2298950/It-like-Apocalypse-Now-Family-home-knocked-couple-sold-given-offer-refuse.html

DoodleBug    [29042.   Posted 26-Mar-2013 Tue 09:03]
  @pooch [29039]

Right, lets clear a few things up seeing as you have brought up the subject of bullying. I was bullied for 5 years straight throughout secondary school because of the way I looked and I was bullied by a manager at work a few years ago. So, been there, done that, worn the badge.
I treat people as people- man, woman or child, no matter what country they live in or where they come from. Everyone is the same, we all live on this little planet called Earth, and I don`t care what people look like. I don`t look at people as "pieces of meat".

It also sounds to me as though you would be happy if I got rid of my entire 25 year old film, magazine (and any other media) collection just to make the world a better place so there`s a bit less nudity floating about.
I will point out also, that the so-called "sexist" material you want to abolish, I sell for a living as well as collect it. So I guess in you eyes that makes me a very bad person !

One more thing to add - why the hell are you having a go at me ? Most of the stuff you`ve just mentioned I haven`t even posted !

sergio    [29041.   Posted 26-Mar-2013 Tue 06:46]
  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/9936103/Schoolgirls-want-porn-star-looks-teachers-told.html

Pooch    [29040.   Posted 26-Mar-2013 Tue 06:27]
  @Quagmires Dooflab [29038]: The problem is that the law is a grey-area on the issues you`ve raised.

In theory, YouTube would probably be breaking UK obscentiy laws if they allow UK citizens to watch "Jess Franco`s Women In Cellblock 9" or the full version of ""Sweet Sweetback`s Baadasssss Song". However, it would require the police or the law, or a complaint from a member of the public to get anything done, and YouTube would probably just delete the video at the most anyway. Plus, they would argue that they have no control over what videos are uploaded, and over the video`s contents, unless that is the videos breach UK Obscenity Laws. But it would still require someone in the police or government, to actually get any charges made against the might of YouTube, and I seriously doubt much would get done.

As for importing the uncut DVD of "Sweet Sweetback`s...", technically, you would be in breach of the Protection Of Children/Minors laws, or possibly the Obscene Publications Act, but it would be down to someone knowing the content, viewing it, and double-checking with the BBFC that the content is no longer legal in the UK.

If you bought the old, uncut BBFC-approved VHS, and still owned it, or bought the old VHS tape from a jumble sale, secondhand store, or via eBay or Amazon, then you`d probably be safe, as - at the time of classification - the BBFC approved it. The fact they rescinded the old uncut version, asked for cuts, and then re-classified it, would probably not mean you owning the uncut version would be an offence.

The problem would be importing the uncut version, AFTER the old version had been withdrawn, banned, and then classified in a cut form with an 18, due to the content. If you knowingly imported the uncut version, then you could potentially open yourself up to prosecution. But it`s all potential, mind you. Hence, why I said at the start, that this is a grey-area of the law.

Pooch    [29039.   Posted 26-Mar-2013 Tue 06:18]
  @DoodleBug [29029]: You said: "My g/f has just read your posts as well and she also watches my exploitation films with lots of nudity in , and she has come to the conclusion you are talking out of your arse !"

Well good for her! She`s clearly someone who doesn`t know much about sexism, gender issues, feminism and women`s rights, or at least doesn`t give a damn about them, until - presumably - they start affecting her directly. Of course, by then, she`ll be demanding equal rights, and fair treatment, and to not be objectified. But it`s too late caring for something only when it affects you directly. That`s the stupid argument. Stuff everyone else, but as soon as an issue is directly affecting your way of life, then we throw our collective arms in the air, and shout that we`re being discriminated against, and we`re being treated unfairly, and demanding help from others.

Well, one day, your girlfriend will realise that. I hope to hell, that when she does experience sexism, or gender discrimination, or - god forbid (and I hope this never happens to her or any woman in the world) gets sexually assaulted, for simply being a woman - that she won`t come complaining to me, to you, or to anyone else, about how she has been abused or mistreated because she is a woman. Because, by then, it`s too late.

I could also say the same about you, but hey, why let years and years of ingrained chauvinistic cultural attitudes get in the way of a decent, honest and open debate about something devisive. Let`s just stick to the "Well, it`s all just a bit of fun" shctick, and continue subjugating many (though not all) women, and treating most (but again, not all) of them as pieces of meat. As I said before, the fact that you - as a man - can`t, don`t or won`t see any side of my argument as an "issue" that needs to be discussed, demonstrates more than any actual written part of your argument. In fact, I would argue that the reason you say what you do, is becaase you`ve never been subjugated, or demeaned or mistreated for being who you are at any stage in your life, by other people who felt you shouldn`t be on this planet in the first place. Until you have been subjected to that kind of abusive and demeaning behaviour, then I say that you can`t truly talk or know of the experience that you say is nothing to worry about.

At no point in my arguments, have I ever said that women should NOT be allowed to pose topless or nude. At no point, have I said pornography (films, photos, or magazines) be banned. I have simply and clearly said that Page 3 is an outdated piece of sexism that should no longer be in a daily newspaper, because it demeans women in general. Nothing more, nothing less. Most women (though not all) do not like it. Most women (though not all) don`t like the way many (though not all) men see and treat them. And most men (though not all) do treat women as inferiors, and as objects. You need to open your eyes, and start looking at the world around you, and not just take everything you see and hear at face value - which is how you appear to do so at the moment.


@mediasnoops2 [29032]You asked: "So are you for the banning of Page 3 then?". Yes, and see my reply above (and other previous posts I`ve made) to Doodlebug to see why.


All of you are looking at this issue, from one side of the coin only: the white, Western, heterosexual, male viewpoint. None of you are even considering the other side at all. In your limited view, Page 3 is not an issue. To you guys, it`s just a bit of fun. It`s women being allowed to do whatever they want (which it isn`t at all). It`s silly, harmless stupidity in a newspaper that doesn`t take itself seriously. But you are sidestepping all the issues. You aren`t looking at this openly. You aren`t taking into account any views from the other side. Being anti-censorship is not the same as saying anything and everything is acceptable. It isn`t. Anti-censorship does not equate to allowing an anything-goes state of affairs. And just because you are anti-censorship, does not mean that you are for allowing anyone to access anything - which is how the Daily Mail would paint many liberals and Melon-Farmer members: namely that if you want to be allowed to see pornography, or watch SAW, then you are somehow abhorrant or freakish, or sick.

I realise my posts are going to stir-up debate, and maybe even hatred amongst some of you, but as someone who is against most censorship, most of the time, I also accept that just because I think something`s okay and acceptable, it doesn`t mean that everyone else should as well. There`s give-and-take in everything, and as Melon-Farmers members; as adults on here, who I hope are more broadminded, literate, intelligent, sophisticated and tolerant, you would understand that not everything that you see as acceptable or okay, is always going to be seen by everyone in the same manner.

I aspire for a society that is better than it currently is. I want a country that aims for a higer, more intellectually-worthwhile media. I`m sick of lowest common-denominator crap infesting our cinemas, our TV`s and our newspapers. We`ve become a nation that seems to be happy to just accept the second-rate, the intellectually-stunted, the most cerebrally-numbing toss in every walk of the media, and we tolerate it as something aspirational, because that`s how we like it. For every BBC4, Sky Arts 1 and 2, there`s a shedload of ITV2`s, MTV`s and E4`s churning-out hour-after-hour-after-hour of utter excretia: the stuff that a sceptic tank explosion would deem too shitty to want to air!

Ultimately, for me it comes down to two things:
1) Page 3 is outdated. It`s not novel, or smart, or clever. It`s not even enjoyable in an "Oh, look how low this paper has to go, to sell itself". It`s just sexist, garbage that serves no purpose other than for neandethalic males to get their jollies on the cheap. We, as men and women, deserve better than this cheap, sexist titillation - pun firmly intended.

2) Women deserve better than the lot they currently have to tolerate. All women deserve to be treated as equals, with equal rights, equal pay, equal roles and chances in society. Unfortunately, most men don`t want women to be their equals, and so they keep women subjugated, because it serves the men better that way. If women were truly equals to men, and society wasn`t so inherently sexist, the world would probably be a better place for everyone.

Quagmires Dooflab    [29038.   Posted 26-Mar-2013 Tue 05:38]
  Hi everyone.

I know that this has probably been asked before but I was just wondering what the legality of owning or watching a film that is in breach of the Protection Of The Children Act? YouTube are showing the full version of Jess Franco`s "Women In Cellblock 9" which is banned in Britain because of the act. But I can freely watch it, there. If I import "Sweet Sweetback`s Baadasssss Song" do the courts see that as buying child pornography? What if I own the original uncut VHS as passed by the BBFC?

Therumbler    [29037.   Posted 25-Mar-2013 Mon 18:29]
  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-21923930

"Spending hours watching TV or playing computer games each day does not harm young children`s social development, say experts.

The Medical Research Council (MRC) team who studied more than 11,000 primary school pupils says it is wrong to link bad behaviour to TV viewing.

Although researchers found a small correlation between the two, they say other influences, such as parenting styles, most probably explain the link. "

Therumbler    [29036.   Posted 24-Mar-2013 Sun 17:58]
  This might be of interest to you.

"VANCOUVER — Never mind the Internet. A Vancouver mother and schoolteacher is sounding the alarm after stumbling upon another medium that she thinks may corrupt young and impressionable minds: 19th-century “whale bone porn.”

Ann Pimentel raised the concern — and coined the unlikely phrase — after visiting the Vancouver Maritime Museum (VMM), a modest institution on the city’s west side. That’s where a small collection of etchings and engravings on whale teeth and bone is on display, part of a larger show that also features example of maritime tattoo art.

...

To date, Ms. Pimentel is the only person to complain. She has mounted a minor jihad, writing missives on various tourist-oriented websites and approaching local media outlets. “I am disturbed and troubled after a morning at the Vancouver Maritime Museum,” she wrote on Tripadvisor.com."

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/03/23/museums-whale-bone-porn-leaves-vancouver-mother-extremely-disturbed-demands-its-removal/

Therumbler    [29035.   Posted 24-Mar-2013 Sun 04:57]
  1 in 3 kids in Britain are apparently obese - that doesn`t exactly back up the message that kids are brainwashed by the media.

On the other hand the media also seems to be blamed for the obesity.

phantom    [29034.   Posted 23-Mar-2013 Sat 16:51]
  Yes, the old `body image` chestnut.

If one were to listen to Dianne Abbot & Co one could be led to think that all girls are starving themselves, due to pressure from all this unhealthy body imagery.

First off, let`s point out that there are two different aesthetics at work with all these body image issues.
One we often hear decried is that of the fashion industry. The other is that of porn.
Actually, the porn aesthetic seems `healthier` as those women are generally less skinny. Whereas the fashion industry imagery tends to favour the elf like waifs.

However, whichever way you look at is there is a glaring discrepancy in the rhetoric.
To illustrate this we only need to look at Dianne Abbott herself. Let`s face it. She`s vast.

For all the talk we hear of anorexia, the prevailing problem in society is that of obesity, not that of skeletal young women desperately trying to be a size 6. No, it`s more a problem of size 24 Jabba the Hutts stalking the highstreets of Britain with a hamburger in their hand...

Surely a `healthy body image` is that of an ideal. Is a fashion model or a porn model that far removed from the ideal?

For one, unlike Dianne Abbott, they tend actually to have a waist.
Why are slim women with waists an unhealthy body image?

Or is it that the Dianne Abbotts of this world have a problem with this imagery as they do not live up to it? Is the imagery only to reflect what Dianne Abbott can live up to?
And if so, who, - other than Dianne Abbott, - would want to see it?

Now is this only an influence on women?
What do the men in Boss adverts look like? Or Armani? And as for porn; aren`t most guys in porn hard muscled studs with enormously proportioned genitalia? Do guys normally live up to that? I very much doubt it.

Don`t get me wrong, male imagery is much less ubiquitous than female imagery. But it too is wedded to the ideal. Yet I`m still to hear Eric Pickles hold a speech about how terrible all this imagery is for the psyche of `young men`.

Now sure, there are some skeletal fashion models. And yes, there are some porn models who turn themselves into a sort of caricature of femininity. But they are actually few and far between.

The idea that these few are warping young women`s mind into either starving themselves to death or desiring to become some fish-lipped, silicone enhanced plastic goddess just seems far fetched.

Especially as looking around you rather suggests that women in their millions seem instead to be trying to resemble the Buddha. Either women are in fact immune to this apparent power of imagery, or we need to question whether we ought not abolish Buddhism...

I know I`m being flippant. But there is a point I`m making.

If the imagery of fashion magazines, entertainment and porn is depicting healthy, young, attractive women, one wonders just why this should be `unhealthy`?

What is unhealthy about a physical ideal? What unwitting damage might the broadcasting of the gold medal winning male gymnast do to men all around the world who know they cannot live up to his standards?

Or is it rather the case that if the ever greater majority of the population is eating itself to an early grave, then the imagery of the physical ideal, be it male or female, seems to exert very little pressure on said population at all.
After all, it does not seem to have affected Dianne Abbott.

All I know is that Oliver Hardy once was deemed enormous. Nowadays he`d hardly register at all.
So if Vogue and Penthouse are forcing all the young women into suicide diets, just where the hell are all the fat people coming from?

mediasnoops2    [29033.   Posted 23-Mar-2013 Sat 13:13]
  @Melon Farmers.

On the subject of girls and body image we keep hearing from middle class feminists how today`s young girls are apparently near suicide because they cannot live up to the body image of what is in the media, porn etc.
This belies an attitude amongst these feminists that today`s young girls are a bunch of fragile unstable victims permanetly miserable and depressed because they can`t look like porn stars or glamour models.
The fact is there are goths, vamps and all sorts of trends going around girls these days which fly right in the face of the comformatism of whatever appears in red top tabloids or pornography.

Feminists complain teenage girls want to be glamour models when they reach 18. There is little evidence that many girls do want to become glamour models. And even for those girls who do what business is it of Object, Anna Van Hesswijk and other "feminists"? NONE! They`ll try and stop them by lobbying for their work to banned. They`ll tell them they are stupid and brainwashed by "patriarchy". They claim to care about them but in reality they hate them and think they need some kind of labotomy.
Notice most of today`s feminists are all women`s rights to choose what they do with their bodies....EXCEPT when they want to do something with their bodies that offends them! Then they should be stopped!

mediasnoops2    [29032.   Posted 23-Mar-2013 Sat 13:06]
  @Pooch.

So are you for the banning of Page 3 then?

phantom    [29031.   Posted 23-Mar-2013 Sat 09:45]
  Pooch {29028}

What for extraordinary posts!

So page 3 is `not necessary`. It`s `pointless` and `serves no valid purpose`.

Well, neither do football, formula one, wind surfing or playing scrabble.

That still makes neither of those activities `outdated`. The invention of the outboard motor hasn`t rendered yachting `outdated` as it now `serves no valid purpose`.
I`m afraid many of your arguments don`t carry much force. They are the sort of things politicians might say to be able to claim to `have dealt with the issue`, without actually addressing it.

Several times you claim to have dealt with explaining a point of yours at length, when actually you haven`t. Your explanations tend rather just to be bold claims. So, page 3 cheapens and demeans women. You merely claim that without any further attempt at reasoning. Yet you then insist that you provided ample explanation. A slogan per se is not an argument.

