Sexualizing children is crossing the line. And exposing underage kids to graphic sexual imagery, as Butt magazine does, is sexualizing them.Does anyone other than a pedophile disagree? [. . .]
Unfortunately, American Apparel thrives on sex-related controversy, so media attention only encourages them. Founder and CEO Dov Charney is notorious for collecting sexual harassment suits from female employees who object to his frequent self-pleasuring as outlined in Jane magazine in 2004, and other media. Charney likes to whack-off for the benefit of reporters, too.
So, bad press they love. But would the company be so thrilled if their stores were restricted to those over 18? Shoppers could be carded at the door, effectively denying them access to that oh-so-lucrative tween and teen girl audience.
It's not an unreasonable approach. As I followed the coverage, it struck me that porn is a lot like smoking: something that was once restricted to certain social gatherings or private quarters. Eventually smoking encroached on every aspect of life until it was no longer considered bad manners to smoke at your desk, to puff while people ate in restaurants, or to light up while walking down a crowded street.
So we introduced bylaws to keep disgusting and hazardous behaviour out of the public square -- aimed particularly at the protection of children.
It wouldn't be difficult to make it a requirement of business licensing that retailers serving underage audiences keep tasteless-albeit-legal products away from public view. Now, no one thinks twice about tobacco being kept behind cupboard doors.
Extend that to TV advertising. No more ads featuring anti-social images for goods marketed at children. We did it with cancer-sticks and booze, why not limit ads for sex-and-horror thrill-kill films?" (Shannon Rupp, "The Porn Glut," The Tyee, Jan. 21 2009)
Did you know, kids, that the Depression-era also marked the return to ascendence of the disapproving Maternal scold (banished for awhile, as women repeatedly did one horrible un-Victorian thing or another), who saw little but scandal and perversity in the seditious, go-go 20s. Today's version will further circumspect your freedom (and it's felt pretty friggin' tight for some time now too, hasn't it? -- turn off your x-box! stop listening to your ipod [. . . and listen to me]! what kind of comics are you reading?! -- how disgusting!, let's introduce you to more wholesome fair, like the great outdoors! (but I liked reading them, mommy.).
When she comes at you, so righteously affirmed, please feel free, in whichever way you wish, to sc&* the bi*&%h, royally. She can't help herself, it's true, but she aims to do nothing less, to you.
Link: The Tyee
- - - - -
photo from npr
I think what really bothers many parents about “American Apparel” is that their kids actually find empowerment in the clothing. To a certain extent, through the clothing, kids become inaccessible to their parents, feel more independent from them, and become part of the glaring street army that truly can buttress predators' attention and march its way on into adulthood.
Yes, this is no ideal. I don't much like the uniform, "socialist," style. But many kids feel power in the "black" mass, the collective, aggressive sexuality, the sparseness and sureness of style, and this should be respected.
As for porn. If the 80s and on had amounted to a continuation and expansion of Jim Henson, the Bee Gees, Jimmy Carter, of innocent fun, porn these days wouldn't be so much about "feel the shame/pain!" We talk about 9/11, and about what this age of uncertainty is doing to our kids. But the turn-around occurred much earlier. And so we have a large populace -- at the very least, one whole generation -- that turns to the “Dark Knight,” or dark porn, or dark comics, cause they see reflected there-in a recognizable world they find relevance in. (Maybe they hope to find answers there . . .)
If turning (our attention) to our kids amounts to what is has been, a further turning *on* them, what might they do when they intuit there no longer is any escape? The usual answer is that they throw themselves onto one sacrificial battlefield or another. (Afghanistan is looming . . . Or maybe they'll just start shooting each other again? Make it even more a part of their daily routine.)
Finally, I genuinely like that the discussed author enjoyed watching amateur couples do "the nasty" so affectionately and funly. It would be nice if there was a lot more of that on the web -- something adolescents interested in sexuality/sex could find easy access to. (I imagine there are a more than a few lesbian writers who find this author's preferred tastes, more than a bit staid and oppressive, though.)
cheers,
patrick mcevoy-halston
- - - - -
No one, so far as I know, is attacking whatever 'amuses' adults. Their ‘freedom’ to practice whatever perversion they choose is limited by the fact that other adults – and children – have rights and freedoms too. As someone whose primary purpose seems to be to promote loving, caring, happy children in similar family situations and the kinds of things which make that kind of life experience available to most and hopefully all children, I'd have thought that protecting them from the kind of thing Dov Charney seems to wish to put front and centre as part of his advertising would be entirely in keeping with your philosophy.
As for Charney, I could care less, and furthermore, his brand of narcissistic self-indulgence and Oscar Wilde's genius are poles apart, in my view. I wonder what his uncle thinks of him?
Suggesting that an interlocutor's contrasting analysis is simply a generational artifact is about as effective (and frankly as dishonest) as a way to support public masturbation as your attack on David Beers was a couple of days ago.
If you can't make the case for your point of view without suggesting that your opinion is superior to that of another anonymous poster's opinion(s) because of relative age is bizarre.
Especially considering you have no idea how old your interlocutors actually are.
