Saturday, July 19, 2008

People are still stupid

Via one of Jackart's splendidly splenetic articles on stupid feminists, I find this barking mad blog by The Bug, the mission statement of which is in the sidebar.
Viewing Porn on Public Transport and Exposing Others to it is ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR.

It is anti-social behaviour because:
  1. It exposes passengers to indecent images

  2. It is inappropriate to sexually arouse oneself in public

  3. It is intimidating to female passengers

Currently there are lots of campaigns and laws to protect passengers from the anti-social behaviour of other passengers:
  1. Not exposing others to second-hand smoke

  2. Not drinking alcohol on the tube

  3. Not putting your feet on seats

  4. Not eating smelly food

  5. Not playing your music loud

  6. Not sitting in your seat if someone needs it more than you

  7. Not getting on the carriage before everyone else has got off

However, there is one anti-social behaviour missing from this list that affects passengers daily: The viewing of pornography on public transport and exposing other passengers to pornographic images.

This blog aims to pursuade the Mayor and TFL that, firstly, viewing pornography on public transport is a form of anti-social behaviour and secondly, that they need to encourage passengers to be aware of and responsible about the images they expose other passengers to.

Well, I personally think that blogs set up to encourage fucking politicos to limit our liberty yet further is anti-social behaviour (though not, of course, anti-Socialist behaviour); as such I might write to the Mayor insisting that silly little cunts like The Bug be abducted from their homes, hooded, imprisoned in a dungeon and beaten on the genitals three times a day until these disgusting authoritarian fucks understand why using the law to restrict liberty and enforce personal prejudices is wrong and evil.

But, on the other hand, I am all for free speech so maybe you'd like to wander along and post properly pornographic pictures in the comments...

UPDATE: The Bug has published the results of her poll.
How would you like to see the viewing of pornography changed on public transport?

The options were:
  1. A complete ban, similar to the ban on alcohol

  2. A campaign for consideration of other passengers similar to the campaign to be considerate when listening to music

  3. Not at all, I'm happy as it is


Pretty conclusive, huh? OK, I failed to take a screenshot at the time, so you are going to have to take my word for the following.
  1. The poll was clearly marked that it was only for women to participate in. I did not take part and so I do not know if there was a second part to the poll. However, it seemed to be a standard Blogger poll plugin and so I doubt it. Which begs the question, how did The Bug know who was a man and who was a woman?

    Still, as I say, since it was clearly marked that only women should take part in the poll, and I had little interested in doing so, I do not know whether or not there was a second part to it.

    +++ CORRECTION +++
    Thanks to Carl Richardson in the comments, who points out that there was a separate poll for men. I would have looked that far, but unfortunately, my eyes had already started to bleed uncontrollably by that point. However, I assure you that point 2, below, is the truth.
    +++ /CORRECTION +++

  2. I did, however, have a look at the results of the poll. Just after I had written this post, at about 5.20pm, the number of people who had voted for an outright ban numbered 19. Yes, that's right: 19 people voted for an outright ban.

    The numbers were considerably less for the other two options, but there was no display of any other results, e.g. gender.

Now, I would never imply that The Bug is being massively disingenuous—or, indeed, dishonest—by not showing us exact numbers, or even percentages, or even the number of people who took part in the poll but... Oh, no, wait... yes, I am: that is precisely what I am suggesting. You know the old saying: there are lies, damned lies and...

None of this should detract from the fact that The Bug is an unpleasant little fascist whose views should be tolerated only up until she starts trying to use the law—or any other kind of force—to enforce her personal prejudices onto other people.

The Bug is a deeply unpleasant woman; I won't insult the mentally ill by suggesting that she might be suffering from some kind of mental disorder. Because she's not: she's just a very, very nasty person.

UPDATE 2: it seems that I need to make it clear that The Bug is not talking about people reading Club, or Mayfair, or Young Naked Ladies Showed Spreading The Pussy Lips Of Their Shaven Cunts. She is talking about things such as Zoo, or Nuts, or The Sport or The Sun. Here is The Bug's retaliatory mockup and she urges people to...
Please print this out and use it as a cover for your tabloid, to raise awareness of the issue.


