Sj7g09's Blog

Archive for August 2010

Posted on: August 11, 2010

  • There are so many problems with this law that I don’t even know where to start. From reading the consultation papers, very few people actually wanted this law, except for organisations, and the majority of those organisations were the police, womens’ groups, and, somewhat bizarrely, children’s charities. The evidence put forward for this law was a rushed study, commissioned by the government by known anti-pornography campaigners, and this study has been thoroughly criticised by academics. As for the actual law, it is so vague that it becomes a thought-crime. Instead of outlawing select material as it tries to suggest, it instates a ruling by fear – if people do not know which material is actually illegal, it becomes a risk to look at any such material, essentially outlawing anything that may look objectionable to a jury. By introducing this law, the government is sending a very clear message that if this material is objectionable, so are the fantasies, and so are the people who have them. It seems that the government is taking an ever-increasing role in stepping in to tell the public what is ok to think and what is not, and giving harsh penalties to those who cross the line. The perfect example for this is The Extreme Pornography Act, in that material can be from a BBFC classified work, but if a scene is taken in isolation, it can be illegal under the Extreme Pornography Act. Surely this shows that it is not the material that is necessarily under scrutiny here, it is peoples’ attitudes towards it. If you watch “Hostel” (used as an example by Charles Walker, Conservative MP), you have nothing to fear unless you make still images of the scenes, in which case you may be breaking the law, because it may be seen that they are primarily for the purpose of sexual arousal. There’s another thing about the terminology of this law – “solely or primarily for the purpose of sexual arousal”. Is this based on the intention of the photographer/film-maker/artist/actor/model, or on the interpretation by the viewer? How can any photograph or film even have a primary purpose, seeing as this will change drastically considering who is viewing it? Even if its main purpose was for sexual arousal, why does this negate all other interpretations of the image? Personally, I see pornography as an immensely interesting genre, one that should be given the same consideration as art seeing as it goes in to the same themes, except in a different aesthetic. With the introduction of the Extreme Pornography Act, I lost the right to be able to look at material filmed by consenting actors, whether I was doing this for sexual arousal or for academic research (unless, of course, I have the defense of looking at it for ‘acceptable’ professions, like the police, BBFC, internet filtering – all of which, funnily enough, support the law. Is that why these people become immune to the material’s evil-causing tendencies?) While it is said that the law will not be enforced, there have been prosecutions under the law already – the first of which was very soon after the introduction of the bill, which was hardly well-publicised. To give a personal perspective to the effects of this law, I feel that it has caused a significant amount of distress to me, as I am an art student, at the time working with painted images that may or may not have been illegal under the new act. Despite the reassurances of the act that suggest that artistic material won’t be targetted, I was told by my university that I should remove any work that could even potentially be seen as illegal, “erring on the side of caution”, and that if there was any ‘proof’ that I had viewed illegal images (to this day, I still do not have any idea what counts as illegal under this act), I would be reported to the police. All this was from people who had no more knowledge of the act than myself, meaning knee-jerk reactions were likely seeing as they would be implicated themselves if they did not report me, and it was their responsibility to determine whether such images broke the incomprehensively vague law. This law makes people into criminals in some sort of backward attempt to prevent them from becoming criminals. There is no evidence that someone with a taste for kinky porn is more likely to kill someone than anyone else, yet this law is designed to catch them before the murders start, as though when it transpires that offenders of the Extreme Pornography Act don’t ever commit a murder in their lives, it is because they were disciplined early, when there was no suggestion that they would ever commit any act of violence, other than the misread meaning in their preference in pornography. The law serves no purpose other than to send a message that violent fantasies will not be tolerated, seeing as the law has no way of deterring murder, particularly as there need not be any proof that you even owned the images for sexual arousal. Was the man taken to court for possession of a “pornographic” CGI clip of Tony the Tiger, a cereal mascot, that had been sent to him by email, really a threat to society, or was it just a fearing strategy to make people toe the line?
  • No one involved in the sale of sex should be criminalised, unless the person selling sex is not doing so willingly, and even then, it should not be their unknowing customer who is punished as a scapegoat, it should be the person actually responsible for forcing the person into that industry. Even then, ideas like ‘coercion’ are so vague – if someone has anything negative in their past, and then goes into prostitution, can it be seen that they were ‘coerced’ because we are unable to accept that people are capable of making their own decisions if we disagree with them? There is an incredible stigma attached to being a sex-worker, and I would venture that a lot of that is caused by the radical feminist doctrines that label sex workers as victims incapable of making their own choices about what they are willing to do with their own body. Ultimately, prostitution is consensual sex where money changes hands. Why should the government ever get involved in this, so long as there was consent? It just seems like ‘consent’ is never achieved because there is the prevailing stereotype that all female sex workers are trafficked, or otherwise unable to consent to their ‘exploitation’ because they don’t know their own minds, they’ve been brainwashed by the patriarchy, etc. even though taking away the right to choose for oneself what to do with your body is surely more degrading. No one should be able to tell anyone what they can and cannot do with their body, so long as it doesnt harm anyone else. I don’t exactly see it as freeing women of exploitation or degradation to control their body and sexuality, overwriting their own individual decision-making to ‘protect’ them. Laws should not aim to protect people any more or less according to their gender, yet male sex workers are never mentioned in debates as crying that men are ‘exploited’, vulnerable and victims of violence doesn’t have quite the same ring to it.

