The EU could be planning to ban porn in the name of 'Gender Equality'

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

http://falkvinge.net/2013/03/06/next-tuesday-the-european-parliament-votes-to-ban-all-your-porn-yes-really-take-immediate-action/

So yeah. The EU might planning on banning porn. If your read the report:

17. Calls on the EU and its Member States to take concrete action on its resolution of 16 September 1997 on discrimination against women in advertising, which called for a ban on all forms of pornography in the media and on the advertising of sex tourism

It just says something about banning pornography in the media, however the report claims that the internet counts as part of the media.

Also (not porn related) the report mentions putting quotas in politics for the amount of female politicians. Because who cares what qualifications someone has, what's important is what they have between their legs!

Yeah, don't see it happening.

Genocidicles:
Because who cares what qualifications someone has, what's important is what they have between their legs!

Right, and it's not that attitude which sees under-representation of women in the first place...

I'm fairly sure the intention behind the legislation isn't to ban pornography. Point 17 is in reference to a previous resolution against discrimination against women in advertising- and calls for a ban on pornography in media advertising. I.e- public adverts, but it could be worded better to remove this ambiguity.

Besides, banning pornography in general would be in violation of point 16: "Stresses the importance of promoting the representation of the female image in a way that respects women's dignity, and of combating persistent gender stereotypes, in particular the prevalence of degrading images, whilst fully respecting freedom of expression and freedom of the press"

thaluikhain:

Genocidicles:
Because who cares what qualifications someone has, what's important is what they have between their legs!

Right, and it's not that attitude which sees under-representation of women in the first place...

No, to be honest, I think it's probably more likely to be this kind of attitude.

Nickolai77:
Besides, banning pornography in general would be in violation of point 16: "Stresses the importance of promoting the representation of the female image in a way that respects women's dignity, and of combating persistent gender stereotypes, in particular the prevalence of degrading images, whilst fully respecting freedom of expression and freedom of the press"

I don't follow. If the argument is that porn is exploitative and degrading to women by its very nature (which I've seen argued plenty of times), then how can they respect freedom of expression and combat the persistent gender stereotypes presented by porn at the same time?

There was an old joke that said if you took all the porn off the internet there'd only be one website left and it would be called bringbacktheporn.com

It's been asked in the USA, if a stripper on a pole is expressing herself, what exactly is she trying to say?

I would like to lawfully prosecute solicitations to engage in sex slave/under age sex tourism as solicitations to commit a crime. Very different from enabling sex workers to make a living in otherwise legal porn.

Super Not Cosmo:
There was an old joke that said if you took all the porn off the internet there'd only be one website left and it would be called bringbacktheporn.com

There was actually something on QI a while back about how contrary to popular belief, only a tiny percentage of the internet is pornography. By far the biggest portion was spam, somewhere in the 80-90% range IIRC.

Gorfias:
It's been asked in the USA, if a stripper on a pole is expressing herself, what exactly is she trying to say?

"I quite like swinging around upside down with my baps on show"?

It's a difficult one to start to question, because then you get bogged down in whether freedom of expression should only be allowed when people have something valuable to say.

Gorfias:
I would like to lawfully prosecute solicitations to engage in sex slave/under age sex tourism as solicitations to commit a crime. Very different from enabling sex workers to make a living in otherwise legal porn.

Depends what you mean by sex slavery. Some people really are just into that sort of thing, being the submissive in a relationship and playing the role of a sex slave. You'd have to try and separate the people who want a mutually beneficial BDSM relationship from the ones who just want a fuck-dungeon full of captive victims.

Gorfias:
It's been asked in the USA, if a stripper on a pole is expressing herself, what exactly is she trying to say?

It's considered dance in more than one place, some do it because it's actually pretty decent exercise.

My spidey-sense tells me this is non-news; vastly overanxious hysteria about something that effectively does nothing that the hysteria claims it does.

"Well, IF they do this and IF it passes another eight votes and IF it remains unaltered throughout all that debate, planning and process so that it still includes clauses 7, 9 and 13 that I think MIGHT mean this IF you look at in a specific and tendentious way and squint very hard and IF the final vote goes through on a full moon when Saturn is in the shadow of Orion, then they'll have banned X!! OMG!!! Civil liburteez!!!! GRAAAAAAGH!!!!!"

