Independent
Teddy, 11 Sep 2006 12:39:34
The debate rumbles on in the indy, non too sympathetically either, from our point of view.
http://comment.independent.co.uk/letters/article1466397.ece
Teddy, 11 Sep 2006 12:39:34
The debate rumbles on in the indy, non too sympathetically either, from our point of view.
http://comment.independent.co.uk/letters/article1466397.ece
Roel, 11 Sep 2006 16:54:08
Teddysmith2@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> The debate rumbles on in the indy, non too sympathetically either,
> from our point of view.
>
> http://comment.independent.co.uk/letters/article1466397.ece
Funny how this author seems to assume that the "victims" of violent
imagery are always women. I guess he's never visted sites like InsexM or
Men-In-Pain.
Roel
--
http://www.touwtjes.tk/ - bondage website (Dutch & English)
http://www.touwtjes.tk/yahoo - Bondage forum & community (Dutch)
rovacs, 11 Sep 2006 17:16:40
The writer is responding to a letter which was evidentally hostile to such legislation. The writer here is clearly a jaundiced ignoramous.
Author wrote:
> Teddysmith2@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> > The debate rumbles on in the indy, non too sympathetically either,
> > from our point of view.
> >
> > http://comment.independent.co.uk/letters/article1466397.ece
> Funny how this author seems to assume that the "victims" of violent
> imagery are always women. I guess he's never visted sites like InsexM or
> Men-In-Pain.
> Roel
> --
> http://www.touwtjes.tk/ - bondage website (Dutch & English)
> http://www.touwtjes.tk/yahoo - Bondage forum & community (Dutch)
Graham Marsden, 12 Sep 2006 19:19:03
Hi there,
Teddysmith2@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> The debate rumbles on in the indy, non too sympathetically
> either, from our point of view.
>
> http://comment.independent.co.uk/letters/article1466397.ece
Here's a letter I've just e-mailed to the Indy in response...
* * * * *
Sir,
Thomas Swann's letter (Independant, 11th September) regarding so-called
"violent pornography" and how it "objectifies women" rather confirms a
suspicion that has been building in my mind since this matter reached
the headlines again.
The debate appears to have become polarised into two camps, the members
of the first say "Whether I like it or look at it or not, I don't think
anyone should be made a criminal just because someone else doesn't like
it" and the other which comprises those with an anti-pornography agenda
who see this as a convenient bandwagon to jump on in order to further
their aims of controlling what adults may or may not view.
To say that "Violent pornography is among the worst aspects of a
tradition that devalues women's desires and rights compared with that of
men. This must be the basis for legislation" suggests that Mr Swann
rather misses the point that if he wants to stand up for "women's
desires and rights" he should also support their right to appear in this
material if they choose.
Yours Faithfully,
Graham Marsden.
* * * * *
Hope it gets published :-)
Cheers,
Graham.
Teddy, 12 Sep 2006 19:53:54
Some nice points, let's hope it gets in. You're working your way to a complete set, after the Guardian etc! :o)
T.
Author wrote:
> Hi there,
> Teddysmith2@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> > The debate rumbles on in the indy, non too sympathetically
> > either, from our point of view.
> >
> > http://comment.independent.co.uk/letters/article1466397.ece
> Here's a letter I've just e-mailed to the Indy in response...
> * * * * *
> Sir,
> Thomas Swann's letter (Independant, 11th September) regarding so-called
> "violent pornography" and how it "objectifies women" rather confirms a
> suspicion that has been building in my mind since this matter reached
> the headlines again.
> The debate appears to have become polarised into two camps, the members
> of the first say "Whether I like it or look at it or not, I don't think
> anyone should be made a criminal just because someone else doesn't like
> it" and the other which comprises those with an anti-pornography agenda
> who see this as a convenient bandwagon to jump on in order to further
> their aims of controlling what adults may or may not view.
> To say that "Violent pornography is among the worst aspects of a
> tradition that devalues women's desires and rights compared with that of
> men. This must be the basis for legislation" suggests that Mr Swann
> rather misses the point that if he wants to stand up for "women's
> desires and rights" he should also support their right to appear in this
> material if they choose.
> Yours Faithfully,
> Graham Marsden.
> * * * * *
> Hope it gets published :-)
> Cheers,
> Graham.
Teddy, 14 Sep 2006 10:41:49
http://comment.independent.co.uk/letters/article1575790.ece
A thoughtful letter in today's Indy. They have been steadily publishing letters on this long after the issue died away in most other newspapers.
T.
Author wrote:
> Some nice points, let's hope it gets in. You're working your way to a complete set, after the Guardian etc! :o)
> T.
> Author wrote:
> > Hi there,
> > Teddysmith2@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> > > The debate rumbles on in the indy, non too sympathetically
> > > either, from our point of view.
> > >
> > > http://comment.independent.co.uk/letters/article1466397.ece
> > Here's a letter I've just e-mailed to the Indy in response...
> > * * * * *
> > Sir,
> > Thomas Swann's letter (Independant, 11th September) regarding so-called
> > "violent pornography" and how it "objectifies women" rather confirms a
> > suspicion that has been building in my mind since this matter reached
> > the headlines again.
> > The debate appears to have become polarised into two camps, the members
> > of the first say "Whether I like it or look at it or not, I don't think
> > anyone should be made a criminal just because someone else doesn't like
> > it" and the other which comprises those with an anti-pornography agenda
> > who see this as a convenient bandwagon to jump on in order to further
> > their aims of controlling what adults may or may not view.
> > To say that "Violent pornography is among the worst aspects of a
> > tradition that devalues women's desires and rights compared with that of
> > men. This must be the basis for legislation" suggests that Mr Swann
> > rather misses the point that if he wants to stand up for "women's
> > desires and rights" he should also support their right to appear in this
> > material if they choose.
> > Yours Faithfully,
> > Graham Marsden.
> > * * * * *
> > Hope it gets published :-)
> > Cheers,
> > Graham.