Speaking out on Free Speech

It never fails to amaze me how often people try to silence me by talking about free speech.  If you believe in "free speech", then say "I disagree with you but I respect your right to hold and express that view". Doh.

Personally I am in favour of free speech as a general ideal.  I don't however think that it is something that should be defended to the exclusion of all other concerns.  If twenty children are standing around one smaller child shouting "ugly little shit", I do not care for their right to free speech - that is bullying and it needs to be stopped and measures taken to prevent it happening again.  If I see a pile of BNP leaflets in my local library I pick them up and throw them away.  Even if they say nothing even vaguely controversial.

It's not about something being offensive because that's a rather meaningless concept.  I can look at a picture of kittens playing with wool and say "I am offended". People around the world have regularly looked at pictures of their imaginary friend (who of course must never be depicted) and decided they are offended.  We can't waste our time sacrificing free speech because somebody is offended.

When people stand outside abortion clinics with images of aborted foetuses I call that bullying, not free speech.  If people want to put those images on websites or campaign leaflets then fair enough (though again if I find them in my library, as it happens, I chuck them out) but outside clinics is harassment. Which is really just a grown-up word for bullying.

I think there is also a temptation to confuse editing or promoting with attacking free speech.  When newspapers edit content, that's not attacking free speech.  Well not unless they edit it so that it changes the author's meaning, or misrepresents what they were trying to say.  They might accept one article and not another, and that is their right.  If that wasn't the case I'd exercise my right to free speech and have a lengthy column in every single newspaper in the UK every day. The one in the Daily Mail would just say "Richard Littlejohn is a total idiot" over and over again.  But they can publish what they like and when I disagree I can write angry letters and if they won't publish them I can put them on other websites or this blog, or Facebook, or whatever.  And if Facebook decides what I've written is not acceptable on their platform they can also remove it, cos it's their website.  Similarly I do not publish every comment made on this blog.  Only the ones that I think are of interest to my readers.  Unless you all want to buy viagra and hear about the ways in which I "deserve" to be violently gang-raped...?

And I am also entitled to a view on what criteria others should use to edit their content.  I'm entitled to say I think the Guardian should moderate comments on it's Comment is Free site more carefully, or that they should include more voices challenging prostitution and less presenting full legalisation as a solution to abuses. I'm entitled to think Nick Griffin shouldn't have been allowed on Question Time. It's about who is given a particular platform.  I think I should get to write for the Mail, but he shouldn't be on Question Time. Those are my opinions. Yours may be different. We can all say them, but not on BBC One unless specifically invited.

I'm also entitled to an opinion about how businesses run and how they are regulated.  If you want to have the world's weirdest sex and invite your friends and neighbours to come along and watch, I fully defend your right to do so (obviously assuming it's all very clearly and carefully consensual).  But I think lad mags should be sold on the top shelf at newsagents and pornography websites (which make large amounts of money from adverts on their sites or paid downloads and subscriptions) should be made to remove violent scenes and make the rest available only to over-18s who have opted in using a verified credit card or proof of ID. None of this is about free speech, it's about how businesses are regulated. I also think supermarkets shouldn't be allowed to sell battery-farmed eggs or products made from them. You might not agree with me - but it's not about free speech and it IS my right to express those views if I want to.

Now a website appeared a few days ago that I caught wind of called Rape Is No Joke. The website tag line says "Campaigning for comedy without misogyny" and they offer a pledge where comedians and comedy clubs can pledge not to tell "rape jokes" and not to put on comics who do.  Now I understood from this that they were asking people not to tell jokes which trivialised rape or blamed victims. I didn't take it as meaning the subject could never be raised onstage. I mean if someone wants to talk about having been raped - wow, give them a mic, what a brave thing to do. And if someone (like me, I do this) wants to make jokes about the poor police response or about the awful things that the likes of George Galloway and Brendan O'Neill have said, again, that's great. I assumed the website was not saying the word could never be uttered or subject could never be raised. I assumed that "rape joke" (especially since they were talking about ending misogyny in comedy) meant the bad sort. So I signed the pledge and posted the link up so others who wanted to could do so.