I wouldn't read The Sun on a regular basis and I have never read The Sport, Zoo or Nuts (do the last two still exist?) but I don't see why people should be banned from reading these perfectly legal publications on public transport if they wish to do so.

Whilst I don't really buy the argument that posing nude actually "empowers" women, the girls in these papers—and, indeed, the more explicitly pornographic magazines—have, nonetheless, consented to be photographed in the nude and been paid for it. If that is what they wish to do, then fine.

I mean, if I could make a good living simply by stripping off and waving my genitals about I would be highly tempted to do it, at least as a sideline. However, that is unlikely to happen anytime soon (unless there is a magazine for women which explicitly features men with very thin limbs, doughy torsos and slight pot-bellies which is, I feel, somewhat unlikely. More six-packs and abs, I suspect).

Women are luckier, since men tend to be less discerning; basically, if you've got tits and a cunt and the desire to be plastered all over a shortly-to-be-sticky magazine, then you are pretty much guaranteed to be able to get money for your photos. Most women, however, choose not to do so, a situation I find entirely unsurprising. But, hey ho, it takes all sorts, eh?

On a more serious note, The Bug has a wider concern, also in the sidebar.
The World Is Not A Sexual Playground For Men!!!

If men think that women's bodies were put on this planet for their entertainment, which by being permitted to openly view images of sexualised and objectified women on public transport without censure seems to imply, then where does it end? Sex-assault? Rape? Battery? Murder?

This is, of course, utterly barking.

First, women's bodies were, basically, "put on this planet" for men's entertainment, just as men's bodies were put on this planet for women's entertainment. Or, rather, our bodies evolved under the dictates of what each sex found attractive. Because the ultimate aim of humans (and all animals) is to breed and, were the sexes not entertained by each other's bodies then that wouldn't happen very fucking often, eh?*

Second, the idea that condoning someone reading The Sun, which features, on page 3, a picture of a woman who has—quite consensually—displayed her breasts for the camera, is the same as condoning (by definition, non-consensual) sexual assault, rape or murder is lunacy of the worst kind. Were I a sensitive chap, I might find it actively offensive (and sexually discriminatory). Notwithstanding what I said above, perhaps this woman is actually mentally ill...?

Finally, it is still worth pointing out that there does seem to be some correlation between the availability of pornographic material and the rate of sexual assaults. That is, the rate of rape and sexual assault decreases with the increasing availability of pornography; the porn acts as a substitute.

So, if you actually care about the physical well-being of women, then you should actually be advocating the existence of (consensual) pornographic material. As such, in this respect, The Bug is not only fucking insane, but completely wrong.

UPDATE 3: The Bug's mission statement says that "It is inappropriate to sexually arouse oneself in public". Firstly, it is against the law for me to whip out my cock on public transport and start bashing the bishop, so presumably The Bug means that men getting a sexual thrill in public is inappropriate.

This, of course, opens up a whole world of contradictions. For instance, as I have pointed out before, I have a strange fetish for women in jumpers (especially turtleneck ones) so should we ban jumpers because it is "inappropriate to sexually arouse oneself in public"? Or perhaps I should undergo aversion therapy to cure me of this evil perversion?

In fact, is it wrong for me to feel a certain frisson when any pretty girl, however attired, gets on public transport? I can hardly control what I find attractive, can I? And some women tend to wear so few clothes these days; many appear to enjoy showing off their cleavage or dressing in an otherwise provocative way.

Ah, I have the solution: either men must be blindfolded when on public transport, or women should wear a burqa. It's one or the other it seems.

And does this prohibition on sexually arousing oneself in public apply to women too, I wonder? Presumably women can become aroused on public transport by an attractive man? And I know a girl (well, a few, actually) who used to get a very satisfying—and very definitely sexual—feeling out of riding her bike on Edinburgh's cobbled streets.

There is only one conclusion that I can come to: The Bug is absolutely fucking insane. And a miserable old cow to boot.

UPDATE 4: being a sporting chap, I left the following comment on her blog at 23.51 this evening (although something's wrong with her blog clock, which shows it as 3.48pm).
Since "it is inappropriate to sexually arouse oneself in public", can we also ban women riding bicycles on cobbled streets?

DK

Let us see how long it lasts...

25 comments:

leg-iron said...

