Placing restrictions on pornography won’t protect children, but a frank and open discussion might
From Alice Jones at The Independent —
The offence of possession of an extreme pornographic image was introduced in 2008 and has resulted in more than 5,500 prosecutions, the majority for clips of bestiality. Ministers had predicted that there would be just 30 cases a year.
It’s been a big week for body parts. In particular those bits, if one must go in for primary school language, that are naughty. The bits that jiggle and wobble and sometimes spurt. There might be a few in this column – nothing gratuitous, naturally.
The main thing to understand is that some naughty bits, apparently, are naughtier than others. But whose bits are on show, and where, very much dictates how much we are expected to be shocked by them. So while it is absolutely fine for an American underwear company to send a platoon of glossy Amazons down a catwalk wearing little more than a wisp of chiffon, a hint of satin and for some reason massive, bejewelled wings, it is not fine for a new mother to breastfeed her 12-week-old daughter at Claridge’s.
Nigel Farage has weighed in to declare the latter act “ostentatious”, but has yet to express an opinion on the former. In other words, the soft-porn lingerie spectacular, peekaboo videos and insane diet tips peddled by Victoria’s Secret and consumed by millions of young, impressionable types and countless older ones who should know better is OK; feeding a newborn, as Lou Burns tried to, amid fresh scones and tea strainers, is not. Bring the lady a modesty shroud.