Suddenly I'm the wicked witch of the west (again!). Apparently firstly I am told I wrote the site. I did not, I don't know who did, but I like them. Apparently (actual quotes):

"Comedy is the last bastion of free speech" - ha ha ha, if that's true we are fucked. Every comedy club in the world has a booking policy, some nuanced and helpful, others arbitrary and stupid. In my opinion. Comedians who do racist material are not as popular as they used to be, most clubs won't book them. Rightly so.

"Implication is that if you don't sign pledge you're seen as not willing to act 'responsibly'" - yeah and if you refuse to say you're not a racist, we might all think you're a racist. But no-one is stopping you from writing your own statement of what you consider responsible and what you will and won't include in your set.

"If we start that where do we end it?" - in a world without rape culture, yeah!

"I would of though of all people to attempt to censor be Kate its very very hypocritical" - I'm not censoring anyone, I'm putting people in touch with a golden glorious opportunity to express their views on rape and rape culture and to choose to express their own commitment to ending it.  You are welcome.

"Rape affects men too you know" - well if it affects men too isn't that DOUBLE the reason not to trivialise it and belittle the victims? And may I be the first to add: Waaaaa what about da menz...

"As someone who works in the criminal justice system, I can assure you that EVERYONE takes rape allegations seriously." - interesting that we've still got a 6% conviction rate then. Also I personally know a number of women who've been to the police to report rape and been ignored and belittled and disbelieved and treated like crap. In fact I don't know any women who've had good treatment after reporting rape.  Not admitting that's a problem would seem to make you a part of the problem. Plus rape culture affects women's decisions as to whether or not to report.  If comedians are making jokes suggesting women are at fault if they are raped, that might mean women don't go to the police.

"This comes across like an attempt at using emotional blackmail to advance your own particular agenda." - yeah that's what I was planning when I POSTED A LINK ON FACEBOOK.  Definitely.

(this is my favourite) "All sounds ominously like loyalty oaths and anti-commie affirmations in 1950s USA" - yes, circulating a link to a website about rape jokes is definitely just like trying to persecute communist 'sympathisers'. No, I mean it, you're definitely right there. Thank goodness you pointed it out, there I was being all McCarthy-ish, suggesting people might want to sign a pledge about violent crime and sexism in stand-up comedy.  One day someone will write something like The Crucible about me. Really. I can hardly wait.

This has nothing to do with free speech.  Clubs have freedom to put the acts they want onstage (again otherwise I'd play a lot more clubs that I do). Acts have the freedom to do whatever jokes they want. If you or your club wants to make a choice not to include "rape jokes" then go for it. If you'd be willing to sign it if the wording was slightly clarified, why not drop the website a line and say so? Or start your own website. Be a part of the solution. And if you don't want to sign it at all, don't sign it.  But don't come telling me that my circulating the link has infringed your right to free speech because I will be exercising my freedom to not listen to you or your probably not very good comedy routine.

Real Men Read Robert Jensen

Fact.

A Normal Industry?

Ok hypothetical question time. An employee of yours (you're the boss) is regularly coming to work clearly under the influence of strong illegal drugs. What do you do? It's difficult isn't it. On the one hand you want to warn them to stop or you may be forced to fire them, on the other hand they work for you - you feel a sense of responsibility. I think probably you offer to take them or refer them to medical support if they want and need it but warn at the same time that the situation needs to change very quickly if they want to keep the job. Maybe you contact a friend or relative of theirs in the hope that they can offer support where you can't.

Not so, we note, the pornography industry. Ami Jordan died on 11th June of a suspected drug overdose. She was nineteen years old. Her "agent"* Kevin Kline knew she was a serious drug addict but did nothing to stop her or help her.

