Re: Anyone see this? : Thu Dec 06, 2012 6:53 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

... And for the record I don't include paedophilia in the above.

It's perhaps indicative of something when people feel the need to stress that. I do wonder if we have, as a culture, actually gone - really very suddenly - down a very odd path of being, on the one hand, absolutely rightly concerned with genuine abuse, but on the other, actually conflating that with something different, ie the sexuality and sexual explorations of young people.

The media (in general) does not help by sensationalising everything. And at this point, I think it's correct to suggest that there's an air of Salem about this.

I equally feel concerned about some of the discussion this past few months about rape/non-consensual sex.

Gawd. I'll have to sit down and pen a big piece.

But what is most worrying, in many ways, is that the 'discussion' seems to have no nuances. And within that, absolutely no sense that, as you absolutely correctly point out, times have very much changed, but also of youth (and even child) sexuality.

I actually find a lot of what's going on very uncomfortable - not least because, strange as it may seem, I think there's a sizeable element of downright puritanism in the mix.

Re: Anyone see this? : Thu Dec 06, 2012 7:39 pm  

Mintball wrote:

It's perhaps indicative of something when people feel the need to stress that. I do wonder if we have, as a culture, actually gone - really very suddenly - down a very odd path of being, on the one hand, absolutely rightly concerned with genuine abuse, but on the other, actually conflating that with something different, ie the sexuality and sexual explorations of young people.

It is a strange thing because of course in my previous post I did exactly what I said I didn't intend to do - I DID include paedophilia in my summary because I spoke of 14 year olds being "available" in nightclubs, albeit in the guise of 18 year olds.

But thats what young girls did and still do, the only thing that has changed from the 1970s is the attitude towards them and I speak as a father of two 20-something daughters who I would be horrified to discover had been frequenting nightclubs at 14 years of age, hypocritical yes, aren't we all ?

What I do find heartening now is the concept that boys and girls of teenage years can be genuine friends with no sexualisation involved - it would be unheard of when I was a pimply youth but on the other hand I went to an all boys school and girls remained a thing of mystery until I was ... , well, they still are.

The media (in general) does not help by sensationalising everything. And at this point, I think it's correct to suggest that there's an air of Salem about this.


I actually find a lot of what's going on very uncomfortable - not least because, strange as it may seem, I think there's a sizeable element of downright puritanism in the mix.

The most bizarre juxtaposition, the one that everyone notices and comments on, is that on the Daily Mail web site and I assume in its printed media too (although I've never looked), I just don't know how an editor can keep a straight face or wonder if he/she is losing their marbles when they preach so puritanically over child and teenage sexual abuse while not one column inch away there are numerous examples of teenage sexual exploitation being promoted by the same editors.

And I've mentioned this before, but the target market for most of this stuff is females, this is not page three "get yer knockers out love" stuff for builders to drool over in their Transits every monring, its gossip articles about other females who aren't shy about selling themselves and their semi naked bodies to the Mail so that females can read about other females bodies and compare notes.

...and then complain when they are sexualised by males.

