?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous | Next

Links part deux

More linkses, since I have nothing to say, except that Sonic Dash for the DS is fabulous. And my brains weighs 1462g. Yes, I've had a productive day...

Couple of youtube links: Doctor Who winning and acceptance speech, and Serenity winning and acceptance speech (email from Joss read by Morena Baccarin)

Random quote from Teresa Nielsen Hayden which I agreed with utterly, gacked from riba_rambles (syndication, but the originating site seems to be down just now):

"I deeply resent the way this administration makes me feel like a nutbar conspiracy theorist."

Which I would apply to both Bush and Blair's administrations. And questioning some of their policies seems to make other people regard me as a nutbar conspiracy theorist, too.

The riba_rambles blog also has a reasonable overview and plethora of links about the Harlan Ellison/ Connie Willis episode at the Hugos, which has been echoing round the blogosphere for a couple of days. (Briefly, Ellison grabbed Willis's breast on stage during the award ceremony, and when there was (later) an outcry, went "ooh, naughty me - but I'm always naughty!" in a fairly non-apologetic manner.)

The possession of violent internet porn is now a crime in Britain. Apparently the production of it was a crime already. This pisses me off immensely, especially because yet again the law has been changed because of a victim's opinion. Much as I sympathise with the victims of serious crime, they're the very last people who have an objective and reasonable opinion on the matter, and should not be able to influence law to such an extent. I have yet to see any proof that the availability of any of the different stripes of porn on the internet has resulted in a higher number of people being interested in it, and I've certainly not seen any proof that there has been more violent sexual crime since internet porn became available. And it's going to be punishable by three years in jail - more than a lot of rapists get.

If the production of these images involved non-consensual violence, it would have been against the law for reasons completely unrelated to anything sexual. If the violence was fake or consensual, then I don't see how it's anybody else's business. The story says that "proposed legislation will outlaw possession of images such as "material featuring violence that is, or appears to be, life-threatening or is likely to result in serious and disabling injury"," which as far as I can see could be applied to a huge number of S&M practices. I have no doubt that real life violent sexual predators might view these images, but I do doubt that if they never saw the images, they wouldn't become violent sexual predators. It's the whole pro/ anti-porn argument in a microcosm, I guess. Utter nanny state garbage - like the people who want to ban violent computer games or "video nasties", except they've actually succeeded because it's also got sex in - kinky sex at that - and we're British.

I think my anger on this is because I've known a lot of people from the S&M community, and as a rule they're so much more polite, friendly, welcoming, non-pressurising and more careful about consensuality than any other community I've met, and they could easily be criminalised for this. I can't tell from the BBC story, but it looks as though possessing private pictures of yourself and your partner taking part in these activities could easily fall under the ruling - and if they were particularly hard-up for convictions that week, the activities in question could just be being tied up and gagged. Oh, I don't suppose they'll really bother in minor cases like these examples, but the fact that they COULD scares me, as with a lot of other laws being passed recently.

After the Tommy Sheridan vs News Of The World case, Kevin Williamson, who I admire as a publisher and campaigner, publicly resigns from the SSP with a lot of sensible things to say about socialism (and taking Murdoch-run papers to court in Scotland rather than England). And also has a blog, which is now syndicated at kevinwilliamson. Lots of great Scottish bands linked from his blog, too.

I'm not sure whether I'm keen on the Popgadget blog - apparently, gadgets for geeky women. Some of them are quite funky, but when the first ten gadgets of special interest to women include biodegradable dinnerware, a pet food dispenser, an eyelash curler and brightly coloured toilet paper (which is, admittedly, very cool) then even I'm apt to come over a bit feminist and disapproving.

I FINALLY got around to adding Wil Wheaton's blog to my syndication list (wilwheaton) and the very first post I saw was this wonderful Munchkin post, which utterly captures the game. And now I want to play again. Ooh, and Munchkin Cthulhu is out soon. Hee.

Comments

( 20 comments — Comment )
essbee80
Aug. 30th, 2006 11:07 pm (UTC)
its a wonderful blog!
pickwick
Aug. 30th, 2006 11:08 pm (UTC)
hee, nice icon!
essbee80
Aug. 30th, 2006 11:09 pm (UTC)
thanks. I have several. Wil is a god
(Deleted comment)
chebutykin
Aug. 31st, 2006 03:16 am (UTC)
Unfortunately, there's just as much research that says the exact opposite. When it comes to psychological studies, it's just too easy to tilt the numbers when the research team has an agenda (whether it's pro- or anti-porn).
confusiontempst
Aug. 31st, 2006 11:17 am (UTC)
And it's impossible to eliminate some form of agenda from the science. Ah, social constructivism, where shall you lead us?
confusiontempst
Aug. 31st, 2006 03:19 am (UTC)
Mind linking some?
I like reading psychological studies.
(Deleted comment)
confusiontempst
Aug. 31st, 2006 11:10 am (UTC)
I understand about statistics and them being easily manipulable. I have a Psyc degree and all.
(Deleted comment)
confusiontempst
Aug. 31st, 2006 11:46 am (UTC)
Coo'. Mine's technically BSc (Psychology and Philosophy).
Hooray for the ease of changing a single to a double major.