What I find really cringeworthy about the report is that following her death this creep describes her as "She was a super sweet girl. Always a good girl." Hmmm, I think if you're old enough to appear in pornography you're a woman. I also think that "good girls" are probably not the ones with drug problems and "careers" in pornography. What he means by "good girl" is clearly someone for whom he has no respect whatsoever but over whom he is able to exercise a lot of power. Someone who does what he tells her to. Maybe he should have told her not to take so many drugs. Or shown her the tiny bit of respect it would take to ask if she needs to take a break from the industry and get some help.

*Really, I have an agent, who would be horrified to be associated with this sort of behaviour and who would willingly cancel my schedule, find me a rehab centre and drive me there himself if he thought I was addicted to drugs. In other words - he's human.

Footnote: I was going to use a photograph of Ami to illustrate this piece but when I went to search for one on the internet guess what? Yup, all the "Ami is a real life fuckdoll", "Ami loves to suck cock" links come up, rather than any information about her as a person or any significant coverage of her needless death.

So Why Do They Call It The News?

The BBC today is all over the story that some people in German went tobogganing topless. And yes, there is a video. It wouldn't look out of place on Girls Gone Wild.

Stories not featured on the BBC site today include Republican Scott Brown voting with the US Democrats on jobs, the decision not to investigate the authors of the notorious US waterboard memo and right here in the UK the country's biggest union (I think) Unison has voted to back calls for a 'Nordic Law' on prostitution.

And honestly the BBC is one of the better ones. What happened to journalists reporting stuff that mattered?

The Porn Generation

This is not new news - many researchers have shown links between porn and sexual violence and harrassment before. I don't even understand why we need research to demonstrate a link - isn't it obvious? Still whenever I mention it I am always scrutinised for the exact details of the research in an incredulous way so I'm posting up the link since it's in the news today.

"young boys who see pornography are more inclined to believe there is nothing wrong with pinning down or sexually harassing a girl"

Now I know that young people today have more access to porn than the did a few years back. Did you know that the average amount of time per week that teenage boys spend watching porn is 90 minutes? I'm not sure what exact age range this (shoddy journalism) is but it's frightening because there is a real sense I hear from people that there's no point passing laws to keep kids away from porn, they're going to see it anyway. Well I understand they'll spend a couple of minutes curiously peering at it, and I can cope with that. 90 minutes a week? That's more than they spend studying science in some schools! No wonder they come out with a totally messed up attitude towards women.

Bit Low On Anger Today?

These two articles might ramp your anger levels up enough for the time being...

Firstly a young woman in Australia who had been the victim of extensive sexual abuse at the hands of her step-father. The guy took more than 10,000 pornographic pictures of his step-daughter over a four-year period. One day he forced her at gunpoint to give him oral sex then put the gun down behind him. She picked it up and shot him in the head. Are you thinking what a brave young woman? Wrong! She's now being put on trial for murder. I told you you'd be angry.

And the second one is a follow-up on a case I've discussed before. A woman with a mental age of 8 was gang-raped and then covered in caustic soda by her attackers. Now firstly you'll notice that the original report says "up to ten men" attacked her. Other sources also say "ten men". The second report is about the sentencing of three men. The Daily Mail claims one of the men has since been shot and hence only nine could have been punished. Still I guess it's only the worse gang-rapists we should punish - not all of them. And the three who have been sentenced got 9 years, 6 years and 6 years maximim sentences - and it has been suggested they could be out in 2 and a half years with good behaviour, etc. Angry yet? At least the sentences are now being reviewed.

My Wonderful Industry

Two things:

1) I was on BBC Breakfast TV this morning talking about Lad Mags again. They had me on with a guy (Derek) who used to edit Loaded and Maxim (or something like that). We were discussing whether the current voluntary code (which no-one adheres to) of not selling them to children should become a compulsory code. His argument was no because "some people enjoy them".

If there's one thing I hate more than those who argue in favour of porn, it's those who argue in favour of porn with logically meaningless arguments. So I said "some people enjoy child pornography - should we legalise that too?". And then it sort-of kicked off and there was a lot of raised voices and a lot of me interrupting him and making sure I got my point across since his wasn't even a point.

