Should R18+ computer games be banned?

Too late!

I know many kids already have the software and the knowledge and skills to create virtual war games with all the atrocities thaat are present day concommitant horrors being committed.
Tis goes for sadist games involving everyday perversions as well. They send these incidents on line to friends or to other players around the country and around the world as simulation games.
You cannot ban these "recreational" games.

socratease

Barbara, there are a number of things I take issue with.

I'm glad the government is consulting the public on this, and I do not agree with your suggestion to alter the consultation question to be more loaded in favour of your argument. These questions should always be as neutral as possible.

The questions is not whether we "need" R-18 computer games. The question is whether our government has the right to decide what people do or don't watch.

I don't play computer games. I'll not be purchasing or playing any R-18 games. But I would object strenuously to the idea that the government should determine what we can and can't buy.

I reject the notion that we need to pamper people and select what consenting adults play. The games are labelled R-18. It is the responsibility of parents to ensure their children do not play them. I concede that there will be instances where children are still able to access them. That's unfortunate.

But it is not up to the government to shape what kind of people adults choose to be. That's individual choice.

Recently, when Google said they would withdraw from the Chinese market, the Chinese government made a particularly telling point. They said that it was the responsibility of government to shape public opinion.

In our society, it's the opposite. For damn good reason.

What rubbish.
1) Forcing people to go around authority undermines the authority. The ratings agencies have made themselves superfluous by trying to go too far. As the first poster said, kids go around authority by instinct. Kids make bombs, kids take drugs, kids experiment with sex and danger. Banning these activities will *not* stop them! Engage with kids, for if you get the stick out and try the "just say no" approach they *will* ignore you, regardless of the wisdom you may have to impose.
2) *Risk* needs to be managed, not swept under the rug. Whilst the Risk of violence due to *some* violent games *may* increase, the *known damage* of prohibition is far worse. By "protecting the kiddies" you are actually exposing them to more danger. The last statistics I've seen show no danger from adults accessing risky gaming material...but I'd agree I wouldn't want younger kids playing. Managing the risk to young children is called "parenting".
3) Freedom anyone? Just who decides what is "too much"? the Top Down theory (usually held by conservatives) asks us to ignore the peril of giving people, *any* people the right to control other's lives. There is a line that must be crossed before a person loses that right and it involves committing a "crime" against another person. Undertaking personal risk, whether adventure, sporting, social, chemical, or interactive software is *not* a crime unless another person's rights are directly impinged. Prohibition however is a crime as it achieves the opposite result to what it is ostensibly intended for.
4) Parents need to take responsibility for managing risk for their children. There is a pretty small window before culture has it's way with their psyche, so if parents cannot get some respect and convey some wisdom by 14 or so then it is largely too late.
If this is the case, the horse has bolted: Don't expect the entire population to impose criminality on adults seeking fun just because of parenting failures.
Forget the concept of moral fire power. Just another conservative war that simply should not be fought.

What a ridiculous article.

Barbara state there are many reason there is no R18+ classification, but the article lists no substantive reasons, and relies on the assumption that the status quo reflects community standards. The real reason we don't have R18+ isn't complex at all - it's because our system demands unanimity from members of SCAG to change, and SA AG Michael Atkison is a deeply conservative Catholic reactionary who has blocked reform proposals from the more rational, sensible members, such as Robert Hulls in Victoria. Quite simple.

I note Barbara keeps mentioning a 91% opinion statistic, as if there were no other supportive statistics. How about the fact that most gamers are 30 years old now?

Also, I love the completely disingenuous proposal to swap a completely neutral question about the introduction of a R18+ classification and swap it with a oblique, emotionally loaded qualifying statement designed to skew the results! Don't get the results you like, why not just make the question a push poll! That will surely convince everyone you've got the community on your side! This is even worse than the Hungry Beast poll on the internet filter which emphatically suggested that RC content was mainly about child pornography and violence against women. They may as well have cited Conroy directly for all the objectivity in the explanation.

