Download festival

Yes, it’s the year of the sex Olympics, with the United Kingdom dripping wet and sweaty and smelling just a tiny bit of yeast. On one side is the Puritanical Corps., awash with purity and virtue and clean knickers fresh from M&S, and on the other is a looser union of people holding up their hairy palms and placards which read “Keep off my  X-Hamster” and such like.

Not for many moons has the UK seemed so unable to accept that S-E-X exists, and certainly for the first time since the 1990s does it appear the massed ranks of the Establishment has finally decided to take on the Internet, with all its swearing and ‘Breaking Bad’ spoilers and nipples all over the place. Every person who wants “Porn blocks” and the like have consistently failed, doubtlessly deliberately, to understand the distinction between the different kinds of pornography available on the Internet and the relative dangers of watching ‘too much’ of each kind.

As I have blogged before the ‘Porn block’ brigade tend not to appreciate how boring a lot of on-line sex actually is, and have conflated too many different complaints and issues into one damp tissue of negativity. It’s neither constructive nor productive to consider the term ‘extreme porn’ to cover everything from XTube’s amateur hour to a multi-million dollar production Californian production company churning out the glossy tits and teeth.

This week’s target for outpouring of outrage is your everyday public wifi, which has been highlighted as potentially opening up the gates of pure hell and evil to everybody’s smartphones.

This is another overblown reaction from folk who don’t seem to quite get it. (The technology, I mean, not “it” as in “whoopie”. Although sometimes I wouldn’t like to say…)

Here’s a task for you. Go into Starbucks (then leave again because THEIR COFFEE IS RUBBISH). Go into a pub instead, one where you’ll see this sign, or something like it. Now get a pint of something light, maybe a packet of Scampi Fries, sit down with the i and load up your phone. With “The Cloud” you may have to sign in with a password, but that’s fine, it’s free, and reliable (and thanks to some wags at a Greggs near me, available through the wall of the next-door pub which doesn’t have wifi otherwise).  Now that you’ve got free wifi through “The Cloud” and it’s not taking anything from your monthly allowance, search for something adult or naughty or just plain rude.

Found anything? Probably not. And that’s normal. Not completely trouble free, but nothing like the SCANDAL AND SHOCK which you’d assume from the Guardian article linked to above and others like it.

The fact is that “Porn blocks”, content controls and other general settings already shut down a lot of search terms, including links to sites which have nothing to do with pornography. “The Cloud” and other wifi favourite BT are infamous for being very tight with their content controls, particularly as their services are used so extensively in cafes, pubs and public venues. That searching for “horny girls xxx” in my local Dog & Duck brings up nothing at all doesn’t shock or surprise me, I actually support the fact that public wifi makes it harder for people to, well, get hard.

There is no way to ensure each and every potential harmful website is restricted in each and every public building. We shouldn’t be run by politicians who think that the aim for them is to do such a thing, even if it sounds like great logic to their frazzled brains. It may be shocking to politicos and Professionally Outraged Daily Mail Writers that knives can be bought on-line whilst supping a mocha, but what do they want to happen? That all shopping sites be restricted or closed down by “The Cloud” and others? For knives on-line to be only sold if used for buttering toast or at most cutting into a brioche? Where exactly is the “end point”?

Wifi in public places is a great and valuable service. It may need fixing here and there, sorting out this and that, only the mood music of 2013 makes me feel that such tinkering is not what people want. If it’s scary that porn is available at your local library because they’ve not sorted out the restrictions, then talk to the library management or local council. Don’t create a national scandal. Don’t presume everything can be fixed by thinking in terms of cotton-wool and  bubblewrap.

(Is there a fetish site dedicated to cotton-wool and bubblewrap? Back in five minutes……)

Advertisements

top shelf and behind closed doors

In those hazy, lazy, faraway union-flag-quilt-and-Smirnoff-Ice days of the 90s, “lads mags” were all the rage. Whilst faded in glory today, they retain a certain grip on both supermarket shelves and amongst the court of public opinion. Recently a group of disgruntled feministbots raged against them with threats of legal action on grounds of human rights and sexual harrasment, provoking another flurry of he-said, she-demands outrage on- and off-line.