That study itself smacks of fallacious reasoning, such as it's probably also a correlate that internet access goes with not being dirt poor, and dirt poor people are more likely to do crazy/desperate things.
But my flatmate pointed out that comparative statistics to Europe (the parts other than England where sexuality isn't so cloistered and victorian) show marked trends in favour of lessened violent crime/sex offences.

This seems to indicate that the Anglo world is doing something drastically wrong. And that America is epitomising that.
(Deleted comment)
confusiontempst
Aug. 31st, 2006 12:06 pm (UTC)
I realise that's the point of the post. But I'm not sure porn access itself and the restrictions imposed is the issue.
I think it's the victorian mentality. I mean, I've seen topless chicks that weren't in my bedroom, but I could count the occasions on my fingers, and I don't believe I've ever seen a woman nude in public.
Now admittedly, I avoid nude rallies because:
a) I don't feel confident enough in my body to strip bare and wander about that way.
b) It's not quite a cause I feel strongly enough about to be unlawful over.
c) I don't really want to experience the horror of large hairy men stripped bare near me.
But my point about nude/topless women in public stands. All those occasions where I saw topless women? Yeah, parties at various friends houses, large parties, but still private functions, y'know?
(Deleted comment)
confusiontempst
Aug. 31st, 2006 12:57 pm (UTC)
There is a distinction between the kinds, but criminalising the violence is a step towards criminalising the normative.
And I've seen tabloid papers with topless women on their covers, I've consumed porn in various forms too, but I've never actually seen a topless woman on the street or in a public setting at all.

And yeah, the latter -definitely- needs to be kept out of the hands of children, the lesser probably ought to as well.

But then, if I had my way a significant number (I imagine well over 50%) of music videos would be censored for reasons that basically come down to me deeming them pornographic and bad for society to be given to children/young people.

And I never found the appeal in the violent porn personally, but then I -know- I'm vanilla.
(Deleted comment)
confusiontempst
Aug. 31st, 2006 01:38 pm (UTC)
I'm willing ot accept all of your conjecture, if you'll grant me that the sexual morality espoused by music videos is unscionable by any society worth sanctioning.
I mean, sure, hedonism is good and all, but a lot of music and videos derived form such dictate that we ought to just be using each other, and going for the hot people, and they provide such negative image issues for people that I don't think they're condonable.

Er. Ranty, also, I'm about to go to sleep, just so you have some idea of where my brain is coming from. I'll try and debate more (and better) in the next couple of days if you want)
pickwick
Aug. 31st, 2006 07:12 pm (UTC)
Ta for that - I'll bookmark it for later too!
nyarbaggytep
Aug. 30th, 2006 11:12 pm (UTC)
Absolutely agree with you re the violent porn law.
tanngrisnir
Aug. 31st, 2006 07:51 am (UTC)
If the violence was fake or consensual, then I don't see how it's anybody else's business.</q? Well, you might think that, but as I recall from the Spanner case some years ago, consensuality was not considered to be a defence. (BICBW: it was a while ago.)
tanngrisnir
Aug. 31st, 2006 07:54 am (UTC)
I don't know what happened to the rest of that comment, which was to the effect that as far as I recall consensuality was not considered to be a defence at the time of the Spanner case. (BICBW.)
pickwick
Aug. 31st, 2006 07:16 pm (UTC)
I hadn't even heard of that. Just looked it up, and I'm very shocked. An attempt to overturn the verdict as recently as 1997 in the European Court of Justic failed, though only because the Euro court said it fell within UK government's jurisdiction and they could limit activities "for the general public good and for the protection of morals". Ugh.
tanngrisnir
Aug. 31st, 2006 09:29 pm (UTC)
Ah.

i have been trying to think how to express properly my feelings about this.

Ugh is the exact word. UGH!
dermfitz
Aug. 31st, 2006 08:21 am (UTC)
The S&M community? Is that in Woodlands, or Garnethill?
pickwick
Aug. 31st, 2006 07:17 pm (UTC)
St Enoch, I believe :)
tanngrisnir
Aug. 31st, 2006 09:31 pm (UTC)
I think you will find it is in Sighthill.

Try walking through there on your own...
( 20 comments — Comment )

Profile

bad wolf
pickwick
Notes from extinction

Latest Month

November 2010
S M T W T F S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930    
Powered by LiveJournal.com