Isn't it racist to refer to exotic food as 'smelly' these days? Three-year-olds have been branded nazis for turning their noses up at other people's foods.

Ah, wait - the Righteous don't need to follow their own rules. I forgot.

Anonymous said...

Do people actually view porn on public transport? I really can't imagine that this is a massive issue.

I'm personally much more interested in what steps the Mayor of London and the national government will take to combat the extremely dangerous and widely available chemical dihydrogen monoxide. I'm hoping that Boris will take the lead in banning this substance from London once and for all.

Carl Richardson said...

Feminists are always good for a laugh.

Now if only Metro had a 'page 3'...

Angry Steve said...

She's talking about Page 3 here, not a bloke whipping out a copy of Club, and going at it.

I she needs some perspective. And probably a shag.

Bill said...

I deleted the said silly chap's comments and also others left by the poll saboteurs. I have kept some comments that make slightly interesting points even though I disagree with the spirit in which they were left

This is an update she has posted on her blog, illustrating rather neatly her disdain for free speech; of course I delete 'profanity' from comments in my own blog, but I normally leave the rest of the comment unchanged so that the 'favour' is still quite clear, even if the 'bad words' are not.

At the time I viewed her blog ALL the comments have been removed, deposite what she says in her blog update.

Bill said...

'flavour' not 'favour'

JuliaM said...

"Do people actually view porn on public transport? "

As angry steve suggests, the dim mare is almost certainly talking about page 3 or a copy of 'FHM'...

3. It is intimidating to female passengers

Oh, go burn your bra, you uppity frigid little cow! Anyone 'intimidated' by the likes of a soft porn magazine probably should be riding unaccompanied on the Tube in the first place! Get thee to a nunnery...

US said...

She deleted my comment when I suggested that if she wanted the Sport and FHM, etc banned then maybe they should get rid of OK and Hello.

I guess I must be that 'silly fellow'.

Stupid bitch.

Robin said...

Anonymous 6;42

Considering that the chemical you mentioned could damage or affect the electricity system and the brakes on the Underground, I dont know why it isn`t controlled. (When I transport it in my truck,I dont even need to dilute it down.)
In its frozen form, it`s used as an aid to intoxication in certian clubs in the London area.

Jones said...

What does the poll mean by 'porn'? Does it use the classic definition "Material intended to corrupt and deprave", or "Pictures of girls in skimpy underwear" or "Naked fast machinery". Do people actually feel emboldened enough to read that stuff on public transport?

The framing of the basic premise is unclear. Frankly, I think someone's tinfoil hat has slipped off.

Ian B said...

Well, it's strange and annoying that the left get this reputation for being "liberal" (which conservatives, even more annoyingly, continually help them perpetuate) when the truth is the left are every bit as prudish as the right, they just use different excuses (instead of saving our souls, they're preventing oppression of women, &c). The liberal times that started around the 60s weren't because of the left, they were a result of the battle between the left and right hitting a point where neither side had control of the cultural hegemony and some freedom bled through the gap, so to speak. Now the Left are firmly in charge, we're back to misery, restriction and censorship. The labour party was never very socialist after all; more a squad of reformist vicars like Blair and Broon.

Anyway, as to that empowerment thing. Yes, porn does empower women, because every girl who gets her kit off and does unspeakable things for the camera is a slap in the face for the ultra-conservative feminist movement like what you're talking about here. Every dirty bird in a jazz mag is saying "I don't want to be saved, sod off you boot faced old trouts".

Conservative moral prudishness, terror of the naked (particularly female) form and control of sexuality lie deep in the black heart of every authoritarian, whether they call themselves "left" or "right".

TheFatBigot said...

I'd have used public transport more had I known there was porn available.

The tube system was at its best when there were smoking carriages. You could save a fortune by getting in and having a deep inhale rather than buying ciggies.

Perhaps they should have different carriages for different people. There could be a smokers' carriage, a cocaine users' carriage, one for children, one with heterosexualist porn, one with male homosexualist porn, one with female homosexualist porn, one for vegetarians (free raffia sandals provided) and one for humourless, selfish, bigoted, narrow-minded arses.

Katabasis said...

Thanks for flagging this DK.

I've met and debated a lot of feminists over the years. All of them except two have themselves been the most vicious, insidious sexists I've ever met - towards men.

Fi said...

She must assume everyone has an industrial sized printer with unlimited coloured ink if she expects people to print out those covers for the tabloids.

Mark Wadsworth said...

The Bug missed off a couple of really important things from anti-social behaviour on public transport, such as blowing yourself up or stabbing somebody.

Those are the ones that upset me most, really.

Anonymous said...

You've all been fucking trolled.

No way is The Bug serious. "It is inappropriate to sexually arouse oneself in public"?? AHAHAHAHA! I can't believe you fuckers fell for that.

Bug, I salute you. You are the troll's troll.

Carl Richardson said...

DK,

I tried to grab a screenshot from my internet history. Unfortunately the poll was running in an IFRAME and so I couldn’t get a shot of the options. However, I did manage to get a shot of the question and there was a poll for men underneath the main poll, at least there was when I viewed it.

The screenshot is here

Katabasis said...

She's getting quite a workout hitting the delete key at the moment.

Carl Richardson said...

I like this bit at the bottom of her latest post:

“Unfortunately I had to end the poll early, because a silly chap decided to put a link up on his blog and the poll was suddenly flooded with other silly people who decided to sabotage the poll.“

How dare you link to her post. That’s not in the spirit of blogging!

But really, how exactly does she equate voting in a poll with sabotage? What’s she afraid of, a broad representation of people voting instead of just whining feminists? Oh wait a minute...

Katabasis said...

For anyone who's interested - I linked to this
in my comments on her blog. I was hoping she might be (wo)man enough to respond to it.

Sadly not.

CitizenZero said...

I just left the following comment but I don't expect it to stay there long:

"Here's an idea for all the feminists here who may object to the sight of a mildly titilating image in someone else's newspaper: Don't look at it.

People don't usually buy newspapers and magazines for the benefit of others so the content of those publications is really noone else's business is it?

You say the reading of these newspapers and magazines is somehow rude, insensitive and offensive but you fail to grasp the following:

* These publications are perfectly legal to purchase and read in public.

* Noone has the right not to be offended.

* No offense is actually intended by the people who are reading these publications.

* The world does not revolve around you.

Might I suggest you either learn to be a little more tolerant og other people's preferences or, failing that, just stay at home."

What a bunch of crazy old harridens.

Carl Richardson said...

She’s deleted my comment, Katabasis and DK’s as well as her own replies.

Censorship from a censor – what’s the world coming to?

This was mine:

I applaud your efforts sister.

But why stop at banning porn on buses? Ban it all I say.

The women involved in the industry are clearly been abused with high salaries and fame. In fact, I bet most of them are forced into the industry by those nasty sex obsessed males. Been a porn star isn’t a choice; it’s another form of slavery (albeit with a good pension deal).

We all need to take a stand and stop this travesty now!

Men just aren’t aware that it only takes one to tango.

Roger Thornhill said...

If The Bug wants to sort out mags, then she should direct her energies to Heat, Closer, Hello etc which seem hell-bent on scaring women and making them utterly insecure.

The Bug might want to watch this video that talks over how her "sisters" are into, erm, self-harm.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHdbcbzLnOM

Henry Crun said...

I note that The Bug (somehow that reminds me of the old Burl Ives song "Ugly Bug Ball") did respond to DK re his cobbled street comment to the effect that if DK thought riding a bike down a cobbled street was somehow pleasurable, then he (DK) was an inconsiderate lover.

In response, I asked how would she know what constituted an incosiderate lover as from the tone of her website it would appear that all her lovers are battery operated.

It's not there anymore. Tut. If you are going to slag blokes off in general as being rapists - then it's only fair that you take the brickbats along with the gushing praise from other feminazis.

Vicola said...

For goodness sakes, the last time I used the Tube some rampant pervert tried to stick his hand up my skirt then made an undisguised lunge for my boobs. I responded with a swift stiletto applied to his feet and a 'Who the hell do you think you are you dirty little sod?" at top volume. A bloke reading Nuts or whatever is the least of a girl's issues on public transport and at least if he's got his hands full with a magazine he's not trying to get a double fistful of your bra. The Bug needs to get out more. I suspect she's just frustrated because no one is making a lunge for her womanly bits and she's cross about it.