See also Religious Watch Forum

 DarkAngel5    [26564.   Posted 8-Mar-2010 Mon 09:20]
@Ian G

Does this mean the Video Recordings Act is being amended, so the BBFC can revoke previously issued certificates?

 axis45    [26563.   Posted 8-Mar-2010 Mon 04:00]
Well well well my favourite rodent David Milipede,foreign secretary,now appearing at the Iraq enquiry,joking and grinning his way through a bunch of half baked pat questions that wouldn`t challenge the intellectual rigour of a child with learning difficulties.
What do u think of this david? What do u think of that? Can we suck ur dick Mr.Miliband? Excrutiating to watch by any standards but worse because the Chilcott enquiry is simply providing a forum for NL war criminals and their apologists to eulogise ad nauseum with regards to the propoganda they spout.
If they are not to be confronted then why bother?



Some of his assertions were so offensive i can barely bring myself to repeat them.

One example is how he grinningly asserts in that unbearably smug and self congratulatory tone that he now wants to see the rule of law in Iraq and not to have issues decided by guns and bullets?? And the UK is now more respected in the region? Yes its true the cunt did actually say that.

He reminds me of a smug posh sixth former at a school debating society,with not even the remotest grasp on his subject and completely removed from the implications of his assertions.Vile odious creature.

I would really like to see cunts like Milipede and all the scum electorate who voted in Blair again in 2005 sent to live with their families in a specially constructed town in rural dartmoor and have the US airforce bomb the shit out the place daily for a few weeks so they can experience how the other half live.

 IanG    [26562.   Posted 7-Mar-2010 Sun 22:19]
Anyone else spotted this?

http://www.recordoftheday.com/dailybanners/digitaleconomybill.pdf

Schedule 1

1 The Video Recordings Act 1984 is amended as follows.
2 (1) Section 4 (authority to determine suitability of video works for classification)
is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)(b)—
(a) in sub-paragraph (i), after “issue” insert “or revocation”, and
(b) in sub-paragraph (ii), after “issuing” insert “and revoking”.

 IanG    [26561.   Posted 7-Mar-2010 Sun 15:21]
I once said the BBFC were sick and twisted. I stand by what I said.

"My Daughter’s A Cocksucker is an explicit sex work featuring a number of very similar scenes in which young women perform acts of fellatio on men (shot so their faces are not seen) while frequently looking into the camera and asking questions of the viewer such as ‘are you proud of me now Daddy’, `Am I a good little cocksucker daddy?`, `My older sister isn`t as good as this, is she daddy? Mommy taught me well`, `Am I good enough to teach the little sister?` and `are you jacking off to your little princess?’. The female performers also make comments to the viewer such as `Daddy always likes it when I choke` , `Daddy told me to do it just like this` and `Daddy always said a wet blow job`s the best blow job`.

The context makes it clear that ‘Daddy’ is being used to refer to a familial relationship and not as mere term of endearment for an older lover. The Board’s judgement is that in this work the dialogue encourages the male viewer to be aroused by, among other things, the idea of instructing and watching his daughter in the act of fellatio. This effect is potentially heightened by the implication that the daughter also finds this paternal interest arousing. The Board has concluded that such sequences constitute ‘material (including dialogue) likely to encourage an interest in sexually abusive activity (for example, paedophilia, incest or rape)…’"

"This effect" exists only in your twisted imagination `Mr` BBFC. Its your rather perverse opinion, not proven fact. You truly are the sickest of the sick if you believe any of the above speculative claptrap is remotely real or feasible, or indeed, the INTENTION of this work...that actually, to any sane and rational person, appears to be a fucking JOKE.

Pray tell how a complete stranger (i.e. porn actor) is to appear to be the viewers` own daughter, apparently, `inciting`, `encouraging` or `heightening an interest` in them to abuse their own offspring? What `thought` processes do you people go though to reach such unequivocally sick and twisted bullshit?

Perhaps, BBFC, you`d like to point us to all the other films that have slipped though your net that actually encourage all those incestious fathers out there to teach their own daughters to suck their cocks? As far as I can see, none of these sick people need/needed any encouragement at all - they`ve all been at it for centuries, long before films came along, long before porn became acceptable. The evidence is so hugely stacked against your pathetic psychobabble one can only assume you think you`re now Gods, able to steer and `correct` people`s behaviour with a splicing blade. Grow up will you. You`re doing yourself no favours. You`re doing the public a disservice. Indeed, you`ve taken to insulting our intelligence with your unsubstantiated and wholly `unhealthy fantasies`.

Please fuck off and peddle your brand of snake oil elsewhere. I`m truly sick of it.

 IanG    [26560.   Posted 7-Mar-2010 Sun 08:48]
emark, if they did some research I think they`ll discover MOST teenage boys are `crap at sex` whether they look at porn or not. In fact I`ll wager the lads that know what lady bits look like are slightly better `at it` than the ignorant, sheltered, trigger-happy rest.



Re: Times article on public photography.
I can`t seem to post a comment on the article but, I wonder why it is that the public cannot demand the removal of all CCTV cameras on grounds of invasion of privacy? After all, CCTV is designed specifically (and often covertly) to SPY on people`s lives and invade their privacy.

 emark    [26559.   Posted 7-Mar-2010 Sun 06:24]
"Well if that`s the case why doesn`t she just go right ahead and be one if she thinks men are that bad. Perhaps some men these days might think (or even say) it`s better to be gay than be subject to the daily whims of a hideous frigid, prudish controlling harridan, or failing that just remain single."

Yes, indeed - I mean, I never had a girlfriend when I was a teenager. People don`t have a right to be given a relationship (at all, let alone with Mr Perfect), not to mention that if there are problems with their sex life, they should try communicating with their partner about what they like. I don`t think there`s a problem in saying "these boys watch porn and are crap at relationships" - but the point is, it`s the boys to blame. Either communicate, find someone else, or be single - it`s not up to the Government to pass censorship laws just so a teenager can have a sexual relationship with Mr or Mrs Right.

 Melon Farmers (Dave)    [26558.   Posted 7-Mar-2010 Sun 05:43]
Sergio

Here it is

http://www.bbfc.co.uk/website/Classified.nsf/c2fb077ba3f9b33980256b4f002da32c/66f3534914e4e8e0802576d50060cc36?OpenDocument

The BBFC have just updated the entry with a long justification of the ban.

I also have spotted that there seems to be a cock up in the dates in the BBFC database. It looks like a fair few weeks all got lumped together to one date in January. Maybe explains the blip in the stats of so many R18s in January.

 Shaun    [26557.   Posted 7-Mar-2010 Sun 04:57]
Well I got a comment up on that Daily Mail page, even if I said I couldn`t be bothered...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1255856/Teenage-boys-watching-hours-internet-pornography-week-treating-girlfriends-like-sex-objects.html

A lot of negative comments on there though. I think MF people should go and look. One women (a Mrs, IIRC) said it might be better to be a lesbian. Well if that`s the case why doesn`t she just go right ahead and be one if she thinks men are that bad. Perhaps some men these days might think (or even say) it`s better to be gay than be subject to the daily whims of a hideous frigid, prudish controlling harridan, or failing that just remain single.

In my (almost) 53 years of existence, 95% of the females I`ve known both intimately and as close friends say they want men to act like men. But what the heck does that mean ? One thing I am sure of though, is that from what they told me, they rarely want any nancy boy who acts like a woman but has a penis. But if they don`t like the fellow they are going out with, they should simply dump him and find another.

But nowadays they mostly seem to think they can impose control freakery on him instead, (ispired by the likes of Harm-man and that fearer beard), and somehow turn him into what they *think* he should be. I`ve seen this happen in the past, and I`ve ironically also seen the arguments and the divorces that result from it.

When I was in my own teens starting in March 1970, the impression seemed to be, (due to the HEAVY strict censorship of the time) that decent women didn`t really like sex at all, and they "did it" just to bear children and/or to please their husbands, and for little other reason. What of the "objectification" there ?

There certainly wasn`t the impression given that they might just have **enjoyed** it for its own sake. I found great harm in this. It gave just as FALSE an impression about women, as todays porn is accused of doing by this article.

The way boys usually learn about girls, is NOT from porn or the lack of it, but from the girls themselves when they eventually go out with them. Censorship or not, the impression can often be incorrect until then. Perhaps males with older or slightly younger female siblings do better, but my sister was ten years younger than I was.

As for male attitudes, back "in my day" I think we were just about as bad. Lads back then used to talk to their mates about what they did... Often a pack of lies I think.

People are all to ready to say censorship is the answer when in fact it is likely to make it worse rather than better. Over the years they`ve been sold a lie, and know it is virtually impossible for them to recognise the truth of it.

 sergio    [26556.   Posted 7-Mar-2010 Sun 04:50]
[26515] Paul B said it was rejected by BBFC. I can`t find it in BBFC search.
MY DAUGHTER`S A COCKSUCKER
Anyone else know where to look?

BBFC cuts for Feb 10
Number of items= 76
No. Cuts=6
Cuts ratio=7%

Pissing off the BBFC.
STREET PISSING VOL.2
Cuts made to images of sexual activity (masturbation, fondling of breasts and buttocks) occurring either in the course of, or immediately following, urination in order for the work to achieve a `R18` classification. Cuts made in accordance with BBFC Guidelines, policy and the current interpretation of the Obscene Publications Act 1959.

 pbr    [26555.   Posted 6-Mar-2010 Sat 15:31]
@IanG - I`m going to play Captain Obvious and suggest a dildo, then I`ll get me coat :)

dictionary.com offers the following definitions:


sex object
 
–noun
a person viewed as being of little interest or merit beyond the potential for providing sexual gratification.
Use sex object in a Sentence
See images of sex object [< I lol`d]
Search sex object on the Web [< I lol`d again]
Origin:
1925–30

sex object
n. A person regarded primarily as the focus of sexual attraction.

Main Entry: sex object
Function: noun
: a person regarded especially exclusively as an object of sexual interest


So... there you have it... basically by being reminded of the fact that [most] people do occassionally want to have sex with other people, people will forget that people are more than something to make your special places happy... obv.


@MichaelG

I read that Littlejohn article... I tried to find it funny or insightful or indeed anything other than well... you know... wouldn`t want to say something defamatory coz we know how that turns out here *rolls eyes*

In amongst the droning laissez-faire rantings and xenophobic drivell I did spot one sentence which did bring a smile to my face "Lord Chief Justice Keith Vaz"...

 IanG    [26554.   Posted 6-Mar-2010 Sat 08:13]
Does anyone know the definition of a `sex object`? I can`t see how looking upon someone as a possible sexual partner turns them into an object or remotely objectifies them.

We may believe we are far nobler and that we seek some deeper emotional and intellectual friendship with our sexual partners, indeed, this non-sexual bonding is usually reserved for same-sex friends and those whom we are not sexually attracted to. However, when seeking our `soul mate` we generally consider a long term partnership in terms of physical, emotional and intellectual compatibility. If one of these aspects remains unfulfilled then the relationship can be compromised - the eye can wander in search of more physically appealing partners, the mind may seek new challenges or like-minded souls and, as a consequence, the emotional ties, the things we call love and trust that bind `soul mates` together, can become strained.

It may be convenient for some to consider the mind and body as seperate entities but, we are one whole, one complete being. Indeed, the idea that the flesh may be weak while the spirit is strong is deeply flawed. The flesh is controlled by the spirit, the psyche, the thought, the reflex, our hopes and dreams. We do as our mind directs (and often subconsciously). The body is but a vessel for the mind and, despite everything society may believe, our mind is but biology and our biology knows what it needs not just for our personal survival but for the survival of our very species and what`s best for our offspring.

In terms of sexuality, only rapists (and perhaps traffickers/pimps) treat other people as `sex objects` to be used and abused. Where there`s mutual attraction or some mutually beneficial arrangement (i.e. partnerships and/or paid-for `sexual encounters`) there`s no objectification but, indeed, a degree of mutual respect, social interaction, even pleasure in the fulfilling of some inherant socio-sexual need for all parties involved (that maybe sexual for one and, perhaps, monetary for the other but, it could be emotional, re-humanising, de-fusing and satisfying nonetheless).

And it should be stressed that it is far better for hormone-filled young lads to work off their excess testosterone with pictures of naked ladies than getting their 14-17 y/o girlfriends pregnant - isn`t it?

Our sexuality is only something we alone can control and, how we choose to do that is our business alone. It should be noted that pornography has always been part of human society. And just because some religiously deluded twits in the middle of the 19th century thought they could protect children by turning sexually explicit materials into `obscenity` has done nothing to protect children from sexual abuse and, indeed, has only increased their naivety and vulnerability to sexual exploitation and abuse.

Indeed, denying youngsters the right to know and explore their own inherant sexuality is a vile and insipid form of child sexual abuse. You`re as guilty as hell Britain and the proof of your illness is plain for all sane, rational and sexually open countries to see.

 Shaun    [26553.   Posted 6-Mar-2010 Sat 05:21]
Well, at one time many parents of post pubescent teenage males would have been concerned if they WEREN`T curious about the anatomy of females and all the rest of it.

Somone should present that recent study to the Daily Mail.

I am getting to the point where I simply can`t be bothered anymore.

 MichaelG    [26552.   Posted 5-Mar-2010 Fri 23:44]
Here we go yet again:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1255856/Teenage-boys-watching-hours-internet-pornography-week-treating-girlfriends-like-sex-objects.html

What, by wanting to have sex with them?

I`m at the stage now where I`m so fucking pig-sick of this that I can`t even be bothered to have a rant...

 Shaun    [26551.   Posted 5-Mar-2010 Fri 18:09]
"artistic crap" ?

Do you know FOR SURE it`s crap ? Did you watch it yourself ? Or are you just as predjudiced, as biased, as ignorant, as stupid, and just as downright bigoted as the people who want to censor such "crap" by banning it or making it uneconomical due to unfair rules and CENSORSHIP COSTS, whilst firmly believing at the same time that THEY should be the judge of what other FREEBORN (?) people get to see ?

Sheesh! I really don`t believe what I am reading. Especially on here.

You know, I am a bit of an "artistic" theatre luvvie myself. I`ve been involved with drama since I appeared in quite a fair sized child part when I was only just eleven, some 42 years ago (42 years next week in fact), something I remember as if it was yesterday. This week that same local amateur theatre company were peforming 12th night by William Shakespeare and I was simply doing offstage duty... Unfortunately some similar kind of predjudices were at work in effecting a reduction of the audience from normal levels, in this case because of the reputation of the playwright. But in fact the play really was quite hilarious. Those who would have enjoyed a good laugh, but pandered to their anti-Shakespeare predudices simply missed out.


Keep an open mind folks.

Even if it really IS crap, pornographic or otherwise, adult grown up people SHOULD be free to buy it, watch it, and then DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES.

It`s called freedom, and I wish people would have more DUE respect for it.

Are we free, or are we not I humbly desire to know ?

 bleach    [26550.   Posted 5-Mar-2010 Fri 16:28]
@sergio
"Maybe he is just another `artist` with his head up his own backside, now, why can`t `porn` be `self expression`?"
I think a porn film such as The Devil In Miss Jones is artistic, even more so than some pretentious twaddle that gets classed as an art-film. Just because a film is difficult, don`t make art. Obviously some horror such Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Romero`s Dead Trilogy and The Thing are all classics up there with Your Citizen Kanes. I`d argue that with Colin Wilmhurst.

"Back then, the majority of indie film-makers may have been purveyors of dodgy horror, porn and other bad things."
Anyone know what he meant by other bad things, I don`t.

"So, horror and porn are BAD THINGS, eh? Not as bad, I wager, as your crappy £600 rom-com. There are many reasons to oppose the VRA, but saving you money isn`t really one of them. Piss off."
I agree. But I do think there should be an alternative or at for low-budget films. Also, based on colin`s comments he could have dug his own grave and alot of other filmmakers by almost requesting streaming media carry a BBFC certificate.

 sergio    [26549.   Posted 5-Mar-2010 Fri 15:03]
` I find it offensive that we are all presumed to be working and making films in the world of violence and pornography, and cast out of being able to express ourselves via the medium of film just in case.`

Maybe he is just another `artist` with his head up his own backside, now, why can`t `porn` be `self expression`? Horror movies and porn are bad things seems to be his assumption.

Maybe his attitude is a bit retro but dvd seems to be dying, although I am not too sure of the legalities why doesn`t he just stream his artistic crap?

He is not a threat to main stream media? Who is he kidding?

 braintree    [26548.   Posted 5-Mar-2010 Fri 14:21]
Not sure where to post this info , but the news story regardng the extended Die Hard is not really news.
The additional scenes mentioned were all available on the original R1 a decade ago

 Shaun    [26547.   Posted 5-Mar-2010 Fri 07:34]
well, dancing monkey I would respectfully but vehemently have to disagree with you.

In todays commercial climate the cost of classification, could well make the difference between a low budget film being released or not.

If freedom of expression really IS to be properly respected, and the governemt STILL want to censor our videos then THEY should pay the BBFC for it, or allow uncensored videos to be released to adults.