Re: Anyone see this? : Fri Dec 07, 2012 9:00 am  

JerryChicken wrote: It is a strange thing because of course in my previous post I did exactly what I said I didn't intend to do - I DID include paedophilia in my summary because I spoke of 14 year olds being "available" in nightclubs, albeit in the guise of 18 year olds. ... My understanding is that paedophilia refers to 13 or under, so you're safe. JerryChicken wrote: ... What I do find heartening now is the concept that boys and girls of teenage years can be genuine friends with no sexualisation involved - it would be unheard of when I was a pimply youth but on the other hand I went to an all boys school and girls remained a thing of mystery until I was ... , well, they still are. ... Single-sex schools, eh? It works the other way around too – or at least it did for me. JerryChicken wrote: ... The most bizarre juxtaposition, the one that everyone notices and comments on, is that on the Daily Mail web site and I assume in its printed media too ... and then complain when they are sexualised by males. The Mail really is quite hideous, on so many levels. So, for that matter, is editor Paul Dacre. I've been close enough to a couple of situations to know how it's next to impossible to get the Mail to retract lies (or at least print a correction). It seems to work on the basis of having no responsibility to prove anything – it's your responsibility to disprove it. Thinking of one specific case, it took a press officer an entire week to screw a correction out of the bustards over something completely factually incorrect. There's a reason that the likes of Dacre don't want any form of what Leveson has recommended. I did a thing recently of looking at just one aspect of the Mail's sexualisation of underage children – mostly girls but sometimes boys. Yet this is the same publication that, recently was shrilling away about Starbucks not blocking porn from it's free, in-store wifi. And yes, it also essentially encourages a bitchiness – plus, together with that, insecurity. For goodness sake – the paper seems to live of health scare stories (I've had one cancer charity tell me that it sees a fall off in people seeking information whenever the Mail prints another sensationalist story about research showing that daylight will give yo cancer or some such other nonsense. The thing is, the research itself is almost certainly genuine, but publishing it outside of its scientific context can be misleading and usually means that it's sensationalised. Then there's the constant stream of self-hating stuff – 'oh look: women in middle age get cellulite' etc. 'Oh, she shouldn't have worn that at her age' etc etc. It's quite nauseous. The paper version is bad (I see it in the office) but the website is worse. And just to be clear, as Martin Clarke, the editor of the website, explained at Leveson, he is answerable to Dacre, who is not only the editor of the Mail, but is editor in chief of the family of papers. Ah yes – the fragrant Dacre. Think again about all the things the Mail spouts hatred of. This is a man who is himself an adulterer – and is also a foul-mouthed bully. His editorial meetings are so renowned for his language that they're known as 'the vagina monologues', and he's apparently an 'expert' at what has been described as 'double c**ting'. A truly lovely specimen. If the Mail were just a comic, much of this wouldn't really matter. But the horrifying thing is just how much people believe it. These are people who (like my mother) consider themselves intelligent and educated – and absolutely of a certain class – and they believe it absolutely. Perhaps people get the press they deserve? The trouble is, the rest of us then have to put up with the results, and that, in the UK, mostly means an utterly infantilised press and an infantilised public discourse.

JerryChicken wrote: It is a strange thing because of course in my previous post I did exactly what I said I didn't intend to do - I DID include paedophilia in my summary because I spoke of 14 year olds being "available" in nightclubs, albeit in the guise of 18 year olds. ... My understanding is that paedophilia refers to 13 or under, so you're safe. JerryChicken wrote: ... What I do find heartening now is the concept that boys and girls of teenage years can be genuine friends with no sexualisation involved - it would be unheard of when I was a pimply youth but on the other hand I went to an all boys school and girls remained a thing of mystery until I was ... , well, they still are. ... Single-sex schools, eh? It works the other way around too – or at least it did for me. JerryChicken wrote: ... The most bizarre juxtaposition, the one that everyone notices and comments on, is that on the Daily Mail web site and I assume in its printed media too ... and then complain when they are sexualised by males. The Mail really is quite hideous, on so many levels. So, for that matter, is editor Paul Dacre. I've been close enough to a couple of situations to know how it's next to impossible to get the Mail to retract lies (or at least print a correction). It seems to work on the basis of having no responsibility to prove anything – it's your responsibility to disprove it. Thinking of one specific case, it took a press officer an entire week to screw a correction out of the bustards over something completely factually incorrect. There's a reason that the likes of Dacre don't want any form of what Leveson has recommended. I did a thing recently of looking at just one aspect of the Mail's sexualisation of underage children – mostly girls but sometimes boys. Yet this is the same publication that, recently was shrilling away about Starbucks not blocking porn from it's free, in-store wifi. And yes, it also essentially encourages a bitchiness – plus, together with that, insecurity. For goodness sake – the paper seems to live of health scare stories (I've had one cancer charity tell me that it sees a fall off in people seeking information whenever the Mail prints another sensationalist story about research showing that daylight will give yo cancer or some such other nonsense. The thing is, the research itself is almost certainly genuine, but publishing it outside of its scientific context can be misleading and usually means that it's sensationalised. Then there's the constant stream of self-hating stuff – 'oh look: women in middle age get cellulite' etc. 'Oh, she shouldn't have worn that at her age' etc etc. It's quite nauseous. The paper version is bad (I see it in the office) but the website is worse. And just to be clear, as Martin Clarke, the editor of the website, explained at Leveson, he is answerable to Dacre, who is not only the editor of the Mail, but is editor in chief of the family of papers. Ah yes – the fragrant Dacre. Think again about all the things the Mail spouts hatred of. This is a man who is himself an adulterer – and is also a foul-mouthed bully. His editorial meetings are so renowned for his language that they're known as 'the vagina monologues', and he's apparently an 'expert' at what has been described as 'double c**ting'. A truly lovely specimen. If the Mail were just a comic, much of this wouldn't really matter. But the horrifying thing is just how much people believe it. These are people who (like my mother) consider themselves intelligent and educated – and absolutely of a certain class – and they believe it absolutely. Perhaps people get the press they deserve? The trouble is, the rest of us then have to put up with the results, and that, in the UK, mostly means an utterly infantilised press and an infantilised public discourse.