How exactly is preventing a proper classification of content getting behind parenting? Barbara's solution is a complete Chaimberlain-like surrender which completely abdicates the role of parental supervision.

My own view, as a researcher in this area, revolves around the findings related to the influence of media on children. At least six effects of chronic exposure to violent video games are well documented. It should be noted that although the effects are stronger for children, they also apply to adults.
1. Increased fear of the world in general, and a hostile attributional bias (a tendency to believe that people want to hurt you);
2. Increased desensitisation to violence and less empathy for others being hurt;
3. A desire for increasing exposure to the same media;
4. Increased aggressive behaviour;
5. An increase in mental scripts that include solving interpersonal problms with aggressive behaviour;
6. An increase in beliefs that normalise aggressive behaviour.

The brain changes and learns every day, and what one experiences every day changes the wiring slightly. Short term exposure to violent video games increases the predisposition for aggression and increases desensitisation to violence, young or old, male or female. Long term exposure has the 6 effects listed above, as the brain rewires in line with the person's experiences. The science is clear on these main ways that violent videos can affect players.

In the end, a decision will be made on ratings classifications, and my main concern is that the science, and the large body of evidence for the above effects, is taken into account.

Those who wish to make up their own mind should attend the Growing Up Fast And Furious conference in Sydney on March 19. The world's leading researcher in this area, Dist Prof Craig Anderson, will speak on what the latest research into video games (both violent and prosocial) has found (see http://www.youngmedia.org.au/mediachildren/01_17_sydney_conference.htm). Other leading researchers, including Prof Rowell Huesmann and Prof Ed Donnerstein will also speak.

Hopefully this debate will be a rational one where the science is taken into account along with the needs of various interest groups.

The science may well indicate personal risk of violent thoughts.
I get violent thoughts from reading lies by conservatives or watching commercial TV ads aimed at kids. Reversing alarms at 3:00am also do this. These thoughts need to be managed as part of being an adult.
There may even be a quantifiable effect...but the "cure" still needs to be considered in terms of cost/benefit. Prohibition of drugs has resulted in massive crime, massive corruption and *more* drugs. (Most kids can get drugs easier than alcohol these days.)
Prohibition of "naughty" and "nasty" material considered OK by enough of the population to be a commercial success must be kept in the commercial space. Allowing criminal access, indeed ushering it in using prohibition is a *big* mistake!

The point of government and legislation / regulations is not pander to small vocal minorities and implement labyrinthian legislation that is costly to police, (more so for business to implement), of which the benefits are tenuous and the negative impacts on freedom of expression are enormous, and the cost to the consumer (who inevitably pays for it) is considerable.

The sexualisation of children in adverts has so many facets and is so much a matter of perception, that any regulations would be very difficult to define and the policing of which would be extremely subjective and inconsistent.

Even the author has no idea as to the form any possible legislation would take and resorts to the pathetic call for the government to do "something".

Emma rush:

Apart from "not about banning little girls from putting on mummy’s lipstick or playing with Barbies" what do you really want?

Barbara Biggins is one of the Blue rinsed dowager brigade who feels that freedom of speech is luxury and is baying for the censorship of everything that might somehow make its way into the hands of children including news items etc.

Barbara Biggins might not need R18 rated games, (she probably wouldn't need anything more racy than "I love Lucy") there is a whole world out there of legal entertainment and communication that adults enjoy and are entitled to that would grind to a halt just because little Johnny might see something he shouldn't.

The world has come too far to be locked up by geriatric tyrants such as Barbara Biggins.

Wong article, Shadow Minister.

I'm a bit sceptical about the invocation of 'science' in this matter. There is still a long way to go before the science is really settled. It may well be that there is evidence of deleterious effects for specific levels of violence in limited longitudinal studies, but how does this bear on other adult themes in games, and how does the medium of games compare to other mediums. The existing studies are of doubtful utility in a debate where the moral panic brigaide is calling video games a threat to civilisation as a uniquely destructive medium and generalising all of their adult content as sex and violence.