You know - It`s called freedom, and we are at least SUPPOSED to be a free country, but at times, especially more recent times, you could have fooled me.

 dancing monkey    [26546.   Posted 5-Mar-2010 Fri 06:19]
You know, Colin Warhurst almost had me until I read "Back then, the majority of indie film-makers may have been purveyors of dodgy horror, porn and other bad things."

So, horror and porn are BAD THINGS, eh? Not as bad, I wager, as your crappy £600 rom-com. There are many reasons to oppose the VRA, but saving you money isn`t really one of them. Piss off.

 Melanie-H    [26545.   Posted 5-Mar-2010 Fri 06:16]
[26506]
Thanks to both Janus17 and Harvey for the feedback re:Ammendment to the Justice Committee - Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill.

A brief update - Several submissions have been made to the proposed bill including those from Margo MacDonald, UK Network Sex Work Projects and Teela Sanders. All submissions can be found

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s3/committees/justice/inquiries/criminaljusticeandlicensing/Stage2submissions.htm

Margo MacDonald`s office states :

"The committee has decided to take further written and oral evidence on the prostitution amendments
(also on other amendments, and it may be that Stage 2 will have to be given a formal extension). There
was no opposition to this in the committee or from Trish Godman who was present. A couple of MSPs said
very strongly that what is needed is research evidence, not opinion! The date given for the amendments to be considered in the committee is 2 weeks hence i.e. 16th March."

Following the recent resignation of Steven Purcell due to ill health, Councillor Jim Coleman is now the acting leader of Glasgow City Council - highly likely he now believes it was an `act of God` and the `crusade` to rid Scotland of any sexual pleasure/titilation must continue.

 sergio    [26544.   Posted 5-Mar-2010 Fri 03:21]
Children will copy anything so therefore ...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1255483/Parents-anger-class-seven-year-olds-shown-graphic-sex-cartoon-school.html


Harvey, get your facts right (thumbs nose)!

`Mr Justice Hooper dismissed the test case brought by the BBFC, saying that the risk of the seven videos involved being seen by and causing harm to children was, on the present evidence, insignificant`

http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/arloh11.htm

 Harvey    [26543.   Posted 4-Mar-2010 Thu 18:43]
IanG [26542]

"It`s 10 years since the High Court ruled that hardcore porn was not a danger to children."

Err... not quite.

The 2000 ruling was that the *sale* of hardcore porn videos in licensed sex shops was not harmful because the *risk of them being seen* by children was insignificant.

If someone had suggested that Spartacus should be broadcast at a time and place where there was a liklihood that children would be watching, Pattison might be making a valid point. But they aren`t - so she isn`t.

 IanG    [26542.   Posted 4-Mar-2010 Thu 08:44]
Thanks for that hobosoup - do you know if or where this cummulative study is published? (Can`t see any links on Xbiz) Many of us here are aware of Milton Diamond`s previous studies in Japan in particular and, the work of Beryl Kutchinsky, indeed, even of Guy Cumberbatch, Neil Malamuth, Donnerstein and Linz.

The evidence for the Governmnet`s stance on porn is clearly against their policy. Indeed, we can be certain Ofcom`s position re porn on TV is placing children in danger. I mean (awful as this is) their (Gov/Ofcom) prohibitions did nothing to save Baby Peter or Khyra Ishaq, nor, indeed, any of the other 220+ chidren that were starved, tortured, abused and murdered in their own homes by their own families last year alone. I see no protection of `vulnerable children` coming from censorship. Indeed, I see only mindless human rights abuses coming from people who refuse to accept the overwhelming evidence (of over 50 years of studies) that proves conclusively their beliefs to be absolute nonsense and, dangerously perverse nonsense at that.

It`s 10 years since the High Court ruled that hardcore porn was not a danger to children. How can Ofcom dare to claim it is `harmful` without providing any proof to back up their claims and, indeed, act in complete contempt of the law of this land as handed down by the High Court?

 Paul B    [26541.   Posted 4-Mar-2010 Thu 05:55]
MichaelG @ [26533] If I lived in the area I`d be wanting to know the address, not thinking that they should be leaving!

 hobosoup    [26540.   Posted 4-Mar-2010 Thu 05:00]
This article is from www.xbiz.com

might be worth forwarding to Ms. Patterson.

MANOA, Hawaii — As the use of porn increases, sex crimes usually decline or do not increase at all according to a study done by a University of Hawaii professor and director of the Pacific Center for Sex and Society.

And men who watch X-rated movies have better attitudes and are more tolerant toward women.

What’s more, the study suggests that there’s a higher correlation of sexual offenses like rape, by those offenders who had a strict, repressive religious upbringing that prohibited viewing porn.

According to the study, “Pornography, Public Acceptance and Sex Related Crime: A Review,” published in the International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 32 by Milton Diamond, professor of anatomy, biochemistry and physiology, “Over the years, many scientists have investigated the link between pornography (considered legal under the First Amendment in the United States unless judged `obscene`) and sex crimes and attitudes towards women. And in every region investigated, researchers have found that as pornography has increased in availability, sex crimes have either decreased or not increased."

Diamond’s study goes on to say that some people argue that ready access to pornography disrupts social order, encourages rape, sexual assault, and other sex-related crimes. And even if pornography doesn’t trigger a crime, it contributes to the degradation of women by causing men to want their women to act out misogynistic fantasies.

Many even adamantly believe that pornography should become illegal, the study said.

But the professor`s research contradicts the claims of anti-porn crusaders.

Diamond said that to examine the effect this widespread use of porn has on society, researchers have often exposed people to porn and measured variables such as changes in attitude or predicted behaviors, interviewed sex offenders about their experience with pornography, and interviewed victims of sex abuse to evaluate if pornography was involved in the assault.

“Surprisingly few studies have linked the availability of porn in any society with antisocial behaviors or sex crimes. Among those studies none have found a causal relationship and very few have even found one positive correlation," he said.