By the time I got home my inbox and text-box were full of messages from people saying "good job" and "well said", etc. Here's a sample one: "I saw you on telly this morning as I was getting ready for work. Your peremptory manner left the slimeball umming and erring. It was great to see.." (thanks Crispin!).

Then I got a facebook message from a guy I don't know. He must have looked me up by my unusual name. Fine. I get lots of people doing that to say they agree or the disagree with me. Cool. But instead he had messaged me to say that he hoped I didn't mind some unsolicited advice and that while he agreed with me he thought I should have been less forthright, and listened more.

As an incident this really shows how deeply entrenched male priveledge is doesn't it? Has he been invited to make repeated appearances on TV? Does he write an award-winning blog? Does he work as a professional public performer? Not that we know of, and yet he felt like he would just send me some advice, as a "favour". And that advice, as it happens, was to sit back and take it while a pornographer defended his sordid industry.

So I declined to respond (if you message people on Facebook they can then access your friends, etc for a month...) and instead reported it as harrassment. Still seething a bit though. Jeremy Clarkson can count himself lucky I didn't run into him today!

2) One thing I didn't get the chance to rant about today is the impact Lad Mags have on my industry (stand-up comedy). All of them publish sexist jokes which have become increasingly acceptible in recent years and as far as I can tell they more or less invented the "women aren't funny" myth.

At one point FHM (I think) ran some comedy awards and in the "Funniest woman" category were Catherine Tate, Jo Brand, Lily Savage*, Dame Edna Everage* and the option to vote for "none of them". As I recall despite the tone of the the piece Catherine Tate managed to win it.

I've actually been introduced to the stage and before I get to the mic heard audience members (guys) go "Uh, oh lads it's a bird, lets go to the bar...". And if some of them are saying that out loud you can bet some more are thinking it and before I've even started it means I have a harder job than the guys on before and after me.

The BBC of course takes a much more fair and gender-neutral view of comedy, as witnessed by these photos taken at the British Comedy Awards.

Photo tally...
Comics: Male 2, Female 0
Comedy actors: Male 4, Female 2
Random totty: Male 0, Female 3

*Footnote for overseas readers. Lily Savage and Dame Edna Everage are male comedians who perform in drag.

(Photo by Matt Farrington Smith)

If I was a Graffiti Artist...

...I can see me doing this!! Ha ha ha.

Slightly Serious Funny

Not suitable for those of a nervous disposition. From The Onion - a very funny spoof video that, for me anyway, highlights the huge double-standard in our media: the acceptance of the misogyny inherent in the pornography that is seen as normal and mainstream, versus the outrage we can see over a single word when it suits the stations to focus on it.

Porn Addicts

Article on the BBC about the rise in men who are addicted to internet pornography. Not very surprising. Of course the article is all about how the men who have the addictions suffer. Not about how the women in their lives - both relationship-wise and their colleagues, friends and family members are affected. If you want to see what our easy-porn culture is doing to women take a look at the footage from Australia of women being chased by angry mobs of men shouting "get your tits out for the lads".

You Know You Spend Too Much Time On The Internet When ... (Part 1)

...you find yourself on the RADAR site trying to guess which of the women pictured are Fox Business News anchors and which are porn "stars"*.

The point they are trying to make is that the hiring standards for female newscasters seem to be based less on a resume bursting with relevant experience and more on looks. And since we're talking Fox News you can be sure a complete lack of understanding of business news is key to the role. You might also argue that if some of the porn "stars" aren't so wildly attractive maybe that backs up points we've all been making for years about porn being about power more than attraction.

But of course what it does highlight is that if you're a woman in the public eye, it doesn't matter if you talk about business or suck men off, you will be judged first and foremost on your appearance.

*Porn "stars"? I don't really like that term since we know that a great many such women work under duress in fear so porn "victims" seems like a more fitting term.