Boris Goodenough:

Gorfias:
It's been asked in the USA, if a stripper on a pole is expressing herself, what exactly is she trying to say?

It's considered dance in more than one place, some do it because it's actually pretty decent exercise.

Exercise is not speech. Don't get me wrong. When I was younger, I very much appreciated their work. (I'm old now. Last time I was dragged to one of these, I felt the girl needed me to wipe, powder and put a diaper on her.)

SonicWaffle:

Depends what you mean by sex slavery.

Consent is everything. Even those into pain (I am not. It hurts me) have safety words.

But.... women watch porn.

I think there need to be proper regulations on the sex industry, but a blanket ban is like banning all eggs because some aren't free range, rather than making them be free range.

Gorfias:

Exercise is not speech. Don't get me wrong. When I was younger, I very much appreciated their work. (I'm old now. Last time I was dragged to one of these, I felt the girl needed me to wipe, powder and put a diaper on her.)

I think our points just went *woosh* past each other.
I wasn't talking about the proceedings about it being legal and tax exempt due to it being an art and all that.
Some people consider it an actual dance and don't use it for stripping.
I've only ever seen one strip tease, and I was only there because there were some friend in town and the club had ordered one. I found it immensely boring.

Agema:
My spidey-sense tells me this is non-news; vastly overanxious hysteria about something that effectively does nothing that the hysteria claims it does.

Non-news?

Sounds pretty much like the definition of news to me.

Gorfias:

SonicWaffle:

Depends what you mean by sex slavery.

Consent is everything. Even those into pain (I am not. It hurts me) have safety words.

Safety words are for wimps. The best kind of signal is an anguished screech.

ClockworkPenguin:
But.... women watch porn.

But they don't all admit to it. I've got a friend who's pretty into her feminism, and one of her major complaints is that there's still such a taboo about masturbation. She has friends who refuse to admit to doing it (and we're talking here about women in their early-to-mid 20's) and one who she's pretty sure never has because "it isn't ladylike"

This makes it easier for campaigners with an agenda to claim that all porn is exploitative and based around hatred of women, when real women won't confess to watching and enjoying it.

Boris Goodenough:
I've only ever seen one strip tease, and I was only there because there were some friend in town and the club had ordered one. I found it immensely boring.

Strippers are something I've never understood. You're basically paying to be sexually aroused by a woman you cannot then have sex with. What's the point? At least if you give the same amount of money to a hooker you're getting a tangible benefit from it.

Paying good money for blue balls is madness.

Boris Goodenough:

Some people consider it an actual dance and don't use it for stripping.

Understood. I think exercise itself is not political speech and likely, not protected by the original intent of the 1st Amendment. But I love art and exercise and hope it is never infringed upon in this nation.

SonicWaffle:

Safety words are for wimps. The best kind of signal is an anguished screech.

Without a safety word, will the inflictor tend to know that the screech is genuine for "stop it right freaking now!!!!"

Well, such regulation would be the death of one of them, and I wouldn't bet against the porn.

Gorfias:

Boris Goodenough:

Some people consider it an actual dance and don't use it for stripping.

Understood. I think exercise itself is not political speech and likely, not protected by the original intent of the 1st Amendment. But I love art and exercise and hope it is never infringed upon in this nation.

What evidence do you have that the 'original intent' of the First Amendment was to protect only 'political' speech?

In any case, what a pole dancer is saying is "Have a look at these! Like what you see?"

I'm actually still trying to figure out how banning porn would result in gender equality?

Seanchaidh:

What evidence do you have that the 'original intent' of the First Amendment was to protect only 'political' speech?

I read it from something Robert Bork said. Given that historically, "obscenity" law existed, seems likely. Not that I like them.

In any case, what a pole dancer is saying is "Have a look at these! Like what you see?"

I'm never asking you what the sound of one hand clapping is!

I'm not going to take an article in a newspaper dedicated to the god damn pirate party at face value. Especially not with an article with such a lovingly neutral a header as "Next tuesday the eu parliament votes to take away all your porn, yes really take immediate action."

If our beloved porn really was at serious risk I think we would know about it here in the EU. These "news" is nothing more than usual tabloid-style bullshit.

generals3:
I'm actually still trying to figure out how banning porn would result in gender equality?

If anything it would probably make it worse by giving misogynists ammunition, because the 'evil feminazis' took away porn.

Misogynists? oh you mean anyone with an ounce of common sense and that ammunition you speak of is like tossing a couple of rounds on the mountain of ammo feminazis have given everyone already.

FreedomofInformation:
Misogynists? oh you mean anyone with an ounce of common sense and that ammunition you speak of is like tossing a couple of rounds on the mountain of ammo feminazis have given everyone already.

There there. It's OK. Just go to your bunker, and those evil vagina-monsters will never find you. Be sure to take enough food to survive down there for at least a few years.

Gorfias:

SonicWaffle:

Safety words are for wimps. The best kind of signal is an anguished screech.

Without a safety word, will the inflictor tend to know that the screech is genuine for "stop it right freaking now!!!!"

The gushing blood is generally a pretty good sign but you know, sometimes I just get so caught up in the moment...

SonicWaffle:

Nickolai77:
Besides, banning pornography in general would be in violation of point 16: "Stresses the importance of promoting the representation of the female image in a way that respects women's dignity, and of combating persistent gender stereotypes, in particular the prevalence of degrading images, whilst fully respecting freedom of expression and freedom of the press"

I don't follow. If the argument is that porn is exploitative and degrading to women by its very nature (which I've seen argued plenty of times), then how can they respect freedom of expression and combat the persistent gender stereotypes presented by porn at the same time?

The word "whilst" is used as a sort of disclaimer in the sentence. It's basically saying, in plain English, that we want to promote the positive and dignified representation of women in media, BUT we also respect freedom of expression and freedom of press, so we're not going to make certain depictions of women illegal.

Looking at the whole draft motion there seems to be quite a few contradictions in the various articles which i expect will be teased out in parliamentary debate. This is why i think it's a non-story- it's a motion, not legally binding legislation, and its quite normal for any form of legislation being proposed to a parliament to be debated about and edited accordingly.

While I don't believe in porn, this is downright stupid. Nothing will come out of this, and I fail to see how it would support "gender equality".

I'm guessing that this was a reading comprehension test, to find out how many escapist users only read the thread title? I win :D

I'd be totally for some sort of regulation like this, as there's way too much sexualisation in newspapers & magazines these days (especially on the front page). Unfortunately I don't see this happening to an extent where it could make a difference...

Why do people think the way to combat sexism is with more sexism?

I get that specifically excluding women from something when there's no reason to is sexist, but surely forcing a company or whatever to hire a woman over a more qualified man is sexist against the man. After all, in this case he'd be being excluded because he had a penis. I don't get why that is seen as the way to counter sexism. It's completely counter-intuitive.

I'm not naive enough to think that sexism doesn't exist; I'm sure there are places that won't hire a woman just because she's a woman, but it doesn't mean every company is like that.

Basically, I just hate to see that sexism against women is dealt with by being sexist against men.

Nice try, suckers, I already downloaded all my porn to my hard drive. Ha!

Seriously, though, this is never going to pass. Because everyone watches porn, and no one is going to cut off their own supply of spank material. Besides, there's nothing inherently sexist about porn, though I will agree that a despairing majority of heterosexual porn is shot with a male gaze and is a little bit boring for women.

Most porn isn't that much more 'degrading' to women than it is to men. It's not like you only ever see the woman in the shots, the man always being blurred out. The only problem I have with most porn is that it's shot from a male perspective. Which is usually a message of 'yea, take it hard! god I'm such a stud!' or something along those lines. Quite boring...

sanquin:
Most porn isn't that much more 'degrading' to women than it is to men. It's not like you only ever see the woman in the shots, the man always being blurred out. The only problem I have with most porn is that it's shot from a male perspective. Which is usually a message of 'yea, take it hard! god I'm such a stud!' or something along those lines. Quite boring...

That would be why it's seen as more degrading, yes.

frobalt:
Why do people think the way to combat sexism is with more sexism?

I get that specifically excluding women from something when there's no reason to is sexist, but surely forcing a company or whatever to hire a woman over a more qualified man is sexist against the man. After all, in this case he'd be being excluded because he had a penis. I don't get why that is seen as the way to counter sexism. It's completely counter-intuitive.

