No, David Cameron will personally review the pages every morning and take a black felt tip pen to any photo that he considers to be not suitable for our eyes, it could be the end of the Daily Mail as we know it - and them having campaigned so hard for this and all.

Well the BBC Parliament channel won't be available on the internet with all those Cu...

It'll be the end of his laptop/tablet display panel

[url=http://thevoluptuousmanifesto.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/porn-is-class-issue.htmlDogwhistle politics, why the [iMail[/i is a steaming pile of hypocrticial sh*t and porn as a class issue.[/url

Quote ="Mintball"[url=http://thevoluptuousmanifesto.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/porn-is-class-issue.htmlDogwhistle politics, why the [iMail[/i is a steaming pile of hypocrticial sh*t and porn as a class issue.[/url'" Do you have an opinion on www.losetheladsmags.org.uk/about ? www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23486027 I can't figure out where you'd be on this.

Quote ="Mintball"[url=http://thevoluptuousmanifesto.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/porn-is-class-issue.htmlDogwhistle politics, why the [iMail[/i is a steaming pile of hypocrticial sh*t and porn as a class issue.[/url'" Do you have an opinion on www.losetheladsmags.org.uk/about ? www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23486027 I can't figure out where you'd be on this.

Quote ="Lord God Jose Mourinho"Do you have an opinion on www.losetheladsmags.org.uk/about ? www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23486027 I can't figure out where you'd be on this.'" It's a storm in a D cup.

Quote ="Lord God Jose Mourinho"Do you have an opinion on www.losetheladsmags.org.uk/about ? www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23486027 I can't figure out where you'd be on this.'" It's a storm in a D cup.

If people are sad enough to buy it and women are sad enough to pose for it, what's the problem, it's a free society let them be adults, make an informed choice and let them do what they want.

Just saw Kat Banyard on Sky News. She made the point that if these magazines are having to be sold being covered up then they shouldn't be sold at all. Obviously she forgot about the fact that she's been instrumental in getting them covered up in the first place.



It's pretty obviously a first step in trying to get them banned.

Quote ="Lord God Jose Mourinho"Do you have an opinion on www.losetheladsmags.org.uk/about ? www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23486027 I can't figure out where you'd be on this.'" It's a joke. I hope they ban Loose Women

Quote ="Lord God Jose Mourinho"Do you have an opinion on www.losetheladsmags.org.uk/about ? www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23486027 I can't figure out where you'd be on this.'" It's a joke. I hope they ban Loose Women

I think we've got an interesting situation at present. This is slightly different to the online porn filter stuff and there are different agendas involved, but there's a crossover on the matter of 'the objectification of women'. In which case, a few fairly random thoughts.

The online porn issue is clearly one that goes far wider: Cameron is using it as a cover to get a whole range of online filters in place, on everything from 'extremist materials', which people might think fair enough, to 'alcohol' and 'smoking'. What do these even mean in terms of filters? Would it mean Alcoholics Anonymous would be censored by filter/search engine? We know that there have been problems in recent years with things such as 'breast cancer'.

But then the list also includes 'web forums' – so, RLFans – and, best of all, "esoteric materials". What? 'Things that are only understood by the initiated', goes a pretty standard definition. Well, you could use that for this forum. You could use it for any religious group. For trade unions – for just about anything that you wanted to use it for.

Anti-porn campaigners have been lulled into (metaphorical) bed on this – although some commentaries from some of them suggest that they really do think that everything else here is 'a price worth paying'. I find it hard to politely and objectively analyse this without simply decrying them all as an irresponsible bunch of imbeciles.

As mentioned in more than one blog post, there is no evidence to support the claims that viewing porn turns men (because it's always about men) violent to women and children (because the victims are always women and children). People have been hunting for 30-plus years and they still haven't found any such evidence, any more than there is evidence that viewing violent entertainment makes you violent.

But on to the lads' mags.

Personally, I have an issue with some of the behaviour of 'lads' behaving 'laddishly' – it's not pleasant. But I have no illusions that it's caused by such magazines.