Hello Bunny

It may not have escaped everyone's attention that Playboy is opening a store on Oxford Street. Not just any old store either - the biggest Playboy store ever. I worry that Britain is getting to be known as a pro-porn society. Now I know the store itself is mostly going to sell clothes and gifts, but I think we're all familiar with the brand and what it stands for. If not here's a little quiz for you (click to enlarge), from the lovely people at Bin The Bunny.

Excuse Me While I Spit A Few Feathers!

I've just read the worst article I've read in years. Zoe Williams explains in the Guardian why hotels shouldn't stop offering pornography to guests. I think I'm going to have to do a full autopsy on the piece.

Firstly let me explain the news in the article: It's about Travelodge (cheap hotel chain) ceasing to offer pornography in their hotel rooms. They say they will lose some revenue in the short term but hope to attract more family visitors. Sounds like great news to me.

Starting with the title "The market beyond porn". Beyond porn. I don't really know what that means. Does that mean in a world where we no longer have porn? Clearly we live in no such world. Or a world where we have all accepted porn and stopped being concerned about it? Clearly if you read the feminist blog-o-sphere you will see that is not the case. Furthermore we can never disengage from discussing porn because there will always be an issue of how much we can show. I have spam e-mails in my inbox this morning with the title "real rapes - hidden cameras". It's not just feminists who are uncomfortable with that - it's everybody who doesn't deserve to be lined up and shot.

Quote one: "... Apparently it will cost the company millions in lost revenue, but it is thought to have weighed this against all the crystal meth, sorry, knitting patterns it'll flog to the new influx of mothers, and decided it was worth it."

That paints a portrait of mothers that I am not familiar with. Knitting and/or crystal meth? That's just insultory to mothers isn't it? Lets try the racism test - if "humourously" I wrote that a company was trying to appeal to the black community "in an effort to sell more crystal meth, sorry, knitting patterns" would the Guardian publish it? Nope! But as the Travelodge has clearly worked out, there are plenty of mothers (could even be some fathers too!) out there who are interested in taking their children on holiday and staying somewhere where those kids won't be exposed to porn. Great news.

Quote two "[on porn] Did lad culture make it funny? Does objecting to porn mean you have no sense of humour? At what point does it cease to be ironic? If the irony is in the mindset of the beholder, does that make it a thought crime (you are not appreciating it ironically enough), and if so, is protest dated, insanely authoritarian, to the point of being meaningless?"

Looking at Lad Mags I see the only joke seems to be how stupid they can make women appear and how insultory they can be to women in general. I'm not into homophobic or racist humour either. That's not because I lack a sense of humour - come see one of my shows - but there are plenty of funny things that aren't insultory to women/gay people/other ethnic groups. Just because its supposed to be funny, doesn't stop it being offensive. And nor does it make it somehow"insane" to protest against it.

Quote three "(1)Feminist remonstration has its own grey areas to wrestle over. The rhetoric of objectification relies on the idea that it's one-way traffic, that only men objectify, and only women are objectified. Before you even consider where this leaves homosexuality, (2) you can only accept this model if you take as a starting point that women have no physical imperative - or if they do, it's an imperative for cuddles - (3)and while there is an alarming number of people calling themselves feminists who persist with such ideas, this area is at least now open to debate."

(1) No - the point is that pornography normally only objectifies women. Everyone is capable of objectifying and being objectified. But the vast majority of porn is about women being made to look stupid and powerless. That objectifies them. I don't know many feminists who would argue with that.

(2) No-one is suggesting women don't have a "physical imperative" - which I think means sex drive. But we're being drawn in here to the idea that porn is about sex and it's not. Women like sex and so do men. If that sex drive is what generates porn, then we would have to assume women DON'T like sex because where is all the male porn? Demand for porn has nothing to do with sex and everything to do with misogyny.

(3) There are very few feminists who believe that women don't like sex. There are those that believe modern sexual standards - heavily influenced by porn - have standardised forms of sexual behaviour that are more centred on male pleasure than female. There are even super-extreme feminists who believe that the best way for women to escape male oppression is so give up sex or have only lesbian relationships. But no-one I know is saying women don't like sex, jeez it was us feminists who first explained to the world that women DO like sex. And we had a hard enough time getting out point across then!

Quote four: "(1)So, say women do objectify men to the same degree, on the same grounds as they themselves are objectified. How degrading is porn, then, and for whom? (2) Besides which, we can't ignore the way the mainstream has embraced pornographers themselves; the fact that the most despised aspect of a man like Richard Desmond is now his personality. (3) Suffice it to say, a discussion about the flaws of the business is mainly now about working conditions - are the participants willing, are they paid properly, does the taboo around the industry leave them unprotected by industrial standards? The discussions are no longer about the ethics of the business itself. That's where the cultural curve is now."

(1) The last paragraph suggested women could objectify men too. Now we are asked to assume that they do and that they do to the same degree as men objectify women. In any case it isn't men who objectify women - it's porn that objectifies women and that's why it's degrading. TO WOMEN. Doh!

(2) Richard Desmond bought his way into the mainstream. I can't really distinguish between hating the fact that he publishes a magazine called "Asian Babes" and hating the bloke himself. Everyone close their eyes and count to 100 and see if when you open them Zoe Williams has a brand spanking new column all of her own in The Daily Express ... two ... three ...

(3) Working conditions are awful, the participants often coerced, pay unreasonably low and protection for participants virtually non-existant. Those are all good reasons to add to the list of why Travelodge is quite right not to support the industry by selling on it's produce. Actually it's unlikely Travelodge could vet the pornography they circulate to the extent that they could guarantee none of those problems were present. Even if they could, the debate is still very much out there on how best to keep porn away from children. There was a motion in parliament only this time last year on the issue.

You would think the supposedly left-wing (at best centrist) Guardian would look for gender issues page contributors who had at least a cursory knowledge of basic feminism. Or who bothered to do any research.

Oh and well done Travelodge.

Larry Flynt - what a nice guy?

Alternet, usually a decent source of news stuff has a post up about Larry Flynt's efforts to discredit the Republican party. This is like a specially-designed catch-22 situation - I have to choose between a republican-run US and supporting a guy who produces hardcore pornography! Well I choose ... NEITHER!

Just because he hates THEM doesn't make him one of US. He's just a different branch of THEM...

Mr Flynt's infamous hustler magazine has been peddling all sorts of nastiness for years. From the woman-being-fed-through-a-meat-grinder and woman-as-dog-on-a-leash covers to the ongoing paedophile cartoons, and right now, when I log on to the Hustler website I get ONE click to say I'm 18 or older and bingo:

1) A link to "vouyeur sex", i.e. women who are at least pretending they don't know they're being filmed.

2) A link to "Hustler sluts"

3) A link to "Teens"

4) Graphic images and videos coming up, including anal sex and women being "spanked" (hit).

5) DVDs for sale with names like "MILFs" and "Ass Appeal".

6) A link to "amateur" videos.

I don't really care if they were all filmed with over-18 fully consenting professionals or whatever. At very least they are set up to look as if they are under-age, as if they are unaware of the filming, etc. It's sickening, and his being anti-republican compensates me NONE for that.

Lag Mags, US-Style

Often seems that it's only us UK-based feminists who have to contend with the propaganda disseminated by the so-called Lad Mag culture. My views on that sort of thing are well known, having featured even on the BBC. And of course all over this blog too. Now the misogyny-as-mainstream-youth-culture movement has apparently reared it's ugly head in the US too as witnessed by the headline "Is It OK To Demand Anal Sex?"...

... well ... firstly it's not ok to demand anything sexually. Obviously.

Secondly at several points in the article the guys interviewed express sentiments that are just horrifying. That they asked women for anal sex because of the bragging rights it gave them down the pub later. That they liked anal sex because the woman was in pain. That they found anal sex less difficult to deal with emotionally than vaginal sex.

Anything you do in bed because of what your mates will think, because you enjoy watching someone suffer or because you are afraid of cunts is a mistake.

