“I’m not a prude. I live in France. France is the home of erotic literature. In France if you refuse to give conjugal rights to your husband you can be sued.”
(Am I the only one who thought this was a four-statement example of Arson, Murder, and Jaywalking?)
Samantha Brick criticised the widespread availability Fifty Shades of Grey, saying supermarkets and high street giants shouldn’t be selling explicit content where children could view it.
“Madonna released an explicit book in the Nineties that was sold on the top shelf of the supermarkets in a special cover. It was sealed and there was a warning on it.” …. But there is nothing stopping children and young teens picking up Fifty Shades, she said.
I’ve never read Fifty Shades of Grey but I have listened to Mark Oshiro reading from FSoG and it sounds hilarible. (WARNING. DO NOT LISTEN TO THIS AT WORK. NOT EVEN IF YOU HAVE HEADPHONES IN. MAY CAUSE UNCONTROLLABLE GIGGLING.)
Though Samantha Brick’s objections to porn readily available to 6-year-olds does not appear to extend to the newspaper/website that pays her:
Now look at this TWO page feature on side boobs in today’s Daily Mail (I no doubt expect it’ll appear in the Mail Online at some point):
I’m assuming this isn’t an article on breast feeding and the importance of?
The Daily Mail and Mail Online also continue to exploit paparazzi shots of females in bikinis, skin-tight leggings, crotch shots, the works. Soft porn, hard porn – who cares? Porn is porn. The Mail – and Dacre – cannot continue to support such a campaign without at least either: (a) dropping all articles which feature soft porn for middle class, (b) get all their publications listed in the online porn filter.
Look, of all the forms of porn that are readily available, from the soft porn sold by Associated Newspapers and News International to the hardcore stuff that it takes complicated technical Internet-savvy to find, I think a book without illustrations is the kind least likely to provoke the interest of a small child.
Unlike pictures which may cause said small child to declare loudly “Mum, WHAT are those two people DOING?” or “Mum, that lady’s got BIG boobies” just at the moment when you’d rather not have that conversation thank you very much, I am prepared to bet that most six-year-old children would react to a book like Fifty Shades of Grey with total boredom.
Sexism is so consistent a feature of the culture of media in Britain that it has become easy to overlook, like the whine of an alarm that has sounded for so long you’ve learned to ignore it. Until a few years ago, it was the modern “problem with no name”. However much it hurt to have to see slut-shaming, rape-apologism, victim-blaming and sexual objectification in the press every day over our cornflakes, women just had to ignore it, because challenging media misogyny in any way was next to impossible. It was just “the way things were”.
Four charities are responsible for bringing the representation of women in the media into the Leveson enquiry: Eaves, End Violence Against Women, Equality Now, and Object. The End Violence Against Women Coalition (EVAW) made a submission to the Leveson Inquiry in December 2011, arguing that if the Inquiry “does not address culture, practice, ethics, standards and the public interest with regards to the reporting of violence against women, it will be incomplete”.
Clare Short, whose criticism of Page 3 resulted in the Sun branding her a “fat” and “jealous” “killjoy” – supported this:
“Since I started campaigning on this issue the situation has got worse, not better. There are more pornographic images of both men and women in the mainstream media.”
Not a word from Samantha Brick about it, however. Not. One. Word.