Good Sense and Balance (from a Chippendale)

Not to demean Chippendales and other sexy dancers but... when one is seeking wisdom then they aren't at the top of most people's list (whether that's right or not is a totally different thing).

Yet the most sensible, balance and decent comments I've seen on the continued rise of the New Puritans has come, from all places, an interview with a Chippendales performer in Las Vegas.

I am wondering how he feels about recent workplace developments: Formula 1's banning of the "grid girls". Or the darts "walk on girls". What about boxing's "ring girls" in Vegas?  

"It's complicated," he acknowledges. "Because if any one of those girls was proud to do that, proud to be there, proud of their body - enjoying the money, thought it was easy, and were there 100% voluntarily then it's hard to argue against it.  

"That said, with all these stories coming out, things have been wrong for so long that we might need to overcorrect for a while before we find the middle ground.

"As a whole, females have been pushed back or objectified so many times, so often, that things that personify the old guard might have to drop off for a while."

This is something that's better than anything I've read anywhere else. Do I agree with it totally? No. I'm an individualist and dislike any idea of having to "overcorrect" and undermine individual liberty to pay reparations for something I've not done.

However it is voices like his that are required if we're to put an end to a ridiculous culture war where those of us who believe in free sexual expression are caught in the crossfire.

Important Question Of The Week: How Much Cleavage Is Too Much? #losetheladsmags

Some of the things I say below do not actually reflect my opinions. I don't feel I need to point out which bits... 

So as Lose The Lad's Mags campaign makes advances ahead of their 24th August action day it is time to start asking some important questions. These apply regardless of whether we're talking about the "modesty bag" solution favoured by the Co-Op and Tesco or the full on ban on lad's mags proposed by the campaign.

1. How much cleavage is too much? 

As we look to the future and the possibility (though slim given the falling popularity and circulation figures of magazines) that a new magazine may come out that is found by some to be as equally onerous as a "lad's mag", we must consider what criteria we use to decide whether it is acceptable for normal sale or needs to be restricted.

What level of cleavage is acceptable? How much of a leg can be shown? Who is the judge of this criteria? What are their motives? Will we need some sort of new organisation to review magazines before they go on sale to make sure they are within the guidelines? Will the women in the photographs be asked for their opinion? Will these criteria be equally applied to all magazines like Cosmo etc or is it only certain magazines?

2. When does the Lose The Gay Mags campaign begin? 

"As a male I would prefer a more positive image of women in the media, where they are equal to men" #whyisigned #losetheladsmags
— UK Feminista (@UK_Feminista) August 6, 2013

Well they aren't really equal to men unless similarly sexualised images of men, as contained in most editions of Gay Times and Attitude (and especially in their Naked specials), are treated in the same way. Though, in my personal opinion, they also contain some brilliant articles they are heavily sexualised publications (just check out the back of Gay Times) and promote a poor body image to young gay guys (if you think along those lines).

If sexualised images of women cause men to be more likely to physically or sexually abuse women, then surely the same must apply to gay men. Thus such magazines should be controlled as well. Any suggestion otherwise would surely be a form of anti-gay prejudice on a couple of levels:

i) young gay guys aren't in need of protection of the display of sexualised images of men when girls are.
ii) suggests gay men aren't as "dangerous" as straight men which, though in our favour, is a way of saying gay guys aren't "real men"

So don't be homophobes, ban gay mags too!

3. With a focus on such images are we to extend the same requirements we decide in question 1 to all forms of media and beyond?

So if sexualised images of women aren't allowed on magazines, will we extend the requirements to cover or remove such images to newspapers, the internet (a really tough version of the Great Firewall of Cameron?), advertising (just as some Muslim men take to blacktaping over adverts), television (Baywatch!) and beyond?

Will women need to cover up in public? Now that we've established that it is the way that women dress and look that causes sexism, violence and a whole host of other evils (victim blaming of the highest order) surely we need to enforce standards of dress in public? No bikinis, no short skirts. The basic "women are asking for it" sort of stuff, right? Just to be on the safe side.

4. As we've now decided women don't get to do what they wish with their bodies or choose their career freely, what else can't a woman choose? 

Wannabe topless models pleading to save the Lads Mags from extinction cos without them they'll have no future job.A career at Greggs awaits.
— Warren Hall (@MrLasso) August 4, 2013

No modelling, no sex work. If we accept these are things that women shouldn't be able to choose (and I'd hope you feel the same about men) then I wonder what else we might need to restrict for the greater good? Many Christians have, in the last few days, joined the battle on social media to help lose the lad's mags. I'm sure they could think of one or two things that women shouldn't be able to do.

5. What will be the standard for success? 

As with any initiative, we must have a goal. When will we celebrate the defeat of the lad's mags? When we notice a related drop in rapes against women or domestic violence? When women break through the glass ceiling of a business thanks to the evil magazines being removed? We need to know so we can scientifically check the results. Because this campaign isn't about dogma but real, detectable improvements in the quality of women's lives, isn't it?*

*unless said women rely on or wish to be modelling

The Rise Of The New Puritans

There is nothing quite like the phrase "A Conservative Case For Gay Marriage" to send shivers down the spine of any even slightly radical LGBT person. I have to say that when I began moaning about marriage equality, I really wasn't considering the wider consequences. I was simply annoyed at the unfairness of civil partnerships. Later I looked at equal marriage as a step down the road to liberty, not perfect but heading in the right direction.

Sadly, I realise now, many conservative supporters see it as a way of "taming" LGBT people rather than freeing them. And, before you think "Hang on, I thought you weren't doing marriage equality posts anymore", this sort of conservative, moralising attitude is becoming in vogue once again on a lot of topics.

Now I'm not pretending that moralising busybodies have suddenly reappeared after years of being sidelined. Of course they have always been there. But rather than your Mary Whitehouses and Tory MPs being the loudest, we now have far more worrying noise makers from quarters I wouldn't have expected (although once you look into the history you see the potential has always been there and I was just being blindly naive).

Our Coalition Government has been pushing at eroding individual rights "for our own good" recently. Minimum alcohol pricing has been proposed at a time when alcohol consumption is on the decrease. They are listening to Christian MPs and "women's groups" are pushing for the criminalisation of paying for sex. And, though thankfully less authoritarian than the original proposals, the Government is still trying to treat parents like children and tell them what is best for their household.

Meanwhile, on Opposition benches, Diane Abbott is calling for controls on those horrific evils: fast food, alcohol and children on the internet. She wants the minimum alcohol price to be higher than the one proposed by the Coalition. That's opposition for you...

There are real problems that need tackling... alcoholism isn't a joke, sex workers are abused and the internet (like a town) has its places that you wouldn't want children going to on their own. But bans, filters and taxes aren't going to change people, they aren't going to educate people and they will end up causing more problems. Alcoholics will just be poorer whilst occasional drinkers will cut back. Sex workers, especially those being forced/coerced into it, will still be abused whilst those who make a living out of sex work will be left without a source of income. Kids will still look at porn on the internet. They aren't stupid!

So for the next few posts I'll be focussed on looking at these issues, and more controversial ones, and looking at whether the busybodies have a point or if they are very wide of the mark indeed.