And the whole concentration on these publications alone is, if not hypocritical, then massively simplistic. Not least because huge amounts of women's magazines display fairly flesh-filled covers – and fairly sexually-charged cover lines ('How to get your best orgasm' on the likes of [iCosmo[/i, for instance). What about the likes of [iMen's Health[/i, with its naked torsos – doesn't this 'objectify' men? What about gay publications – or adverts for men's underwear (Aussie Bum, for instance, or the David Beckham ones). What about the [iMail[/i with its acres of comment on women's bodies – how much damage does that do? I use the word 'damage' very deliberately, because I think that the [iMail[/i actually spreads a culture of self-loathing.

So where does all this come in the equation? It doesn't. In other words, the concentration on 'lads' mags' is not critically rigorous, but reveals an agenda that, when examined critically, fails.

I think that the ultimate problem in the UK is that we have a culture that is, on the one hand, hugely prurient, but on the other, still massively puritanical. And it's an unhealthy mix.

An element of what we're seeing is the pushing of an agenda that wishes to portray female victimhood (and probably, in doing that, ensures more women are). Apart from it being inherently patronising (matronisng?) it also plays with an idea of women inherently 'nicer' than men – which is nonsense. And it continues to push an idea that women see sex in a completely different way to men.

This is not the case. Or rather, there is no more a single female view of sex than there is a single male view of sex. So some women – and this has happened more and more as more women have had more disposable income – are becoming sexual consumers, whether of porn or of other sexual services. That is a reality, but it is a reality that anti-porn campaigners choose to ignore, because it doesn't suit their largely secular madonna complex. But viewed in that way, it's little wonder that they end up in (metaphorical) bed with right-wing conservatives on issues such as porn and the wider sex industry. And they don't even seem to have enough self-awareness to see this and allow it to tell them something.


As only a slight aside, I'd say that in my experience (thus this is anecdote) the men who treat women with least respect are the sexually screwed-up and the puritans. Those I have known who either have no particular personal axe to grind with the sex industry as a whole (whether they are consumers themselves or not) or who are themselves consumers (and guilt free about it) are far more respecting of women in general.

On the rare occasions I've seen it, and judging by some of the presenters' appearances on other things, it could easily be renamed Misandry Hour.

There's a great deal of that around.

Unfortunately, some publications – not least the [iGuardian[/i – seem to consider it an acceptable form of bigotry, which (apart from anything else) means that the bigots get a disproportionate amount of space in which to spread their intolerance as a though it were the one true gospel.

And then other media, such as the [iDaily Mail[/i gets to highlight that as though it were the one and only form of 'feminism' and is therefore dreadful (mind, the [iMail's[/i tactic on this also involves the likes of columnist Liz Jones penning pieces along the lines: 'I am a feminist and I stole my hubby's sperm' – and no, I am not making that up).

And a few random ones of mine. Much of it may be devil's advocate, but I don't think any point made is necessarily invalidated by that.

Women have always been seen by at least a significant proportion of the population in various civilisations as either objects, or as having been objectified. In any society, there appears to be a "model" for the idealised female (and male). That is not necessarily a plump, Rubenesque nude, or a Playboy covergirl; for example, the idealised woman in a strict Muslim society may be one who fulfils the role of wife and mother, and is almost invisible to the rest of society.

One common thread between Muslim women in burqas and female sex workers as seen on Sexcetera and other TV shows is that if asked, seemingly many of them would tell you that (a) it is none of your business and (b) you have got it all wrong, it is their life, their body, their choice.

Huge numbers of people work in the sex /porn industry. If an actress chooses to spend many years playing the lead in hardcore porn, and makes more money than I ever will, is it any of my business? Maybe she is being exploited, or maybe she isn't, is she being exploited any more than someone working 12 hours a night on minimum wage in a meat packing factory? Or sewing clothes in some sweatshop?

If you feel the right to tell her what she shouldn't be doing - what then SHOULD she be doing?

Why is all talk of women in porn films being exploited sexually? there are as many male parts, if a man is in regular work due to a) being within the bounds of what is generally seemingly viewed as passably good looking, b) has a big dick and c) can perform on command time after time and day in, day out - why is there very little talk of him being exploited? If he looked like Eric Pickles or had a penis like a button mushroom then he wouldn't be in the job, so surely, he is being exploited for his physical appearance just as much as any woman.

WAGS. There is a popular picture, reinforced by series like Footballers' Wives, presenting some women as vacuous gold-diggers, who work their way into a jet-set lifestyle by looking a certain way. We all know there is much truth in that. They take a lot of stick. The whole lifestyle may have the appearance to some as just fake, with all the cars, jets, parties, exotic holidays etc. but if some young female who is in fact a minimally educated airhead works her life so she is living the champagne high life she craved, if that is her choice, why should I have a go at her? if not using her looks to achieve this, what else should or could she be doing?

