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.

TCNY - thankyou for the information. Whether or not Chiabom has children was relevant to me in that I found it hard to believe that someone who had children would be able to argue that protecting them from porn was a bad thing.

Maybe it'd be more helpful to ask what proportion of people are 'normal' in Chiabom's view? Are you thinking of 99% of teens here, or 65, say?

Oh I asked that (twice, kinda) LittleRD

No answer funnily enough....

Animula, you are ignoring what I am saying. I am against what Coca Cola did, I have not once in my time being said it was okay, that I agreed with it or that it was a joke, I said it shouldn't be met with disgust and outrage, because it is not a big deal. It causes no harm to anyone other than to the overly sensitive. It's not funny, I agree, they should not have been allowed to do that. But it isn't a big deal. It's minor, no one was hurt, no one was killed. No one spent the day sobbing due to the mental trauma caused by this. Everyone moved on in their day like they would any other day except for the oversensitive ones from the previous thread who felt that this was an outrage.

Yes, I am telling you you shouldn't feel this way, but I am not leading this sentence on by just saying you should feel "that" way, I'm giving you a good reason why.

StayingDavidTennantsGirl -

"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?"

Because that is what ignorance is. If you don't know something, you are ignorant of it.

"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."

It's not protection.

LittleRedDragon -

'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."

Desires and needs are different things, LittleRedDragon.

"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."

The only people I can imagine being traumatized by this are the very sheltered and "protected" sorts. Furthermore, there's no reason to be traumatized by this, it's simply not traumatizing. Those who would be traumatized by this would surely be traumatized in their education while learning about the Holocaust and other tragic events in world history.

Sorry Val. I am honestly struggling to read Chiabom's posts so I've been skimming a bit and missed that.

I just feel a bit sad that the attitude seems to be, 'oh well, if you don't like this you're not normal and we can't cater for that'. It's no fun at all being a teenager who's feeling uncertain about sex and feeling you're the only one repulsed by something everyone else appears to find funny or sexy, must be awful.

Cross-posted there Chiabom.

I know desires and needs are different things, but could you answer my question please? Does society strive to meet the needs of the normal? As far as I can see, it plainly does more than this. Should it? No, because we live in a world with pretensions to civilization.

By the way, how is it a teenager's fault if he or she is 'sheltered', as you put it? And might not some teens who had been very much unprotected, also have reason to be upset by this?

I couldn't give you an accurate statistic, Valpollicella, I didn't even see you ask that question. If I had to make an estimate, I'd say 75% maybe 85% would by not bothered by it at all, minus some nausea for the weak-stomached. Some would be offended, but certainly not traumatized.

"TCNY - thankyou for the information. Whether or not Chiabom has children was relevant to me in that I found it hard to believe that someone who had children would be able to argue that protecting them from porn was a bad thing. "

I don't plan on protecting my children when I have them from this non-important thing. If they see it, they see it, I promise you, I will not care. I won't show it to them though, if it's something they happen to see, then so be it. If they're offended by it, they won't do it again.

I should add, making reference to some kind of hierarchy of pain is, surely, crass?

'The only people I can imagine being traumatized by this are the very sheltered and "protected" sorts.'

What, you mean like minors who shouldn't be exposed to 2g1c?

ffs

I have not once in my time being said it was okay, that I agreed with it or that it was a joke, I said it shouldn't be met with disgust and outrage, because it is not a big deal.

But. You pretty much said that the thought of £1000 made it ok.

If I gave you £1000, would you stand outside a local high school with that same message on a sandwich board?

No

Because you'd be too scared of the police...As you said above

No worries LRD

75%. Isn't that the same figure for women who will experience sexual violence at some point in their lives?

I'd say 75% maybe 85% would by not bothered by it at all, minus some nausea for the weak-stomached. Some would be offended, but certainly not traumatized.

And where do you glean this research from?

Have you shown a focus groupr the video individually and recorded their responses away from peers?

Seriously, you're making a judgement. This isn't fact by a loooong way

LRD

although please do remember that his figures are made up as they have no basis in research. He 'reckons'...

"I know desires and needs are different things, but could you answer my question please? Does society strive to meet the needs of the normal? As far as I can see, it plainly does more than this. Should it? No, because we live in a world with pretensions to civilization."

Absolutely not, it shouldn't cater to one party over another, but if two parties oppose each other, catering to them both would be impossible, so society, as I've observed, caters to the majority. The majority becomes normal.

"By the way, how is it a teenager's fault if he or she is 'sheltered', as you put it? And might not some teens who had been very much unprotected, also have reason to be upset by this?"

If they're sheltered, they might be naturally sheltered due to their own personal, non-influenced point of view or the parents caused it by being over-protective, I know this post won't be met kindly.

But Val, to be fair, he's backtracked from saying he 'knows', and he can only make a judgment, there aren't any stats on this.

I am more worried by the casual implication that it's fine to upset 1 in 4 women.

Chiabom, I don't think society works like that at all. As I mentioned, disability discrimination law is a good example. Sadly, so too is racism. In this country, the BNP (far-right party) has been forced to admit non-white members, even though there are far more BNP members than there are non-white people wishing to join.

I'm sorry ... I don't recognize the society you describe at all.

I have not once in my time being said it was okay, that I agreed with it or that it was a joke, I said it shouldn't be met with disgust and outrage, because it is not a big deal."

But. You pretty much said that the thought of £1000 made it ok."

I didn't say it made it okay, I said I would do it because I like money.

If I gave you £1000, would you stand outside a local high school with that same message on a sandwich board?

No

Because you'd be too scared of the police...As you said above"

I said I'd be hesitant, and thinking about it, for a thousand pounds, I would regardless of the authorities, however if no money were being offered to me, absolutely not.

"And where do you glean this research from?

Have you shown a focus groupr the video individually and recorded their responses away from peers?

Seriously, you're making a judgement. This isn't fact by a loooong way "

I'm considering not responding to you any longer as you clearly cannot read. I said "I can't give you an accurate statistic" which means, "I'm not sure but..."

And then I said, "if I had to make an estimate" which means, I clearly have no proven statistics and I openly admitted to it. Please read my posts before replying to them.

Please don't mistake my words for saying it's okay to disregard the minority, I disagree with that, but that's how observed it is. Unfortunately, I really can't continue this discussion right now, I must be leaving as I too have things to attend to. I will be back later or tomorrow to continue this.

I clearly cannot read.......?

Wow.

I have got this far without being able to read. Amazing

Your considering not answering me anyomeore cos I'm asking you questions?

Last point...

I didn't say it made it okay, I said I would do it because I like money.

So you'd do it for £1000?

Wow. Again

You ask questions that I've clearly answered moments ago, and ignore what I've said. I'd wear a sign that has no meaning for a thousand pounds? I'd be stupid not to.

#"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.#

Where did you answer that one? Did I miss that one?

"By the way, how is it a teenager's fault if he or she is 'sheltered', as you put it? And might not some teens who had been very much unprotected, also have reason to be upset by this?"

If they're sheltered, they might be naturally sheltered due to their own personal, non-influenced point of view or the parents caused it by being over-protective, I know this post won't be met kindly.

Yes, because as a parent I wouldn't want my son viewing scat porn at 14....

Hmm. Seems to me it's very, very, very simple.

1. That ill-judged status was dreamt up by that PR firm because 2girls1cup is famous. It is famous, because it was judged to be really, really disgusting. Knowing this, the marketers still referred to it, when it is obvious to anyone with 10 brain-cells that unknowing people would google it. Perhaps those given the status, OR their younger friends.

2. Some years ago (when I was around high school age, actually) I started mucking around on the internet. I joined a fairly popular teens internet forum site, and learnt "nettiquette" and developed a sense of morality, as applied to internet interactions. Occasionally got modded for flaming, trolling, over-the-top vitriol, etc.

But there were some rules that I never broke. One of those rules was the one against posting obscene images. Another was the rule against tricking people into seeing images/videos, such as 2girls1cup. The automatic lifetime ban was only part of it. What I'm getting at is that as a teen, less than ten years ago, us yoof users found image trolls and similar pretty repugnant and pathetic, unless it was us or a friend doing it and, in short, hated the buggers.

3. Having been tricked into seeing 2girls1cup, people would then start threads about their reactions to it, and people would respond with theirs. Consensus was generally something like "I was sick/nearly sick". People would sometimes dare each other into watching it the WHOLE way through.

4. Last year I was on the train, and I heard some university students talking about 2girls1cup. One of the male members of the group had been tricked into seeing part of it the previous night. Apparently, he vomited.

5. As an internet user, I fully expect that my children will either come across unpleasant stuff as teenagers, or learn fast about not clicking suspicious links, just as I did. But I don't think that Coca Cola, a supposedly reputable company, run by mature adults, should be playing the role of internet troll. That's a role that should be the preserve of those who aren't old enough to know better. Like other teenagers.

Valpollicella - you seem to be reading everything I say in the wrong way.

1. I thought we cleared that I thought you meant "on school grounds with a sign" instead of "outside of a school with a sign" I wouldn't go parade on school grounds with a sign that said that attached to me, as I would probably be arrested. I would, however, stand outside of it, where I'm not on the premises of the school and do so for a thousand pounds, yes. There's a difference.

1. I've said in almost every one of my posts I do not encourage you to want or tell your teenager to watch scat porn, I merely said, if they see it, it doesn't matter. If they don't, good for them. Don't try to 'protect' them from it, because you're not. They're 14, they can handle it, it isn't that big a deal.

It seems to me, Chiabom, that your argument comes down to this:

You believe that scat porn is not a big deal and won't affect most people adversely, including children.
You believe this to be true despite lots of us telling you that it has affected us adversely. Clearly the level of outrage on the other thread indicates that many, many people do, in fact, think this is a big deal.
Yet you feel qualified to say that "The parents really shouldn't be outraged or disgusted, as it isn't a big deal."
This is presumely because it doesn't affect you adversely.

Which really boils down to the fact that you believe that your lived experience and opinions are more rational, appropriate and logical than ours.
Since you "can't argue female inferiority as [you] do not believe in it" perhaps you could provide us with "irrefutable proof and evidence" as to why your belief that it's not a big deal is more valid than our belief that it is?

This is quite odd.

Mrs R's thread taught me several rude phrases - and at least one weird 'sexual' practise - that I'd never heard of; I dodn't think I've lived a sheltered life!

I completely believe the Coca-Cola marketing person didn't pick up the reference. They should have asked "What's that about then?" but, for all I know, s/he had to approve hundreds of updates in ten minutes.

Mrs R did the right thing by bringing it to the company's attention. The campaign has been pulled and Coca-Cola will no doubt fire the "guerilla marketing" firm who were, clearly, just too "edgy". They didn't deserve to win the job anyway, imo, since they did it on the back of a nasty little sexist promo in April.

Quite where so much personal infighting & anti-corporate scaremongering comes into it, I don't know