I'm starting to hate men

I disagree with your use of the word moral. Let's go with respectful.

PHSE needs to start early and be continuously reinforced. Lessons on consent in general can also start early - you can't make anyone play with you, you don't have to kiss auntie Anne if you don't want to etc

Respecting others and their bodies as autonomous with as much right as you to enjoyment isn't hard.

This doesn't negate sexual drive, just frames it as something that needs to be mutually consensual and enjoyable. Few people would force a mate to come for a Chinese if he didn't fancy Chinese food; they'd look for something both parties liked. No one would expect to keep a friendship if they pushed the other person into doing things they didn't like. Kids can grasp this message. Seriously.

Fair point, Polidori. Okay should the Sun be petitioned to take down page3.com?

Oh and millenials might not be reading the Sun but:

It had an average daily circulation of 2.2 million copies in March 2014.[4] Between July and December 2013 the paper had an average daily readership of approximately 5.5 million, with approximately 31% of those falling into the ABC1 demographic and 68% in the C2DE demographic.

No-one ever asked for the print Sun to he censored

I agree that a focus on sex education is a good thing, obviously, and completely agree with Bates on that. It might do some good. But really, it will ultimately it will be powerless against the onslaught of pornography if there is no regulation. Sexual desire is one of the most powerful forces in the world, particularly for young eople; if their plastic minds are subjected to infinite varieties of pornography from the age of 8 then some PSE lessons will not make a great deal of difference.

And if there is to be sex ed it should not be of this wooly, 'don't do anything that makes you feel uncomfortable but it's up to you' variety. It should be: don't sext ever, it could ruin your life. Don't send pictures of your penis to girls. Don't proposition girls for sex. There should, in short, be some sort of moral instruction: not just advice. Young people require clear moral guidelines.

Why do you keep using the word "censor"? NMP3 was about asking the paper to change its publishing policy.

The Sun runs a website called page3.com. I haven't been on it but think I can guess the content.

This certainly is the John thread now.

Hides thread.

Here's a question for people: Suppose the Sun completely got rid of its print edition and became a purely online newspaper, with a picture of a topless woman everyday. Would it be right to censor it then?

IP addresses, not ISP

So do you agree that Laura isn't a hypocrite? She just disagrees with you about the best way to tackle the internet porn issue?

Laura's suggestion is to focus on sex education in schools and ensure that the message that porn is not a realistic depiction of how things should be gets through.

Your suggestion is to focus on government action. I have my doubts on the effectiveness of that, given the ease with which ISP addresses etc can be changed and the fact that I would expect any such ruling to be challenged in the courts. So even as a stop gap measure, isn't Laura's focus on education a good thing? Especially as blocking porn wouldn't stop sexting for example - kids need to know that is both illegal and disrespectful.

No, she isn't uncritical of it, but she is, I believe, against any attempt to censor it.

Xneophile I do see that they are on a spectrum ( the 'Blurred Lines' video clearly borrowed from porn culture), but they are not, in my humble opinion, the main issue. To use an analogy, it's rather like the MP's expenses scandal. Everyone, albeit rightly' got ery indignant about MP's abusing the expenses system and there was a media furore. Everyone apologizes nd then we go back to normal, with the with the wider economic system of zero hours contracts, punitive policies against the poor and disabled and obscene executive pay going unchallenged. If people focus too much on one issue rather than the surrounding economic structure, then nothing really changes.

Laura Bates is hardly "yeah, whatever" about the impact of internet porn. See:

www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/mar/29/everyday-sexism-women-encounter-laura-bates

What is different about the internet? After all you can’t see this sort of material on television. People who say they “oppose censorship” are not campaigning for the complete deregulation of every other form of media. Would they be happy if a television station wanted to screen hard-core porn in the after-school slot?

And of course the government are capable of blocking URL's. Of course the power of censorship can be abused. I would be far more wary of such government powers if I was living in Iran. But as we're not living a dictatorial theocracy I should think that limiting government prohibition to porn should be quite viable. After all, BBC 2 does not allow pornography but there all still investigative documentaries exposing government abuse of power.

It is online that sexist shit IS being normalised, not on Page 3. What millennial reads the Sun - or in fact ever buys a newspaper? Teenage boys and girls are now exposed to an infinite array of degrading pornography via their smart phones. Some become addicted. Furthermore, they are encouraged and bullied into producing sexualized videos of themselves which end up on the internet forever. They are victimized by paedophiles. Teenage boys think it normal to propose anal sex to girls. Some are even encouragred by feminists to explore their sexuality through porn. I mean, I'm sure the thing about Page 3 being waved at schoolgirls happened, but that surely pales in comparison to the skyrocketing child on child abuse, the addiction, the victimization and total distortion of young people's developing minds resulting from this sort of intravenous drip of filth? 10 great olds are now sexting. That is a major problem, and will become a greater one.