For example, Risen, a rather tame action-RPG which involves a quest with a reefer 'weed' was refused classification because it supposed incentivised drug use. But no study has any bearing on vindicating that stance, even if a minor were incidentally exposed to Risen, the game is entirely tame by standards of film and cinema.

Of course, the stupidity of this debate is that it is the potential harm to children which is exactly what demands the need for an R18+ category. Appropriate classification allows parents to make appropriate decisions, with minors denied at the point of sale.

This all makes me recall my mis-spent teenage years playing

"D&D"

otherwise known as:

"Dungeons and Dragons"

There was a campaigner from memory back around the mid 80's pushing to have the game banned - was it Adrian Van Leen?

"D&D" of course is a Fantasy Role Playing Game within which you can choose the "Alignment" of your character, ranging from

Lawful Good through to Chaotic Evil

..

All of our "Evil Campaigns" usually disintegrated as everyone eventually turn upon one another, often leaving everyone very upset.

All things said and done we preferred a "Neutral" alignment, be it with or without the addition of Law or Chaos and a general sense of valuing the group, with "Good and or Evil" acts being discretionary, though a number of notable Paladins, Priests and others of the Lawful Good persuasion did also often arise.

We often committed the most heinous of War Crimes with relish,
and what went on in the UnderDark with the Drow Priestess's is probably best left unsaid. ;-)

Still, none of us have gone overly astray ...

Posted by Ozandy, Tuesday, 16 February 2010 12:50:35 PM
" ... These thoughts need to be managed as part of being an adult. ... "

That indeed is the point to me also, but it is a mastery mostly untaught in our Schools. This has been discussed before - perhaps something like a compulsory unit of:

*Good Guvment & Adult Responsibilities*

and I note the modern neurological view that until such time as the "frontal lobes/temporal lobes" develop, children in particular simply have a very limited capacity for Self control and discernment.

My view is probably that for vid games, hard core adult material and gore settings (and with the advent of HD, it can indeed look lifelike) should be restricted to "mature adults."

Growing up fast and furious,

That was an impressive list on the effects of video games. But I can't make too much sense of them without reading the background material and I don't live in Sydney so I can't attend your conference.

Can you provide some links to supporting material so we can see how this list was arrived at?

What a nauseating article.

Hey Barb, while we're at it we should also ban every R18+ film, TV show and probably every news item about a murder or terrorist attack too- in case children illegally access it.
Except that we've already seen the damaging results of impressionable children accessing ultra-gory R18+ films like Robocop for the past 15-25 years (which is bugger all).

Now, I'm no expert, but if an R18+ rating on a video game is anything like an R18+ rating on a movie, then a child is NOT LEGALLY ALLOWED TO BUY IT, but someone at the age of finishing 12th Grade and moving on to college. The "risk" of a child accessing such material is no different from an 18+ movie- just require vendors to remind their customers that they are purchasing an 18+ game, and possibly deny the purchase if they adult buyer is with a child and purchasing no other game.

I'd imagine little things like domestic violence, alcoholism, drug use and contact with bullies, pushers and gangs would be a *slightly* bigger motivator for violence than illegally accessing a legitimately bought computer game by someone else.

And I don't appreciate the slight tone suggesting adult video games are a recent phenomenon and therefore parental misconceptions are justified- we've had gory violent video games since at least the 80s/early 90s (Mortal Kombat and Doom). Just like adult cartoons (Akira, Fritz the Cat)
Nor do I appreciate your sneering tone towards the complaints by the group of people whose rights you're walking over to get your way (funny when that happens- bunch of whiners).

Now I understand that you're just doing your job trying to lobby against the rights of others to the maximum theoretical benefit of the target audience of your own company, so I'll just bid you good day.

My concern is that gamers, like all addicts, are dysfunctional people with personality problems. I am ambivalent on this issue. We all do whatever we have to do to make our way in this life. Some drink, some smoke, some gamble, some play silly buggers on the internet, some use drugs, whether legal or illegal. I recognise that we are all human and prone to the weaknesses to which humans are prone.