You ask whether I would like to see men `demeaned` in this way. The thing is, I really don`t care. Men mostly don`t. In fact we tend largely to chuckle in irony at the ridiculous state of advertising these days, where men are silly idiots patronised by the clever, omnipotent, multitasking ladies. Or where the ripped lawnmower man is tricked into taking off his top by the devious diet coke ladies looking for a thrill. Why do we chuckle? Because we know that if the roles were reversed, the likes of you would be outside parliament waving banners. Whereas we don`t really give a damn.

Again it`s telling how annoyed you get at Shaun for his daring to suggest having attractive women take off their tops for page 3. Is much of this really about principle or about how unfair the world is for giving some women certain advantages?

As it happens, I know several models. What is remarkable is that their main problem is not, as you put it, men leering and demanding they get their kit off. The main problem they tend to highlight is that of fierce hatred from some women.
They also happen to tell of plenty of women fielding feminism as a reason for animosity, when it seems obvious to them that the antipathy has in fact causes much closer to home.

Furthermore, it`s rather telling that you would equate page 3 with paedophilia in your response to Shaun. In your post to me you then speak of segregation and slavery.
I`m sorry, but there is no way that page 3 can sensibly be equated to paedophile grooming, apartheid and slavery. That`s just absurd.

According to you, women are sick and tired of being seen merely as a pair of breasts or something for a man to abuse. In turn that seems to suggest that all men see women merely as a pair of tits and something to abuse. Seriously?
Don`t you think a slightly more subtle, graded argument might go a great deal further?

As for institutionalised sexism, etc; these claims tend not to have much traction as they tend to be forwarded by a rather small fraction of women, who always claim to speak on behalf of all women. The fact is that it isn`t `women who are sick and tired of`, but it is you who are sick and tired of women being seen a certain way.
You spoke of perspective when addressing Shaun`s post. Well, perhaps here too a little perspective is required. You are not `all women`.

As for the female body per se; to claim that all is merely institutionalised sexism and brainwashing just doesn`t cut the mustard.
The aesthetic of the female form is the archetypal template for the human understanding of beauty. This is accepted in art as well as in psychology. Who knows, perhaps feminism will accept this one day.

This underlies much of the acceptance of female nudity in society. And yes, it is why the young and the beautiful are excused much more nudity than others. The young happen to be the beautiful.

Before you have another fit of outraged indignation, this is not merely the case for women. Why is it that six packed athletes and footballers often rip off their shirts and display their muscled forms to the world? Pride perhaps? Pride in an exceptional physique?

Perhaps society is more tolerant of this because they are of exceptional build, that it is a celebration of the physical ideal. If it weren`t some perfect specimen of a footballer but some middle aged bloke, people would prove much less accepting.
What is pleasing to the eye, is more often than not deemed inoffensive in secular society. Be that Cristiano Ronaldo or be it Kelly Brook. Sure, it`s unfair. After all, I`m no Cristiano Ronaldo!
But it`s the way of the world. Not because we are overwhelmed by institutionalised sexism, but because the beautiful hold an unfair advantage due to the whims of human nature.
No matter how many books Germaine Greer writes berating the situation, Kelly Brook is going to be more desirable. No matter how great a sense of humour (supposedly that prized virtue) Ken Dodd possesses, Brad Pitt is always going to be the one women prefer.

Thus if you prefer Brad Pitt to Ken Dodd, perhaps you don`t have a leg to stand on when it comes to others` preferences...

With the female of the species being the aesthetic ideal, the eye is always going to be drawn to her. The eye will always linger.

We can render the entire sprawl of human history one endless cycle of exploitation; from the nudes of Praxiteles, to the Three Graces by Canova and Hugh Heffner`s shots of Marilyn Monroe. All just filth and squalor. Old men poring over young flesh.

Or perhaps this stilted view doesn`t do mankind any favours. Perhaps men aren`t all perverts and those women who posed as models were not all harlots betraying the sisterhood.

Perhaps the world is just a little more subtle than that. Perhaps there is a little magic after all. Perhaps Michaelangelo`s David has that magic. Perhaps even David Beckham in his underpants. And who knows, perhaps even a beautiful page 3 girl.

But just as some people are colour blind, tone deaf or just blind to beauty, perhaps there are also those who just see ugliness and nastiness wherever they look. Perhaps they just cannot perceive what everyone else sees; that there is beauty and that a celebration of beauty, of youth, of life is not necessarily something squalid.

Perhaps – just perhaps – life is art.

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [29030.   Posted 23-Mar-2013 Sat 09:32]
  Some fascinating comments.

So is `Gender Equality` a new religion?

It seems to follow may of the traits of religion with preachers aggresively trying to convince underlings that they are all misreable sinners for doing all the normal things and enjoying life.

Gender equality also provides some sort of vague moral patchwork, that sort of sounds nice in places, but doesn`t really stack up in its entirety. It somehow needs `experts` or initiates or clerics to paper over the cavernous holes in the theory as they inevitably arise.

I presume this is all about life not being `fair`, and trying to find a civilised way to somehow make it fair, or at least pretend that it`s fair,

But it is always going to be tough to try and impose `fairness` on society. Especially in terms of the entertainment industry people have mostly been talking about in this discussion so far. After all few people pay to watch 2nd rate footballers, or listen to 3rd rate musicians.

I think the point about looking at Page 3 to pass the time is very central to the reality. If I want to read a paper for the news I will pick up a Guardian. If I want to be outraged I will pick up a Daily Mail, but if I have read all the news and I am just passing the time I would pick up the Sun ahead of the Express as it is nice to see the Page 3.

The same with music. If I like the music, then I couldn`t care less about the appearance of the musician. However if I am just channel hopping and there is nothing I particularly like, then I will watch the channel with the sexiest music video.

The net result is that the programmes/newspapers/videos with the sexiest performers will sell more than they would if they dropped the sex. Hence it becomes a fact that attractiveness is important.

So how does one deny this in the gender equality world? If you employed people purely on musical talent then unfairness would still persist. The most attractive perfromers would still do best.

And then there`s this modern new issue of body image. We seem to have to get so concerned about girls not being able to live up to the attractiveness of the upper echelons of movie stars and top models, Why do we get so concerned about this one issue? No one seems the slightest bit concerned about the young lads who will fail to reach the grade for professional football. Everyone has to come to terms with their talents, why are girls and their looks such a glaring exclusion.


And is it such a wise thing to do to tell yound girls not to bother with the way that they look. In the real world, they may end up disadvantaging themselves. In the extreme, they could lower their chances of finding a boyfriend and having a family.

There was a fascinating bit of research mentioned somewhere on MelonFarmers. Researchers wanted to know if men in politcally correct countriess were less demanding of beautiful girls in their porn. The answer was that of course the guys still wanted pretty ladies in porn, (although they were happy with more racial? diversity, if memory serves)


Actually Gender Equality is not the only new religion on the block.

Racial Equality has taken a nasty turn under the guidance of preachers/experts/initiates. Yet again all ordinary folk are being told they are all miserable sinners who must mend their ways and do what the preachers tell them.

There is an excellent debuking of this Critical Race Theory on Spiked this week.

http://www.spiked-online.com/site/article/13459/


And like all good religions we must have insulting terms to describe non-believers. In old religions we had heathens, infidels, heretics. And in the new religions, we have racists and neanderthals.

DoodleBug    [29029.   Posted 23-Mar-2013 Sat 07:44]
  Ok, has anyone else just read pooch`s posts and had a WTF! moment. ??

@pooch : My g/f has just read your posts as well and she also watches my exploitation films with lots of nudity in , and she has come to the conclusion you are talking out of your arse !

Pooch    [29028.   Posted 23-Mar-2013 Sat 06:43]
  @Phantom [29014] You asked: "`knuckle dragging neanderthals`? Really?"

Umm, yes. And going by Shaun`s post, I think I`ve demonstrated why he and many other Sun readers are exactly that. They refuse to see how Page 3 cheapens and degrades women as a whole. They cite facts like "The female models made money doing it" or "They were paid handsomely for taking their clothes off" or better still "No one forced them to do it, and if they want to do it, then why should we (men) not allow them to do so".

He`s the exact stereotypical knuckle-draggin neanderthal I was talking about. A man who sees Page 3 from his own, singular, male-centric point of view, and doesn`t seem to realise that if the roles were reversed, he wouldn`t like them.

You then asked: "So liking some mammaries in a newspaper makes a guy a Neanderthal? Why?"

I think I`ve explained that fairly well, in my previous post to Shaun. There`s nothing wrong, in and of itself, at men looking at images of naked women, or women looking at naked images of men, or even people of the same sex looking at naked images. The problem is that "institutions" like Page 3 cheapen and degrade women.

Slavey was an institution once, but we got rid of that, once we became a more civilised society. Marriage being only a union for one woman to one man, is also being (slowly) changed, so that it no longer refers solely to one proportion of society. Page 3 is an outdated, sexist and wasteful "institution" that serves no purpose than to cheapen women, and make money from sad, lonely, pathetic men who can`t be man enough to actually buy porn. So instead, these same sad, losers buy wrags like THE SUN or The DAILY STAR, under the guise that they`re really buying it for the news articles (or the sport, or whatever other section they choose), but really buy the paper predominantly because it contains photos of topless women.

Like I say, if Page 3 was an "institution" that featured naked men (that is not topless men), and that was the norm for society, I think we`d find a lot of men out there demanding "equality" and the right to "not be cheapened or likened to pieces of meat".

Well, gents, guess what? Page 3 does to women exactly that. It shows men that women are nothing, except a pair of breasts!

You then said; "Nobody buys the Sun for the news. But then I very much doubt anyone buys it for the girl on page 3."

I seem to recall, that a few years back when THE SUN tried dropping Page 3, that sales plummeted to about 1/3rd of what they usually were. So Page 3 was resurrected.

You then said: "From what I observe I`d say it`s a way to pass the time."

So, by your own argument, Page 3 is basically a way for men to get cheap masturbatory material, yes? I don`t think you (nor Shaun) would be so flippant, if it were men that were being portrayed in the sexist and sexual demeanour that women are on Page 3.

You then said: "The very fact that it`s light-hearted and a bit daft makes it a very British affair."

It may be "light-hearted and daft" to you, as a man, but to many women, Page 3 is a horrible, sexist, degrading and offensive part of the paper, that cheapens their gender and treats them as nothing more than objects to be ogled at by men.

You asked: "Why do women read those mags about celebrity women looking bad in bikinis at the hair dressers? For the news? Or to pass the time?

Probably to make themselves feel better than others. Why do men josh each other and rip-the-pisss in pubs, and call each other names? Because it passses the time, and it makes them feel better about themselves.

In both instances, it doesn`t make things right or okay.

You then continued on, and asked "Meanwhile page 3 is `outdated`. Again, why?"

It`s unneccessary. It serves no valid purpose. It`s demeaning. It`s sexist. It`s outdated sexualisation. It is pointless. Do I need to go on? Like I say, slavery was once the norm, but we got rid of it when we realised it wasn`t actually cool or clever to segregate and mistreat one section of the human race, based purely on their skin colour or ethnical heriatge.

Continuing on, you asked: "As for `sexist`... So a guy being interested in breasts is sexism?"

There`s nothing inherently wrong in a man looking at a woman, or a woman looking at a man, and one thinks "Wow! They`re hot!" or maybe "God, I`d love to spend a night with them". The sexism comes from when something sexist (or racist, or homophobic) is portrayed as the "acceptable norm", when it isn`t acceptable and shouldn`t be the "norm" at all. Again, both you and Shaun are looking at this issue, from one side only: the male side. Your side. You aren`t even considering how women might (and do) feel about this issue. You are looking at it, though a male-centric gaze. The worst thing is, that neither of you appear to realise this, nor care. You are only of the idea that Page 3 is harmless fun. Yes, maybe it is for men, but not for women.

Women are sick and tired of being seen as nothing more than a pair of breasts.

Women are sick and tired of being only portrayed as being something for a man to use (or abuse).

Women are sick and tired of having to aspire to, or fit into, masculine defined configurations. They are told they can only be beautiful if they are constantly on the look for men. They are told they are only worthwhile, if they are sexually available for (any/all) men, and if they aren`t available for him, then they are valueless, secondrate. Women are constantly treated as inferiors by men, and for men, because that`s how many men want things to be. They don`t want women as equals. They don`t actually want women around them at all.

There`s the old saying that women have to a cook in the kitchen, a lady in the living room, and a whore in the bedroom. Many men actually agree with this, and even if they don`t, they still treat women in this manner. Namely, that they are only existing to make food for their men; to look pretty and pamper to his every whim and need in the living room, whilst the man puts his feet up and relaxes, AND has to be available at any time, day or night, for when the man wants to have sex. And the sex, has to be done in the manner he prescribes, and it doesn`t matter if the women doesn`t enjoy the sex, nor achieves orgasm, because it`s only HIS orgasm and feelings that matter.

You then wrote: "From what I understand the term `sexism` is to denote the view by one sex that the other is somehow inferior. I don`t really see how men looking at topless girls defines said girls as inferior. Nor do I see how it somehow renders said men Neanderthals."

And therein lies the problem, and why women are so sick of fighting to be heard and seen as people; whole human beings. If you as a man can`t see why looking at a Page 3 picture is sexist, or how it renders said men as Neanderthals, then you are part of the very problem that the women of today are struggling to fight against.

You asked: "When Halle Berry took off her kit in `Swordfish` was that backward and sexist? Or does it only apply to print?"

It was backwards and sexist, because she felt she wouldn`t have gotten the role if she didn`t do what the male writers, male producer and male director asked her. Yes, she could have said no to the nudity, but she knew that if she didn`t do it, she wouldn`t have been in that role.

As surprising as it may seem, Hollywood is run by men, for men! If women don`t aquiesce to what the men want, then the women tend to get ignored or forced-out. Don`t believe it. Ask any major female actress from anywhere in the world, of the past fifty years if they ever felt pressurised to do something that they weren`t wholly comfortable with. I can guarantee that every single oen of them will have some kind of horror story for you. Now, ask any woman in your family (your mum, your sister, your cousin, friends, nieces, or whomever) the same thing: has there ever been a point in their life, where they`ve felt pressurised by men to do something they didn`t want to do, and I can assure you wholeheartedly, the answer will be an outright "yes"!

Even in 2013, women the world over are seen as second-rate, second-tier citizens! You only need to take a look at the crime rates for rape and sexual abuse; or glance at any magazine, TV advert, or billboard to realise this. Page 3 is but a drop in the ocean of sexism that is continually perpetuated throughout the media, and to subjugate women as a whole, by men for men.

The fact that so many men don`t realise this, and more significantly, don`t care about this, makes this issue even worse.

As I say, if the shoe were on the other foot, then men would be fighting up and down this land, demanding equality and not stopping until they got it. Women up and down the land are doing this, but the might of men, makes it so difficult for these women to be heard.

Sexism, sexualisation, and gender-discrimination is rife!

Have a read of my blog article about sexism in the horror industry, and see if anything chimes with you...

http://www.cinema-extreme.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/sexism-and-gender-discrimination-in.html

Pooch    [29027.   Posted 23-Mar-2013 Sat 05:58]
  @Shaun [29012]. You said: "Some of the page 3 girls made a fortune, became very famous and were quite happy to show off their femininity in the way they did."