Also if you think these feminists have flawed logic (according to you obviously), please take it up with them. They are individuals with their own minds (all of them intelligent) I'm sure they'd be more than happy to listen to your lectures theories not.

We aren't all a hive mind. We don't all have to sing from the same hymn sheet (as we are fond of inserting religious connotations into our feminist discussions). We are allowed to disagree.

That is one of the beauties of feminism. We don't have to follow patriarchal hierarchies and tow certain lines.

You can count me as one who deplores online porn. Obviously.

"Therefore why don't more of these people want to block public access to pornography? "

I've no idea what percentage of NMP3 supporters deplore online porn; I'd've estimated it was most but not all. You can count me as one. Didn't stop me donating to their campaign, which was ultimately successful in print, meaning millions of copies a year of topless photos aren't being looked at on a bus (much rarer to read playboy et al on public transport) and those photos aren't making women and girls (and quite possibly men and boys) uncomfortable in a public space, nor ending up donated for papier mâché projects at a local primary school...

Stuff that is put in our eyelines without our consent matters. It's why playboy et al is on the top shelf or in wrappers.

And this is why you shouldn't make a brew while writing a post... some other bugger comes along and posts similar far better!

Kudos to Polidori.

This is what I reckon feminists should do: rather than go on about Page 3 and song lyrics, they should campaign for ISP's to filter out all URLs containing extreme and violent pornography.

You keep posting about some kind of moral outrage that women must feel about things you feel moral outrage about. And yet you seem incapable of comprehending that Page3, song lyrics, pornography, trafficking and prostitution are on the same spectrum of misogyny. Your attempts to obfuscate your central message of women: how they're wrong about everything in long meandering sentences buried within endless screeds of script isn't working well for you.

Please, stop telling women what to do based on your deeply flawed perception of what constitutes feminist activism. If you have issues with the way women are portrayed in porn, then might I suggest that you take your opinions and post them on fora that discuss pornography. I contend that you will fail in this because you won't be met with the wry humour and tolerance you have been on this forum.

"Can you think of any reason why people might be unsettled by the idea of the government controlling what can be accessed online, while at the same time deploring what is on there and the attitudes that that represents?"

And this!

"Feminism isn't just a little club of people meeting in the treehouse on Saturdays and deciding what to combat next."

We SO should get a treehouse.

"There's a root cause which is the notion (sometimes conscious, often not) that women are less than men, and aren't entitled to the same rights, opportunities and freedoms as men. And there are a zillion symptoms of that cause, such as Page 3, FGM, pay inequality, trafficking, DV, gender roles presented to youngsters, etc etc.

All feminists (I guess) want the root cause and its effects to end."

This.

Have you thought she may have changed her mind . People do.

And what Poldori said.

You seem to be fixated on men being able to have orgasms. I wonder why that is?

Can you think of any reason why people might be unsettled by the idea of the government controlling what can be accessed online, while at the same time deploring what is on there and the attitudes that that represents?

Furthermore can you see any difference between sexist shit being available online and sexist shit being normalised in a mainstream newspaper and waved at schoolgirls on the bus?

Also can you see any difference between tackling a relatively easy task of asking a publisher not to publish misogynistic shit in a daily paper, and the massive complexities involved in deciding whether to sign over rights of intrusion and censorship to the government so that they can embark on the practically impossible task of policing the internet on our behalf?

Suzanne Moore did write an article arguing against censorship of online porn some years back. You cannot reasonably argue against the dehumanisation of women on Page 3 (albeit rightly) and say that vile, degrading pornograohy should be readily accessible to all on the internet. That is a ludicrous contradiction - and the kind of view espoused by people who claim to be on the left but judge government intervention in the sexual marketplace to be an infringement of free choice.

Batteries: all I can do is insist that that was not what I meant. I don't like Page 3 and do see why it is construed as emblematic of female subjugation. Therefore why don't more of these people want to block public access to pornography? Beats me. After all, if any sad sack does enjoy looking at a picture of women's breasts he can just as easily buy the Sport; or, indeed, he doesn't have to even spend 60p on a tabloid rag; he can log on online where, as Laurie Penny says ' David Cameron has no business telling us what we can polish our lamps to'. ????

With or without some boobs on P3

That is a mysogynist, twattish thing to say.

There are never just 'some boobs' on P3. A picture of disembodied breasts wouldn't get the same response, would it? There is always a woman on P3 with her breasts uncovered.

some boobs I'm so fucking disgusted by that expression on a feminist thread. Fucking shameful.