to think that there has been an over reaction to the Dr Pepper incident?

[TheCoalitionNeedsYou]

Not my opinion but that of Chiabom amongst others who can hopefully continue the debate here instead.

Valpollicella - I don't see any good reason why I would, it sounds a tad pointless, but if there were a good reason, yes. I don't find it offensive or disgusting, I wouldn't care if I saw someone walking around with that. I'm sure I'd be hesitant to walk on school grounds with that sort of message with the fear of being detained by the authorities.

Valpollicella - I was browsing the internet and I happened to fall upon a story about this situation and this website's thread was in the link, I decided to click it and take a look and I found that I didn't like what was being said and decided to rebut it, then upon browsing the site, I Found plenty of other things, and now I'm here to give my input on things and discuss things with others of different standpoints.

What is "pornography"? Surely the term covers a wide range of images/writing? Is all of it admissible in everywhere? Even pornography that portrays actions that would contravene our agreed stance on issues such as racism, sexism, etc? Is pornography somehow ringed about with tolerance just because it's pornography?

And should we never judge pornography, any pornography by the conditions of its production (possibly coerced wither by economics or pure force) and circulation (possibly criminal) or possible use (to coerce a subject into practices in the private sphere s/he may not initially feel comfortable with)?

And what does "public sphere" mean? Is it a free zone, where all is permitted? Or are there some things that need to be excluded from the public sphere because their presence there necessarily excludes the presence of (some) members of the public? (Normal example here would be forms of racist, sexist, homophobic, violent behaviour/activity).

I would be well pissed off with this popping up on my FB status - and I'm 46 - because it would imply that family-friendly Coca-Cola have decided that this now constitutes an acceptable joke in the public sphere. It's not. I'd have been very surprised that my consent to being "embarassed" would have been taken as consent for such an out-there "joke" with reference to an extreme practice and set of images.

Never mind the whole children issue.

so, no, I don't think it went too far.

That's the thing about public spaces, like the internet, like culture - people debate about what it contains.

And, hey, looks like there's a bit of consensus here, around the adolescent issue, anyway.

Looks like you're on the other side of the consensus this time.

I say: "Suck it up."

Now you know what it feels like for me: I live in public spaces filled with sexist shit. It's crap. I sometimes feel radically unhomed and uncomfortable in that "public" space.

Sorry if this one went against you, and you feel "unhomed". But I'm sure something you see or hear tomorrow will make you feel better.

LittleRedDragon - My sentences make sense, I feel. Perhaps they're a bit dragged, but I feel they're sufficient for understanding what is being said. There are plenty of people I've spoken to in my day whose English is horribly broken and difficult to understand and I could still understand what they're trying to get across to me. So I do apologize that my grammar is not up to your standards, if you'd like to disregard my posts due to this, please feel free to.

Could you clarify for me, then, whether or not you meant what I understood you to mean? Did you mean that you think any normal 14-year-old will already have seen scat porn (and therefore, it won't matter if they see a reference to it)?

No, I mean any normal 14 year old will not be traumatized by it and it is next to harmless for any normal 14 year old to be exposed to it. I'm not saying that they should be exposed to it, but "protecting" them from it is a useless act that helps in no way.

"but if there were a good reason, yes."

Would the potential prize money of £1000 be a good enough reson then to publicise 2g1c?

'I don't find it offensive or disgusting, I wouldn't care if I saw someone walking around with that.'

Again, not what I was getting at. Maybe I should have been clearer... I don't really care that you're not offended by it. That's great. But. The minors who you (or Coca Cola) are showing it to may well have parents who are outraged/disgusted/etc

'I'm sure I'd be hesitant to walk on school grounds with that sort of message with the fear of being detained by the authorities.'

I didn't specifically say 'grounds' but still. You'd still be scared to be appearing to parade this to 14 year ols yes? For fear of being approached by the authorities...

'I intended to show the overreaction, why it was an overreaction, and that lead to how pornography being viewed by the youth is not a big deal, not that it should be legal (or that it shouldn't) but it's not a big deal, and that was what seemed to be happening in that thread. People were overly offended'

So it's an overreaction here on MN? But you wouldn't 'spread the word ' about how its not a bit deal, cos you'd be worried about getting into hot water with the police if it were you?

Chiabom Tue 20-Jul-10 22:44:46
No, I mean any normal 14 year old will not be traumatized by it

Can you define 'normal' please?

You know that every 'normal' 14 yo won't be traumatised??

How can you prove this extremely sweeping fact?

(And I use the word fact lightly, as not sure how on earth it could ever be proved)

Chiabom - the "joke" was an act of placing this into the mainstream cultural conversation.

What is "trauma"? It's hard to measure. But, I will go out on a limb here and I will say that porn like that becoming part of the "cultural wallpaper" would/will make me, at 46, seriously sad. I won't feel comfy in my female body.

I believe I have the right to live in a world where I do feel comfy in my body.

And this "joke" coming out as a part of an advertising campaign says to me that it is only by objecting that we will not have a culture where this is part of the wallpaper.

Because there appear to be way too many knobs out there who think it's fine as wallpaper.

Though I suspect they may not have female bodies.

Great post Animula

I see Chiabom. I don't think you are right. But also, even if it's only the 'abnormal' (and I'm not sure I like using that term) who are upset by it, doesn't that still matter?

Btw, as an aside, I will say I remember a friend telling me what 'strawberries and cream' meant in, as pornographic slang, and I found it really bothered me. I was about 21 and have no history of sexual abuse, have had lots of lovely sex, etc. But maybe I am one of your 'abnormal' ones who're bothered by these things, or maybe it's not a fair comparison of terms.

'... meant,in as pornographic slang'

Forgive me if this was answered on the other thread, but how does protecting children from pornography mean that they are being kept in ignorance?

I have talked to my children about sex and masturbation, and have answered their questions honestly and openly and at a level appropriate to their ages. I have achieved all this without once having to resort to pornography.

I do not believe that pornography paints a terribly realistic picture of what sex is like - most of us are not muscly and hung like donkeys or pneumatic sex dolls, so I cannot see how pornography is going to provide better information or advice for a child or teenager than age-appropriate sex education at school allied to open and honest discussion with parents.

I believe that with sex, as with most things, you start by learning the basics - the anatomy, the ins and outs, the connection between having sex and having babies, the place of sex in a loving and mutually respectful relationship - and then your knowledge carries on developing and growing throughout your life. Pornography doesn't show sex as part of a relationship, and I certainly don't believe that pornography is respectful towards women - who seem most often to be depicted as barbie-doll replicas there simply for the benefit of the men - not something I wish my sons to learn, or indeed any parent of sons is going to want them to learn, nor something any loving parent of daughters is going to want for their girl.

I don't think that there is anything wrong with fetishes between consenting adults - but that is the key - the adult consent. Children do not have the emotional maturity to handle making decisions about fetishes, in my opinion, so should not be exposed to depictions of fetishes so yes, I would want to protect my sons from these things. I know that I can't stop up all possible avenues for this information - friends, chat at school etc - but I do not think that it should be thrust to their attention by a multi-national corporation's marketing department. Had one of my dses got that 'status', I would have been just as infuriated and angry as the original poster over on the other thread.

So no, I do not think that there has been an over-reaction on the other thread and to the issue as a whole, and I do think that it is right for children to be protected from pornography, because it does not portray a good or healthy image of sexuality and sex, and is not going to help give them a good self image or help them make good relationships with members of the opposite sex.

There is a place, and particularly a time, for everything, and childhood is the time and place for learning at an appropriate level and pace, and from the best sources. There's plenty of time for further exploration when they are adults.

I notice that Chiabom hasn't answered (on this thread, at least) the question about whether they have children. I find it hard to believe that any loving parent could argue that showing pornography to children is anything other than a bad thing.

Chaidom answered about children in the 22:28 post. They don't have them - personally I don't think that makes a difference to if their position is valid or not.

"but if there were a good reason, yes."

Would the potential prize money of £1000 be a good enough reson then to publicise 2g1c? hmm"

A thousand pounds to flaunt around a sentence that isn't a big deal? Of course I would do that.

'I don't find it offensive or disgusting, I wouldn't care if I saw someone walking around with that.'

Again, not what I was getting at. Maybe I should have been clearer... I don't really care that you're not offended by it. That's great. But. The minors who you (or Coca Cola) are showing it to may well have parents who are outraged/disgusted/etc"

Yes, that's who I'm arguing against, that's my entire point. The parents really shouldn't be outraged or disgusted, as it isn't a big deal.

'I'm sure I'd be hesitant to walk on school grounds with that sort of message with the fear of being detained by the authorities.'

I didn't specifically say 'grounds' but still. You'd still be scared to be appearing to parade this to 14 year ols yes? For fear of being approached by the authorities..."

Yes, that would be sensible, why would I put myself in harms way for no reason? I'm not agreeing with what Coca Cola did, please understand this, I'm only saying it's not a big deal. Even if there was no harm to come of it, I wouldn't do it as it just seems stupid to do, but it's not a big deal. I nor anyone else should be enraged about.

'I intended to show the overreaction, why it was an overreaction, and that lead to how pornography being viewed by the youth is not a big deal, not that it should be legal (or that it shouldn't) but it's not a big deal, and that was what seemed to be happening in that thread. People were overly offended'

So it's an overreaction here on MN? hmm But you wouldn't 'spread the word ' about how its not a bit deal, cos you'd be worried about getting into hot water with the police if it were you?"

I'm here spreading the word that it's not a big deal because it's a topic. I'm not going to go outside with a megaphone and start shouting "2 girls 1 cup is not a big deal!" that's pointless. Here, it's not, because this is what is being discussed.

"What about the messages in such material i.e women only exist for male titillation, eating shit and vomiting it is somehow normal (nay, widespread).......?"

Oh goodness, there's such a different between the two philosophies, one relating to the standpoint of a human being the other about a fetish, it's almost comical to need to compare the two, I apologize. I do believe in severity, and I honestly can't bring myself to justify scat porn as normal on the same level as female inferiority (which isn't a true philosophy) as normal in the same respect, and I can't argue female inferiority as I do not believe in it.

"Chiabom - just out of interest, are you in the US? Am not trying to have a go or trip you up (honest), but I have a friend who is American and her sentence construction is quite similar to yours. Just for those who are wondering why your posts "sound" different, that might explain why."

Yes, I'm from the US.

"No, I mean any normal 14 year old will not be traumatized by it

Can you define 'normal' please?"

Sure! dictionary.reference.com/browse/Normal

"You know that every 'normal' 14 yo won't be traumatised??"

No, I feel that every normal 14 year old would be able to handle it without curling up on the side of their bed and not leaving their room for three weeks.

"I see Chiabom. I don't think you are right. But also, even if it's only the 'abnormal' (and I'm not sure I like using that term) who are upset by it, doesn't that still matter?"

I wouldn't use abnormal either, the word exception sounds like a much more pleasing euphemism. Should it still matter? I think it should, but it doesn't in most cases. Society strives to meet the needs of the normal.

"Btw, as an aside, I will say I remember a friend telling me what 'strawberries and cream' meant in, as pornographic slang, and I found it really bothered me. I was about 21 and have no history of sexual abuse, have had lots of lovely sex, etc. But maybe I am one of your 'abnormal' ones who're bothered by these things, or maybe it's not a fair comparison of terms."

There's nothing wrong with being offended by it, some people are, I just don't think they should get enraged over it. I can understand being offended by things, it happens, but to react in the manner I was opposing on the old topic, I feel is uncalled for and would refer to it as "overreacting"

Do you know what I don't get?

Why you are having such a problem taking the"No" seriously.

You keep telling us we shouldn't be outraged, we shouldn't feel this, we should feel that.

Why are our feelings so illegitimate?

Why is our "no" so wrong?

Do we not have the right to say "no"?

Or is it merely that our "no" was acted upon that was offensive?

You, like the DrPepper ad team, keep telling us we should take this as a joke. We've lost our sense of humour. We've taken it the wrong way. We don't understand.

It's a little bit creepy, because it is rather like the dynamic of that ad. "Hey up - this is funny." And being amazed that, actually, for some of us, it can feel a long way from funny.

'Society strives to meet the needs of the normal'.

Does it? Should it? Neither are true imo - just look at disability discrimination laws if you don''t believe me.

There is a difference between being 'offended' by something, and being upset, or traumatized. I don't too much care if someone is offended, but not hurt. I care tremendously if they are traumatized.

The real worry here, surely, would be those teenagers who weren't remotely offended - who didn't even think of being offended - but who were, ultimately, hurt or traumatized what they read or saw.

FFS this quoting business is getting tiresome but

#"You know that every 'normal' 14 yo won't be traumatised??"

No, I feel that every normal 14 year old would be able to handle it without curling up on the side of their bed and not leaving their room for three weeks.#

You said know in your original post.

Now you 'feel'.

So which is it? And how on Earth can you make the edict that you feel that every normal 14 yo wouldn't be traumatised by seeing it? How about if an app 'normal' to you 14 had previosuly been abused? Would that be covered by your 'normal' judgement?

"but if there were a good reason, yes."

Would the potential prize money of £1000 be a good enough reson then to publicise 2g1c? hmm"

A thousand pounds to flaunt around a sentence that isn't a big deal? Of course I would do that.

But you wouldn't do it where you might get arrested/cautioned. Happy to spout off about in on the internet though...

iiiiiintersting....

Well said, animula.

I think, btw, that there is a world of difference between graphic images/descriptions of mainstream, enjoyed and enjoyable sex, and this.

Oh and btw, I asked you what your def of normal was, not the dictionary version