Yes, and your point is what exactly? That as long as the people involved make money from it, then their behaviour is okay?

You then said: "MAYBE they even ENJOYED doing it, along with the admiration that followed."

And again, your point is what? Are you suggesting that as long as someone enjoys doing something, that it makes it okay to appear in a newspaper? Let`s take that example of yours to the extreme. Let`s allow photos of paeadophiles grooming minors whilst the child wears sexually provocative clothing, to be posted in THE SUN. You`ll call me facetious, but by your own argument, if the person involved in it is making money or comfortable in doing it, then by your own admission it`s acceptable behaviour!

You then said: "Showing boobs can`t be in any way equated to the explicitness shown in modern day pornography, and there are those who like to admire the girls in page 3, who would perhaps never wish to view hard core porn available online or in a sex shop."

But that`s not the point I was making. My point, was that it`s an item made by men, for men, that portrays women as nothing more than sex objects. The fact that you are a man, and you don`t see any problem with Page 3, is part of the reason why women get annoyed with men in general. It`s why we men are all seen as sexist neanderthals.

As for your argument asking "why is it perfectly acceptable for men to bare their chests in public with impunity, including men with so called "man boobs" but let a lady do that...", you`re just being childish. Clearly you don`t know as much as you think you do. Firstly, man-boobs are just excess fat. They are not secondary sexual traits. Breasts are a secondary sexual trait, just as a man`s penis is. They are parts of the human body, designed for the use of the making and feeding of a baby. As such, it`s generally not considered polite for men and women to go around showing each other their "traits", except in certain, private circumstances.

Let`s reverse this argument. Let`s say that men were the ones who were constantly being cheapened and degraded, and treated as nothing more than parts of flesh for the opposite sex to ogle, gawp at, and name. How would you feel if you lived in a world, in which purely because you are a man, you were going to be treated differently, paid less, wolf-whistled at in the street, and have your appendage given hundreds of pet-names for, and when you walked down the street, an endless parade of women wanted you to "get your pecker out for the girls". How soon would it be, before you felt degraded, angry and disgusted? At first, you might find it acceptable, Heck, you might even get a bit of a thrill out of it. But eventually, you`d get really sick and tired of it. In fact, I would imagine you`d soon get really, really pissed-off with women, and would be demanding that people treat you as a whole, complete human being, not just as a lump of flesh for others to poke fun at.

Well, now you know how many women feel. Women don`t generally enjoy seeing breasts, nudity and sexualised imagery of themselves in newspapers, on TV, in films, and in every advert that is on the high-street. Why? Because they feel cheapened. Just as you would, if the scenario was reversed.

You then said: "If a lovely lady wishes to show off her beauty in a published newspaper, and chooses freely to do so, then why shouldn`t she be FREE to ?"

So a woman is free to show off her (naked/topelss) beauty, as long as she`s "lovely"? I guess if she doesn`t fit your stereotypical idea of beauty, then you`d immediately label her a "minger" or "slapper", or perhaps something worse. You clearly don`t see the irony and hypocrisy of what you`ve written.

You`re coming across in the exact manner of my stereotyped "knuckle-dragging neanderthal" that I talked about in my post. You are happy for women to be seen as sexualised objects, as long as they fit your own defined idealised image of "beauty". You are also failing to see how your idealised view of Page 3 and what it entails, cheapens women as a whole, and why it annoys the hell out of them. You see women as ojects, for your (male) pleasure. You see them as pieces of meat, not as whole individuals. You`ll deny this, of course, and that just proves my point even more.

At no point have I said that breasts (or penises) should remain covered up. That`s your own mis-reading of my post at play there. However, I never suggested such a thing. Nor have I demanded women to cover up by your stupid and facetious comment that "it is just one small step away from forcing them to wear a black chador, like they have to in Iran." Oh, and for what it`s worth, try naming ten recent (past 20 years) mainstream Hollywood films that feature full-frontal male nudity. Compare that with the number of mainstream Hollywood films that feature female toplessness and/or nudity, and maybe you`ll realise why sexism is as rife as ever. The battle of the sexes is vehemently NOT over! Why does the MPAA allow female nudity, but the merest hint of male penis results in censorship of the film, and a demand for the male nudity to be covered or cut out? Possibly because the MPAA and the film industry and industries run by men, for the pleasure of other men? No, it could never be that, (he says in his own, deeply sarcastic voice).

You then have the gaul to mention the words "Gender equality anyone?" You really are talking complete crap! You probably don`t even know the true meaning of the term. Gender equality refers to the equal treatment of men and women, regardless of the fact that they are of one gender or the other. It absolutely does NOT refer to men being able to see naked or topless women in a daily wrag of a newspaper, as if it`s some kind of god-given right. That`s the voice of a sexist pig talking.

So please, don`t come out with the (and I`m paraphrasing here) "Oh, it`s just a bit of fun and doesn`t harm anyone" line, because that`s they kind of petty and cheap argument I`d expect from a knuckle-dragging neandethal...

... Which brings me nicely onto the next person... (Continued...)

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [29026.   Posted 23-Mar-2013 Sat 05:38]
  dancing monkey

The fact that the whole law is all about court action with fancy lawyers getting involved, then I agree that there will be very few of these exclusions will prove much of worth. They will soon be bowled over, especially if there is some moral dimension, or even justification, for a claim, that rates higher than the actual letters of the law.

dancing monkey    [29025.   Posted 22-Mar-2013 Fri 09:31]
  Dave, that Ministry of Truth article seems to completely misunderstand what this new law is saying. If they think anyone posting on Wordpress etc is safe, they are idiots. All it takes is two contributors and anything considered to be `news` and you are caught up in this. Maybe that isn`t the intention, but we all know that what a law is supposedly intended to do, and what it actually does, are often very different things.

Shaun    [29024.   Posted 22-Mar-2013 Fri 04:41]
  
DarkAngel5 wrote:

"My response to that is "men like looking at women, get over it". Sadly, it doesn`t seem to cut any ice.
"

Perhaps a better response might be:

"Men like looking at women, and some women actually like the fact that they do. Especially when they are looking at them themselves. So get over it!"

IE if a woman wants to make herself pictorially available so men can look at her, whether in "The Sun" or some porn mag or video, it should be *HER* choice. Or should we have them all forced to wear burkas or black chadors so men cannot look at them at all ?

sergio    [29023.   Posted 21-Mar-2013 Thu 10:46]
  According to Nichi Hodgson - porn is like fast food.

http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/opinion/comment/eu-s-struggle-law-around-pornography

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [29021.   Posted 21-Mar-2013 Thu 09:28]
  Phantom, this article is long but is worth reading to get an analysis of what it means.

http://www.ministryoftruth.me.uk/2013/03/20/bloggers-and-the-new-press-regulation-system/

Elsewhere on the internet the new law is getting a good drubbing for being very badly worded (leaving aside the underlying arguments)

phantom    [29020.   Posted 21-Mar-2013 Thu 07:22]
  Thanks for that, Dave.

No, I hadn`t actually found it yet.
It seems remarkable how nobody seems too keen on letting us see it.
The BBC has dedicated hours and hours of reporting on this subject, yet doesn`t ever seem to have seen fit to put a link up on its website to the bill itself. Instead just a lot of vagary and the interviewing of strongly opinionated talking heads.

Telling how only the amendments seem to be available. One wonders why.
http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2012-13/crimeandcourts.html

I guess the most illuminating section section here in the amendments is this one:

--

18 Insert the following new Clause—
“Meaning of “relevant publisher”
(1) In sections (Awards of exemplary damages) to (Awards of costs), “relevant
publisher” means a person who, in the course of a business (whether or not
carried on with a view to profit), publishes news-related material—
(a) which is written by different authors, and
(b) which is to any extent subject to editorial control.
This is subject to subsections (5) and (6).
(2) News-related material is “subject to editorial control” if there is a person
(whether or not the publisher of the material) who has editorial or
equivalent responsibility for—
(a) the content of the material,
(b) how the material is to be presented, and
(c) the decision to publish it.
(3) A person who is the operator of a website is not to be taken as having
editorial or equivalent responsibility for the decision to publish any
material on the site, or for content of the material, if the person did not post
the material on the site.
(4) The fact that the operator of the website may moderate statements posted
on it by others does not matter for the purposes of subsection (3).
(5) A person is not a “relevant publisher” if the person is specified by name in
Schedule (Exclusions from definition of “relevant publisher”).
(6) A person is not a “relevant publisher” in so far as the person’s publication
of news-related material is in a capacity or case of a description specified in
Schedule (Exclusions from definition of “relevant publisher”).”

--

`Relevant publisher` is a rather gooey term.
The only opt out here seems to be for things said on internet fora, as they are not under the direct editorial control of the webmaster.

The reason I`m particularly suspicious is that I recall someone on here once mentioning how there was plenty of surprising nonsense in the Levenson findings, including on matters `offensive`, etc.
I would not at all be surprised if some of that had not found its way into the small print of the bill.

I`m all the more dubious therefore that the actual bill can`t seem to be found anywhere.

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [29019.   Posted 21-Mar-2013 Thu 04:22]
  Phantom, I presume you have found it by now, but all the relevant stuff seems to be in amendments to the Crimes and Courts Bill

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/2012-2013/0090/2013090.pdf

It strikes me that that it takes for a website to be caught is for there to be 2 writers and the inclusion of news outside of a single topic. It`ll only take a couple of judicial interpretations of the usual vague terms and more or less all websites will be caught.

China and iran would have been proud to have dreamt up this legislation

DarkAngel5    [29018.   Posted 20-Mar-2013 Wed 11:42]
  Thanks for the replies everyone.

Pooch`s response is actually typical of the ones I`ve been reading coming from those groups who wish the Sun to do away with the Page 3 girl.

All you hear is "its sexist", "it objectifies women".

My response to that is "men like looking at women, get over it". Sadly, it doesn`t seem to cut any ice.

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [29017.   Posted 20-Mar-2013 Wed 02:01]
  Phantom

I`ll look out for it. Several extracts have been published in legalese language, so its surely out there

phantom    [29016.   Posted 19-Mar-2013 Tue 15:43]
  Does anyone here actually have a link to the proposed charter for press regulation?
Apparently all three major parties are agreed on it, so it`s unlikely to be amended to any great extent in parliament.
I recall hearing the PM`s statement and there was a mention of it being available to MPs.
It`s also said that the newspapers are currently studying it.
So is it out there?
The media are simply reporting on it in vague, broad points.
There seems to be a frightful lack of detail.
Given that - with the all party agreement - it`s as good as through parliament already, it`s a little worrying that pretty much nothing is known of the matter.
Bloggers are worried, I hear - as online content is to be included.
But what else?
If anyone knows of a link to the actual current proposals it would be appreciated. I for one cannot find one.

Shaun    [29015.   Posted 19-Mar-2013 Tue 09:59]
  I wonder why my parents still read "The Sun" ? They are both in their late seventies, intelligent and certainly literate, and I don`t think they are interested in the boobs at all. But read it they do. Perhaps it`s just the habit of a lifetime.

But I am sick of this crusade for censorship which they say "is not about censorship" when the real issue seems to be about repression of women not their empowerment.

Truly equal women, if they wanted to, would be free to flash their chests around with impunity, just the same as men can, and no one should be at all worried or concerned about it. Only recently on some television programme a young women was (rightly in my opinion) protesting about this by walking around topless in a British town or city (I can`t remember where) and was told in no uncertain terms to cover herself up by an Asian police officer, or risk being arrested...

As rightly pointed out, by phantom, men liking to look at women is a matter of biology nothing else. So who are these *censors* who think that they can change the work of tens or even hundreds of thousands of years of evolution ? I bet most women won`t want men to change so much that we menfolk dare not openly find them physically attractive and want to look at them, and admire them and maybe even chat them up ...

Mentally (as well as physically) women are different to men. Being different doesn`t make them less equal as human beings though. But they are not so easily stimulated visually. However verbal erotica and stories of romance certainly turns them on. Fifty Shades of Grey for example. I read some of it and it did nothing whatsoever for me. So should we men campaign for that sort of thing to be banned, because it might degrade or somehow objectify us ?

1: Accept human nature as it is. A part of that is that human adult males like to look at women.

2: Allow individual women the right to decide for themselves how much they want to reveal, and where that might me.

3: Treat women as HUMANS not objects which somehow need censoring or partly covering up against their will.

4: Don`t give the bad guys any "Get out" excuses for sexual wrong doing, by legally demanding women censor their physical selves just in case men get too turned on or something. Men must control themselves or face the severe consequences.

phantom    [29014.   Posted 19-Mar-2013 Tue 08:51]
   Pooch    {29011.}        

`knuckle dragging neanderthals`? Really?

Alright, I don`t read the Sun.
And yes, it`s most likely aimed at the less literate section of society. Who knows, maybe it`s the male equivalent of those hare brained magazines with celebrity cellulite in them....
But I`m not sure why readers of the Sun immediately qualify as Neanderthals.
So liking some mammaries in a newspaper makes a guy a Neanderthal? Why?

Nobody buys the Sun for the news. But then I very much doubt anyone buys it for the girl on page 3. From what I observe I`d say it`s a way to pass the time. The very fact that it`s light-hearted and a bit daft makes it a very British affair.
Why do women read those mags about celebrity women looking bad in bikinis at the hair dressers? For the news? Or to pass the time?

Meanwhile page 3 is `outdated`. Again, why?
Yes, there`s a lot of porn available online, but why does that render page 3 obsolete? I just don`t follow.

As for `sexist`... So a guy being interested in breasts is sexism? Who knows, perhaps in that case we need sexism for purposes of procreation.

From what I understand the term `sexism` is to denote the view by one sex that the other is somehow inferior. I don`t really see how men looking at topless girls defines said girls as inferior. Nor do I see how it somehow renders said men Neanderthals.
Far more it just seems basic biology. Men like women. They like to look at women.
I just don`t quite see where that simple bit of biology has become a problem.

Or is it the lack of a naked guy in the newspaper which makes page 3 all unfair, and thus `sexist`?
I think there have been some experiments in naked guys in newspapers etc and, frankly, nobody wanted to see them. This is to say, there wasn`t an immediate rush of ladies desiring to see some guy`s big shlong.
And yes, the male readership were definitely not interested.

So men like to look at topless young girls. Big deal.
Meanwhile some big boobed young girls seem to quite like the idea of being in the Sun.
Again, where`s the problem?
Sexism? Neanderthals? Knuckle dragging?

I just can`t see how British society `has moved on`. Whence and whither?
What does page 3 signify from which we have moved on? In what way have we evolved beyond page 3?
It just seems a very strange thing to suggest.

When Halle Berry took off her kit in `Swordfish` was that backward and sexist? Or does it only apply to print?
What is modern, up-to-date nudity and what is old fashioned, obsolete Neanderthal nudity?
I really don`t quite get the distinction.

Shaun    [29012.   Posted 19-Mar-2013 Tue 04:41]
  
Oh for goodness sake Pooch.

Some of the page 3 girls made a fortune, became very famous and were quite happy to show off their femininity in the way they did. MAYBE they even ENJOYED doing it, along with the admiration that followed. Showing boobs can`t be in any way equated to the explicitness shown in modern day pornography, and there are those who like to admire the girls in page 3, who would perhaps never wish to view hard core porn available online or in a sex shop.