The problem I have with internet addiction disorder, and gaming could be considered a related problem although it started well before the average person had internet access, is that such people are distancing themselves from the real world and from the people around them. Its one thing to play chess in the park, or bridge in a club; and quite another to be solely focussed on a keyboard and a video display.

In today's world, more than ever, we need real people doing real things. Even drunks in a pub discuss the world and probable solutions to real problems. What do gamers contribute, other than using up bandwidth and threatening their own sanity?

At the very least, let's protect the kids from a life of nothingness? The over-18s, presumably, have the technicl skills and the hardware to download the games from wherever. Let's keep the rubbish off the shopfront retail circuit.

And, gamers, go for it. One day you might be saying, "I was blessed with a life, and I missed it". Get real, while you still can!

Beleive it or not Stiubhard, most gamers really do spend most of their time away from the computer.

Did it ever cross your mind in your own pathetic analogy that maybe these people spend the time at their screens precisely because they do NOT wish to alternatively spend it getting drunk at a pub, gambling or injecting heroin, or plain old staring at the TV set, and doing nothing?

And as most Australian cities offer absolutely NOTHING to do recreationally, especially at night, beyond these four things- or something that costs a fortune each visit/use- can you really blame someone for doing something that costs nothing more than a blip on the electricity bill?

And your 'solution' does nothing but force the use of software piracy- great idea.

Great ideas,bloggers.
My crapometer is running hot.
OK. No violent computer games for R18's, so they drop into the local DVD shop like Blockbusters,eg, and get themselves the most gory and sadistic movies going around and take it home and view it with friends over and over again.Great substitute.
OK so we dont let them get these viloent movies,so stop them watching the mayhem that is available from 8.30 pm on TV.
How we doin' now.That much better.
Nope.
So then they find ways to get out with mates high on boredom and adrenaline coursing for some one to beat up half to death.
How'm I doin now.
Do I have any healthy alternatives.
Yep.It begins early from the crib. Parents should share their lives with their kids.Do things together all the time. Too much to expect?
socratease

Aaah the LAN Party eh crew? It tickles the cockles of my Heart. Low latency RAM, tweak the BIOS, pump the bus, run a lean o/s, and mayb clock up the c&gpu's ... mmmm ... get the team voice and head sets going ... and then go for a

FFFFLLLLLLLYYYYY - WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSSSSSSSS!

What Joy, and indulge in a bit of *Blood and Mayhem*

Alas Dear Duke, we knew thee well.
(That's Duke Nukem for the UnInitiated)

What a super cool Jet Pack.

..

I used to Luv *Heretic* as well. You used to be able to come in from on High with the Phoenix Staff and spinal someone like Predator.

HaHaHa

..

That doesn't go to say that it is something that all of us fantasize about doing in real life, but some games are a great interactive, highly competitive team sport, and provide complimentary stress relief from killing and persecuting sprites.

It is highly recommended if done in a balanced way. Of course, too much vegemite is no good for your either, as is too much 2d screen work period. Yes, gives those eyes a good 3d work out in bright settings for good health and most of the games of a certain type also recommend non participation of you have a history of epilepsy or to get checked out first with your own professional doc if in doubt.

I must upgrade my SLI/CrossFire to HD capable and have a proper go at "Modern Warfare" or something similar.

Shadow Minister: <"Barbara Biggins is one of the Blue rinsed dowager brigade... ">

I think that Antiseptic was the first to come up with that sort of derogatory term SM; though I've seen you use it more than once. It defines you in one of two ways:

1. Either you're no chicken yourself and sitting up there in your pudgy baldness jabbing at your keyboard and trying to be cool.
or
2. You're much younger than Ms. Biggins and therefore disrespectful and just plain ageist. If this is the Ms. Biggins I've read about she has a long distinguished career in voluntary human services and deserves a modicum of respect for that alone. If it isn't the same woman, it doesn't matter if she's 100 yr old or how she's coiffed; she is still entitled to an opinion which, with the added benefit of age and experience, might be extra valuable.

Anyway, I do disagree with the article in general. I share the views expressed by King Hazza and DreamOn. Personally I love computer gaming though I'm lousy at it. I taught my children how to use the internet; rarely monitored it; never prevented my children from participating in any gaming; often hosted LAN parties and I would say that I am a more passionate internet user BY FAR than any of them.

I think it's funny when people say, "Get out in the real world..." etc - the internet IS part of the "real world"; just like the telephone; the radio; the TV - they're all just facilitative tools for expanding human interaction.

There are many additional things that shape how much gamers relate to whatever violence they're exposed to. I think we need more research and discussion on the factors that help gamers to keep it in proportion. In any case there's no cause for fuss. Just price the games out of reach of most youngsters.

A funny quote: "Computer games don't affect kids, I mean if Pac man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, munching pills and listening to repetitive music."

Pynchme,

While I would like to claim the term "blue rinsed dowager" it has been used for decades to describe older women with too much time on their hands, uncomfortable with society as it is today, and often trying to interfere and restore the "good old values".

With BB this is spot on.

While she might be entitled to her opinion her desire to ram it down all of our throats and her entry into the public domain to push for censorship rightly opens her to derision and scorn.

Some good deeds do not justify an evil one.

As for your take on me, I (along with 99%) of the population younger than BB, but with kids at high school (like you) I have enough experience to spot a crock when I see it.

My take on you is that while you might be partially internet Savvy, your welfare background and your opposition to racy internet content puts you on track to joining the blue rinse brigade.

Also what the blue rinse dowagers miss is that with bit torrent, all the games can be downloaded in a cracked format for free. If they are banned, then there is no justification to pursue pirates. So they now become more widely distributed, and generally amongst the under 18s.

What Barbara is trying to point out is that an R18+ classification means is that inevitably more violent, sadistic games will end up being played by children. The average age of gamers being 30 isn't really relevant to this. After all, the average of alcohol drinkers is a similarly mature figure and neither that nor laws restricting the sale of alcohol to under 18s prevent minors getting hold of alcohol if they are persistent and ingenious enough and if parents and other adults are compliant and complicit. Even the Australian gaming industry admits that not all adults are responsible and vigilant when it comes to observing the classification system, and experience overseas gives no cause for optimism either.
The gaming industry in Australia currently makes healthy and growing profits from the sales of videogames. Instead of trying to increase profits further by extending the classification system why does it not promote the sales of prosocial videogames? There is some impressive research evidence that these do much to encourage caring and compassionate behaviour in players. Not only that, but players are more likely to buy more of these games than people who play the antisocial stuff. Now there is an opportunity for market growth. And it might even increase the numbers of those who prefer to discuss the merits of videogames without resorting to personal abuse.

Shadow Minister,

Do you have trouble with comprehension? I don't agree with Ms. Biggins on this issue.

Although I disagree, I hardly think her proposal constitutes "evil". Do I have the correct impression that you're a pornography enthusiast? If so, it's a strange world when you call someone who is concerned about the impact on children of glamorizing violence, "evil", while positioning yourself naturally, by virtue of contrast, as some sort of do-gooder.

I don't like violence (like horror movies) and I despise pornography. There is quite enough ugly behaviour in the world without creating more as entertainment. However, I am opposed to internet censorship.

I think this apparent paradox arises from dealing with the human tragedy in real life that occurs in relation to the values and beliefs that go along with perpetration. Those values and beliefs may be reinforced by any sort of media. At the same time I'm well aware that limiting availability doesn't actually lead to limited availability. I do support various strategies that discourage production, however, and which build community opposition so that individuals may be more selective about what they use to nourish their thoughts and feelings.

Now let's see, if women with whom you disagree are categorized as blue-rinse dowagers, what category label do you use to silence the opinion of men who share the dowagers' opposing view ?

Pynchme,

I never said you did agree with BB on this issue, however, some of your earlier posts indicate a propensity to restrict that with which you don't agree. (if not the internet)

I am not an enthusiast of porn or R18+ games, but neither do I think they are a threat. (I have yet to see any real evidence to support it.)

While BB's intentions are not evil, the restrictions she is proposing (with the same justifications that most oppresive regimes use) are extremely toxic.

While I see that you have taken umbridge at being associated with blue rinsed dowagers, I can say that whilst I generally don't see eye to eye with them, I occasionally do.

There are many non BRDs that I disagree with as well on issues such as GM food, nuclear issues etc for whom I have yet to devise a category.

As for the men, my kids suggested DOF (or doddering old fart) which I like, but which would probably not be well received.

microwave, that argument is asyemtrical and completely specious. How can anti-R18+ proponents possibly be so vehemently against an expanded classification system if the whole argument about incidental exposure rests on a defeatist assumption about inadequate parenting and the proliferation of games outside parental supervision. It is beyond belief that anyone could so forcefully assume that kids are running amok and that the system is utterly broken, denying any meaningful relationship between exposure and control mechanisms, such as point of sale age checks, and yet somehow ignore that these same savvy, secretive kids aren't already accessing whatever they want.

Of course, this premise is wrong, but you don't follow the conclusion of the argument. Because, if it is inevitable that kids will access these games, that will be because of piracy, direct downloads and importation from overseas - not just older siblings who've bought the R18+ game in a local store. But anti-R18+ proponents base their entire moral panic about incidental exposure on the absurd idea that every copy of a game in an Australian store is a multiplier for exposure - as if negligent parents and older siblings boying local copies, or failed POS mechanisms were the only way a kid will encounter this content. It's ridiculous.

If the system is as broken as you assume, then the logical conclusion is that the rating system is meaningless and your argument is a pointless exercise which gives undue significance to the availability of R18+ games in brick and motor stores. So why even argue about it?

Alternatively, I propose that POS mechanism are generally reliable, and proper rating systems at least help parents police content. A parent looking a a burnt DVD has no idea what its rating is, but at least a retail copy has a printed rating on the box, manual, and disc.

microwave: "an R18+ classification means that inevitably more violent, sadistic games will end up being played by children."

Yes, that is what Barbara is arguing. Whether she is right is another issue entirely.

Firstly, these games are allowed into Australia now. The gaming industry freely acknowledges that games are currently getting an MA15+ rating when the should be R18+. I can only guess that is because that is the government doesn't want to piss of 30% of the male voters who regularly play those games. I don't know whether you have done the figures, but if even a small fraction of that 30% changed their votes on the issue the government would change. So they have to keep them happy. That is the reality. Read it again if it hasn't sunk in.

I imagine you don't like that, but you aren't going to change it. No politician who wants to keep his seat is going to ban these games. Assuming you can bring yourself to acknowledge that, what are you going to do about it? Well, I'd suggest one of the things you can do is have an R18+ rating, so parents not following the gaming scene can at least see the large red label on the box. And did you know that all modern gaming consoles also have a parental lock, that any parent can use to ban R18+ games from the house? Probably not. But if you girls want to do something constructive telling your girl friends about this feature is probably the best thing you can do.

Why is it the best thing you can do? Well because this argument is based on a fallacy - that the government can actually ban games. Games are increasingly being bought over the internet, not off a store shelf. Our government can't control why we buy from an overseas internet store. But the aforementioned parental lock can prevent your kids from playing them.

Time have changed. Controls that worked when you were a kid don't work now. Concentrate on things that do work.

ShadowMinister: <"some of your earlier posts indicate a propensity to restrict that with which you don't agree.">

I'm not sure that's true. Have you any examples ?

SM: <"While I see that you have taken umbridge at being associated with blue rinsed dowagers...">

No. I didn't perceive you as talking about me at all. In any case my skin is much tougher than that. I was annoyed at:

1. The unimaginative repeated use of the term to silence opposing opinion.
2. Disrespect shown to a good citizen.
3. Ageism. I am acutely aware of the general lack of respect in our culture for older people. It wouldn't be too difficult to disagree AND maintain appropriate respect at the same time.

SM: <"As for the men, my kids suggested DOF (or doddering old fart) which I like, but which would probably not be well received.">

That's a very interesting statement. You have no compunction in repeating the insult "BRD", yet you're too intimidated by the potential reaction you'd receive from other men if you referred to one as a "DOF"?

How come it's easier? or less intimidating to use a derogatory term towards females but not males ?

I'm not asking in order to humiliate and I apologize (a little) if this questioning makes you uncomfortable, but I'm genuinely interested in how you manage to juggle that duality of thought and action. Were you even aware of it?

we may not "need" R18 games, but we don't "need" barbara biggins either. and i know which is less revolting.

Pynchme,

The term BRD is not of my invention, and has been used for decades with similar meaning. DOF is a humourous invention of mine with no particular symbolism yet.

Unfortunately it is often the aged that cannot grasp the modern era and wish to bend it to their outdated values, which is why BRD is so appropriate. Outdated values are less frequent amongst teens.

I would suggest you review your previous posts as I did and you will see what I mean with respect to limitations on adult material etc.

When BB wishes to inflict her restrictions on the freedoms of others, she ceases to be a "good citizen" and becomes another Conroy and as such fair game.

It is not because she is female, if you read my posts I was even more derogatory of Conroy.

SM thanks for your reply.

If you were as derogatory towards some bloke, why wasn't he a DOF ?

You're the one who said the term wouldn't be well received - I can't see why a woman is a BRD while you're too concerned about how a bloke would react to call him something equivalent to BRD.

Nevermind - thanks very much for the post.

pynch

"When BB wishes to inflict her restrictions on the freedoms of others, she ceases to be a "good citizen" and becomes another Conroy and as such fair game."

Seconded Shadow. I couldn't agree more.

Everybody! Everybody! There's a matter that must be addressed immediately!

It has come to my attention, that risque stories are no longer told orally! A recent invention has allowed people to *gasp* write them down on a page!

Why, this 'printing press' which they claim will further education and biblical understanding can also be used to mass produce smut!

For god's sake, CHILDREN MAY READ THEM! Won't somebody puh-lease think of the children!

Why, if enough of them become literate, we're in for a serious problem.

Why, we could try and have only adults reading these books, but if we did some kind of rating system then they could still get into the country and into the wrong hands. Teenagers might get all kinds of woolly ideas about independence.

Wiser people like us, who know that moulding and shaping the minds of the youth is of the utmost importance, should despair at this heinous travesty of entertainment. Why, I bet only shady characters read these "books" they speak of.

I expect any literary material involving suggestions of lewd behaviour be banned forthwith, starting with the works of that trollop Erica Jong. Fancy giving women ideas about no-strings attached fornicating.

To right Turnright! Nice one!

TRTL

I discovered a copy of Fear of Flying among my friend's older sister's books. I was 15, I thought the book was fantastic, imagine women choosing men in the same way men would often choose women; zipless fcuks! Quite the epiphany.

Shadow Minster: "Blue rinsed dowager"
Shadow Minster: "The term BRD is not of my invention, and has been used for decades with similar meaning."

http://www.google.com/search?q=Blue+rinsed+dowager brings up your post here as its second hit, Shadow. You are famous! But methinks it ain't as common as you say, especially as the first hit doesn't contain the word dowager.

Blue Rinse Brigade on the other hand is a very common term. And as you say I think it accurately sums up what is happening here. I recall a similar thing happened when books reached a certain price at the start of the 20th century. There was wide spread notion it would corrupt the women. They were right of course. The most common position adopted by the women in my house is "nose in a book".

There was as much proof around that books corrupted women back then is there is that violent video games encourage violent behaviour now. But it seemed like it should be true, so that was OK then.