Add your thoughts to laws that should be repealed by the coalition government at  (Your Freedom – “We’ve had to stop users logging in due to a small handful of users posting offensive content. Please try back again in the morning. 16 days ago “)

I havent used this blog in ages, but feel like making a post because I’ve gone through all the other options of venting my frustrations about this, and there are none. When the government brings in a new law, it would be lovely to have a place to voice your opinion on it, but I dont know of any such place, so I’ll just have to talk to myself here.

So, I’ve talked about this issue before – advertising “sex industry” jobs in job centres. There is now a ban on advertising stripping, lapdancing, webcam jobs, etc. in job centres.

Quotes from BBC news website –

“The ban will apply to any job which is related to “direct sexual stimulation”, so it also includes strippers and applies to any work via webcams.”

Firstly, how are either of the jobs here actually at all related to “direct sexual stimulation” anyway? A stripper presumably does not touch their client, and, blindingly obviously, a webcam performer most certainly never touches their client. So what counts as “direct sexual stimulation”? Doesn’t seem at all direct to me.

“The government say they’ve decided to ban the ads to protect young girls.

Employment Minister Chris Grayling said: “We shouldn’t put vulnerable people in an environment where they’re exposed to these types of jobs and could feel under pressure to work in the sex industry.” “

Another law based on protecting the weaker gender. What about men who do webcam work, or stripping, or dancing? Why don’t they need the protection of not being able to find an ‘exploitative’ job in the job centre? These jobs are no worse than any other. Of course people should not have to feel pressured to work in the sex industry if they dont want to, but, by those standards, people should not feel pressured to work in any job that they don’t want to. I dont want to walk into a job centre and feel pressured to take a minimum wage manual job, but that isnt as morally charged as sex work. Honestly, I dont know how job centres work. If a job is advertised, do you have to take it? I assume not, seeing as I’ve set foot in job centres without being forced to take a job. I dont know how it works with benefits, but I dont really see how advertising sex industry jobs makes it any different. And, are these people ‘vulnerable’ because they dont have a job, or ‘vulnerable’ because they’re considering a job in sex work?

The move comes after a public consultation which revealed significant concern about a public service advertising these kind of jobs.

What sort of public consultation? The actual public, or the public that the government chooses to be involved in their consultations? Either way, I would say that it’s either people who dont have much knowledge about the issue other than stereotyping and prejudice, or people who have specialist knowledge because of a very strong opinion, agreeing with whatever the government want. Yes, it sounds very conspiracy-y, but I’m hardly trusting of the consultation processes after reading the consultations on the Extreme Pornography Act and Dangerous Cartoons Act.

It also indicated people who worked in this industry could be vulnerable to harassment and discrimination in society.”

This is the bit that really gets me… They’re stopping the advertisements of sex industry jobs, thereby making it more taboo, a less acceptable job seeing as it’s banned from job centres, showing people that it’s a “bad” job. So, by trying to protect people from discrimination from having a job in the sex industry, they add yet more prejudice and discrimination to people in the sex industry by saying that these jobs are exploitative and not the sort of thing that people should be exposed to. I’d say that these jobs aren’t for everyone – you need some degree of confidence, self-assurance, etc. but by not advertising these jobs it just perpetuates the idea that they arent acceptable, and are jobs that no one would like to do. I honestly think that if people actually were exposed to these jobs, or even advertising of these jobs, it would become a more normal thing, and I think that can only be a good thing for the levels of moral dictation and sexual repression in this country.

Quotes from The Daily Mail –

A spokeswoman for charity Rape Crisis said: ‘Adverts like this validate the notion that sexually exploitative “work” is an acceptable career.’

What does a Rape charity have to do with the sex industry? Rape charities are always, always brought in to  talk about the sex industry, pornography, etc. when they have nothing to do with it, except for in a feminist, symbolic capacity. Statements like this make me very angry really. Why is a job in the sex industry not considered work? Why does it instead have to be ‘ “work” ‘? Of course it’s work. It’s performing for money – how is that any different to other forms of acting? Is that ‘ “work” ‘? And it is an acceptable career. If this is what women, or men for that matter, want to do, then there’s no problem in it. This work is only considered sexually exploitative because it views it symbolically as women performing for men, and as though that carries over into other areas of life. It’s all symbolism, stereotyping, stigma and prejudice. I think that it’s true that advertising these jobs validates them as an acceptable career, but I believe that’s a good thing. As I’ve said, it’s not for everyone, but for the people who want to do this, they should not feel pressured not to.

” ‘The Department for Work and Pensions is essentially acting as a recruitment outlet for pimps and legitimising jobs which are fronts for prostitution.’ “

It’s a horrible assumption that strippers, dancers or other performers are prostitutes – it’s terribly prejudiced. I’m sure that some people who work in these jobs are also prostitutes, but that doesn’t mean that everyone is, or that the people who have these jobs should be viewed as prostitutes. People just shouldnt be able to make these sweeping statements and have them universally believed because the stereotyping is so widespread… Some people in the sex industry are prostitutes, are trafficked, are exploited, but that does not mean that all are, or even that the majority are. What’s the problem with prostitution anyway? People should be able to choose what they do with their own body, and I believe that it is wholly unethical for prostitution to be illegal if we value freedom at all.

Ministers also plan to bring in a change in the law to ensure the ban cannot be challenged in court.”

The law is being changed to ban the advertising of jobs that the government find unacceptable, jobs that are too linked to the feminist agenda, that ‘promote exploitation’. It used to be that these jobs were able to be advertised because Ann Summers went to court to be able to advertise vacancies in their ‘sex’ shops, but now it’s being altered to allow retail to advertise, or for strip clubs to advertise for staff that aren’t “directly stimulating” customers… So if it was unacceptable in the past to advertise Ann Summers jobs, but now that seems tame, maybe a shift would have happened that performing jobs were acceptable… but then maybe that’s the point, that it’s seen as such a negative thing to accept these things. But if this law can’t be challenged in court, that does a very good job of preventing change in social attitudes. It seems rather unethical to put in a ban and say that no one can challenge it – how are ideas and laws meant to change if no challenges are permitted?

In my opinion, a terrible ban that will only further the alienation, prejudice and discrimination against people who choose to work in this industry.

  • fred whitacre jr: they don,t have any sex invaled why are we so againce children being nude in pictures because of alll the sick fucking rapetist out there children
  • fred whitacre jr: she only 12 but it is not porn at all it is nude only only a sick person would want to fuck her not me but i will tell you the true she is a very hot
  • fred whitacre jr: i see noghting wrong just a nude girl no porn that would be wrong with a child but not worng with a grown up only nude pics of children is ok if no se