To think this is vile

[RedRedWine1980]

www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1267500/Meet-SWAGS-Service-Wives-And-Girlfriends--cheeky-n aked-calendar-raised-26-000-Help-For-Heroes.html

Money raising or not- urghh, just urrrghh.

Off to bed too - frustrating but have enjoyed it too. I think some very valid points on both sides have been raised

Do I win a prize for predicting that answer?

BestLaidPlan's swastika flowerbed was spot on. Intentions pale into insignificance compared with the execution.

Why are we 'digging too deeply' if we find it offensive, demeaning and tacky?

Lucie, you yourself agreed that 'any working woman' might find this calendar 'intimidating' yet you continue to defend it.

I'd rather think about things "too" deeply, than not at all.
As I said somewhere at the very start, ignorance is no defence.

Carmen: Quite a lot of the houses I go to in the course of my work have swastikas painted on the doors/porch steps/lintels. This is because the people who live there consider the swastika a positive symbol ie they are displaying it in its original religious context rather than to indicate nazi sympathies. SHould they be forced to remove these decorations by law?
Also, the fact that someone is offended by something is not necessarily everyone else's problems. Being offended won't kill you. People have the right to offend you with their words, the images they create, the songs they sing and the clothes they wear, or don't wear. YOu have the right to be offended and whine and stamp your feet but in a free society you don't have the right to destroy or prohibit something just because you're offended by it

WRT this dog picture, the interpretations viewers put on it are their problem. Because not everyone is going to put the same interpretations on any given image: a picture of a man being tortured to death is horrific and scary to some, to others it's 'sacred' (or sexually arousing) - think of Mel Gibson's crucifixion film. Superstitious awe might have been the reaction he intended, viewers were at liberty to consider it either gross-out horror or intense BDSM porn.

Exactly SGB thats the great thing about living in a free country- people are free to do things I dont approve of and it gives me the freedom to whine- job done

There wouln't be a war if soldiers, er sorry "heroes" refused to fight in it!

SGB... did I say any of this should be illegal?

No. I don't really need a lecture on the whole 'right to be offended/right to offend' thing. You've picked the wrong person. Where have I called for this to be illegal or banned? You seem to have read something I've never written. Jesus.

But I think it's a spectacularly stupid move given that the military are having issues with inappropriate sexual attention in the workplace. It's also badly thought out, cheap and crap. But again, no calls for 'bans' here so go find a Daily Mail reader to earbash...

CSD - no need to blaspheme. You have offended me.

How nice we are on a forum where you have a right to be offended and express that offence and I have a right to offend.

SGB, do you think it's that clear cut? That if someone takes offense, it's entirely their responsibility/fault?

CSD - and you should learn to accept offence too.

Eh?

What does 'accepting' offence mean?

LRD: Mostly, it is that clear cut. Because there are a lot of fuckwits who take offence at other people asserting their human rights (whether that's bigots who are 'offended' by same sex or mixed race couples kissing or holding hands in the street, or the superstitious who take any criticism of their imaginary friend or cult or it's badly-behaved representatives as 'offensive' no matter how justified). Intentional slander, defamation, harassment or bullying are a different matter to some twat seeing a picture and having a tantrum about it.

I don't think anyone's having a tantrum about the picture.

The fact that some people (with whom you happen to differ) are offended by people exercising their human rights isn't really relevant, is it? Or is it?

When you're using terms like slander and defamation, it sounds as if you think these things are 'different' because there are laws in place to stop them. But there are laws in place to protect against people being offended: indecent exposure, for example, is banned.

It seems to me that, if you believe there's a very clear-cut distinction to be made between the things that no-one should be offended by (which conveniently happen to be legal rights), and things that we're allowed to be offended by (which conveniently happen to have laws controlling them), you're being over-simplistic about the way in which society works.

LRD: Now I personally don't hold with the law against indecent exposure except in cases where it is an aggressive act. IF a bloke wants to walk round Sainsburys in nothing but flipflops, there's no real sensible reason why he shouldn't, and the sight of his willy is a different experience to the sight of the willy on the bloke who has jumped out from the bushes and waved it at you ie one has aggressive intent and the other doesn't. And a person who is offended by the sight of a naked body in a public place when the possessor of that naked body is going about his/her business rather than attempting to annoy others, is the one who should get over him/herself.

I think that laws should control things which are aggressive acts directed against individuals, but not suppress the expression of opinions, however wierd or generally insulting.

SGB, you are passing blame to a victim, making it their problem that they were offended.....it doesn't matter what the intention is, it is the potential to be misunderstood that they should be careful about.....ie...naked women freely taking part in a charity magazine may be percieved as being disloyal to their gender because they unwittingly play to the desires of males and what females should act like. I agree that anyone should be able to walk around naked without attracting comment from anyone but it is naive to think that we live in that society.

SGB, that makes a whole lot more sense. When you frame it in terms of your personal opinion, I see what you're saying (and I agree with the cases you've described). I disagreed with your flat statement 'Mostly, it is that clear cut'.

I do think that crass insensitivity to other people ought sometimes to count as intent - rather like the way you can be done for negligence.

"Some twat having a tantrum about a picture"

Now that's just childish namecalling and is incorrect anyway. No-one's having a tantrum. We're happily debating and critiquing a rather tasteless piece of propaganda.

How does calling people a twat fit into your hierarchy of aggression? Would you have to leap from behind a bush yelling it?

I wouldn't bother Carmen - it's a miracle she hasn't managed to fit in the term " shreiking hetero-monogamist", she normally manages to get that in. She must be slipping.

AFAIK, nobody had a "tantrum" or demanded the calendar be banned or the guard image be removed, we were simply giving our own personal opinions.

She is a thoroughly unpleasant person to anyone who disagrees with her "libertarian" viewpoint - hence the childish insults.

Scurryfunge: A person who is offended by something that was not done with aggressive intent is the one with the problem. Some people are very quick to claim 'victim' status as a way of silencing dissent eg some catholics claiming that criticism of the catholic church's record on child abuse is anti-catholic bigotry.
CSD: saying that some (unspecified) people are twats is not the same as calling you (or any other particular poster) a twat. And calling someone a twat on a public discussion forum is not the same as sending them an email calling them a twat or indeed running after them shouting 'Oi! Twat!'.

Nice to know this, SGB. You should perhaps write a book

SGB....to make comment without consideration for the receiver of the information is arrogant and flawed. It shows a lack of thinking....people can't help the way they are made to feel after a particular comment. You are trying to force a belief without any consideration of the imapct that may cause.....it's a yes, but,no but, Vicky Pollard argument

Scurryfunge: what receiver, though? A comment made (or image displayed) in a public place is recieved by lots of people, some of whom will approve, some of whom will be indifferent, some of whom will learn something useful, and some of whom will be offended. Are you saying that the offended ones should take priority?

No....just that consideration should be given to people who are likely to hear such a comment...it doesn't necessarily matter what you intended, it is what is perceived....basic information processing

fwiw, here's my two bob, looking at the pics cold without reading the thread first

-the one with the dog made me gasp. Immediately made me think of Abu Ghraib

-naked bodies and military hardware together = scary

-this all aside from the argument about objectifying women etc etc- which has been done before and will be done again while it continues, no doubt

One of the main arguments the US used to justify the continuing war in Afghanistan was the treatment of women and girls in that country, iirc. Is this really a good example to be setting? I don't think it is