Diamond quoted FBI stats that report despite widespread and increasing availability of sexually explicit materials, the incidence of rape declined markedly from 1975 to 1995. This was particularly seen in the age categories 20–24 and 25–34, the people most likely to use the internet.

"The best known of these national studies are those of Berl Kutchinsky, who studied Denmark, Sweden, West Germany, and the United States in the `70s and `80s. He showed that from approximately 1964 to 1984, as the amount of pornography increased, the rate of rapes in these countries either decreased or remained relatively level."

The report continued, "Later research has shown parallel findings in every other country examined, including Japan, Croatia, China, Poland, Finland, and the Czech Republic. In the United States there has been a consistent decline in rape over the last two decades."

Diamond`s study added that no community in the U.S. has ever voted to ban adult access to sexually explicit material. "The only feature of a community standard that holds is an intolerance for materials in which minors are involved as participants or consumers,” the report stated.

The study said that although the police sometime suggest a high use of porn by sex offenders, the claim is meaningless because nearly all men have at some time used porn.

“Looking closer, Michael Goldstein and Harold Kant found that rapists were more likely than non-rapists in the prison population to have been punished for looking at pornography while a youngster, while other research has shown that incarcerated non-rapists had seen more pornography, and seen it at an earlier age, than rapists. What does correlate highly with sex offense is a strict, repressive religious upbringing.”

Another researcher quoted in Diamond`s study, Richard Green, also reported that both rapists and child molesters use less pornography than a control group of "normal’ males.”

As far as porn`s negative effect on women, Diamond’s research pointed out that studies of men who had seen X-rated movies found that they were significantly more tolerant and accepting of women than those men who didn’t see those movies. Furthermore, studies by other investigators, both male and female essentially agreed. "There was no detectable relationship between the amount of exposure to pornography and any measure of misogynist attitudes."

"No researcher or critic has found the opposite, that exposure to pornography — by any definition — has had a cause-and-effect relationship towards ill feelings or actions against women. No correlation has even been found between exposure to porn and calloused attitudes toward women," the research reported.

“There is no doubt that some people have claimed to suffer adverse effects from exposure to pornography — just look at testimony from women’s shelters, divorce courts and other venues. But there is no evidence it was the cause of the claimed abuse or harm,” the study stated.

The professor concluded that any freedom can be misused and sometimes spawn illegal activities whereby those who do are punished and incarcerated. But that doesn’t mean that the freedom of the majority should be restricted. “In the United States, where one out of every 138 residents is incarcerated, just imagine if pornography were illegal — there’d be more people in prison than out,” Diamond said.

 Shaun    [26539.   Posted 4-Mar-2010 Thu 04:00]
I must not read the daily mail web site.
I must not read the daily mail web site.
I must not read the daily mail web site.


Oh the irony of it. I just sent a comment message to the "sparticus" article, on the Daily Mail and as part of the check for humans it asked me to type in "xbbfc" !

Honestly!

So I just thought I`d share that one.

 MichaelG    [26538.   Posted 3-Mar-2010 Wed 23:38]
As fully expected, my favourite newspaper has decided to fan the flames of the `Spartacus` TV series `controversy`:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1255093/Blood-orgies-nudity--The-Spartacus-epic-campaigners-battling-ban-British-screens.html

Another soapbox for `is it worth the risk?` Pattinson. It`s just a shame that they`ve had to resort to untruths just to add a little extra `shock, horror` factor:

"Ever since Caligula in 1980 - a movie so blue Oscar-winner Helen Mirren refuses to talk about it..."

Er... except on the full-length 156-minute feature commentary she provided for the most recent DVD release of `Caligula`. I`ve been good enough to post a comment pointing this out. Anyone fancy a wager on whether or not it gets published?

 bleach    [26537.   Posted 3-Mar-2010 Wed 16:22]
@IanG / MichaelG
Re:sex on television
As mentioned Viv Petty-son seems to be speaking for what I would class as a minority. People like seeing sex and violence on TV. Secret Diaries of a Call Girl is probably ITV2`s biggest programme ever and could be one of the things which helps them financially. I think the Sachs/Ross/Brand thing may have been a factor in moral-purists speaking out: "we don`t like swearing on TV, a survey said 70% feel the same" or whatever they say. Programmes like Sopranos, True Blood and a lot of stand-up comedy wouldn`t be the same without naughty words, plain and simple. But, I digress; the bottom line is I`m sick of people with a moral agenda thinking they are speaking on behalf of the people when they`re just speaking on behalf of a few silly, possibly even juvenile and certainly deluded (un)individuals who think we should all think the same as them.

 ste    [26536.   Posted 3-Mar-2010 Wed 12:45]
Scottish Parliament`s Justice Committee calling for evidence on Trish Godman`s attempt to ban all `paid-for sexual activity` (among other things):

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s3/committees/justice/inquiries/criminaljusticeandlicensing/Stage2CallforEvidence.htm

Already some submissions received here, including some from sex workers themselves.:

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s3/committees/justice/inquiries/criminaljusticeandlicensing/Stage2submissions.htm

Looks like the vote will take place within the month.

 IanG    [26535.   Posted 3-Mar-2010 Wed 09:49]
MichaelG, the loonies have all come out of the woodwork mate.

Where`s Shaun? Where`s anyone who, like myself, grew up in the 1970s with programmes like I Clavdivs, Monty Python, Q8, Bouquet of Barbwire, The Cleopatras, any number of Play for Today...the list goes on and on... I recall seeing dozens of programmes which contained "full frontal nudity, sex and violence". This begs one very important question: why did NONE of this `unsuitable for children` material do anything to cause anyone of my generation to be `harmed physically, mentally or morally` nor indeed, cause any concerns over `early sexualization` of us children. I`ll tell you why shall I, because it did NOTHING to affect our healthy, normal and quite enlightened progress into sane rational adulthood.