But really what we are seeing is another cause/symptom of the pornification of society. Pornography, which gets more and more mainstream by the second always tends to focus on oral and anal sex. Evolution certainly didn't mean to pre-dispose us to like these things so really this can be seen as evidence that pornography is not about sexual desire. Porn is about power, and you're getting much more power out of a situation when the other party is likely to end up in pain (or choking in the case of the sort of oral sex these sites tend to show). It's pretty hard to hurt a woman through vaginal sex - however hard you do it. No pain = no power = no fun.

And women are not immune to culture. The more these things are normalised, the more they feel they need to live up to standards we are led to believe are now universal.

The weird thing is, much as the media normalise these attitudes, there is demnad out there from guys who already think like that. Long ago when I was a single blogger I tried an online dating service and one guy I emailed back and forth a few times casually mentioned that refusal to have anal sex was "a deal-breaker"! To which I swiftly replied that sexual "deal-breakers" were themselves a deal-breaker for me. And he was still mailing me weeks later saying intelligent things like "you might enjoy it" and very much missing the point that I only date people who aim to please me in bed, not tick off a list of obscure practices I can or can't be talked into.

YouPorn and PornTube. Really.

There is an article over on Alternet about the rise of YouPorn and PornTube and websites which offer "free porn" submitted by other users. Unsurprisingly it turns out that not necessarily every woman featured on the websites (a) knows they're being filmed and (b) has consented to that film being made publically available. Now this smells (stinks) a bit like it has the Girls Gone Wild fiasco, which I have expressed my views on. I took a very deep breath and did the most upsetting piece of research I've done in ages and took a look at what is being shown. Firstly I note that while YouPorn asks you to confirm you are over 18 (like 12 year olds don't know how to click a button), PornTube doesn't even ask that - it immediately shows you hardcore pornographic images, like close-ups of anal sex. But the videos themselves - and there are an awful lot of them - include the following:

1) Women who work in lap dancing and strip clubs - putting paid to the idea that these places aren't in many cases, actually brothels.

2) Women who are working as prostitutes.

3) Women who appear to be under age and who are listed as "teen" and "virgin".

4) Women who are way too drunk to have given any kind of meaningful consent.

5) Women who are unaware they are being filmed.

6) Women who are unaware that the film is going to be posted on the internet, i.e. who believe they are "performing" privately.

7) Women who appear distressed and in pain, even women who are actually crying, but are being physically forced to continue with what they are doing.

Now I don't understand how it can be legal to publish pornography without the consent of everybody featured in it. Surely that is obvious. And just because a person has consented to engage in a sexual activity doesn't mean they have consented to have that activity recorded and published. Consent has to happen separately for every element of sexual activity. And consent can be withdrawn too. Consent is not a matter of a one-off nod that then holds for any and every activity you might possibly consider sexual over an indefinite period of time.

So we need a new law (or is there an existing one that would fit the bill? lawyers out there?) that says it is incumbent on the publisher of the pornography to confirm that all parties involved have given full consent for it's publication.

But also we have existing laws about sexual assault, prostitution, lap dancing clubs, under-age sex and rape. We need to apply them. Some of the material on these sites is in fact video footage of a very serious crime taking place. Shouldn't someone be addressing that?

The True Colours of Lad Mags

If you think that Nuts, Zoo, FHM, Loaded, etc are just about harmless fun and great tits, read this post from CharlieGrrl. Made me so angry.

Messed Up World

There's a website been set up - called myfreeimplants - where women can post up sexy pictures of themselves and men donate money towards buying a boob job, presumably for the one they judge to be most in "need"!? Of course we've seen this before more or less. Remember this one? To go with this there was a documentary on TV tonight about teenagers having boob jobs - many of them long before their breasts are going to have stopped growing.

But then if you look at the most successful women we see regularly on TV and film - a high percentage of them have had boob jobs. So is it any surprise young girls aspire to be like them? Of course media coverage doesn't seem to cover the risk of DEATH from surgery, loss of sensation and ability to breastfeed. And heaven forbid the media should ever imply that women could be valued for something more than their physical appearance - or their attractiveness to men pawing over their photos on a truly repulsive website like the one mentioned. Maybe they should change the name to www.choose-which-girl-gets-cut.com Puke...