It`s hardly the SAME thing is it really ?

Whilst we are on the subject of female boobs, why is it perfectly acceptable for men to bare their chests in public with impunity, including men with so called "man boobs" but let a lady do that...

(even if her boobs were smaller than some nearby openly displayed "man boobs")

... and often all hell lets loose. To me that smacks of double standards, and you sir, seem to be part of the problem, not part of the solution.

If a lovely lady wishes to show off her beauty in a published newspaper, and chooses freely to do so, then why shouldn`t she be FREE to ?

Similarly if a man (or woman for that matter) wishes to admire such a beauty in a newspaper, then why shouldn`t they be free to ?

Last I knew this was still a free country - albeit one where freedom is gradually being eroded by the kind of idiotic repressive left wing ideology you seem to believe in, though I will stand corrected if I am wrong about that.

But the notion that womens breasts should be kept covered up all the time, is to me the real SEXIST insult to ladies who are then denied their freedom in a way that men are not. To me, it is just one small step away from forcing them to wear a black chador, like they have to in Iran.

Gender equality anyone ? I truly believe in it. I am not convinced you do however.

There are plenty of newspapers without bare breasts in them. Read those if you don`t like the ones that have them. You are free to make that choice. A choice you obviously seek to impose on everyone else.

As for naked men - The Sun once DID have good looking page 7 guys for quite a while, showing their chests and torsos. There wasn`t any complaints at all in fact, but it just wasn`t all that popular.

Now off you go there`s a good lad, and please consider rethinking your own brand of "sexist trash" and claptrap would you ?

Pooch    [29011.   Posted 19-Mar-2013 Tue 04:30]
  @DarkAngel5 [29009]: For me, I would prefer that newspapers don`t feature nudity such as Page 3, not because I`m offended (I`m not), nor because I want to censor what under-18`s might see and ask questions about, but for one reason and one reason only - that it`s outdated, sexist, trash that is no longer worthy of inclusion in a newspaper, tabloid wrag or not!

I would like to think that British society has moved on from the whole "Page 3" phenomena, and that modern men are a little more sensitive towards the way women are treated and depicted in society. However, it seems, we are not. It seems that men still buy THE SUN because it has a topless women in it. In fact, that seems to be the only reason many men buy it. This seems to suggest that many men are still knuckle-dragging neanderthals at heart, who only care about a pair of breasts.

It`s all rather sad, and pathetic. If you want porn, buy or view porn. Don`t pussyfoot about by buying THE SUN, and then claiming that you don`t buy it for Page 3, but you buy it for the "news" and "features"! If you want news and features, buy the "I" newspaper. It`s cheaper, and far more intelligent, and doesn`t feature breasts.

I doubt many men would continue to buy THE SUN (or the DAILY STAR, or THE SPORT for that matter), if they didn`t feature topless women in them. In fact, I suspect that if any of these wrags, (and let`s not beat around the bush folks, that`s all these newspapers are), featured naked men, there`d be an outcry - predominantly from men, about sexism and the degradation of men being depicted as sex objects.

Like I say, if you want porn, have the cajones to actually go and buy or view it. Don`t wuss-out and buy THE SUN, and then claim you`re really buying it to be kept informed on world events.

phantom    [29010.   Posted 18-Mar-2013 Mon 13:10]
  DarkAngel5 [29009]

I can`t see how the sight of naked boobs can do kids any harm. Nor can I see any harm in kids understanding that men are interested in women per se.
So the family values thing just passes me by.

And this from someone who also can feel embarrassed if sexual matters suddenly turn up on TV and he`s watching with family.
So I`m not immune to the feeling. But page 3 is so innocent and tame, I`d say it was more than likely a sign of an unhealthy obsession if one can`t even bear that to be seen.

On a more general note I`d say keep page 3 under all circumstances.
It is effectively the bulwark against Harriet Harman, Maria Eagle, Dianne Abbott et alia.

Sure, they`ll rail at it and scream and shout. But what if it were abandoned and they`d get their way? Would they stop shouting? Or would they find something else to shout about?

So I`d say never give in to them on this point. Not because it really matters whether newspapers can have tits on page 3. But because otherwise the very next day they`ll be issuing fresh demands.

They should be seen along the same lines as terrorists; not to be negotiated with and never to be given in to.

Harman & Co will scream anyway. It`s in their nature.
Thus appeasing them achieves nothing. Scrapping page 3 will not shut them up. Hence we might as well keep it.

DarkAngel5    [29009.   Posted 18-Mar-2013 Mon 11:21]
  OK I`m curious, I understand there are a number of campaigns going around the web attempting to put pressure on the Sun newspaper to do away with the Page 3 girl.

So what`s any body elses opinion here?

Is Page 3 sexist? Does it objectify women? Does it give young people the wrong idea about women? Is it suitable for what puports itself to be a "family" newspaper? Personally I have no problem with it, I don`t buy the first 3 arguments, but the last point, should topless women feature in a supposedly "family" newspaper I find a little tricky to answer.

I see no "harm" in younger people seeing Page 3, but it does seem to me that people are easier to offend these days (cant remember the last time one of the many "holiday" programs on TV took a walk along a topless beach, which was quite common back in the 80s/early 90s).

So what`s anybody elses views?

phantom    [29008.   Posted 18-Mar-2013 Mon 07:26]
  Melon Farmers (Dave) {29007}

Yes, it is quite breath taking, isn`t it?

But let`s be fair to Longhurst, I very much doubt she went knocking on the door of the Argus because of the anniversary. It will have been a case of the Argus having the date already fixed in their diary and going calling her to fill another few column inches. Lazy journalism.

Most likely most of the questions put to her were leading questions which invited the desired answer.

But yes, if a thousand cases a year are not enough, one does wonder what is.

However, I`d say the woman is entirely entitled to her opinion. She has lost a daughter after all. Moreover she doesn`t seem to seek publicity for her views at every turn. In that regard I find the professional victimhood of the Dowlers and McCanns considerably more tiresome. (I know that sounds harsh, but there we are.)
I can`t help but feel that in this case it is simply the doing of the newspaper, which seems of the same bent as Lepper – who of course gets another mention, as though to prove the very point, - which is up to old tricks here.
A case of reminding everyone that `it was the Argus what done it`, as self appointed `campaigning newspapers` always like to do.

The fact that the resultant law is deeply unjust and discriminatory naturally doesn`t matter. After all, the law has a good name.

All of which of course doesn`t change the fact that the law – sooner or later – will have to go.
For all the prosecutions that we`ve seen, nobody is any the wiser as to what – precisely – is banned. It`s a ticking time bomb and thus it`s most likely only a matter of time (especially at this rate of prosecution) until it hits someone either the establishment or the public at large don`t want to see hit. I bet once such a case arises that a `reinterpretation` can be found which reduces this odious statute to utter irrelevance. (Hey, we all know it`s never going to happen in parliament!)

All the while it`s worth remembering that it simply isn`t in keeping with Britain of the current day. It doesn`t belong here. At a time when we`re seeking to introduce gay marriage, being prude about others` sexual interests seems badly out of step...

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [29007.   Posted 17-Mar-2013 Sun 23:53]
  Phantom, So 1 year for DPA Offences

But not enough prosecutions for Liz Longhurst

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/10294764.Mother_of_murdered_Jane_Longhurst__disappointed__in_law_changes_ten_years_after_her_death/

phantom    [29006.   Posted 17-Mar-2013 Sun 18:43]
  re: A Little Bitch about The Little Witch...

As a fluent German speaker I can confirm that `Neger` in German does in fact equate to `negro` in the English language.
I do recall that many years ago there were already people who desired to take offence at the word, seeking to link it with the English word `nigger`.
But the truth simply is that there is no etymological connection between `Neger` and `nigger` that would suggest any derogatory intent.
It is wishful thinking on part of those desiring to be outraged.
Another wonderful example of the art of taking offence.

phantom    [29004.   Posted 16-Mar-2013 Sat 11:29]
  So 1 year for DPA offences?
The article in question doesn`t mention any previous sentences.
Thus I`m a little confused by this.
Wasn`t it floated on introduction that the DPA would only result in harsher sentences to those having fallen foul repeatedly?
To all intents and purposes this guy seems to have been caught just the once.
I fail to see why the judge has immediately reached for the nuclear option of a one year sentence.

That said, I still fail to see what is accomplished by this law. I find it an embarrassment. Just exactly who is being protected by this man`s incarceration? Is he to be rehabilitated by this punishment? And if so, pray, how?

The Labour party think that by issuing some vague apologies for `mistakes` made when in government they have washed their hands of the past. But my view is that until they have repudiated this law and apologised for it in particular - admitting the error of their ways - they remain unelectable.

Their record on civil rights was abysmal, but this law remains a monument to their bigotry and hubris. It is a symbol.

Anyone associated with this law ought to be ostracised for implementing laws reminiscent of the Taliban in Britain.
Damnatio memoriae on the lot of them.

Pooch    [29003.   Posted 16-Mar-2013 Sat 05:56]
  @DoodleBug [29000]: You said: "You blame me for mis-reading your posts, but you made the mistake in assuming I have kids.. i dont`. I just said I have no problem allowing kids in my family to watch the films."

So when you write you "have no problems allowing kids in my family" (your words, not mine) to watch 18-rated films, you were actually saying you have no problems allowing kids that aren`t yours, and thus, not actually in your family (unless we`re counting things like in-laws, cousins, etc). And you blame me for the misunderstanding?! Nice one, DoodleBug!

As for the rest of your post, thanks for the clarifications. As for your comments, where you said: "If you are following bbfc ratings to the letter, I assume that you have never wanted to watch an uncensored version of a movie that had to be cut in the UK to get an 18 rating.", there`s one giant flaw in that comment. Namely, if I chose to watch a non-BBFC certificated, the only person who watches it, is me. And I`m 35 years old, and I`m an adult. You were saying that you had no problems letting "kids in your family" (your words, not mine) watch 18-rated films.

That is why I`ve been so hard on you.

If you are over 18, and you want to watch hardcore pornography, or explicit violence, then that`s your own choice. Providing it is only you, or other over-18`s watching it. You are free to watch whatever you want, because you are an adult. However, if anyone is letting young kids watch 18-rated films, then yes, I am going to bring those people to task on it, and question whether that is a sensible, and mature adult decision, or more likely, dump parenting!

And therein lies the distinction! One is about adults choosing what they want to watch. The other is adults letting kids watch material that isn`t suitable for them, let alone aimed at those same youngsters!

If you can`t see the difference between those two sides of my argument, then more fool you.

MichaelG    [29002.   Posted 16-Mar-2013 Sat 00:58]
  Just noticed this week that the Mail are now not acceting comments on Chris Tookey`s film reviews. The tirade of abuse the muppet gets on a weekly basis must be getting too much for him... bless!

So, on the one review where comments were still being accepted (`Welcome to the Punch`), I posted this. A written throwdown of the gauntlet, if you will. Unlikely to be published and even less likely that I`ll be able to usurp Tookey from his column (those incriminating pics he must have of the editor in a compromising position have served him very well - LOL!), but worth a try. Here it is:

`Just noticed that virtually all of the movies reviewed by the `esteemed` Chris Tookey this week are not available for we, the great unwashed, to submit comments upon. Has the weekly abuse Tookey gets for not knowing his subject, not grasping straightforward film plots and having no taste in cinema (or indeed taste for it, if recent hateful reviews of perfectly good cinematic offerings are anything to go by - this week being no exception). A film critic who can`t take criticism - priceless. A message to the editors of the Mail - if you`d like to employ someone who can a) write a good review; b) has an extensive knowledge of, and appreciation for, ALL genres of cinema; and c) can do it without subjecting those reading it to a barely-hidden contempt for both them and the subject matter, please let me know by posting after this comment. I`m absolutely serious and can prove my credentials.`

Therumbler    [29001.   Posted 15-Mar-2013 Fri 18:24]
  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-21800273

The Scottish report into Leveson appears to be casting a wide net.

DoodleBug    [29000.   Posted 15-Mar-2013 Fri 07:23]
  [28999] @pooch

Right , this is the last thing I`m gonna mention in this argument.

You blame me for mis-reading your posts, but you made the mistake in assuming I have kids.. i dont`. I just said I have no problem allowing kids in my family to watch the films.

As for you being disturbed my views, I think thats taking it a bit too far. You still seem to be putting your rules on every parent. I`ve said that `I" have no issue with kids watching any horror movie, you seem to be saying that every parent should follow your rules. I`ve never said other parents should follow my example, each parent and child is different, and thats the part you don`t seem to understand.

If you are following bbfc ratings to the letter, I assume that you have never wanted to watch an uncensored version of a movie that had to be cut in the UK to get an 18 rating. Cos obviously its "unsuitable" for even adults to watch !

Pooch    [28999.   Posted 15-Mar-2013 Fri 05:59]
  @cor [28997]: You said: "The main problem with the BBFC`s age classification is that it is a very poor guide to what would be suitable for your kids at any age of their life. The most traumatic film i watched as a child was rated PG. Thing gave me nightmares for years and an unhealthy aversion to nature as an adult."

I think that that would make you the exception to the rule, not the norm. The PG rating specifically states that a film is generally suitable for children, but it doesn`t mean it is suitable for every child. It certainly doesn`t mean that no children will find the film harmful, or scary or disturbing. Just ask any adult today, who sat through Spielberg`s JAWS back in the late 70`s, and see whether that didn`t temporarily scar a generation of adults! Plus, any PG or 12A rating is an approximate guideline. It is not a guarantee that a film is or is not suitable. This is where responsible parenting comes into play, with an emphasis on the word "responsible".

There`s a difference here, before you start laying blame on one PG film that scared you, whilst similarly saying that all of the 18-rated films you watched didn`t harm you at all. My two scariest films are ARACHNOPHOBIA (PG) and the Japanese original RINGU film (12)! Does that mean they should have been rated more restrictively? Or maybe, just maybe, kids like being scared - as long as that`s within a safe context, with resolution at the end of the film (usually good triumphing over evil, or the "monster" being destroyed and the balance of life being restored)?

You then said: "Its all about skewed priority on top of subjectivity, the BBFC are happy to show gun toting maniacs *as long as they don`t swear*. Criminals and criminal behavior *but not the after effect of such acts* -which is just plain irresponsible. Promiscuity verging on sociopathic *but not a single nipple*."

That`s complete and utter rubbish. The MPAA do what you have just written, but the BBFC certainly do not. If anything, the BBFC tend to be more forgiving with consensual sexual material/nudity appearing in a 15 or 18-rated film, than they do with graphic violence. I would recommend you watch Kirby Dick`s acclaimed US documentary THIS FILM IS NOT YET RATED and then you`ll see just how backwards the MPAA are, in comparison to the BBFC.


@DoodleBug [28998]: You said: "Believe me, I know a hell of a lot about classification systems around the world."

You may well do, but the fact you claim to allow your young kids to watch 18-rated films, suggests that whilst you may understand the issues of classification (in regards to yourself, as an adult), you don`t seem to get them when it comes to protecting your own children from material that is clearly inappropriate for them. Do you not see the dichotomy? Do you not see the bizarreness in what you`ve written?