There’s plenty of threads to pick at here. Let’s start with the body image argument, one which has a very valid foundation even if the rest of the building is unsound. The desire for a body beautiful worries men as much as women, only the boys chasing a six-pack tend to be pushed aside by mainstream media’s coverage of teenage body image crises. As long ago as 2001, the British Medical Journal warned that male concerns about chasing the magazine “approved” look was leading to suicide.

Whilst it’s valid to point to the ladies with the ample balcony and cry “foul”, the lack of any concern for the male equivalent is worrying. Young men are likely to be as wary of not looking “built” as young women are for not appearing to have a glossy-cover body. (And this is before we look at something like the cover of Gay Times, for example, where the well-built and tanned cover stars might attract more concern for perfection from a community already beset with issues of self-confidence and image problems.)

And then we get to porn. Good old fashioned, every day porn. The days of my youth were peppered by attempts to read the top shelf goodies which even by the 1990s were still heavily censored – and for that matter, heavily hirsute, if you know what I mean. What teenagers of 2013 can access with a few clicks makes the 1993 versions seem as tame as Victorian ankle-flashers, but even then dire warnings rained down about the dangers of seeing half-naked women in the pages of “Whitehouse” and “Razzle”.  Iceland would like to outlaw Internet porn entirely and Labour in this country have hinted a similar policy would be forthcoming if they win in 2015. There’s a lot of sayings crossing my mind here – horses, stable doors, the closing of such.

I’m not in denial about the realities of some members of the pornography industry, or of the harsh and often dangerous circumstances for women behind the XXX website banners. But I’m not here to defend the State-sponsored censorship of the Internet on the back of a misguided concern about safety, either for children or women or both. If this sounds like “protesting too much”, I counterargue that the reality of Internet porn is as much wobbly and out of focus amateur videos uploaded to Cam4 as it is slickly edited “professional” material locked behind passwords and subscriptions.

My automatic discomfort against any form of legal threats and censorship comes not from an obsession with porn, but a determination to stand against the moral guardians strongarming common-sense. It’s unjust and unfair for feminist outrage corps. to dismiss lads mags as unacceptable whilst implicitly allowing Take A Break and Closer and others to zoom into wobbly thighs and lumpy stomachs with thick red circles and thicker yellow arrows. If Zoo magazine showing a glamour model is sexist, of what crime is Closer guilty for showing a soap star without make-up under the label “ROUGH AS!”?

A debate has to be had about the attitude towards sex and sexuality which has taken the State unaware, that much I accept. There’s no validity in the “BAN THIS FILTH” argument, especially from such moral champions as The Daily Mail who run an hourly sidebar of shame ticking off women (specifically) for being too thin, too fat, too garish, not garish enough, too daring, too old-fashioned, too feminist and not feminist enough. They’re not being “the best friend” pointing out fashion tips, they’re being the bitter bitch behind the net curtains hating women for being themselves long after their own beauty has faded.

Maybe I’m naive, but teenage boys finding women attractive is the way of nature. If they didn’t have Zoo (or page 3 or anything as soft/censored as I did in the 90s), they’d have some way to beat out (snigger) their natural desires. Ditto women, for whom there’s enough sniggering and tittering about fit men within the pages of their magazines. There’s no innocence amongst women’s glossy magazines when it comes to showing the flesh of either sex, or the demands on men in the bedroom. Is that not counter to the belief amongst certain kinds of feminists, or am I being dismissive?

The debate the country needs must look at everything which relates to sex and sexual politics, and that has to be cut through by some pretty obvious realities about human nature. The fallout from Leveson shows just how dangerous the topic of press freedom can be, especially when the State is put under pressure to regulate or censor material before publication. Let’s not pride ourselves on being a country in which, during a time when people are reminding us “not to let the enemy win”, we sleepwalk into blocking, banning and censoring material on the grounds of morality.