Re: Anyone see this? : Mon Dec 10, 2012 9:36 pm  

No, I don't give a flying one what you think, you will not put this board at risk for the sake of a quick gag or title tattle, do this again and you'll be taking a posting holiday - BG.

Re: Anyone see this? : Mon Dec 10, 2012 10:02 pm  

No -BG.

We'll see you next season.

Re: Anyone see this? : Mon Dec 10, 2012 10:46 pm  

Do you actually have or know of any evidence for your increasingly frequent allegations? You've accused most of parliament of not only paedophilia but also complicity in the murder of children, now you're onto accusing individuals.
Do you have evidence? Or do you just love conspiracy theories?

Re: Anyone see this? : Tue Dec 11, 2012 2:06 am  

Him wrote:

Do you actually have or know of any evidence for your increasingly frequent allegations? You've accused most of parliament of not only paedophilia but also complicity in the murder of children, now you're onto accusing individuals.
Do you have evidence? Or do you just love conspiracy theories?

Given the shameful misdeeds of Parliament over the last thirty years (tearing the NHS apart, university tuition fees, the poll tax, wholesale corruption, profiteering, dirty little - and not-so-little - foreign wars, countless assaults on the poor, the sick, the vulnerable etc. etc.) who needs paedophilia to justify lining them all up against the wall?

Re: Anyone see this? : Mon Dec 24, 2012 11:45 am  

Seems like Paul Daniels thinks he is missing out on the controversy, I bet the lovely Debbie McGee is delighted!!! http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne ... linch.html

Seems like Paul Daniels thinks he is missing out on the controversy, I bet the lovely Debbie McGee is delighted!!! http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne ... linch.html

Re: Anyone see this? : Mon Dec 24, 2012 1:37 pm  

EHW wrote: Seems like Paul Daniels thinks he is missing out on the controversy, I bet the lovely Debbie McGee is delighted!!! http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne ... linch.html He makes a good point though about young girls behaving as if "groupies" towards entertainment professionals in the 1970s, putting "deliberate" paedophilia to one side (and there were those who made that their target) then the thought that a police group could be investigating every one night stand from over 40 years ago is just a bit of a step too far - the allegations against DLT and another unnamed entertainer who everyone seems aware of but shall not name are part of this step too far for me.

EHW wrote: Seems like Paul Daniels thinks he is missing out on the controversy, I bet the lovely Debbie McGee is delighted!!! http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne ... linch.html He makes a good point though about young girls behaving as if "groupies" towards entertainment professionals in the 1970s, putting "deliberate" paedophilia to one side (and there were those who made that their target) then the thought that a police group could be investigating every one night stand from over 40 years ago is just a bit of a step too far - the allegations against DLT and another unnamed entertainer who everyone seems aware of but shall not name are part of this step too far for me.

Re: Anyone see this? : Mon Dec 24, 2012 1:52 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

He makes a good point though about young girls behaving as if "groupies" towards entertainment professionals in the 1970s, putting "deliberate" paedophilia to one side (and there were those who made that their target) then the thought that a police group could be investigating every one night stand from over 40 years ago is just a bit of a step too far - the allegations against DLT and another unnamed entertainer who everyone seems aware of but shall not name are part of this step too far for me.

Absolutely spot on....As discussed already in this thread, Daniels' story is one that most blokes can probably connect to at some stage of their lives.

What was especially difficult for these celebrities, is that they would have had these young girls virtually throwing themselves at them - Christ, I was grateful if women would just accept the offer of a drink from me, so I know what my reaction would have been if I had been in Daniels or DLT's shoes.