The fact that you got to see adult films underage, whether with or without paretal approval or guidance, is not the issue. The fact that 18 rated films (back in the 1980`s) didn`t harm you, again, is not the issue. The issue is that most modern 18-rated films are disintinctly more violent, more adult, and more extreme than the ones you grew-up with. Ergo, they are more troublesome for your kids to be watching, than the 18-rated films you saw when you were young.

What you seem to have failed to understand, is that much of the 18-rated films released today, would have been banned or heavily cut back in the 1980`s. And there are films banned or cut today, that in 20 years time, we will probably be able to legally buy here in the UK. Your looking at the argument through the wrong set of eyes.

A good example is Tobe Hooper`s original TEXAS CHAIN SAW MASSACRE film. If you watch it, there`s little actual violence. There`s a bit of gore, but overall it`s pretty restrained. However, the tone, the ambience and the whole atmosphere of the film, is one of frenzied, psychological violence and trauma. James Ferman famously said that there`s nothing he could have cut from it, to tone the content down, because there was nothing to actually cut in the first place. It was simply the pervasive tone and atmosphere of the film, that meant he felt he had to ban it.

Likewise Hitchcock`s PSYCHO. Millions of cinemagoers swore blind that they saw Janet Leigh being stabbed multiple times, as she was naked in the shower. Yet, if you go through that scene frame-by-frame, there`s never one single frame of nudity, and there`s not one single frame of knife piercing human flesh. But the combination of quick editing, the infamous score, and the clever acting and direction, made viewers think they were seeing far more than they actually were.

You then said: "I know we will agree to disagree about kids watching them, but I was a kid when I started watching them including Elm Street when I was 11. But according to you I should have been scarred for life watching all this horror and yet 29 years later I still love every single minute of it."

Actually, that`s not what I said at all. I simply said that:
1) There is a world of difference between the 18-rated films you saw when you were young, and the 18-rated films you are letting your kids see today, AND
2) That irrespective of that issue, it`s still very odd parenting (in my eyes) that deems it okay or acceptable to let your young kids see films like SAW and HOSTEL, AND
3) That just because it didn`t cause you any harm, doesn`t mean you aren`t damaging your own kids.

I never for one second implied or suggested that "you should have been scarred for life". I simply said that it`s generally not advisable to let young under-18`s watch 18-rated films, because there`s no way to know if your kids are actually coping with the content, imagery, language and themes of the film, or just merely telling you that they are, and secretly finding these works extremely disturbing or distressing.

Parents argue that kids grow-up too quickly: that they want to be like Mum and Dad too fast, too soon. They want all the gadgets and access to stuff that their parents do. Well, there`s a reason why kids are growing-up quickly, and it`s because many parents (though not all) are letting their kids have access to stuff younger and younger, e.g. letting them access sites like Twitter and Facebook at 10 years of age, letting them see 18 rated films at the ages of 12 or 13, and giving them smartphones, because all of their kids friends have them.

When are we going to let kids, just be kids? What purpose does it serve us, letting kids become adults and have access to adult things, in their pre-teen years? When are we (as adults, or as parents) going to say to children "No! There are some things in life that are not for you, and you need to wait until you are older and wiser to gain access to them"?

I ask this question, genuinely: Why do parents find it so difficult to say "No" to their kids? I know kids can be extremely persistant, but have modern parents lost the ability to stand their ground and say "no" where "no means no, and no exceptions"?

DoodleBug    [28998.   Posted 13-Mar-2013 Wed 10:35]
  @pooch [28996]

Maybe I worded my comments wrongly, but I do consider films like Elm Street, Friday 13th and all the others you listed as mainstream entertainment. Human Centipede on the other hand was an independant, no studio production which is why I don`t consider it mainstream. My view of what is and what isn`t mainstream has nothing to do with if it is widely available in the UK or not, it has to do with production side of things and whether it is aimed at a wide audience or not.

Believe me, I know a hell of a lot about classification systems around the world. As I have mentioned before I`ve been collecting cult/horror cinema since I was 16 and watching it since I was 11, I am now nearly 40. Film censorship in the UK is one of the reasons I took such a keen interest in extreme horror back in `89 after seeing Cannibal Holocaust and The Beyond, both of which were still banned back then and did a presentation on UK film censorship back in college. I still remember my lecturer`s face when I showed uncensored trailers to Zombi 2 and Shogun Assassin to the rest of the (16 year old) class !! lol
I now have a collection of over 11,000 movies, and I know the censorship history of every single one of them.

I know we will agree to disagree about kids watching them, but I was a kid when I started watching them including Elm Street when I was 11. But according to you I should have been scarred for life watching all this horror and yet 29 years later I still love every single minute of it.

cor    [28997.   Posted 13-Mar-2013 Wed 09:27]
  @ pooch.

The main problem with the BBFC`s age classification is that it is a very poor guide to what would be suitable for your kids at any age of their life. The most traumatic film i watched as a child was rated PG. Thing gave me nightmares for years and an unhealthy aversion to nature as an adult. It got through the sensors because anthropomorphised animals are not thought of like humans.. except by a 7 year old me. On the flip side many 18 rated films i watch at that time were ultimately forgettable.

Its all about skewed priority on top of subjectivity, the BBFC are happy to show gun toting maniacs *as long as they don`t swear*. Criminals and criminal behavior *but not the after effect of such acts* -which is just plain irresponsible. Promiscuity verging on sociopathic *but not a single nipple*.

Personally i think any parent who base their decisions on BBFC stickers are at best negligent. If you don`t have time to watch the movie yourself and come to an informed decision there is usually a detailed imdb parent guide highlighting all the things from uncomfortable topics to horrific scenes in each movie.

Pooch    [28996.   Posted 13-Mar-2013 Wed 06:12]
  @DoodleBug [28995]: Your comment about mainstream cinema having "a long way to go before its allowed (or dares to be) to show any actual strong or shocking material" I find interesting, if incredibly flawed.

What do you constitute as "mainstream cinema"? I would argue that films like SAW, HOSTEL are all part of "modern, mainstream cinema", because they were released as major films across the vast majority of the Western World, and are big releases. (As were films in the 80`s like FRIDAY THE 13TH, the NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET franchise, and David Cronenberg`s works like THE FLY, SCANNERS, and VIDEODROME.) Compare that, to something like THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE series, which was barely released in the UK at all, either for the first or second film, and so, they aren`t "mainstream" by any definition of the word.

With that said, I do respectfully and wholeheartedly disagree with you.

I think that it ultimately depends on how you categorise "mainstream". There are plenty of horror films that feature strong, gory violence that appear in US cinemas, but which we don`t get to see at all, either because no UK distributor buys the rights, or because the distributor`s believe that the BBFC will censor or demand extensive cuts and rob the film of its saleability. That doesn`t mean that those such films aren`t "mainstream" though.

As for your point about rating A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET as a 12A, I find that to be rather laughable, disturbing, and in my view demonstrates a deep lack of understanding on your part, about the way films are classified, and why they are classified in the way they are.

It may not be as gory or violent in comparison to many modern-day 18 rated films that are available, but there are elements in it, that make it unsuitable for many under 15`s in my view, let alone 12 year olds. I don`t believe that any sensible, liberal parent would be happy letting a 12-year-old watch A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET (or the remake), nor SAW nor HOSTEL! Why not? Because most sensible, mature and intelligent parents know that some things aren`t intended, aimed at, or meant to be seen by under-18`s. (If your kid(s) are only 16 or 17, then it`s not so much a problem. But leting 12-year-olds watch 18-rated films? That`s definitely a no-no in my view!)

I also feel that allowing young kids to see films like SAW and HOSTEL are really bad parental decisions. As I`ve argued in one of my recent blog pieces, (over at Cinema-Extreme.blogspot.co.uk), sometimes there are some things that just aren`t intended for children. And that`s irrespective of whether you feel they are nothing more than "daft entertainment" or not. The simple fact is, that a lot of kids under the age of 15, (and possibly some under the age of 18), don`t get the nuances in horror. They take them at face-value, and even they though know and will tell you "that it`s all just make-believe and special effects", that doesn`t make the films thematically suitable for them.

I know you`ll possibly argue that as I`m not a parent, (which I`m not), how dare I lecture you or anyone else on how to bring up your kids, and that might be a fair complaint, though I am not lecturing you, merely commenting upon an issue you`ve brought-up. The thing is, you may think you know your kids. You may think they are paragons of virtue, perfect little angelic pieces of fairy dust who wouldn`t harm a fly - most parents do think this - but you don`t know what the potential damage you may be doing to them, on a psychological level.

Therein lies the problem. Whilst they are at home, under your guidance and control, you see them through parental eyes, not open-minded, adult eyes. You see them as you want to see them, not necessarily as they actually are. You may even see them, as you want them to be, but again, not in the way they actually are. You, as a parent, will often ignore any flaws or problems or issues that other people may notice.

Too many parents dismiss 18 certificates on films, because they feel that "well, I watched inapprorpiate films when I was young, and it didn`t do me any harm", and that`s flawed thinking. You are not your kids, so you can`t just casually apply the same "well, if it was okay for me, it`s okay for my kids also" kind of mantra.

I apologise if this posts sounds offensive or personal, as it isn`t meant to be an attack on you directly, but a general comment on parents wilfully ignoring rules, because they think their kids aren`t troublesome, problematic, a danger to others, or can blindly cope with everything. I now await the inevitable "You don`t know me, you don`t know my kids, so sod-off telling me what I can and can`t do attitude", which is what I expect to be on the receiving end of, for daring to say the potentially unsayable.

DoodleBug    [28995.   Posted 12-Mar-2013 Tue 07:18]
  @pooch [28994]

The point I was making about mainstream cinema was more the fact that its got a long way to go before its allowed (or dares to be) to show any actual strong or shocking material. As a kid I probably though A Nightmare on Elm Street was shocking and gory at the time but looking back at it compared to other mainstream material out in `84 in wasnt actually gory at all. Today I would quite happily give it a 12A rating and let the parents decide as mine did back then. Mainstream cinema today such as Saw, Hostal and the like as far as I`m concerned are daft entertainment and I have no problem letting kids in my family watch them.

As for the faking i.d thing, I had no trouble with that. We knew the owners of the rental store so I could rent whatever 18-rated horror movie I wanted which would have been when I was about 13/14. :-)

Pooch    [28994.   Posted 12-Mar-2013 Tue 06:58]
  @DoodleBug [28990]: You said: "As far as films not being as strong back then, that only relates to mainstream cinema and which today is only now as strong as underground/ independent cinema back in the 70`s/80`s."

But the key difference for kids growing up in the 1990`s and 2000`s compared to those of us growing-up in th 1970`s and 80`s, is the easy availability to music and movies.

In my day, and I`m showing my age here, the Internet didn`t exist, and computers were still expensive, gigantic white electrical boxes that businesses used. Computer games were rare, and home computing was still quite a new thing.

If I wanted to see a film, I had two choices: the cinema or TV. Then Video came about, but my family didn`t get a Video Recorder until my early-teens, thankfully due to pestering my parents about how much easier it would make their life being able to record stuff and watch it at a more convenient time to them. LOL (Secretly, I wanted it to record stuff that was on past my bedtime!)

Nowadays, almost everything is out there, on the Internet. A modern-day child need never go to the cinema, the video/DVD/Blu-Ray rental store, the library, or turn on the TV, ever. As long as they have internet access, then they can access everything - banned or not.

When I was a teen, if we wanted to see, buy or rent something age-restricted, we had to either get someone older to get it for us, or use fake ID`s. Nowadays, kids have it relatively easy by comparison, in terms of the availability of media. If they want something, they simply log-on to the Internet, a few clicks and keyboard presses, and it`s there for them. They need never have any kind of age-verification ID, and need never leave their bedrooms, ever again.

That kind of thing requires no thinking, no skills, and almsot no talent. You type what you want into Google, and there it is, five seconds later, for you to listen, buy, or download!

In my day, if you needed fake ID, you had to make it yourself, by using a photocopier, Tip-Ex (remember that?!), a photograph, and some sticky-back plastic. You then had to get the cajones to actually go to the shop, cinema, or video rental store, and then actually use it, AND convince the adult in the store that you were what your ID claimed you were. If I wanted to see a banned film, you had to know someone who could get it for you - but that wasn`t always easy.

Kids today don`t know how lucky they are, when it comes to access to films and music and games. They are spoiled rotten! How many of you who grew-up in the 70`s and 80`s remember exchanging cassette tapes of music, or computer games with your friends, just so you could access more material, that you otherwise wouldn`t have been able to afford to buy? In my day, we lent stuff to our friends, and we shared films, and music and games. One person would buy it, the rest of us borrowed it. Eventually, you`d all have played, heard or seen the same stuff.

Nowadays, you just need the Internet, and everything comes to you, straight away. Like I say, no talent, no skills, no effort.

Also, you said: "One big difference I will point out between you and I is I wasn`t allowed to play out at night as a kid (or very rarely if it did happen)." At best, I could only play out, until an hour before my bedtime, do like you, I didn`t get to "stay out late". So we`re not that different from one another. ;-)

sergio    [28993.   Posted 11-Mar-2013 Mon 07:10]
  BBFC R18 cuts for February 2013
Number of items=46
No. Cuts=6
Cuts ratio=13%

Cuts of interest:
EVIL BBW GOLD
Cuts required to remove abusive and potentially harmful elements in a sex work (in this case, sight of gagging, choking and vomiting during oral sex and nose-pinching during oral sex to restrict breathing). Cuts made in accordance with BBFC Guidelines and policy, and the Video Recordings Act 1984.

Ok, was Minnie Mayhem vomiting? I don`t know what it smells like, but does the stuff that Minnie Mayhem forcefully evacuates from her mouth look like vomit? I am possibly guessing here but this is the 30 seconds that has been cut from the R18 version of Evil BBW Gold. If you notice the description it says `nose-pinching`. If you can see anywhere that there is indeed `nose-pinching` in this 30 second clip then please tell me. Maybe they cut 20 seconds from here and 10 seconds either later or earlier.

Here is the potentially offending clip of a mess blowjob
http://www.xfreehosting.com/hardcore/joeking/evil-bbw-gold/index.htm

mediasnoops2    [28992.   Posted 10-Mar-2013 Sun 08:47]
  Lol at the Catholic nutters winging about the Lucy Pinder Loaded cover. Typical anti-Muslim racism.

Spiderschwein    [28991.   Posted 10-Mar-2013 Sun 03:44]
  I grew up in the 1990s which makes me just a cub compared to some of you folks but one thing I did notice is that my parents were a lot more cloistering, if you will, as were the parents of all my school friends, than the parents of kids in novels and films and stuff.

I think it`s probably because also, parents nowadays are constantly harangued and bullied and terrified into believing that there`s paedophiles round every corner who are out to get your, specifically, children. And in turn, given the cloistering that children undergo now, I`m sure that to a kid the attraction of alcohol and weed and casual sex and suchlike is based on the fact that the adult world, if you will, says, "This is fun, but it`s also for adults only, you can`t have it." It`s like saying to a kid, "Here`s a brand new shiny bike for Christmas. You can`t ride it."

Any kid nowadays whose parents trusted them to be back for tea and not to get into trouble would probably end up being taken into care, quite frankly.

DoodleBug    [28990.   Posted 9-Mar-2013 Sat 09:35]
  @pooch [28989]

Its funny you mention the whole line about "it`s not suitable for you" from parents when we were kids. It brought back memories of waiting for my parents to go out so i could watch the movies I supposedly couldn`t see, which as far as my parents were concerned was anything with sex scenes in or lots of nudity. I remember as a 14 year old watching films such as 9 and half weeks, 11 days 11 nights and a whole host of soft porn dramas in about 6 parts over a week as I only had about 15 minutes before my parents returned back home each time.
When my mum was a kid/teenager she used to regularly go to see Hammer movies which is how I got an interest as a kid and pulling all the horror movies off the shelf with the interesting looking covers at our local video rental shop.

As far as films not being as strong back then, that only relates to mainstream cinema and which today is only now as strong as underground/ independent cinema back in the 70`s/80`s. And underground cinema itself hasn`t really got any stronger in the past 15 years or so. Some might mention things like The Bunny Game, but thats very tame compared to the "roughies" of the 70`s and I still can`t see what the fuss was over the violence in that film, although unlike a lot of people I do think its a very good and well made movie.

One big difference I will point out between you and I is I wasn`t allowed to play out at night as a kid (or very rarely if it did happen). So every night I all I had to entertain myself was my movies and messing around on my computer games. Now as a kid today doing that, according the media, I should be a raving psycho sat in front of the screen watching all that violence and nudity ! And yet funnily enough I still don`t want to go and commit any violent act against any man,woman, child or amoeba on the planet ! (So take that Daily Mail !! lol )

Pooch    [28989.   Posted 9-Mar-2013 Sat 07:21]
  @goatboy [28988]: I think you`re spot on. WWE is absolutely trying to "have its cake, and eat it", and therein lies the problem. It`s trying to be everything to everyone. It`s not that far different from films pre-cut for a 12A rating. The studios try and make out that the film is edgy and daring, and hence unsuitable for under-12`s, yet at the same time, saying "it`s not too edgy, so parents, feel free to bring little Johnny and Janey, and hold their hands during the scary bits"!

I disagree with you, however, that WWE is no more than a modern-day equivalent to the wrestling many of us grew-up with on Saturday afternoons on ITV (with Dickie Davis on World Of Sport!) The old wrestling shows were much, much tamer, and cartoonier. There was far less focus on more dangerous and imitable techniques. There was far less focus on the pain and injuryies (fake or not) that the wrestlers caused each other. There was significantly less focus on the wrestlers being "good" or "bad". Fans knew that wrestlers like Giany Haystacks and Big Daddy, were nothing more than grown men, messing about, acting hard, and causing litle-to-no actual physical harm to each other. Today`s WWE is definitely aimed at adults, and does tend to focus more on the provocation and antagonism of each wrestler, and getting the fans and the wrestlers "worked-up".

@DoodleBug [28986]: Most sensible parents wouldn`t (and couldn`t) rationally aruge that an 11-year-old should safely watch a film like SAW (or HOSTEL, or TEXAS CHAIN SAW MASSACRE, for that matter). I again state the issue that sometimes, there are some things that kids need to be told "No, you can`t watch that, as it`s not aimed at you, and isn`t suitable for you", irrespective of whether that child wants to watch it, and irrespective of whether his/her friends have all seen it.

Like you, I watched some horror films when I was younger, but let`s be real here. Most of the films weren`t as gory and intensely violent as many modern horror movies are. Take a look at classic 80`s horrors and you`ll see how little blood, gore and violence is actually in them. Then compare them to some modern-day 18-rated films, and you will see there`s a big difference. Yes, there were some films in the 1980`s that were strong in content, but in comparison to most modern horrors, they were pretty tame. And I say this, as a fan and a collector of extreme cinema - including banned material. Don`t forget: just because we all did something (and because it didn`t affect us), doesn`t mean that the same rules should apply to modern-day kids. The 1970`s and 80`s - when most of us on this forum grew-up in - were a totally different era to a child growing up in 2013. How many of you were able to spend all day outside, and as long as you turned up at home for lunch or tea, your parent(s) didn`t bat an eyelid? Compare that to now, and see how many kids are a) allowed to do this, and b) how many parents would let them have that amount of freedom. We didn`t have mobile phones. Most of the time, my parents and those of my friends didn`t actually know where we would be. (They only had a rough idea.) In the summer, during the good weather, I would often go out with my friends from 9am until 8 or 9pm at night. Other than returning for meals, and telling my parents that I wouldn`t do anything stupid and would always be careful, they took what you said on trust.

I don`t think most parents would do that these days. If anything, I think modern kids are far more rebellious than we were. They smoke and try alcohol far younger than my we probably would have, and the world was a far simpler place then, than it is today.

Maybe that makes me sound crazy, but I think being a kid today is a far cry from being a kid in the hey-days of the 1970`s and 80`s. But hey, that`s just my opinion... ;-)

goatboy    [28988.   Posted 8-Mar-2013 Fri 18:50]
  Pooch I suppose you could argue history is on WWE`s side, wrestling has been shown on UK tv pre watershed since 1955, and the WWE pre watershed stuff arguably isn`t any more violent than the shows ITV were showing to millions on Saturday afternoons in the 1970`s.

WWE certainly wants to have it`s cake and eat it of course- having edgy content to appeal to adults and marketing to kids at the same time, but that`s the nature of the beast, it`ll likely always be like that.

Funnily enough they must have talked the bbfc into giving them lower ratings a year or so ago, because almost overnight in most cases their current shows stopped being rated 15 with the `contains strong violence` advice, and started being rated 12 with the advice `Contains dangerous sporting violence which should not be copied`

MichaelG    [28987.   Posted 8-Mar-2013 Fri 09:27]
  Who`s going to save the nation`s children? Why, former Playschool presenter and `Lib Dem` Baroness Floella Benjamin, of course:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2289738/Internet-porn-leading-children-unstoppable-march-moral-wasteland-warns-ex-Playschool-presenter-Floella-Benjamin.html

DoodleBug    [28986.   Posted 8-Mar-2013 Fri 08:09]
  [28985]

When I mentioned the WWE live events, I was talking about the UK. I am going to see them in a months time and I can guarantee there will be plenty of young kids enjoying themselves just as last year when I last saw the tour.

As for kids watching the SAW movies, that`s upto individual parents. I personally don`t have a problem with it but then I was watching 18 rated material back in 1984 when I was 11 years old, and yes I did know it was all make believe just like those kids who go to wrestling. I think I have mentioned previously on here that watching horror films at an early age is what got my interest started in cult / horror cinema and now it`s a full time business for me.

Pooch    [28985.   Posted 8-Mar-2013 Fri 05:42]
  r.e. WWE. I`ll admit from the outset, that I don`t watch WWE and am not a fan of it (though I have seen it in the past). Should it be on Weekend Morning TV? Probably not. Why not? Not because I think it`s too violent, per se, but that it would be better shown at a time that wasn`t universally known as "the kids TV slot" on practically every single TV channel, the world over. Pretty dumb scheduling decision, if you ask me.

Why don`t Sky put it on, in the mid-evening, say between 7pm-9pm instead? Older kids can (could) still watch it, but at least it wouldn`t be being directly aimed at the very youngest TV audiences who may stumble upon it without warning, and potentially when they aren`t accompanied by their parents.

It would probably mean OFCOM wouldn`t be constantly on Sky`s back about the content all of the time, as well, thus stopping Sky from getting major flack about the suitability (or not) of the show for youngsters.

Just because kids like something, or because a show is on during the daytime, doesn`t mean that it is suitable for, or even aimed at, children under the age of 12.

As for the American "TV-PG" rating, and the fact that American families let their young kids attend these WWE events, again, doesn`t mean that UK kids should get the same treatment. I`m sorry if that makes me sound like a censorial git, but the Americans have the "R" rating in the cinemas, meaning that under-17`s can watch films like SAW. That doesn`t mean that under-17`s should get to watch SAW! And I can`t see most sensible parents, and MelonFarmer members advocating that we start letting under-17`s watch SAW now, eh?! The way Americans bring up their kids, and the way Brits bring up their kids, aren`t necessarily the same. What might be ok for one country, may not be ok for another. Just because the American give WWE a "TV-PG" rating, and let their pre-school kids attend the events, doesn`t mean we Brits should do the same! (And to be frank, take a look at the average American kid, and how aggressive and violent they can be, and you have to wonder whether the Americans are wrong to let such young minds watch something that may only appear to be "play-acting", but which kids take pretty seriously and can`t always distinguish between the character of the wrestler, and the real-life person playing the role! And no, I`m not suggesting that all British kids are non-violent, perfect little forms of angelic humanity. They just don`t appear to be as violent or hyped-up as many America kids in my view seem to be.)

Sometimes some things just aren`t meant for kids, and kids (and parents) need to start vetting what their kids watch, rather than demanding broadcasters sanitise everything to make it suitable for little Johnny or Janey to view! THE JERRY SPRINGER SHOW and THE JEREMY KYLE SHOW are on during the daytime too, but that doesn`t mean it makes them suitable for seven-year-old kids to watch them! Likewise when Sky 1 and Sky Living show US dramas like CSI, HOUSE MD, and E.R. They`re shows that aren`t aimed at, or intended for kids to watch, despite the pre-watershed timeslots!

DoodleBug    [28984.   Posted 7-Mar-2013 Thu 23:51]
  [28983]

I myself have been a WWE/WWF fan for nearly 25 years but I stopped watching it on SKY TV back in 2001/02 due to ridiculous censorship by SKY. They haven`t changed in the past 10 years. As an any fan knows as well since 2008 WWE has been a TV-PG show on US TV and aimed more at a family audience. They are heavily involved with kids charities and kids as young as 5 are at the events and they love it. What`s worse is the BBFC slap 15 ratings on the DVD`s so in theory a kid who sees a live event then has to supposedly wait another 10 years to rewatch it on DVD !

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [28983.   Posted 7-Mar-2013 Thu 23:32]
  Thanks Goatboy

I will add a link to the video.

It makes you wonder what the right time is for WWE wrestling. Is it for adults or kids. I am surprised Ofcom allow it on day time at all.

Another strange conundrum is gambling. Something generally pushed towards adults only spaces. But daytime horse racing is a very positive promotion of gambling. Loads of enthusiastc people having a great time having a bet. You can`t get much more positive about promoting gambling than that.

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [28982.   Posted 7-Mar-2013 Thu 23:24]
  Sergio

The dictionary definition is surely ejecting stomach contents, but that may not apply to `censor speak`. The BBFC have difficulties with the English language, eg when speaking of female ejaculation. The censors get particularly confused about the word `likely`. Especially when used in conjunction with infinitesimally small probabilities of harm.

goatboy    [28981.   Posted 7-Mar-2013 Thu 21:30]
  Re: Ofcom wrestling

Wade Barrett is from Preston, in case anyone wondered where the "the grim realities of life smack you in the face" place was.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxIptsuKrI0

I am kind of amazed they took that seriously.

sergio    [28980.   Posted 7-Mar-2013 Thu 06:09]
  What does `vomiting` mean?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vomiting
Is it your stomach contents regurgitated? Or is it some saliva that is forcefully output from the mouth?
I am trying to see if the 30s cut from this R18 do indeed include `vomiting`. I suspect that they have confused it with spit and saliva.

Therumbler    [28979.   Posted 6-Mar-2013 Wed 20:46]
  http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/10269281.The_sex_club_run_by_Mistress_Sarah_in_the_home_of_a_councillor/

"the Daily Echo can reveal that the road is also home to a sex club – run from the spacious home of a top Hampshire councillor.

Now an investigation has been launched by council chiefs into the premises – and the behaviour of the councillor."

Now the local planning permission is getting involved:

" Fareham Borough Council leader, Sean Woodward, said: “I was not aware of this at all. I can assure everyone that there are no clubs of this sort with planning consent operating in Fareham.

“Now that I know more about it, we can look into whether it requires planning consent and send in our planning officers.

“If it’s a club that people are paying to come to then I’m sure it would require some sort of planning permission, which we have definitely not granted.”

Cllr Woodward added: “If we find that the venue requires planning and licensing consent then obviously they can apply for it and the residents will have the chance to make their feelings known, but there have been no formal complaints about the club so far that I’m aware of.

“In the same way that we have a policy of no casinos in Fareham, this certainly sounds like something we would not want in the borough.” "

Further comments from local residents:

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/10269321.Residents_unaware_sex_club_was_on_their_doorsteps/

The next door neighbour, an 81 year old woman, doesn`t care. But:

"Churchgoer John Hardy was also unaware of what was going on.

“I don’t think it’s appropriate at a residential address. If it was someone in my church I would have something to say about it to them,” he said. "

Therumbler    [28978.   Posted 6-Mar-2013 Wed 16:37]
  The Mail was bemoaning internet porn and celebrity culture as causing children to lose their `innocence` early, from what I read over someone`s shoulder today.

Considering the Mail dedicates entire sections to pointless celebrities, including 2 pages about how Bieber didn`t turn up on time, I think it hypocritical.

Spiderschwein    [28977.   Posted 3-Mar-2013 Sun 06:05]
  I just Googled "the most shocking forced sex ever seen on the internet" as that meddlesome Bel Mooney airhead says is a quote from an easily available online porno site.

Guess how many results I got?

Two. One of them was her article, and the other was a news aggregator website mirroring it.

Lying sow. But then, she`s only following the lead of Catharine A. MacKinnon who wrote an academic article about how all porn is a slippery slope to snuff films and failed to cite one source for existence of same.

Also, oddly enough, the "sidebar of shame" doesn`t appear on that article`s page, while it does on every other page. Hmmm?

Therumbler    [28976.   Posted 2-Mar-2013 Sat 18:30]
  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21641004

Clair Perry comes under attack for saying parents are being over protective, yet she somewhat contradicts herself by saying that parents are often too busy to protect kids from the evils of the internet.

So which is it Perry? Are parents "watching their [kid`s] every move," or are they "too busy or ignorant to realise what their children were doing online."

I actually agree with the founder of Mumsnet for once: "Mothers are, sadly, used to copping a lot of blame - but being charged with being over-protective, cupcake-baking helicopter parents at the same time as being feckless, couch potatoes who let their children have unfettered internet access is a bit rich."

There`s also a thread on Mumsnet in which many of the posters are saying she should keep her opinions to herself.

====

As for the Mail they have included videos and photos from Playboy and FHM shoots in recent months.

mediasnoops2    [28975.   Posted 2-Mar-2013 Sat 13:31]
  Oh dear the subject of porn corrupting our kids rears it`s ugly head in tabloid newspapers which are little more than soft core porn with a bit of "news" in them again.
I Was having a good laugh yesterday reading Bel Mooney ranting against porn in the Daily Mail. I won`t bother posting the link but if you type her name and pornography into Google you`ll get it.
What made me laugh was she cited Penthouse magazine as the kind of hardcore sexually explicit porn that 14 year old boys who would rape a teenage girl would be viewing.
Most of what can be seen in Penthouse can also be found on the website of the Daily Mail. So if Ms Mooney reckons pictures of naked women spralwed sexily turns teenage boys into rapists she should ask what such pictures are doing on the website which her rant against porn appeared.

Spiderschwein    [28974.   Posted 2-Mar-2013 Sat 04:52]
  And while we`re on the subject of toy soldiers, what about Call of Duty or suchlike? How isn`t that toy soldiers but digitised?

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [28973.   Posted 2-Mar-2013 Sat 01:51]
  Sergio

I loved the father`s line:

“Kids of five are looking at porn, which is horrendous. When we were that age we were playing with toy soldiers.”

sergio    [28972.   Posted 1-Mar-2013 Fri 04:07]
  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2285314/Judge-blames-15-year-old-boys-internet-porn-obsession-rape-girl-14-heinous-attack.html

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4816519/Boy-15-rapes-schoolgirl-after-watching-hardcore-porn.html

` By DEIDRE SANDERS, Sun Agony Aunt
I HAVE a horrible feeling we are going to hear of more cases like this, and I am getting doubtful whether there is any real political will to tackle the tide of internet porn drowning our children.`


I am not sure why she has a horrible feeling of more cases going to be heard. If the children are `drowning` in porn then surely the flood of rapists should be pasted all over page 3?

Therumbler    [28971.   Posted 1-Mar-2013 Fri 00:25]
  An article that might be of interest.

http://stevehynd.com/2013/02/28/is-pornography-ever-acceptable/

An update on another:

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/at-a-glance/general-news/lap-dance-club-plea-rejected-after-demo-1-5446111

Therumbler    [28970.   Posted 28-Feb-2013 Thu 06:27]
  http://www.thelocal.se/46422/20130226/#.US9aylJUGSo

"Police in Stockholm were surprised on Monday to find that a man they had arrested for buying sex from a prostitute was the duty prosecutor to whom they were obliged to report the crime."

And it seems, judging by their front page for tomorrow, that the Mail has returned to the issue of internet porn. Considering that they were claiming victory a couple of months ago, I wonder what their angle is this time.

phantom    [28969.   Posted 26-Feb-2013 Tue 09:09]
  Harvey {28966}

"OTOH, the catholic church does seek to influence how non-catholics must behave. Other churches and organisations do it too. While they claim the right to express their bigotry, homophobia and dangerous proselytising outside their churches, I don`t think it`s unreasonable for those who disagree, to go inside and say so."

I do appreciate that point.
And I do understand that religions are interventionist by design.
One can therefore argue that their seeking to intervene in our lives grants us licence to intervene in theirs.
However, to my mind that would make us the very people we don`t want to become.

Meanwhile, if we have church groups picketing cinemas when some Christ film is released, they are picketing outside the cinema. Again, this is an option open to Femen and Pussy Riot.

Catholic groups do not tend to storm into strip clubs splashing about holy water. They might object to them, but they do so in a public forum. Once more, the public area of debate is by no means closed off to Femen and Co.

To me there is such a thing as the sacred.
Those who do not observe that to me are barbarian.

Thus, when the Taliban blew up the Buddhas of Bamiyan they were acting in a barbarian manner. They showed no consideration beyond their own twisted obsession. They failed to apply what I think could be called a universal observed standard of behaviour to their actions.

To my atheist sensibilities this applies whether the destroyed statues were religious representations or simply works of art.
Indeed, some things are taboo. Just as you don`t shoot at nuns or the red cross in the circus of war, so too do you not seek to blow up any Rembrandts or Michelangelos.
To do so places you outside of acceptable boundaries.

Religious spaces have throughout time stood apart. With religion having been with us since the beginning of time, the concept of the sacred is well established and tends to be universally respected. We know we`re not supposed to walk in, start taking flash photographs during mass and stick our chewing gum on the figure of the madonna on the way out.

Those who willfully molested or destroyed religious spaces rarely get a good press by history.
Whereas those who respected them tend in turn to be respected by history. Hence my mention of Alexander.

Thus I feel to willfully disturb a sacred space is a violation of a kind.
Few things could more represent a deliberate refusal to consider others feelings than such an act.
It seems a knowing act designed to hurt, combined with an expressed indifference. In short: `I know this hurts you and I don`t care.`

Peter Tatchell`s attempted arrest of Robert Mugabe is generally seen as his greatest moment. His protest interrupting the Archbishop of Canterbury on the other hand is largely seen as his low point.
There are some things you don`t do.

To my mind Femen simply knew that to do what they did would attract more media attention. Tits always do. Especially when combined with religious outrage. It is a very cheap, very unsubtle way of gaining attention.

To my mind I could have got much greater coverage of my opposition to the DPA by doing something outrageous in a Cathedral.
After all, it`s something anyone can do.
So, how about doing a number two in the pulpit of York Minster as a protest against Tony Blair`s continued liberty?

But then why do not all protesters do such a thing? Why not gain such easy coverage? Are they all so devout? Or perhaps just because it`s not the done thing....

DoodleBug    [28968.   Posted 25-Feb-2013 Mon 15:09]
  Just a quick correction to today`s UK DVD/Blu-ray releases in relation to Paranormal Activity 4. The Unrated version is also included on both the DVD & Blu-ray releases as can be seen on the cover artwork. On the UK release it`s called the Extended Version.

BBFC link is :

http://www.bbfc.co.uk/releases/paranormal-activity-4-1

sergio    [28967.   Posted 25-Feb-2013 Mon 09:18]
  Interesting, indecent images is a high earner for the CPS.
http://criminalbarassociation.wordpress.com/2013/02/24/the-culture-within-the-cps-exposed/

Harvey    [28966.   Posted 25-Feb-2013 Mon 07:07]
  phantom [28965]

I`m not against the idea that everyone should have a reasonable expectation of being left alone in their own space.

OTOH, the catholic church does seek to influence how non-catholics must behave. Other churches and organisations do it too. While they claim the right to express their bigotry, homophobia and dangerous proselytising outside their churches, I don`t think it`s unreasonable for those who disagree, to go inside and say so.

My particular line in the sand would be use of violence against people or wanton destruction of property. But without resort to either, it should be possible to protest.

phantom    [28965.   Posted 25-Feb-2013 Mon 05:48]
  re: For Whom the Bell Tolls...

Not sure about this Femen lot.
It is hard to see them as victims.
Walking into Notre Dame topless or naked, replete with slogans against the pope, is hardly mere protest.
It is a deliberate denial of respect, a deliberate offence against the religious sensitivities of others within their holy of holies.

I speak as an atheist myself. So please do not assume I`m somehow defending some sensitivity of my own. This is not a case of `I believe in freedom, BUT...`

In this case I see it as a denial of freedom by Femen. Were they to do their stunt on the Champs Elysees in the centre of Paris. Fine. But they chose Notre Dame. That however, is Catholic territory. It is their space. To barge in there and inflict yourself upon them is a denial of their freedom to worship in peace and enjoy the sanctity of a space they hold dear.

I don`t think there are parallels to, say, the cartoons of Mohammed, as those were published in a public forum of a secular newspaper. Were someone to barge in and daub them onto the interior walls of a mosque, I would have an entirely different view on that matter.

Femen may detest Catholicism and the papacy. Such is their privilege. But I feel it is unacceptable to do what they do.
People do have certain sensitivities which they can expect to see respected within their own space.

Just as we can have the expectation that nobody should desecrate graves, destroy a work of art or fling faecal matter at the cenotaph, spray spiteful graffiti on any memorial to, say, the Hillsborough disaster, I think that Catholics can rightly expect that no bolshy feminists chould stomp into a space they hold sacred and start spouting off.

I would extend this also to the Pussy Riot lot in Russia. (Their punishment was completely out of all proportion. But to my mind they had clearly committed on offence.)

Religions - in this case Catholicism - have their hypocrisies and I find it perfectly acceptable to point these out. But not within the confines of their temples.

So no, I don`t believe Femen are somehow being censored or being made victims of some moral anachronism. They crossed a line; a line which demarcated someone else`s space. Within that space the rules of these others hold sway and Femen, by not respecting that, acted in a coarse, even barbarian manner. I say barbarian, for yes, civilisation does have rules. Alexander the Great knew that 2300 years ago...

Femen are not a badly repressed group whose only possibility of voicing a protest was this. That might have made it excusable.
Instead they just strike me as attention hungry exhibitionists who sought to cause a stir.

Harvey    [28964.   Posted 21-Feb-2013 Thu 12:26]
  Phantom [28963]
re: Nobody Actually Believes that People are `Depraved` by Obscenity These Days

Awful article. I`m not even convinced the author understands the laws he`s writing about.

The DPA crininalises mere posession of an image - never the case with the OPA.

The DPA provides no equivalent of the "public good" defence - which existed in the OPA.

The DPA provides that the requirement to notify (Sex Offender`s Register) will apply where a custodial sentence of two years or more is handed down. The notification being for 10 years for a sentence up to 30 months, for life for a sentence of 30 months or more. Never a consequence of a conviction under the OPA.

Posession of indecent images of children has seen constant creeping changes of definition. First that a child is a person under 16, then under 18 First it was taking photographs, then possession of photographs then "pseudo-photographs", next an image, however made, next that an image may be an image of an imaginary child and no mention that any kind of image of a fully clothed child, showing no sexual activity, may nevertheless be "indecent".

The OPA isn`t obsolete because we`ve become more tolerant, but because we`ve allowed new laws to be made which have superceeded and even exceeded the provisions of the OPA.


I hope nobody accused of anything serious actually finds themselves represented by a solicitor who can write this kind of ill informed crap or think it worthy of their website. (IANAL)

phantom    [28963.   Posted 21-Feb-2013 Thu 06:14]
  re: Nobody Actually Believes that People are `Depraved` by Obscenity These Days

Brilliant. A study based on five cases. Earth shattering.

So we are now much more tolerant and open minded and don`t need the OPA anymore. Hallelujah! Why? Because we have the DPA.

Well of course! If anything proves how open minded and tolerant we are nowadays, it`s the DPA. One need only look at the politicians who championed the DPA to see some of the nation`s foremost tolerant liberals.

So that hideous OPA is no longer needed in our open, forward looking society. It`s an anachronism no doubt. And now that we have the shiny new DPA to police possession of the `extreme` we can finally strive onward toward a brave new world.

Why, oh why do so many morons study law?

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [28962.   Posted 20-Feb-2013 Wed 05:35]
  Therumbler

Excellent piece, I added a link to it. Particulaerly relevent to some of the campiagners pretending to be academics these days.

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [28961.   Posted 20-Feb-2013 Wed 05:33]
  Phantom

These people should at least specify what they would like you to drink instead before trying to restrict something. There`s not much left thats nice to drink when they frown on alcohol, sugar and cafeine. And as for junk food, its seems to cover just about everything anyway.

Therumbler    [28960.   Posted 19-Feb-2013 Tue 17:27]
  http://io9.com/5985199/how-one-mans-lies-almost-destroyed-the-comics-industry

An interesting article about how a moral crusader in the 50s fabricated, exaggerated and omitted evidence in a somewhat successful attempt to censor comic books.

"In another case, Wertham blamed Batman comics for the "homosexual" crimes of a boy who had pissed in another boy`s mouth. What he left out was the fact that the boy had previously been raped by the boy he attacked. He also left out that the boy was actually a much bigger fan of Superman than Batman.

When it came to violence inspired by comics, however, Wertham`s greatest informant was a 15-year-old gang member named Carlisle. Wertham had carefully transcribed at least 15 pages of interview transcripts with Carlisle, and in the process of writing Seduction wound up attributing Carlisle`s words to a succession of fictional young people. He`s split into two different boys in one section, and later Carlisle`s words find their way into the mouths of two more boys, ages 13 and 14. So one informant became four. This is part of a general pattern where Wertham exaggerated the scope of his research. Though he testified to the Senate that he`d examined 500 young people per year for years, the archival evidence shows that for the 10 years he worked at the Harlem clinic, only 500 people under 17 were admitted."

phantom    [28959.   Posted 19-Feb-2013 Tue 15:55]
  Thought I`d point this recent news story out.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-21478314

Notice how once again it includes a pre-watershed ban for `junk food` adverts. So hamburgers and stringy cheese are `just as bad` as nipples and bad language.
And once again, it`s not censorship. No, it`s a commandment from health experts. For we need `experts` to tell us what we can cope with on telly.

I must have consumed hours of tv junk food adverts throughout my life. Yet, oddly, for some bizarre reason I`m not fat. Perhaps I need an expert to tell me why that is. After all, I can`t possibly think for myself....

Spiderschwein    [28958.   Posted 18-Feb-2013 Mon 12:17]
  Jesus fucking Christ.

How are we supposed to beat these wowsers who go on about it? Because whatever we do to oppose pr0n-blocking, we end up looking like a bunch of perverts and your average punter does read the tabloids and will ascribe to this mindset. Because it doesn`t matter that their argument is spurious and completely not made out, people still buy it as we saw during the passage of the DPA.

Therumbler    [28957.   Posted 18-Feb-2013 Mon 00:52]
  A law is being debated in North Carolina that would outlaw the exposure of nipples and female breasts because of topless rallies.

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news%2Fpolitics&id=8991671

"The Republican-backed bill headed to a floor vote in the House would amend the state`s indecent exposure law to expand the legal definition of "private parts" to explicitly include "the nipple, or any portion of the areola, or the female breast."

Depending on whether such exposure is judged to be "for the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire," the woman could be charged with a felony, punishable by up to six months in prison for first-time offenders. More mundane exposure would be a misdemeanor meriting up to 30 days in jail."

mediasnoops2    [28956.   Posted 17-Feb-2013 Sun 14:42]
  Hopefully Anna Van Hesswijk, Kat Banyard and Object will all move to Iceland!

phantom    [28955.   Posted 17-Feb-2013 Sun 08:16]
  Sabreman64 [28954]
re: UK `will follow Iceland`s lead over ban on internet porn`

"Anti-pornography campaigner believes Britain will try to filter out `brutal and hardcore imagery which is now the standard`"

So brutal and hardcore imagery is now `the standard`, is it?
The blatant assumption aside, if it`s `the standard` then, pray, how do you seek to ban it?
Surely this is another classic example of campaigners exaggerating their own credibility out of existence.
Either the stuff they loathe is niche and at the extreme edges, or it is mainstream. If it is the latter, then they have already lost the argument.
Because I`d like to see anyone trying to ban the mainstream. I wonder how that would work in a democracy, per se.

But then logic or even a basic understanding of democracy (no matter liberal democracy!) are not necessarily a forte of self-appointed anti-pornography valkyries.

Sabreman64    [28954.   Posted 17-Feb-2013 Sun 03:37]
  http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2013/feb/16/uk-iceland-ban-internet-porn

So, Iceland is going to ban online porn, and the fuckwits we have governing us plan to follow suit. I despair. When are these wanker politicians going to learn that prohibition never works?

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [28953.   Posted 15-Feb-2013 Fri 23:22]
  MichaelG

Hey that school is just round the corner from me. I`ll report back on all the depraved, corrupted and otherwise morally harmed kiddies that I spot on the local streets

MichaelG    [28952.   Posted 15-Feb-2013 Fri 12:26]
  It`s been a while, but...

Daily Mail Bullshit Blame Bingo No. 8,473:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2279193/Parents-horrified-learning-primary-schoolchildren-aged-just-10-playing-raping-game.html

`The playground activity had been named after a violent video game which depicts violent sexual assaults on a mother and two daughters.`

`It is unsure what video game led to the naming of the game, but several on the market contain scenes of rape.`

So, it actually could have come from anywhere, and not necessarily a videogame, being that you don`t know for definite which game, if any, led to the name? Yet another ludicrous attempt to demonise the videogame industry...

MichaelG    [28951.   Posted 14-Feb-2013 Thu 00:12]
  Re: A Good Day To Die Soft:

This current trend for cutting films for the cinema (to make them available to a wider audience, naturally) is something of a paradox when you look at the situation once the film hits DVD and the film companies can`t wait to get `Extended Harder Cut` or `Uncut Version` screaming at you from the cover of the box (`Taken 2` and `Savages` are the two latest examples I can recall). Anyone else think this is odd? They seem to be alienating the audience the film was intended for at its cinema release, but then clamouring to get them back for the DVD release, probably knowing full well (even though the BBFC don`t seem to) that a younger audience are still going to watch an uncut version on DVD. Times have certainly changed since a cut cinema release would be further cut again for home viewing...

Therumbler    [28950.   Posted 12-Feb-2013 Tue 11:43]
  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21419851

Interesting, if the regulator does follow the recommendations in full then it will become the new Ofcom of the press.

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [28949.   Posted 11-Feb-2013 Mon 05:17]
  A Good Day to Die Not So Hard has just been passed 12A.

There`s some speculation that a pre-cut version was submitted. Perhaps to at least mask the Yippee ki yay motherfucker

http://www.bbfc.co.uk/releases/good-day-die-hard-2013-6

Cuts now confirmed by the BBFC:

This work was originally seen for advice in an unfinished form. The company was advised that the film was likely to receive a `15` certificate but that their preferred `12A` classification could be achieved by making a number of cuts to both language and visuals. When the finished version of the film was submitted for formal classification, edits had been made to reduce the number of uses of strong language (both `f**k` and `motherf***er`) and to reduce sequences of bloody violence, including blood sprays when characters are shot in the head, and punches to restrained individuals. The formal submission was consequently rated `12A`.

MichaelG    [28948.   Posted 9-Feb-2013 Sat 23:56]
  Now this is worrying:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2276327/Last-week-MPs-revived-corpse-Secret-Justice-Bill--debating-gay-marriage-time-noticed-Here-spell-terrifying-implications-life--Secret-Britain.html#axzz2KTfhBZbX

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [28947.   Posted 7-Feb-2013 Thu 23:38]
  Thanks sergio

It is mathematical convention to round up a fraction of exactly half.

phantom    [28946.   Posted 7-Feb-2013 Thu 18:07]
  sergio [28945]
"I am not sure what sort of evidence the BBFC can produce for `potentially harmful dialogue`."

i love it! If that instead was Sly Stallone or some other action man roaring `die, motherfuckers! die!` whilst firing the hip held machine gun, then that would be much more acceptable.
You really can`t make it up....

sergio    [28945.   Posted 7-Feb-2013 Thu 12:26]
  I am not sure what sort of evidence the BBFC can produce for `potentially harmful dialogue`.
`Choke on that cock, go on, choke on that cock`.

BBFC R18 cuts for January 2013
Number of items=40
No. Cuts=7
Cuts ratio=17.5%

Not an interesting question - do I round this up or down - the .5%?

Cuts of interest:
SATURDAY NITE SPECIAL
A compulsory cut was required to remove potentially harmful dialogue (in this case encouraging a man to choke on another man`s penis during fellatio). The cut was made in accordance with BBFC Guidelines, policy and the Video Recordings Act 1984

sergio    [28944.   Posted 7-Feb-2013 Thu 09:25]
  There is no `sex addiction`?!!!!
http://www.salon.com/2013/02/06/report_sex_addiction_is_b_s/

jackdeth    [28943.   Posted 7-Feb-2013 Thu 08:30]
  Re: Baise-Moi.

Not surprised actually, given the BBFC’s own criteria. The previously cut sequences in question are the explicit penetration shot during the rape scene and the gun to anus (which was intact for cinema release presumably because it was committed on a man). Neither of which, according to their guidelines can be seen to eroticize sexual violence.

Taking note of the positive response this movie tends to receive from that charlatan community of feminist advocates better known as Media Studies lecturers, writers and commentators, it’s hardily surprising that the bleeding-hearts at the BBFC have amended their decision.

Let’s just wait for the media academics verdict on that lamentable piece of garbage, The Bunny Game. If it can be sufficiently proven to be pro-feminist, or at least engaging in that discourse (a little more tricky I know, because it`s directed by a man, but not beyond the realm of possibility) then I`m sure the BBFC would gladly review their decision on that one as well.

Watch this space I say.

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [28942.   Posted 7-Feb-2013 Thu 06:05]
  Baise-Moi has just been passed 18 uncut with previous BBFC cuts waived

http://www.bbfc.co.uk/releases/baise-moi

Perhaps a little unexpected given the recent rule changes on sexual violence

phantom    [28941.   Posted 6-Feb-2013 Wed 13:34]
  Re: So ARE UK Kids Depraved and Corrupted?...
"The ATVOD pair admitted though that the OPA is hardly used with about 8 convictions in the last year."

Only 8 convictions in one year?
Shame they don`t say how many prosecutions were brought.

Wasn`t there an article on here a while back where the figures for the use of the DPA? If i recall that suggested that it was in the high hundreds. This despite parliament having been deliberately misled (!) by the pathological Labour government that prosecutions would at most be roughly a dozen per year.

So it would be somewhat telling if the use of the OPA has now truly almost fallen to nought in favour of the DPA.

Shaun    [28940.   Posted 6-Feb-2013 Wed 05:33]
  Re:Harm -


Free speech:

The kind of harm I consider when looking at censorship justification, is the kind of harm caused by direct incitement for example "Let`s get together and kill some LittleGreenMen", all "LittleGreenMen are evil and should be burned or gassed!" and that sort of thing. For example a website devoted to causing harm to LittleGreenMen. Even then I often think that people expressing their diabolical thoughts publicly, rather than taking them underground owing to censorship, might be preferential in a free society. We could engage with them, and try and talk them round if we knew who they were.

If the harm isn`t immediate and obvious, or backed up by solid peer reviewed and proven research (rather than the fake science which tries to justify much censorial restriction) then as far as I am it isn`t harm at all.

One argument against free speech is the old adage of shouting "Fire" in a crowded theatre. Well, it shouldn`t be illegal to shout "Fire" and under the right circumstances it wouldn`t be. IE If there really was a fire.

However one should be free to shout "Fire" if one wants to, and not be prosecuted for that specifically, on its own. However one should then have to face the legal consequences of any harm caused by such idiocy.
So the consequences should be related to any act (not just speech) which causes harm or chaos.


Videos and pictures:

The only "harm" I consider valid justification for video etc. censorship is:

1: Seriously inappropriate material targetted at kids. IE incorrect age ratings for vidoes.

2: Child sex abuse.


Otherwise free people should be exactly that. There may be a case for ensuring adults are careful what they allow children in their charge, to see, especially younger ones.

phantom    [28939.   Posted 2-Feb-2013 Sat 20:31]
  cor {28938}

"harm is a difficult thing to define, when you delve into harm with consent (e.g. BDSM) it just becomes a mine field. "

Very true, but I don`t think one need be that specific to find the difficulty with harm.
If harm is not even a perceived reductive effect, but in fact a suspected diminution of potential, then it really makes your head spin.

What i mean is, when most of speak of `harm`, we`d mean someone developing a psychological problem for example.
But the clever purporters of these harm theories nowadays prefer to instead hypothecate that the harm is a reduction of the potential of a person.
As though the silver medalist at the Olympics might in fact have won gold - had he not been `harmed`.
So harm becomes something other than what we normally understand it to be; a wound of some sort. Harm now becomes a reduction of potential.

The beauty of the above approach is that it is about as nebulous as anything can get. Like this we all can be walking around `harmed`, not knowing it. We might all simply have been better, more successful people, had we not been `harmed` by seeing lads mags, or bra adverts.

But this is the nature of the folks we face.
So keen are they to maintain their harm claims in an age when ever more people seem increasingly skeptical, that they`ll craft arguments which become impossible to substantiate either way.

As for the Hawaii study you posted.
I am aware of it. But if I recall it really just is a comparison of statistics. And I think I recall some gaps in the years or areas listed, which suggests that one might have been selective with the material.

Thus I think it`s far from proven.

That said, it feels intuitively right, as I think that, just as with marihuana smokers being much less likely to be in a fight than alcohol drinkers, I`d say a guy having popped his cork by watching people do unspeakable things to each other online, is much less likely to go out and rape someone than a guy who`s not been finding any relief at all.

cor    [28938.   Posted 2-Feb-2013 Sat 15:10]
  phantom [28937]

harm is a difficult thing to define, when you delve into harm with consent (e.g. BDSM) it just becomes a mine field. i wish that there was some part of our government that could be scientific in its approach, peer reviewed, unbiased as possible.. that could give clear definitions of things like harm. As well as some pressure for MPs to use these definitions, though i guess that system would have its problems as well. just feels like; Harmful = "whatever the daily mail is bitching about". And we write laws accordingly.



btw;
[The suggestion of a reduction in sex crimes seems intuitively correct. Albeit that there isn`t really significant amount of evidence to prove such a thing.] -maybe not but there is some, always meant to look into this as i think there must have been much more research done like this;
http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/1961to1999/1999-pornography-rape-sex-crimes-japan.html (sorry if this has been posted before)

phantom    [28937.   Posted 2-Feb-2013 Sat 09:57]
  Melon Farmers (Dave) {289333}

`Yes indeed, it`s about time nutters and censors were pressed into giving examples or more complete definitions of what they actually mean by the catchall nutter phrase of `harm`.`

I think the issue of harm will never go away.
Not least as `harm` these days often gets construed with `not ideal`.
i.e. anything that differs from a perceived ideal best is deemed to be of harm, as it prevents the accomplishment of the full potential (under said ideal).
And preventing the achievement of someone`s full potential is of course harm.
See what I`ve done there?

Harm is these days often interpreted not to be a `bad` per se, but the hindrance of a `good`.
I know, I know. What`s bad and what`s good?

But it`s the nature of folks who always advocate intervention to seek a means of arguing which is slippery and deliberately ambiguous.

In short they are intentionally seeking to provide a premise, which can not possibly be proved either way. It becomes a purely intellectual pursuit.
i.e. how many angels can dance on the head of a needle? how much damage can a porn pic do?

In that regard the claim of harm (with all it`s pseudo scientific assertions and vocabulary) is much akin to something like string theory.
One can debate it and draw up endless diagrams and formulae, but in the end proof either way is impossible.
Thereafter we simply enter the realm of metaphysics and religion.
Values, beliefs, the greater good....

How exposure to sex is harmful to me personally is a bit of a mystery.
Not merely because sex is in fact something upon which the species depends for procreation.

I would assume that in this country a great many people`s recent ancestry, only two or generations back still grew up in cramped housing with possibly a dozen to a room. The dire poverty of the working class, before central heating, fitted carpets and mass middleclassdom.

Just read a little about life a hundred years ago. Not for princesses and industrialists, but for the working masses.
If three generations were sleeping in a cramped room or two, I`m a little baffled how all those kiddies stayed that utterly innocent of sex in `the good old days`.
Surely when mum and dad started working on child number 15, the other 14 (well, those who had survived thus far) would be well aware of it under such circumstances.

Worth remembering that such housing arrangements reflect the majority of human history. From cavemen to the Roman poor, to populations feeding looms and other machinery in the industrial revolution, we all lived more or less like sardines.

It is actually quite ironic that today the fear is about `what the kids might be getting up to in their rooms`, when in fact it is only because they have their own rooms these days, that kids don`t get to witness what mum and dad get up to.

We have adopted ideals which keep children `pure`, for want of a different word. That`s fine. Though this might well be more due to the psychological and emotional needs of the parents than due to the immediate safety of the child. i.s. parents want to think as their kids as pure little angels. It doesn`t necessarily mean they must be so.

Now it`s true that pornography represents something new for children with the mass exposure it enjoys on the net these days.
After all, porn is not sex per se. Your great great grand danddad being aware of his mum and dad doing the dirty in the room at night, might not be quite the same thing as oiled and shiny Mr and Miss Universe banging for Britain live on the net.

Also some niche fetishes have achieved much greater exposure to the wider public these days than they may ever had in the entire span of human history.

So there may well be the possibility for new, unforeseeable harms to emerge from all this exposure. This said, the risk seems purely theoretical.
Why seeing someone doing something should cause harm, especially if one doesn`t even quite comprehend it yet, seems unclear.
In short, one would need a reason even to suspect such harm. I cannot see any such reason.

That said, it is highly possibly that the exposure to porn of pretty much the entire population of the world (developed and developing) may in fact bring many advantages.

The suggestion of a reduction in sex crimes seems intuitively correct. Albeit that there isn`t really significant amount of evidence to prove such a thing.

But more so, I thing it may just play a part in further societal evolution. What is very evident in the latest generation is that sexual differences mean a great deal less to them than to previous generations.
Not merely homosexuality, but just about anything seems much more acceptable. That doesn`t mean they all wish to partake in such activities. It is more that they seem indifferent to what possible difference their hair dresser might have.
Whereas with my parents` generation such a difference would have been afforded much greater importance and any such hair dresser would have been out of business pretty quickly...

Now it is possible that other factors might be driving such new tolerance. But I suspect that being at liberty to see what it is all those `othernesses` are on the net, without any need for fear, might be breaking down age old prejudices.

It is beyond doubt that the internet is now a part of human evolution, a further technological step.
But it is also possible that the subsequent exposure to porn is also part of this evolution.
Bizarre as it sounds, the ubiquity of porn may in fact be rendering us better people.

Do I have proof? No. But listening to today`s youngsters, a generation who grew up with porn only a mouse click away, I`d say it may have had a very significant - positive - impact.

Anyway, I better stop thinking aloud now...

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [28936.   Posted 2-Feb-2013 Sat 06:01]
  SimonC

I think thid shows that the TV broadcasters are simply getting more censorial (or fearful of Ofcom and/or sexualisationists etc)

The film was not cut by the BBFC. They just kindly noted the 2 scenes as containing real sex. They passed the film 18 uncut as opposed to R18 and were explaining why.

SimonC    [28935.   Posted 2-Feb-2013 Sat 05:42]
  Hi Dave,

There was no hardcore scene in it at all, so i would assume these were the cuts that you are referring to.
The one that i spotted was in the incestuous sex scene, the girl in the scene reaches down between the legs of her brother, uncut you see her hand move up and down his penis two or three times, only the top of the penis is visible during the contact, the penis is not that clear but is clearly erect. In the cut version that was shown by film4 the contact between her hand and the erect penis has been removed but as he moves the erection is still plain to see. Given that film4 have shown a number of oral sex scenes in the past this seems a funny bit to cut out. As the male in the scene then gets on top of the girl, I think it’s safe to say real sex took place. I don’t think there was anyway they could have hidden the large hardon from the view of the camera, but no actual penetration is shown. Do you recall what was cut by the BBFC?

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [28934.   Posted 1-Feb-2013 Fri 22:26]
  SimonC

Did Ch4 cut the 2 scenes noted by the BBFC:

"Includes two scenes of real sex. One is a clip taken from a real sex work and the other a portrayal of a brother and sister engaging in incestuous sex".

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [28933.   Posted 1-Feb-2013 Fri 22:23]
  mediasnoops2

Yes indeed, it`s about time nutters and censors were pressed into giving examples or more complete definitions of what they actually mean by the catchall nutter phrase of `harm`.