I speak from 100% experience. I was THERE. I am absolutely sick to death of insane religious, feminazi nutters fucking up the psychological development of our children.

None of this `unsuitable for children` material damages children. It in fact adds to their sexual education and prepares them for the harsh realities of life. We were not dumbed down. We were not mollycoddled. That twat Whitehouse was an enemy of freedom and rationality even to my tender 10 years old eyes. And I`m afraid Ms Pattison you`re no fucking better - you know nothing and care even less.

The things that traumatised me as a child were: the death of my pet dog, the death of my father, Leeds Utd not winning the FA Cup - all things which I had real emotional attachments to.

I recall watching Neil Armstrong setting foot on the Moon. I recall seeing a Vietnamese girl about my age running from her napalmed village with all the skin from her back trailing behind her. I knew then that we live in a totally fucked-up world and that its all the fault of our gloriously deluded, insane, psychotic `leaders`.

I know this: you cannot create the world of your dreams through censorship. Hiding the brutal truth, sex, warts and all, improves no one`s life. In fact it demeans and debases, degrades and insults our very intelligence. But then that`s what they want - a whole generation of easily offended fuckwits to back them up on their insane crusade to the promised land of cottonwool and candyfloss and pots of gold at the end of every rainbow.

We have a right and need to experience everything in the realm of human existence else we can never know or claim to be sane and rational human beings. Knowledge and experience give us power over our own minds and bodies. The easily offended are nought but infantile cretins. The morally superior are nought but deluded children. If you cannot react to a stimulus in a sane and rational manner then you are not a sane and rational human being - end of.

 MichaelG    [26534.   Posted 3-Mar-2010 Wed 02:52]
Apologies if I seem to be hogging this forum at present, but fucking hell, is there something in the water supply at the moment that has the nutters crawling from the woodwork and foaming at the mouth?

Firstly, Vivienne Pattison needs to get herself a new catchphrase. This "is it worth the risk?" malarky is already becoming mighty tiresome.

"There are numerous studies linking exposure to violence on TV with violent behaviour at large and if there is the slightest possibility that explicit sex and violence on screen can cause this harm, is it worth the risk in the interests of entertainment?"

OK, once again, where are these studies and what is the harm? We`re all waiting...

I despair. It`s getting like a recurring nightmare from which you can`t wake up. Entertainment, civil liberties, the internet, private correspondence, private sexual practices - EVERYTHING seems now to be under constant scrutiny, subject to constant criticism by anyone and everyone and there`s not a day goes by when someone, somewhere, who has little or no business or interest in that which they condemn, howling for something to be banned or criminalised.

And just when you think things can`t get any worse, you get two so-called Liberal Democrat peers (oh, the irony!), proposing state filtering of the internet. Well thanks for `protecting` me, but please just fuck off. If I wanted this sort of shit I`d go and live in China or Iran.

I fully realise that fascist, draconian bollox coming from the mouths of someone supposedly standing for Liberty and Democracy (if you take the party name as representative of their basic ideals) is nothing new - I`ll never forget the self-motivated machinations of that twat David Alton after the Bulger case. But seriously, where does this news now leave people like us, who believe in individual rights and freedoms? Even the fucking Lib Dems can no longer be trusted not to attempt to implement legislation which would be better suited to a Communist regime if they attain power. I`m still going ahead with a tactical vote in an attempt to remove the Scottish Communist Occupation Force when (and if) the election comes, but the future is looking far from bright, pretty much whatever happens.

I guess when the situation looks as bleak as it does, the only thing left is to laugh about it:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1254697/RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-Browns-Britain-2015-Queen-fled.html

Then again, this is so spot on, it`s actually terrifying...

 MichaelG    [26533.   Posted 2-Mar-2010 Tue 23:30]
The brutal clampdown on human sexuality continues:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1254912/Sex-dungeon-discovered-sleepy-village.html

"Officers were alerted after neighbours reported `unusual behaviour` and `strange sounds` coming from the four-bedroom semi in Lee Mill, Devon.

Police arrived with battering rams to raid the home..."

So, no suspected guns or drugs, but plod arrives armed with a battering ram after a few `strange sounds` and a bit of `unusual behaviour` are reported.

"It`s fair to say we were not expecting to find a masochistic dungeon in sleepy Lee Mill. You don`t expect to find this sort of thing anywhere." - Detective Sergeant Stuart Gilroy

Really? Clearly not a copper with much policing or life experience, I`d say.

"One neighbour said: `It might sound funny but to be honest we are nervous about the place... I`ve seen traffic jams caused by people trying to go there. It`s disgusting. We just want them out and have a nice family move in."

I know, traffic jams are terrible. I find them `disgusting` too, especially when you`re stuck in one yourself(!).

You know, I wish we could, once and for all, get the law cleared up in this country so everyone is in absolutely no doubt as to what is illegal and what isn`t in terms of an individuals private sexual practices. To be honest, there shouldn`t be ANY legislation dictating rules to consenting adults who want to play with each other to in private (and make no mistake, this IS in private, despite what the curtain-twitching cunts who live in this `sleepy village` seem to think).

What`s most disturbing here is that three people have been arrested after reports of `comings and goings` (no pun intended) and `strange noises`. No-one seems to know what they`ve been arrested for, and they have been bailed while police carry out `further enquiries`, which likely means they need some time to string some shit together which they can attempt to make stick. My guess is that the only line the filth can take here is attempting to pin the `brothel` tag on the place, as it`s almost certain that money would have been changing hands here. My guess, though, is that as this is a BDSM establishment, it`s unlikely there`d be any real sexual activity taking place. So, how can you charge someone with running a brothel if no-one is having sex there?

Once again, the BDSM Community feel the bite of the law. If this was some kind of gay sex club, I doubt plod would have touched with a bargepole - whether money was changing hands or not.

I`m beginning to think that reading the Daily Mail is some kind of masochistic experience. Perhaps I`m suffering from something along the lines of `Mary Whitehouse Syndrome`. I know I`m going to be appalled and outraged when I look at the site, but somehow I just don`t seem to be able to stop myself...

 MichaelG    [26532.   Posted 2-Mar-2010 Tue 22:49]
Re: Melon Farmers (Dave) [26528]:

"Just supposing these loons somehow got their way and eliminated sexuality and body image issues.

So that everyone was judged on the merits of their minds...."

Judging from some of the minds these loons are in possession of (if indeed they do possess anything in this field at all), then they want to pray this never happens...

 bleach    [26531.   Posted 2-Mar-2010 Tue 16:28]
@pbr
Another factor is it means Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft whoever need to make a console with the parental controls specifically for the UK market. How many manufacturers will agree to that? Secondly, as you mentioned a "chipped" console of some description could easily bypass it just as it can bypass regional coding. Also what about the "sexist", "violent" or "morally dubious" games that already exist? As mentioned Duke Nukem 3D and Lulu are now quite old games and fit the bill of being adult, yet they were invented before any lockout as such, parental controls which no-one used is the only form of control. Also, what about earlier consoles of current generation consoles (i.e. Wii, 360, PS3) they have no lockout? Also, It`s been widely reported that when the PS1 came out the average age of the gamer was in their 20s; so surely it would punish the vast majority of gamers. Linda Pap clearly isn`t a gamer, just a publicity seeker.

 pbr    [26530.   Posted 2-Mar-2010 Tue 14:24]
You know... I keep seeing these common sense solutions to gaming being the devil... sell consoles with the parental controls "switched on", what a smashingly simple and common sense approach... because having a BBFC rating on it didn`t stop little Johnny and Janey getting hold of "Duke Nukem does terribly naughty things with Lula and then kills lots of things in a awfully unsporting fashion" just as an enforcable PEGI rating didn`t either... but... pray tell gentle reader... how do these miraculous parental controls work?

I do believe they involve the "parent" setting a password or PIN which "controls" which age-level a system may play without prompting the gamer to enter said password or PIN...

I do hope everyone`s common sense tells them that this is clearly a brillant idea which has absolutely no flaws what so ever...

 sergio    [26529.   Posted 2-Mar-2010 Tue 09:32]
`The introduction of a system of ratings symbols for photographs to show the extent to which they have been altered. This is particularly critical in magazines targeting teen and pre-teen audiences.`

Why not a default state, these images have been altered? A rating for every photo in every magazine? WTF?

`The government should work with internet service providers to block access to pro-anorexia (`pro-ana`) and pro-bulimia (`pro-mia`) websites`

I am not sure on what grounds they want to do that. Because it is a `bit dangerous, harmful`? What a slippery slope. Melonfarmers to be restricted due to being for harmful freedom. Pro uncensorship sites to be removed with the help of ISPs.

 Melon Farmers (Dave)    [26528.   Posted 2-Mar-2010 Tue 09:14]
Just supposing these loons somehow got their way and eliminated sexuality and body image issues.

So that everyone was judged on the merits of their minds....

Then there would STILL be half the population that had less than average talents. They would just get a different set of complexes about their lack of wit, intelligence, artistic ability or whatever.

 bleach    [26527.   Posted 2-Mar-2010 Tue 09:02]
@dano
I think you`re absolutely right. I can`t believe people are taking Linda Pap so serious. She isn`t even a leader in her field in any field (i.e. social science, sexuality, child psychology) she is simply a bigot who has a hidden moral agenda i.e. I don`t want my children to see "offensive" images so why should anyone else`s children. Also Linda Pap is an American citizen why didn`t she submit her report to the American government because she`d be laughed out of the white house and the onslaught from the music industry and magazine publications (such as GQ, FHM) would be unbearble for her. Why the fuck is no media company speaking out against this (or maybe I missed it), why has no real expert spoken against it? Is it because they don`t want to appear sexist? I don`t know. I don`t think people should take it lying down because Linda P has thrown a lot of shit and given Mr Brown and his cabinets reputation for believing bullshit; there`s a real chance it could stick.

 IanG    [26526.   Posted 2-Mar-2010 Tue 08:54]
http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Anorexia-nervosa/Pages/Causes.aspx?url=Pages/what-is-it.aspx

Shaun, yes, not looking to other countries/cultures is why I made the point about `Dr` Papadoloulus and, indeed, this Government, not presenting an existing `model` human society as a control or baseline before arriving at their extraordinary `fixes` for our perceived `problems`.

`Gender inequality` is fundamental to all living creatures and most certainly has been central to human cultures since Homo Sapien evolved some 250,000 years ago. Evolution is a NATURAL process - you fuck about with it at your peril. Indeed, the state of the world today can be pinned firmly on bullshit religious beliefs, farming, finance, finite resource exploitation and of course government. None of this bullshit is natural and its consequences can all be seen in all good history accounts leading to the untimely deaths of countless billions of lives.

The NHS link above states some of the known factors leading to young people (mostly girls) developing anorexia. It says along with bullying, depression and (perceived) obesity, the onset of puberty is a trigger in developing such eating disorders. Now I don`t know about anyone else, but teaching `gender equality` - i.e. social androgeny - would tend to clash with girls entering puberty when they begin forming curvy hips and breasts. One consequence of exercise at the level 12 y/o East European gymnasts used to train was to hold back the onset of puberty (the NHS recognise excessive training/exercise as a factor in causing eating disorders too). All the `psychological` evidence points toward inappropriate messages of gender nutrality or social androgeny and body sterotyping playing a role in creating anxiety, depression, low self esteem etc. that CAUSES eating disorders in "VULNERABLE CHILDREN".

