Dont push your blooming morals on us Claire Curtis-Thomas
Why oh Why does Claire Curtis-Thomas trying to push her right wing morals on us, from what is meant to be a centre-left party (although Tory Blair has preverted the party into a centre-right one), the Labour Party is NOTHING like the blooming Republican Party in the USA, firstly the Republican Party is traditionally a right wing, conservative, christian party, where the Labour Party is traditional a Centre-Left wing, democratic socialist/social democratic secular party (until Blair came in and started to spread the decay of New "Labour" in the party, but thats another matter) So why, oh why, oh why, is Claire Curtis-Thomas pushing forward her vaules on the British public , claiming that "lad mags" are 'replusive' and wants to protect 'minors from obsence matierals' (yea, because they are corrupting aren't they) she seems to think it will scar the poor little children for life, sure, lets also make sure that we get rid of toy guns and toy soldiers and other such things while we are at it for being 'dangerous' and warp up our children in cotton wool...
The arguement that such "lad mags" is 'expolitation of women' is total and uttrer rubbish aswell, these women are paid to model, they do it WILLINGLY, women are not some mindless slaves that do whatever a man saids, it does not work that way, the women that do the SOFT porn stuff in the "Lad mags" are not degrading themselves, since they are probably making a good bit of money from the shoot, and they are not being expolitated, since they are making a good bit of money from the shoot, much more then someone on the minimum wage makes (why isn't Claire Curtis-Thomas speaking up about something that is expolitation, like the underpayment of immigrant workers and the effect that has on the British workforce?) and if a woman is offended by such magazines, then their is a simple explaination DON'T LOOK AT THEM!!!!!! good grief, is that so bloody hard for some people to do? Seemingly so.
Besides which, I do not see it as a bad thing that say a 13 year old boy can (and should be allowed) to by such magazines, and a 13 year old girl buy the female equalivant (which their are and, suprisingly Claire don't seem to be ranting about those as much) , this is because their is nothing really wrong with such things and with young teenage boys and girls exploring their sexuality by reading such magazines, it is perfectly natural for young teenagers to be interested in such things (no matter what sexuality they might feel they are at that point, if any) and moving this material to the top shelf is some vain sttempt to protect children and not offend women is ridiculous.
Maybe Claire Curtis-Thomas should stop acting like the wife of that Lovejoy (or Killjoy in her case) character in The Simpsons (you know the one that always saids "Wont someone please think of the children") and end her attempts to restrict access to magazine just because she feels the need to push her morality and her fears onto society, when we don't want the state dictating to us what we should and shouldn't be reading and not tell us that the material in such magazines is dangerous and corrupting to children, because the reality is that it is not, and her views on such matters shouldn't become law and thankfully, since parliament has real things to discuss rather then the nonesense she wants to be put into law, it never will be.
Random Fact:
The arguement that such "lad mags" is 'expolitation of women' is total and uttrer rubbish aswell, these women are paid to model, they do it WILLINGLY, women are not some mindless slaves that do whatever a man saids, it does not work that way, the women that do the SOFT porn stuff in the "Lad mags" are not degrading themselves, since they are probably making a good bit of money from the shoot, and they are not being expolitated, since they are making a good bit of money from the shoot, much more then someone on the minimum wage makes (why isn't Claire Curtis-Thomas speaking up about something that is expolitation, like the underpayment of immigrant workers and the effect that has on the British workforce?) and if a woman is offended by such magazines, then their is a simple explaination DON'T LOOK AT THEM!!!!!! good grief, is that so bloody hard for some people to do? Seemingly so.
Besides which, I do not see it as a bad thing that say a 13 year old boy can (and should be allowed) to by such magazines, and a 13 year old girl buy the female equalivant (which their are and, suprisingly Claire don't seem to be ranting about those as much) , this is because their is nothing really wrong with such things and with young teenage boys and girls exploring their sexuality by reading such magazines, it is perfectly natural for young teenagers to be interested in such things (no matter what sexuality they might feel they are at that point, if any) and moving this material to the top shelf is some vain sttempt to protect children and not offend women is ridiculous.
Maybe Claire Curtis-Thomas should stop acting like the wife of that Lovejoy (or Killjoy in her case) character in The Simpsons (you know the one that always saids "Wont someone please think of the children") and end her attempts to restrict access to magazine just because she feels the need to push her morality and her fears onto society, when we don't want the state dictating to us what we should and shouldn't be reading and not tell us that the material in such magazines is dangerous and corrupting to children, because the reality is that it is not, and her views on such matters shouldn't become law and thankfully, since parliament has real things to discuss rather then the nonesense she wants to be put into law, it never will be.
Random Fact:
MPs use communal hairbrushes in the washrooms of the Houses of Parliament.
posted by Geraint @ 12:58 am
0 Comments
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home