Try again, you can do better than that.” (GWest, Response to post, “Porn Glut”)
I don't believe the intent I'm hearing is to protect the children. I really don't. I know the Puritan tone, and I'm hearing it (though not exclusively) in this discussion. If I didn't, I would have talked more about what we need to do so that children don't find themselves interested in dark-themed anything. (Woodend in her recent "post," suggested that all children are attracted to fearful things, and that all we can do is sort of work to manage things so that kids' own natural instincts don't lead them into harm. I don't believe that kids are naturally drawn to dark things; rather, I believe they come to know of darkness, of dark things, from their family's complicated attitudes towards them, and turn to "art" that replicates that experience in an effort to deal with their fears. At this point, if you simply take away that "art," you may have taken something away that actually empowers them. You risk becoming [once again] the predator. [And by "you," I'm not really thinking of you, G West.])
I don't think that Charney is best understood as an exploiter (the article says the reporter in question kind of enjoyed it when Charney did his masturbation bit. You find this difficult to believe. I don't.) You do. Maybe we're the same age, but when you sense such a gap between how the same thing is apprehended -- especially in regards to a sexual theme, especially in regards to the sexual activities of a relatively young guy--the normal way (the way that most readily comes to mind) to typify it is as arising out of a generational divide. Age-wise, it might well be wrong, but sense-wise, it strikes me as possibly right. (So I went with it.)
(You wonder what his uncle thinks of his behavior?)
As for the whole Beers thing [editor’s note: for explanation of what this thing is, please see below]. I see Shannon Rupp as a righteous predator. I suspect she and those who support her efforts are going to encourage, not deflate, suffering in children. I think she'll find some way of characterizing a lot of things that kids these days go for in terms of sexual practice and general activities, as perverse. She'll go after the suppliers, justify her efforts in terms of "not abandoning the young," but she'll make anyone who does anything she doesn't like feel like cowering -- most especially the kids. I hope the Tyee understands the dangers this kind of predator presents. And appreciates when people speak up – loudly -- against them.
- - - -
Denouement (aka: the David Beers thing)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
When she comes at you, so righteously affirmed, EDITED FOR SEXIST COMMENT. She can't help herself, it's true, but she aims to do nothing less, to you.” (editor’s change to my original post. Note: bold not in original)
- - - - -
Moderator
EDITED FOR SEXIST COMMENT ?????? I can't believe I just read that!! NO EFFING WAY, MR BEERS- - - I will not contribute to any GD PC outfit.
Censoring in an attempt to maintain decorum - perhaps. But you can put censoring to prevent hurt feelings where the sun don't shine. (ME2, Response to post, “Porn Glut”)
- - - - -
ME2 and Patrick McEvoy
McEvoy's words encouraged this course of action for a person subjected to a "maternal scold": "F**K the *B*TCH" any way you choose"... or words virtually the same, with clearly the same meaning (I didn't keep them).
That's playing very loosely with encouraging rape. I censored the prescription for that action. Not the swear words. And if you say it was a joke, that will not change my decision in the least. It was a terribly sexist joke.
Our commenter guidelines say sexist remarks are not allowed on our threads. If you choose not to abide by the rules, please feel free to comment on other sites that consider exhortations to rape, and other sexist comments, perfectly fine. We don't. (David Beers, Response to post, “Porn Glut”)
*Patrick McEvoy-Halston's* words, that is, David Beers. And if you truly would encourage others to comment freely on other sites that consider exhortations to rape perfectly fine, then you, indeed, by your own standards, should censor yourself. For encouraging rape is never okay, on your own site or anyone else's. Mr. Beers.
Or were you being sarcastic? Using language-play? Surely the matter at hand is too serious for any such, Mr. Beers. You might, after all, be misconstrued, and end up surrecting what you claim to want to suppress.
(How seriously do you want to be taken, anyway? How relevant are you?)
- - - - -
Your full name doesn't appear above your posts on this thread. Sorry I didn't refer to you in full.
Regarding your questions: I was neither being sarcastic nor engaging in word play. I was merely acknowledging that there are other sites on the internet where hateful and/or insensitive sexist comments are allowed, even encouraged. I don't control those sites and of course don't seek to control you beyond the boundaries of The Tyee. But if I didn't make myself clear: Comments like the one of yours that was edited are not welcome here and will again be edited by the moderator. If you persist in making them, you will be blocked from commenting on The Tyee. (David Beers, Response to post, “The Porn Glut”)
Good. When you say things like "please feel free to comment on other sites that consider exhortations to rape, and other sexist comments, perfectly fine," it's best to clarify yourself. Rape is not something to joke about, sir.
- - - - -
Since you treat this a joke or a chance for one upmanship, I'll assume you don't accept my decision to edit your comment, and so don't intend to abide by our commenting rules. Do I have that right? (David Beers, Response to post, “The Porn Glut”)
I didn't realize you were looking for confirmation that I would abide by your commenting rules. You gave fair warning, and I didn't follow with anything that would be construed as sexist. What is your problem, exactly? I have every right to point out that your phrasing could easily be construed as encouraging hate-speech. You should have acknowledged that.
Comments
Post a Comment