I suppose, ultimately, if it is legal, who am I to decide whether or not a person is being "objectified" and anyway if they are adults of sound mind, what business is it of mine?


All agreed, and I have the feeling that perhaps the two main serious issues on the net, being (a) child abuse and (b) terrorist activities could and should be set apart and attacked and worked on in isolation. You are quite right in that the aim of the government seems to be a million miles wider than that, it will end up like some totalitarian old-Eastern-European stylee system where everything is monitored, all freedom is lost and you daren't post anything without fearing a boot on your door.


I tend to disagree. At one time I wouldn't have, but I do now think that everything we take in and absorb from an early age helps to form and mould our future personalities and attitudes. I also now understand a whole lot more about brainwashing, and flooding and desensitisation techniques, and I have no doubt that exposing people to anything, (and not just porn) can desensitise them to it. In this sense, viewing things online isn't materially different from viewing things in real life. It's just viewing things. One random illustration is the series "Mad Men". The attitude of men towards women is brilliantly portrayed and that is how it was, across the board (still is of course in some ways and some places, if much less overt). Now, those guys didn't view women as pretty little things who shouldn't bother their pretty little heads and who should know their place, as a result of anything genetic, or from watching misogynist and sexist videos, but because that was the way it was while they were growing up, and they became a product of their own times.


Absolutely. And, i think also pretty much where I came in.


I tend to disagree to some extent. To the extent that you're right, I have come to the conclusion that ultimately, and across all civilisations so far as I can see, we are genetically programmed towards mate selection and sex, and I don't think anything will ever change that. The default position of most people when seeing another person for the first time is, across the board, to instantly judge them physically, and I think that's just the way it will always be (even if the criteria on which the judgment is based will substantially vary).


I don't think it's nonsense, though. Physically men and women do not produce the same cocktails of chemicals, which control behaviours and urges, and the main of these is testosterone. I would be prepared, from my years on the planet, to concede that women are, inherently, 'nicer' than men. (Which is of course not the same as saying that ALL are, or that that there are not wimpish men, or highly aggressive women). And to say that, on average, women see sex in a completely different way to men is I think pretty fair comment.

I think there is, though. Certainly if we are talking about adolescence and young adulthood.


... I am not sure it is fair to dismiss your considered view of observed human relationships as "anecdote".


I think that many people mature into realising that everyone has their own sexual preferences, desires and needs, which are valid and to be respected as much as the persons themselves. But I think that [isome of[/i the objectification of women (I have in mind especially stuff like the media such as the Mail, but also as endless harems of video hoes etc.) does, to whatever extent, serve to form and entrench negative attitudes, and presents a substantial impediment to the formation of a culture of respect and equality.

So much for potted random ramblings for the day!

I like porn so will they want to ban me next ?

That reminds me of the Traci Lords story. Was she the exploitee or the exploiter?



Doesn't that work on the basis that all 'not nice' behaviour is rooted in aggression? I don't agree with that at all.

Aye, you could write a book on that. Mine would start by pointing out that by the age of 15 she had already acquired knowledge of the porn industry and the money to be made and devised a plan to con her way into it. So that situation was a product of, at least, the availability of the facts about the sex industry to her, and her own conscious decision that given her reputed physical assets, she could make money at this whilst using it as a way in to the movie industry. I didn't and don't know the details of the story but from what I've briefly read I don't know of any Machiavelli pulling her strings? The problem was she was only 15, and if a child under 18 cannot make those sort of decisions, or should not be allowed to, then whilst a legal limit might be the only practicable limit, it must certainly be true that plenty of under-18s know extremely well their own minds and are 100% capable of making decisions, just as many over-18s are still hopelessly naive.

Then she (like any actress or indeed actor) was "exploited" in that their body and image was used as a means to get audiences to part with money to see them. But not "exploited" I think in a child abuse type of way (that is, not knowingly, or even 'turning a blind eye') since it seems she had a fake passport and since I assume that no "legit" sex studio would dream of getting shut down and the staff sent to jail for using underage girls.

Personal quotes of hers from IMDB suggest some ambivalence:

[about her porn career No one put a gun to my head and said "you have to do this."

[about her porn career I was really young, I was really stupid about some things.


I'd put it that a great deal of 'not nice' behaviour is rooted in aggression. Which can of course take many forms, not just punching someone.

There are many other 'not nice' behaviours but I suppose it's those that directly and significantly impinge on the safety and well-being of others that are the most relevant to the discussion. Activities such as TWOCcing and driving around like a lunatic, not caring who might be injured or killed (the overwhelming majority of TWOCcers are young males). Or burglars (the substantial majority of whom are male). But as a general indicator of the complexity of the topic, any of these people may well, [iin general[/i be thought of as "nice" rather than "not nice" by their peers.

If you weren't a child being abused by him, was Jimmy Savile "nice"? Or Stuart Hall? Were they "nice" right up to the moment they committed their first offence, but then automatically are irrevocably deemed "not nice" for all purposes? Or were they never "nice"?

It raises one particularly interesting point, though. We all probably know - I certainly do - at least one person who is nice as pie when sober, but turns into a real nasty piece of work drunk. Is it that the alcohol triggers brain activity that encourages violence? Or does it mean the person is fundamentally aggressive and the alcohol removes some kind of aggression inhibitors that control when sober?
(Incidentally by far the best example of this that I personally know is female).

I think the most 'interesting' thing about it all is the apparent deviousness of her scheming. I once saw a documentary which said that not only did she get into the porn industry underage, but she established herself as a massive star and formed her own production company with remarkable timing. All of the films where she was underage and subsequently had to be banned were for other people's companies, all of those that could still be distributed legally were her property.

Adds a whole other layer, and doesn't just make her seem ambivalent, rather it makes it look like she had her end game in sight from the start and actively pursed it.



Fair point, probably some of the more common dangerous behaviours are linked to aggression. I'm still not necessarily convinced that men are inherently more aggressive than women, though. I think it's more about social grouping than gender biology. Partly because of your last point, as I have personally found that to be the case more with women than with men. Unless there is testosterone in lager, I am therefore more inclined to believe that the aggression is already there and comes out when inhibitions are lost.

Oddly enough having mentioned Mad Men in me earlier post, I just came across
[url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23489444this article[/url

Discussion of "exploitation" often assumes that the subject of discussion does not know or "understand" whether they are being "exploited". In this article there is a passage that reads:


So, her bosses, if they had thought about it at all, may well have agreed that yes, they were exploiting her. Whereas if asked, the truth was [ishe[/i was confident that [ishe[/i was in fact exploiting [ithem[/i. Maybe they were exploiting each other, who knows, Gurley brown sounds like a highly focused and determined woman who knew her own mind and was very intelligent, but doubtless there will be those who know better than she did herself, and would insist to her that she had been exploited.

So when does exploitation become an unwritten unspoken mutually beneficial arrangement?

As I understand Gurley Brown, so far as she is concerned, she was doing the exploiting. One point I made was that however confident she may be of that, plenty of people would still claim that she is wrong.

The arrangements she had certainly must have been mutually beneficial, since it seems she was able to be a top class worker (since she worked her way to the top) and she herself got what she wanted out of it.

Well, this is the great question.

My opinion?

I think that there is a lot of talked about it.

I find the entire patriarchy argument to be flawed.

Women are not 'better' than men intrinsically – history reveals that women behave badly if and when they have the opportunity. It's pretty much as simple as that.

Women are bitchy (this is a generalisation) in a way that men are not and seriously not nice. Physical violence? Maybe not, but there are more forms of violence than the merely physical.

They were both exploiting each other.

The main victims will have been the women who received unwanted sexual advances from their bosses, refused them and saw their career prospects disappear.

Did Gurley Brown work her way to the top, or did she simply sleep her way there? Would her talent have allowed her to reach the top without sleeping with her bosses?

There are things in life in which we should be seen as humans, therefore equal.
e.g. equal pay for the same job: there is no reason why a man and a woman doing an identical job should be paid different.

There are things in life though in which we should be treated as a man and a woman, and allowances made for that, we are genetically different, we are made of different chemical mixtures, we both have great attributes that compliment each other but we are different. Almost two different symbiotic species combined to be classed as 'human'.

There is though. Why should a woman who performs better, has better experience and gives superior service receive the same pay as a man, simply because their job titles are the same?

That's performance based pay though, a different issue.