I'm not naive enough to think that sexism doesn't exist; I'm sure there are places that won't hire a woman just because she's a woman, but it doesn't mean every company is like that.

Basically, I just hate to see that sexism against women is dealt with by being sexist against men.

That's an over-simplification. It fails to take the numbers into account. If, say, the quota was 30% women, that's still leaving the industry massively dominated by men. For a woman to be promoted over a more qualified man, that would require 70% + 1 men to be more qualified than the best women.

Secondly sexism against men isn't necessarily as bad as sexism against women. If official discrimination means one man can't get a job, it is better than unofficial discrimination than prevents two women getting a job.

Positive discrimination may or may not be appropriate under the circumstances, but that's not to say that it's never a solution.

It's not a law of any kind, but a motion that - if passed - can be used by the executive branch to legitimize future legislation.

That said...

I just e-mailed the lady in question who proposed this bill, to give her a piece of my mind:

1) I noted her of the unfortunate implications for freedom of speech, freedom of conscience and the freedom of information.

2) Posed her the question whether it's the role of the (supranational) state to dictate/influence what I should think, do or see. (especially when said supranational state only directly represents a minority of the electorate!)

3) Told her that her gratuitous use of social-constructivist terminology ("sexualisation", "objectification", "stereotyping", etc.) makes Karl Popper cry, because they're unfalsifiable and should therefore be taking with a boatload of salt.

Nickolai77:

SonicWaffle:

Nickolai77:
Besides, banning pornography in general would be in violation of point 16: "Stresses the importance of promoting the representation of the female image in a way that respects women's dignity, and of combating persistent gender stereotypes, in particular the prevalence of degrading images, whilst fully respecting freedom of expression and freedom of the press"

I don't follow. If the argument is that porn is exploitative and degrading to women by its very nature (which I've seen argued plenty of times), then how can they respect freedom of expression and combat the persistent gender stereotypes presented by porn at the same time?

The word "whilst" is used as a sort of disclaimer in the sentence. It's basically saying, in plain English, that we want to promote the positive and dignified representation of women in media, BUT we also respect freedom of expression and freedom of press, so we're not going to make certain depictions of women illegal.

Yeah, I got that part, it just seems oxymoronic that they want to "combat" (their word, not mine) these gender stereotypes, focusing on the spread of "degrading images", while at the same time respecting freedom of expression. Combat is an aggressive word suggesting direct action against something, so how do they intend to do so while still respecting the right to existence of the thing they are fighting against?

"We respect your right to exist, we just don't want you to exist, and so we're going to take steps to get rid of you. While totally respecting you, of course"

TheLycanKing144:
While I don't believe in porn, this is downright stupid.

You don't believe in porn? But there's evidence everywhere! Open your eyes, dude! It's not like Santa, where you parents tell you he exists but really he doesn't - in this case your parents try to convince you that it doesn't exist and that you certainly didn't catch them watching it together when you were five, but they are lying to you!

Porn exists, man. Free your mind. Dare to believe!

SonicWaffle:

TheLycanKing144:
While I don't believe in porn, this is downright stupid.

You don't believe in porn? But there's evidence everywhere! Open your eyes, dude! It's not like Santa, where you parents tell you he exists but really he doesn't - in this case your parents try to convince you that it doesn't exist and that you certainly didn't catch them watching it together when you were five, but they are lying to you!

Porn exists, man. Free your mind. Dare to believe!

Yeah, there's lots of pics of it, but it's all photoshopped or airbrushed.

thaluikhain:

SonicWaffle:

TheLycanKing144:
While I don't believe in porn, this is downright stupid.

You don't believe in porn? But there's evidence everywhere! Open your eyes, dude! It's not like Santa, where you parents tell you he exists but really he doesn't - in this case your parents try to convince you that it doesn't exist and that you certainly didn't catch them watching it together when you were five, but they are lying to you!

Porn exists, man. Free your mind. Dare to believe!

Yeah, there's lots of pics of it, but it's all photoshopped or airbrushed.

Oh, you're one of those guys. Let me guess, you can tell by the pixels?

Wake up, sheeple! Porn is everywhere! Take your heads out of the sand and see all the bouncing titties!

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked