The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Rape in Brisbane: just between friends > Comments

Rape in Brisbane: just between friends : Comments

By Caroline Spencer, published 18/3/2008

P****graphy has made it very sexy to hurt and humiliate women. This has to change.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 16
  7. 17
  8. 18
  9. Page 19
  10. 20
  11. All
That document is nothing but contemptible propaganda. You can wrap it up all you want and claim how Australia ratified it makes the document legitimate, but it's absolute rubbish and always will be. Where do these document recognise the rights and needs of men? They do not, because they are sexist. HUMAN RIGHTS ARE THE PROROGATIVE OF NEITHER SEX. Women do not need special rights or attention to deal with abuses, since they ALREADY HAVE HUMAN RIGHTS. Violence is violence, regardless of gender.

Australia could ratify Mein Kampf and you would still be here citing it. Why? Because like a child you think what the government and the fools in the bureacracy of it who have been raised to believe lies are as authoritative as your parents, or God. What the government says, is correct. What actually is (the truth), is wrong, according to that document and yourself, who cites it as a doceument of authority.

Here's an exercise. Replace the word man with woman in that article and you will see that is nothing but a sham. Men's genitals are mutilated by the million and where is the ratification outlawing the practice? Exactly.

Lastly the precise descriptions in that document Pynchme are not based on anything and were written by people with specific agendas. It is not based on reality. As a man who has seen a fair amount of pornography, I know with almost complete certainty that the descriptions contained in that document were written by frigid bureacrats with religious backgrounds and upbringing.

Pornography objectifies BOTH SEXES.
And that is ok. WHY? BECAUSE IT'S A PRODUCT.
THE MEDIA OBJECTIFIES PEOPLE.
YOU OBJECTIFY PEOPLE. EVERYONE DOES.

Pornography is VOLUNTARY. DO you understand what that actually means? It means women CHOOSE to be in the business, and are provided with opportunities according to their VOLUNTARY LIMITS. Now take your sexism elsewhere.
Posted by Steel, Friday, 18 April 2008 2:52:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Steele,

The concerns you raise about the legitimacy of Human Rights are fair enough I think and are not new.

In the absence of religious convictions and all of that; the UDHR, put together after WW2, has gained in laying out some sort of basis for treating each other decently. It doesn't have a higher, mystical authority - I suppose one could say it's some sort of consensus to which certain countries subscribe. The accompanying conventions acknowledge specific issues on which all participants agree.

However, a discussion of the legitimacy of Human Rights and conventions takes us into another whole arena. There is probably a forum around here somewhere that is more suitable for extensive discussion of it.
Posted by Pynchme, Friday, 18 April 2008 5:54:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pynchme,

You seem to be confused of the Articles of CEDAW, which you originally cited, and the general recommendations on the convention which is a different kettle of fish altogether.

The actual articles are here:

http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/text/econvention.htm

In any case a careful reading of what you provided the recommendation does not provide for a restriction on the production, distribution and exchange of sexually explicit media. Rather it comments on how the Articles 2 (f), 5 and 10 (c) can be used to reduce the "[t]raditional attitudes by which women are regarded as subordinate" and (erroneously) claims that these attitudes contribute to the propogation of pornography.

I say erroneously because even if the attitudes were completely abolished I am quite cerain we would still have sexually explicit media. In fact, it is quite possible we would have more of it.

Further, contrary to your claim Australia has not ratified CEDAW, rather it has made a declaration with reservations. I would be pleased if you could provide evidence of Australia's ratification.

http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/states.htm
Posted by Lev, Friday, 18 April 2008 7:37:38 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lev I don't recall saying anything about ratification. I have been thinking more broadly about pornography. As I understand it though, Australia ratified CEDAW on 28 July 1983 but hasn't yet signed the Optional Protocol. It's not unusual anyway for countries to negotiate to suit local conditions, as your link shows.

All of that is interesting but diverts from the discussion - my point was to show that pornography as a form of violence against women is recognized as a human rights issue.

It would help if the industry would distinguish between erotica and violent porn, but according to presentations at the UK discussions, pro-porn people say that can't be done.

Btw: re: freedom of speech and hate material. See this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boys_are_stupid,_throw_rocks_at_them!

Now that's considered hate speech (and I agree, but that's beside the point just now.)

So what's the difference to this, which I know is mild and one of thousands of images.

http://www.hustlingtheleft.com/gallery/hustlervertical/Images/HustlerS8.jpg

or this:

http://www.hustlingtheleft.com/gallery/hustlervertical/Images/HustlerS250.jpg

Why should pornography be absolved of any of the standards to which other media is subject?

https://www.againstpornography.org/censoredtruth.html
Posted by Pynchme, Sunday, 20 April 2008 2:08:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pynchme,

"I don't recall saying anything about ratification."

In which case you are extremely inattentive to very own words (cf., April 14).

Well? Can you admit to being wrong?

"Btw: re: freedom of speech and hate material. See this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boys_are_stupid,_throw_rocks_at_them!"

Direct advocacy of violence against a group of people. May not constitute "fighting words" on the grounds of satire, but I suspect it would be a lineball legal decision.

"So what's the difference to this, which I know is mild and one of thousands of images. http://www.hustlingtheleft.com/gallery/hustlervertical/Images/HustlerS8.jpg"

Does not advocate violence against an person. Has a inconsiderate individual, but that's not the same thing. Do you understand the difference?

"Why should pornography be absolved of any of the standards to which other media is subject?"

I am yet to see any evidence whatsoever that it is on a systematic level.
Posted by Lev, Sunday, 20 April 2008 9:03:03 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes inattentive to my own words - I forgot that post (always late and rushing, sorry) but Australia has ratified CEDAW, as I said, though it has lodged reservations re: the Optional Protocol. So apart from forgetting that I lready mentioned that, what bit is it that you want me to admit to? Whatever it is I don't mind; I just don't get your point.

My point is that pornography as a form of violence against women is recognized as a Human Rights issue. In fact Australia cited acknowledgement of that in the report about the Beijing Platform for action years ago, where quite a bit was said about restricting or classifying certain content in various forms of media.

Also, I don't think the reservations to the Optional Protocol lodged by Australia included anything in support of pornography. In any case, we're getting bogged down in parochial hoo-hah. The fact is that for the purposes of achieving international Human Rights, pornography has been noted as antithetical to HR for women.

Here's a story for you:

http://www.nerve.com/regulars/badsex/025/index.asp?page=1
Posted by Pynchme, Tuesday, 22 April 2008 2:48:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 16
  7. 17
  8. 18
  9. Page 19
  10. 20
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy