There's been a lot of hoo-ha in the press about the sexualisation of children - yep, it's that time of year again - with the usual moralists and scaremongers venting their iration over the death of childhood and all that...
This time it's sexually provocative clothing and lad's mags. Apparently, the likes of Loaded and pre-teen lingerie are sexualising our children - as such, and as usual, the government's out to ban lots of stuff!
So...what's wrong with the sexing up of children?
Well, the main arguement always tends to be that it makes them targets for paedophiles. Well, this is a rather contradictory arguement - why would dressing children in clothes designed for supposedly more mature adults make them more likely targets for people who supposedly disdain maturity? That's a bit like gay men dressing effeminately to attract other gay men (oh, wait a second...)
We live in a society that is, for some reason, determined to keep the throes of adulthood at bay for as long as possible. "Childhood innocence" is perhaps the most sacred image in our society for some reason and anything which stands to threaten that may as well be thrown to the dogs. It's not even a particularly conservative element, either - even liberal, progressive groups seem to promote the "protection" of childhood as among the most important tasks in modern society, primarily taking it as part of the rape-prevention scene; in other words, childhood must be protected to protect children from paedophiles.
What "childhood" has become, in fact, is a form of learned stupidity and helplessness. Childhood is marked by naivety and ignorance, traits which are inarguably negative qualities in adults, but which are apparently positive qualities in the young. A child who expresses interest in anything above his supposed age-group is inevitably penalised in our society - sex is most obvious example, of course. As such, there are laws and "accepted norms" which basically label every child up to the age 12 as an interchangable, innocent, sweet, angelic cherub and every child between the ages of 13 and 18 as an ignorant, violent, sex-obsessed thug, who clearly didn't have the right kind of childhood up to the age of 12. On top of all this, personality is suppressed - more than at any other age, children are forced both by parents, peers, the government and companies into set templates that penalise any form of free thinking before the age of 18 - in spite of the fact that, arguably, prior the age of 18 is when you form most of your perception of the world.
This is my issue: the attraction of children to lad's mags and provocative and demeaning clothes can only stem from ignorance, a lack of self-confidance, peer pressure and sexual confusion - just like with adults. Except that an adult can be freed from ignorance, have their confidence and independence boosted and determine their own sexuality and attitudes towards sexuality. The absolute opposite approach is taken with children - sex education, both at home and at school is a joke (I still remember my "sex ed" in school which consisted of showing two people kind of writhing about in a very dark room where only their heads and legs were visible. When I asked why we weren't actually be shown any sex, my teacher just laughed.) You have parents which "protect" (i.e. confuse) their children from sex and then are shocked and suprised that, when encountering any sexualised image, their children react in a less than pleasant manner. And, apparently, the solution to this is to just keep banning as much sex-related stuff as possible until children everywhere are nicely insulated from reality - rather than hitting of the root of the problem, namely:
Why the hell are you so freaking scared of your children knowing about sex?
Now, I am not trying to say that lads mags lingerie and t-shirts saying the likes of "MONGOLOID PORN INFERNO" on them are necessarily a good thing. But the issue here is not related to children - these are all degrading to both women and men, but the question is, why do people buy these? And it sure as hell isn't due to having a healthy attitude towards sex. If children actually knew a damn thing about sex then they might actually understand why it is that they shouldn't want to aspiring to be a WAG or page 3 girl.
More than anything, we should sure as hell not be taking the advice of the Tories - many of whom still come from a generation when husbands and wives shared separate beds - on what is considered "normal" or "healthy" sexuality. Their attitude to sexuality is naturally "conservative" and harks back to a Victorian age when sex was less publicised, but prostitution, rape and child abuse were FAR more prevelant. Oh, and yeah, Daily Mail, you're part of that, too...
Perhaps the reason why parents fear paedophiles so much is that represent the most forceful example of childhood being threatened by the imposition of sexual interaction. In a way, this is a rather horrendous thought - that the paedophile is a scapegoat for the modern sexualisation of children, representing its absolute pinnacle and being used as the excuse for basically every sex-scare in the last 30 years or longer. Would paedophiles be a such a problem if we weren't all so shit-scared of sex?
And of course, the main problem, as far as I'm concerned, is that if you do teach your children to be ignorant, uninformed and "innocent", then they will grow up to be exactly the same way. And then they'll have children and pass it on themselves and the cycle of abuse will continue. Geez, wouldn't the Tories hate that...
But it all usually falls back to, "they're so damn cute when they're stupid"...
Showing posts with label sex. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sex. Show all posts
Wednesday, 8 June 2011
Friday, 8 April 2011
Everything You Wanted To Know About Porn (But Were Afraid to Google)
I was thinking about porn the other day (as I often do, in other circumstances) and I realised in my innately smug pragmatic way I genuinely can't decide whether I'm in favour of it or not. There's plenty of good arguments both ways and, unlike many debates, there's no straight party line from the left/right divide. Although many on the right want it banned for it's amorality and obscenity, many on the left want it banned for its exploitativeness and misogyny. It's even more controversial and incendiary than the prostitution debate, because it affects a much, MUCH wider percentage of the population - apparently, more than 70% of men from 18 to 34 visit a pornographic site in a typical month. That's a few more than visit whores, I'd say. Even an 188 year old man like myself has watched more than few skin-flicks (we didn't have this problem back during Reconstruction, I tell ya) and so, really, it's a trade which takes a bit of analysis...
So, here's my schizoid debate on porn - we'll see which one wins out...
Against
The problem with porn is pretty simple – it’s exploitative, misogynistic and sets a pretty bad example for anyone looking for an insight as to “what sex is”.
Let’s get on with exploitative – the porn industry targets the most vulnerable and poor in society. While it could be said there is something of a legitimate porn industry, which I will get onto in a sec, there is also a much larger amateur industry which involves crime, corruption and targets young, impressionable women (and men, don’t forget), often immigrants (both legal and otherwise) who have little money or qualifications and coerces them into engaging in degrading and often harmful behaviour which is broadcast around the web. Much of it is illegal, but much of it is worse because the law protects it – so pornographers and criminals can exploit men and women as much as they want without a single reprimand because it all occurs behind closed doors. Prostitution comes under fire from the police when it takes place on the street, but pornography is left alone because it takes place in a sleazy hotel room, rather than in “decent society”. In this sense, it borders on the same excuse for the lack of police intervention into domestic violence – except that domestic violence is now investigated regularly while amateur pornography, often as damaging if not more so to the individual, is left untouched. And don’t even get me started on child porn!
That’s the amateur porn business – there is a more professional industry which is more controlled and less concerned on the black-market. Top-shelf stuff which is, by comparison, much more respectful to the actors/actresses, at least in financial and legal terms. Still, this is where the very nature of pornography comes under scrutiny – it presents an image of sex which is unrealistic, offensive and often aggressive. As a result, generations have grown up with pornography as their only image of sexual intercourse and this can’t be healthy. Much of the fault lies with schools which are still too cagey and conservative to educate pupils about sex in any explicit terms. Children are therefore forced to turn to porn for an insight; I’m no social psychologist, so I’m not going to make a generalisation here (I was able to watch porn without going mad for one), but it’s certainly not a preferable alternative to genuine education on the subject.
So my bottom line is – maybe there shouldn’t be law to condemn pornography since that would drive it further underground. But I would hope that individuals in society will simply come to realise the harmful effects of porn and stop providing a market for it.
For
Much of the argument for pornography is the same as the one for prostitution – if you make it illegal you force it into illegal circles and it becomes embroiled in corruption, organised crime and sex trafficking. If you keep it legal and monitored, then those involved are protected, respected and receive the compensation they deserve. Prostitution and pornography are the world’s two oldest professions and they will, arguably, always exist as long as people are cagey about having sex with one another. So surely it’s better to pull it out of the underground and into a regulated and legal setting, rather than making it the province of the Mafia?
The other big issue is this – who has the right to tell people what they can and cannot do with their bodies. In particular, the argument against porn seems to always revolve around women and “decency”. In this sense, it’s a throwback to Victorian prudishness and big wire-framed dresses – men telling women to hide their shame. When pornography involves consenting adults, what kind of legal justification can you give? Exhibitionism is not a crime so long as the watching of it is done by choice – and it’s not like you’re forced to watch pornography. So if everyone involved is consenting, then surely it’s suppressing civil liberties to ban it?
Finally – and this is my most tenuous argument – who is to say that pornography has a negative effect on those watching it? And, if it does, who is to say that it is pornography’s fault rather than the sheer ignorance and impressionable stupidity of those watching? I managed to watch pornography for years without becoming a serial rapist so it IS possible. Why is it the fault of the product rather than the buyer? And what about to idea that porn actually produces a catharsis? It has been scientifically shown that regular masturbation is a physically healthy pastime (if you can’t get sex, that is) so why shouldn’t pornography be part of this cathartic aid?
So I believe it is pointless to talking about banning porn – it is here to stay as far as I am concerned and I think the world would be a much more uptight place without it.