WHY can`t people be happy with their own gender? WHY can`t society celebrate sexual differences? WHY do we `demonise` sexual expression? WHY must we steer our youngsters down a totally untried, untested, unnatural path toward social androgeny? More to the point, if the self-proclaimed engineers of social sexual equality can`t see the effects their sick ideology is having on real human beings then WHY should anyone trust them to know what`s `right` at all?

I DEMAND `Dr` Papadopoulous and this Government point us to the `ideal` society upon which ALL their unnatural claims and `fixes` for our society are based. Who, what and where are these wonderous people? I`ve a sneaking suspicion all the recomendations are based on the sex lives of bisexual worms or slugs because they sure as hell have got fuck all to do with social primate (e.g. human) society.

Any society that doesn`t rejoyce in our sexual differences and permit boys to be boys and girls to be girls is on a course for total and utter sexual dysmorphia. A glaringly obvious consequence of anorexia in teenage girls is the halting of puberty and attaining not just a cronically thin body but one that looks like a prepubescent boy`s. To a child`s innocent mind, the message of `gender equality` sounds like "boys and girls are the same" - the fact that prepubescent boys and girls bodies look the same is the key to understanding what happens next in the vulnerable child`s perception of body `perfection` and "what society wants me to be like".

Now you`d perhaps expect in times of great stress and food rationing, such as during and atfer WWII, that anorexia would have been a natural consequence but, surprise, surprise it wasn`t. In my mother`s 35 years as a nurse, midwife and health vistitor, anorexia was unheard of. It is a modern, post-women`s lib disorder that, as far as I can tell, affects girls who`d likely grow up to be just fine specimens of womanhood were it not for the `equality` bunch filling children`s heads with the idea that girls should be more like boys, sexuality is abnormal, sexiness is degrading...and the rest of the femo-fascist mantra.

I have absolutely nothing against sexual equality in terms of law and human rights, but, it does not follow that we should fool ourselves (indeed, our own children) into believing boys and girls are remotely similar in their roles as natural sexual human beings.

Moving on. I`m deeply concerned with the sexually repressive stance this Government is yet again planning to enforce on the populace of this nation. It is a proven FACT that such environments CAUSE sexual abuse. It is a proven FACT that sexually liberated societies are far healthier and safer than sexually repressed societies. It is known that pubescent teenagers don`t like to watch pornography - it angers them (why we don`t know - could be their repressed upbringing). I don`t like the soap operas, kids programmes or bloody football on TV - they anger me hence I don`t watch such bile. It therefore seems reasonable to assume that under 18s are unlikely to access pornographic materials of their own free will if they don`t actually like it. Ergo, there`s no need to implement human rights abusing restrictions on adults accessing such material via TV and on-demand audiovisual services.

Indeed, here are the conclusions from Ofcom`s report from 2005, "R18 material: its potential impact on people under 18":
[quote]
Almost no research has been done with the under 18 age group and R18 material (Corne et al., 1992; Donnerstein et al., 1992; Haynes, 1987; Linz et al., 1992; VanEvra, 2004)52. The result is that there is no conclusive empirical evidence for a causal relationship between exposure to R18 material and impairment of the mental, physical or moral development of minors.

Whether or not R18 material will be made available on UK television, it is probable that young people will be increasingly exposed to violence towards women, sexual messages and depictions of sexual intercourse in the media (Harris, 1994; Kunkel et al., 2003; Kunkel et al., 2001; Strasburger & Donnerstein, 1999; VanEvra, 2004)53.

A bigger exposure to this kind of material is related to children being sexually active at a younger age (Brown et al., 1990; Brown & Newcomer, 1991; Brown & Witherspoon, 2002). This is a correlation and not a causal link however.

Young children (under the age of 12) do not seem to have developed enough emotionally to understand what sexual material is about and older children appear more angered by it than traumatised (Donnerstein et al., 1992; Silverman-Watkins & Sprafkin, 1983; U.S. Department of Justice, 1986).

Most researchers stress that good sex education and an open relationship with parents in issues of sexuality are more important for the child to develop normally than a ban on R18 material (Linz et al., 1992; Strasburger & Donnerstein, 1999; VanEvra, 2004; Zillmann, 2000).
Zillmann (2000) argues that results from research carried out with college students should be transferable to adolescents. He refers specifically to research on long term or frequent exposure to pornography and its relation to attitudinal changes (eg. less appreciation of traditional (sexual) relationships) (See also Allen, D`Alessio, & Brezgel, 1995; Allen, Emmers, & Gebhart, 1995; Bushman & Cantor, 2003)54.

There is some evidence for a positive effect of R18 material and young people; exposure to pornography at a younger age and a less restrictive parental environment seem to be related to a lower likelihood of committing sex crimes
[/quote]

Let`s quote that last line again: "exposure to pornography at a younger age and a less restrictive parental environment seem to be related to a lower likelihood of committing sex crimes". Have you got that Mr Government? How about you Ofcom?...YOUR mindless, baseless `protectionism` is what`s REALLY fucking vulnerable young people up!

Leave people ALONE to be free to find out what suits them PERSONALLY and we all turn out fine. Fill people`s heads with religiously inspired Victorian bullshit, constrain and restrict their choices and access to knowledge and information and you`re asking for absolute disaster. The British people deserve better - I deserve better, everyone here deserves better.

 dano    [26525.   Posted 2-Mar-2010 Tue 07:19]
I think underlying these reports and all this anti sexual entertainment propaganda is a deep seated mistrust and even hatred of male sexuality.
Whilst female sexuality is seen as empowering and postivie male sexuality, and in particularly young male sexuality is seen as sexist, dangerous and a threat to women.
Young boys finding scantily clad or underdressed women in magazines attractive is regarded as seedy and dirty and the cause of rape and violence against women.
A teenage boy cannot be trusted to see sexy images of women without wanting to go and rape or batter the first girl he meets.