Viewing Porn on Public Transport and Exposing Others to it is ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR.
It is anti-social behaviour because:
- It exposes passengers to indecent images
- It is inappropriate to sexually arouse oneself in public
- 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:
- Not exposing others to second-hand smoke
- Not drinking alcohol on the tube
- Not putting your feet on seats
- Not eating smelly food
- Not playing your music loud
- Not sitting in your seat if someone needs it more than you
- 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:
- A complete ban, similar to the ban on alcohol
- A campaign for consideration of other passengers similar to the campaign to be considerate when listening to music
- 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.
- 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 +++
- 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...
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?
Let us see how long it lasts...