Conclusion
Sooo, what's the conclusion, kids? Well, I don't think this one's going to be sorted out soon. If we all had access to regular sex with whoever we felt like, it wouldn't be an issue, but I can't see that being the case any time soon and, to be honest, that would throw up as many problems as it causes. So I can't see porn going away soon and, with the internet getting bigger and bigger, it's just going to push further into the mainstream.
I say, for now, just hang loose and see what happens!
So, here's my schizoid debate on porn - we'll see which one wins out...
Against
The problem with porn is pretty simple – it’s exploitative, misogynistic and sets a pretty bad example for anyone looking for an insight as to “what sex is”.
Let’s get on with exploitative – the porn industry targets the most vulnerable and poor in society. While it could be said there is something of a legitimate porn industry, which I will get onto in a sec, there is also a much larger amateur industry which involves crime, corruption and targets young, impressionable women (and men, don’t forget), often immigrants (both legal and otherwise) who have little money or qualifications and coerces them into engaging in degrading and often harmful behaviour which is broadcast around the web. Much of it is illegal, but much of it is worse because the law protects it – so pornographers and criminals can exploit men and women as much as they want without a single reprimand because it all occurs behind closed doors. Prostitution comes under fire from the police when it takes place on the street, but pornography is left alone because it takes place in a sleazy hotel room, rather than in “decent society”. In this sense, it borders on the same excuse for the lack of police intervention into domestic violence – except that domestic violence is now investigated regularly while amateur pornography, often as damaging if not more so to the individual, is left untouched. And don’t even get me started on child porn!
That’s the amateur porn business – there is a more professional industry which is more controlled and less concerned on the black-market. Top-shelf stuff which is, by comparison, much more respectful to the actors/actresses, at least in financial and legal terms. Still, this is where the very nature of pornography comes under scrutiny – it presents an image of sex which is unrealistic, offensive and often aggressive. As a result, generations have grown up with pornography as their only image of sexual intercourse and this can’t be healthy. Much of the fault lies with schools which are still too cagey and conservative to educate pupils about sex in any explicit terms. Children are therefore forced to turn to porn for an insight; I’m no social psychologist, so I’m not going to make a generalisation here (I was able to watch porn without going mad for one), but it’s certainly not a preferable alternative to genuine education on the subject.
So my bottom line is – maybe there shouldn’t be law to condemn pornography since that would drive it further underground. But I would hope that individuals in society will simply come to realise the harmful effects of porn and stop providing a market for it.
For
Much of the argument for pornography is the same as the one for prostitution – if you make it illegal you force it into illegal circles and it becomes embroiled in corruption, organised crime and sex trafficking. If you keep it legal and monitored, then those involved are protected, respected and receive the compensation they deserve. Prostitution and pornography are the world’s two oldest professions and they will, arguably, always exist as long as people are cagey about having sex with one another. So surely it’s better to pull it out of the underground and into a regulated and legal setting, rather than making it the province of the Mafia?
The other big issue is this – who has the right to tell people what they can and cannot do with their bodies. In particular, the argument against porn seems to always revolve around women and “decency”. In this sense, it’s a throwback to Victorian prudishness and big wire-framed dresses – men telling women to hide their shame. When pornography involves consenting adults, what kind of legal justification can you give? Exhibitionism is not a crime so long as the watching of it is done by choice – and it’s not like you’re forced to watch pornography. So if everyone involved is consenting, then surely it’s suppressing civil liberties to ban it?
Finally – and this is my most tenuous argument – who is to say that pornography has a negative effect on those watching it? And, if it does, who is to say that it is pornography’s fault rather than the sheer ignorance and impressionable stupidity of those watching? I managed to watch pornography for years without becoming a serial rapist so it IS possible. Why is it the fault of the product rather than the buyer? And what about to idea that porn actually produces a catharsis? It has been scientifically shown that regular masturbation is a physically healthy pastime (if you can’t get sex, that is) so why shouldn’t pornography be part of this cathartic aid?
So I believe it is pointless to talking about banning porn – it is here to stay as far as I am concerned and I think the world would be a much more uptight place without it.
Conclusion
Sooo, what's the conclusion, kids? Well, I don't think this one's going to be sorted out soon. If we all had access to regular sex with whoever we felt like, it wouldn't be an issue, but I can't see that being the case any time soon and, to be honest, that would throw up as many problems as it causes. So I can't see porn going away soon and, with the internet getting bigger and bigger, it's just going to push further into the mainstream.
I say, for now, just hang loose and see what happens!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)