Pornographers Gone Wild

The latest far-from shocking news to hit the blog-o-sphere is that some of the women featured in the (otherwise extremely high quality...no really) show "Girls Gone Wild" were co-erced into participation. The more astute of us might have argued we could see this coming on at least three counts:

1) There is a long history of co-ersion in pornography. And an equally long history of a refusal to truly address the abuses in the mainstream media. And why should we be surprised by that? Guys who want to make porn films for a living were never going to be the most wholesome types were they? And these guys respect the women involved so much that while they make small fortunes out of the video sales, the women are usually given just a T-shirt or baseball hat...

2) We know about the methods used to collect the footage used on "Girls Gone Wild". For instance crews are offered a $1000 bonus for collecting footage of girls who have only just turned 18. Crews target bars and clubs where women may already be intoxicated and frame their efforts as a "competition" to see which group of women is "the most wild".

3) The videos are marketed under titles and slogans which suggest strongly that subterfuge has been used in obtaining the footage and that vulnerable women have been targetted. Seperate vidoes offer footage of "first timers" (as though every woman experiences a "first time" getting her tits out on camera...?).

The response has been focussed on what can be done to prevent this sort of thing happening in future and the most popular idea so far seems to be raising the age of consent for appearing in pornography to 21 or indeed 65 (that would work). In the UK you can still appear in porn from the age of 16 - no one tell Joe Francis please or he'll be hanging round sixth form colleges in a heartbeat. I think the UK age could well benefit from being raised to at least 18 and preferrably 21. I don't however believe that would completely solve the problem. I have an alternative suggestion which I think would go a bit further:

A pornography cooling-off period.

Think about it this way. If a guy knocks on your door and sells you something you have seven days to change your mind. If he asked you to change electricity or gas supplier you have fourteen days. If you buy travel insurance from him, you have fourteen days to change your mind. If the same guy finds you drunk in a local bar and asks to film you topless your decision is final. In both scenarios the guy is working on big bonuses, so one would imagine equally unscrupulous tactics of persuasion.

This would present pornographers (not that inconveniencing them would bother me much) with two options:

1) Invite women to sign up in advance if they wish to participate in filming.

2) Film women and issue them with consent withdrawal forms which can be returned if they decide within a reasonable period (say 14 days) that they regret their participation and wish to have the footage of themselves destroyed.

I think this approach would have the added benefit of opening up the debate on the subject of these nasty videos. Women might question why they are signing away rights to footage of themselves without being paid. Relatives, friends and tutors would be more likely to be aware of the situation and have a chance to influence people who they feel may not be making the best decision.

And having said all that there is one more point I want to make... A great deal of the fuss about the footage is centred on the idea that women who have participated in these shows will have the remainder of their lives haunted by the footage and find themselves ineligible for good jobs, frowned on by polite society, etc. Personally when I was a student groups of women, including me, often ran naked or semi-naked around the streets late at night. It was something we did as a dare, as a challenge to ourselves, to shock people, push boundaries, generate scandal and most importantly because it's fun! It was a part of growing up and finding out about ourselves. This does not make me unsuitable for government office, the armed forces or indeed lasting relationships. And the fact that when these young women did the same thing there was a f*ckwit on hand trying to film proceedings shouldn't affect our opinion of them later in life.

The Hirsute of Happiness

Well of course I'm biased, Shazia Mirza is a friend of mine and a very funny comedienne. Still I have to say this article in the Guardian about hairy women is just great. On a personal level I've always found guys a lot less bothered about body hair in private than they make out in public. I do shave, usually, but mostly because of the funny looks from other women at the gym if you don't. Some guys actively like it and most aren't bothered. Not what you would think from flicking through the Lad Mags. But then as we all know the lad mags aren't really trying to show attractive women, they're trying to show bullied and oppressed women. As with most porn, it's power, not sex, that's the turn-on.