The Holy Trinity : Daily Mail, Anime, Child Sexualisation.

[elmarko]

To be fair, you can voice strong views against the sexualisation of children in the media without having to put 20 pictures on the main website.

It's like printing an article about how wrong it is to invade privacy, then show 50 examples on the front page as to how these people have suffered from a privacy invasion.

It's typical sensationalist media tactics, to claim something is wrong/immoral - then display it for all the rubberneckers - the same as they hit out at sexism in the media, then put topless models on page 3.

 

[Castiel]

Well, we shall have to agree and disagree all at the same time then yes, they are tame, but it errs me, that's all. People start with tame, and if they like it the chances are they will in the future, only worser and worser. Got to remember we are talking about sex here, it's different to killing, I'ld wager that there are more rapes than murders world wide.

if people like they will find it regardless, especially in a medium as pervasive as Anime.....and acceptability is one of degree, while some Anime is perfectly acceptable, it crosses the line with Hentai and it is a fine line to be drawn when the primary basis which is animation is predominantly accessed by Children.

The sigs err me as well, not all of them, obviously some of them are highly amusing. But a sig is like wearing a branded T-shirt, I don't know if it's still one of Mags sigs or not. But the reddit/jailbait one (with very little context to go on) was like advertising it? Can you grasp that? even if you don't agree?

I'm not a fool, I understand your perspective entirely. Like I said I don't agree that the criticism is fair in this case. As to the acceptability of some of Magnolia's sig commentary if I am honest, much of it goes over my head....

I don't think the daily mail are being ambiguous, I think they simply know that photos of kids like that sells papers. They are making money off the backs of both sides of the audience, the righteous and the creepy. The media is feeding it to us, creating the hunger for it, and I think there is a fine line between how we respond to it with our social media. That's if we should even directly respond to singular, I'll call them incidents, or not.

While I am sure that 'public interest' fuels the decision making on the press floor of the Daily Mail, I don't think that should negate any valid criticism they make.

I don't think we can compare Magnolia to the Daily Mail however......as sentaionalist as Magnolia is, the DM is Godlike in comparison.

The criticisms of Reddit are, or at least were until their recent ban, specifically pertinant. Reddit was, with their 'open' policy, allowing child abuse/porn to be effectively distributed over their network.

 

[Threepwood]

Arg! It starts somewhere! It all starts somewhere, not all pedos are wired wrong (some are) and would do such things no matter what. Some times the mere knowlage of such things sparks the interest, then there is the knowlage AND the photos, etc etc.

The media is doing as much harm as it is good with such subjects. As elmarko into a single sentance, you 'can voice strong views against the sexualisation of children in the media without having to put 20 pictures on the main website'

Let alone be a party to getting those photos more hits.

Public interest has already been created by previous media, soon as they realised such stuff sells, hell yeah lets carry on and pretend to be ambigous!

I don't think you are a fool btw, dinna fash


Fwiw, I did nursey nursing at collage, and the worse thing about it was every single flipping lesson I was singled out to be told exactly what I can/cannot do, things that women can do but I could not and would have to have another female member of staff 'supervise' throughout my whole career. Every. Single. Lesson. Was terribad, such things had never, ever crossed my mind, and I was disgusted at how they made me feel like I was going to do something horrible. It was actually rather victimising. Placement was ace, I didn't feel like that when on placement. Really sad. The kids got lots out of having a male around. There really are not enough male teachers in nursery/primary schools. Anyway, a year and a half in I couldn't take being singled out so much for things that I simply would never do. Ha, that and I slept with a few too many of my fellow students, but hey I was 17 in a class full of 35 women oO. (so I can admit that I do have a bit of a sore spot for pedophilla etc being everywhere it seems, sometimes. I dont like the way all this has made people presume the worse about men in general) Everyone thinks I should get back into it, I'm super great with kids, but no way am I being subjected to that again.

 

[Castiel]

Arg! It starts somewhere! It all starts somewhere, not all pedos are wired wrong (some are) and would do such things no matter what. Some times the mere knowlage of such things sparks the interest, then there is the knowlage AND the photos, etc etc.

The media is doing as much harm as it is good with such subjects. As elmarko into a single sentance, you 'can voice strong views against the sexualisation of children in the media without having to put 20 pictures on the main website'

Let alone be a party to getting those photos more hits.

Public interest has already been created by previous media, soon as they realised such stuff sells, hell yeah lets carry on and pretend to be ambigous!

I don't think you are a fool btw, dinna fash

I accept that, I simply do not think it applies to Magnolia....so while thecriticism of the Daily Mail may well be a valid one to make, I don't necessarily agree that it can be expanded to include Magnolia.

 

[Heliospherez]

Shock horror. Girls use make-up.

And is it really any different to the "sexualised" teens used on catwalks.... in womens mags promoting face creams / beauty products etc. If women want to see how good a foundation is - why do they need a 17 year old girl to have her youthful face plastered on an ad ? Surely it would be better seeing what it looks like on a 40 year olds un-airbrushed head...

 

[Threepwood]

I accept that, I simply do not think it applies to Magnolia....so while thecriticism of the Daily Mail may well be a valid one to make, I don't necessarily agree that it can be expanded to include Magnolia.

Yep, copy that, over

 

[Mark A]

A lot of parents in America make their young kids look like dolls for pageants and have been doing long before Anime became popular. I wouldn't say either sexualises young children though. If anything was to blame for that it would be TV and magazines aimed at young girls.

 

[=XDC=FluphyBunny]

Am I missing something here? The girls at a sixth form school near where I work dress more provocative than that while at school never mind how they look if you see them out in the pubs/clubs.

 

[quickshot89]

I take it the DM has never heard of cosplay before?

 

[semi-pro waster]

Finally. Thank you.

I'm sure there'll be another thread soon enough where you can point out the contradictions inherent in similar views though.

Well, we shall have to agree and disagree all at the same time then yes, they are tame, but it errs me, that's all.

Sorry to be one of those people who pick up on spelling but do you mean that it irks you? I'm asking because I'm not quite sure if I'm understanding your meaning.

People start with tame, and if they like it the chances are they will in the future, only worser and worser. Got to remember we are talking about sex here, it's different to killing, I'ld wager that there are more rapes than murders world wide.

The sigs err me as well, not all of them, obviously some of them are highly amusing. But a sig is like wearing a branded T-shirt, I don't know if it's still one of Mags sigs or not. But the reddit/jailbait one (with very little context to go on) was like advertising it? Can you grasp that? even if you don't agree?

I probably wouldn't choose to disagree that there's a gradient which is followed as few will immediately step in at the worst possible end of the scale but I don't think that not linking to the Daily Mail would prevent someone who was gratified by such images from finding them given time - at best it would merely delay the process.

I don't think the daily mail are being ambiguous, I think they simply know that photos of kids like that sells papers. They are making money off the backs of both sides of the audience, the righteous and the creepy. The media is feeding it to us, creating the hunger for it, and I think there is a fine line between how we respond to it with our social media. That's if we should even directly respond to singular, I'll call them incidents, or not.

While I've got a fair degree of disdain for the Daily Mail as a paper I wouldn't be completely surprised if you're right and they're quite happy to take money from both sides. It's just a sensible business practice even if it's odious morally.

I take it the DM has never heard of cosplay before?

That may be next weeks follow up article.

 

[Castiel]

I'm sure there'll be another thread soon enough where you can point out the contradictions inherent in similar views though..

Probably posted by the newly invested FithyFerret, CrustyCat or MuckyMouse.......

 

[Threepwood]

Sorry to be one of those people who pick up on spelling but do you mean that it irks you? I'm asking because I'm not quite sure if I'm understanding your meaning.

I don't mind. I meant it in that way that that left me feeling like vexed/irked but also made me feel like it's morally wrong (even if the intentions were noble) and a mistake to do those things (potential propagation, advertising of reddits jailbait section in a sig.

Could have put it better but was struggeling to find a word that matched what I was ranting about!

The link to this DM story is pretty tame, sure, it's more a backlash from the jailbait/reddit thread, yeah it was big news but some folk on here had no idea, I even remember someone mentioning that they use reddit but didn't know about the jailbait section. I just dont like to think about the ammount of people who went directly to that section before it was closed down precisely because of that section with the hightened publicity at the time, and in a creepy way. Then there are the people who dont even know what jailbait is, Mags included, but that is a different story, but then I have no idea how bad the jailbait photos were as I had no desire satisfy the curiosity.

My eldest son is 13, really enjoys computers etc, and I didn't use to mind him comming on here and having a read, but what with the racism stuff and some of the creepier stuff, some other things too, i'm sure you can imagine, Ive come to the conclusion that the ocuk forums are not actually family friendly, folk can get away with loads of unfriendly stuff as long as they dont swear while doing it

He can stick to the wow forums! for now anyway.

 

[Strife212]

Dolls you say?

Seriously though they look pretty weird.

 

[semi-pro waster]

I don't mind. I meant it in that way that that left me feeling like vexed/irked but also made me feel like it's morally wrong (even if the intentions were noble) and a mistake to do those things (potential propagation, advertising of reddits jailbait section in a sig.

Could have put it better but was struggeling to find a word that matched what I was ranting about!

Interesting adaptation, now you've explained I can see where you were going with it. I wanted to check if it was a deliberate change or just a misspelling but it seemed a bit too frequent to be an ordinary typo. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

So, because something is freely avaliable it's fine to send people to it? For real? I can understand the point that you are trying to make,

No, you don't.

but it makes no sense. I dont agree with beheading but I'm not going to give links to such things. Even if it is 'freely avaliable'. And they are your links, you know, the ones you copy and pasted into a forum?

From the most widely used news site in the UK. Rightly or wrongly, a lot of people use the DM as their go-to for news. Me linking to a story that has already broken is not me making news or raising awareness of something hither to unheard of. This is out there, it is live.

I dont know about you, but linking to a site with a 15 year old girl in semi sexual poses and suggestive clothing is as bad as the paper who are printing it. Why? Have I not already covered this? You are giving some of the creeps what they are creeping after. Great job. You even acknowlage it by suggesting they get their wrists ready (yes I know it was sarcasm)

Oh no. What if those guys already read the DM? They've missed out.

I'm not sweeping something under the carpet, why would I be asking you to think about about the part you are playing in propagating the very thing that you detest if I felt that way?

You'd prefer that these things were not reported. I'd prefer that they didn't happen.

It errs me, because it is exactly what the DM have done. What further errs me is, before such things were over publicized (and im talking more, actual pedophillia here not just ephebophilia) I think such thoughts (and ofc heinous actions) never even crossed the vast majority of peoples minds.

So, before people reported on terriblr things happening, those terrible things did not happen? Really?

Now, pfft, its ****** everywhere, it's being put INTO peoples minds... some of those creeps would never even have thought about such things and, subsequently never have done those things either.

Source please.

And yes, as I mention in your thread, you missed the sarcasm, sadly.

Sadly, indeed.

 

[bhavv]

When I knew nothing about it I used to assume that Anime was some sophisticated, high-brow art form, but then I watched some.

You've clearly never watched any of Hayou Miyazagi's films.

Howl's Moving Castle was my favorite and is unbelievably great, you should check it out sometime.

 

[Threepwood]

From the most widely used news site in the UK. Rightly or wrongly, a lot of people use the DM as their go-to for news. Me linking to a story that has already broken is not me making news or raising awareness of something hither to unheard of. This is out there, it is live.

We're talking about photos here. One of a 15 year old girl with sexually suggestive clothing and poses that should not have been printed in a national newspaper. We agree on that right? Now, can we also agree that, if we don't think it should happen we should not up the ammount of people who go to look at them? Do you not understand that you gave that page more hits?

Do you not understand that the more hits something gets, the higher the chance is they will report similar things? To make money off the back of sexualised girls under the age of consent? They did'nt just WRITE about it, they had to show PHOTOS of it too.

Oh no. What if those guys already read the DM? They've missed out.

I dont understand, how have the creeps missed out if they already read it? I'm talking about the creeps that may have gone to fap off about it because YOU sent them there.

You'd prefer that these things were not reported. I'd prefer that they didn't happen.

No. I prefere they did not happen also. I also would prefere that things like this were reported in a proper fashion, not 'not reported'.

So, before people reported on terriblr things happening, those terrible things did not happen? Really?

Again, no, that is not what I am saying. I'll use a very simple example: Give someone who has never tasted sugar some sugar, and they will probably want some sugar again in the future. In this example, equate the sugar to the photos.

Source please.

See above, and feel free to go boil your head



Edit: Oh, semi-pro waster, you're welcome.

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

We're talking about photos here. One of a 15 year old girl with sexually suggestive clothing and poses that should not have been printed in a national newspaper. We agree on that right?

I posted this in my OP.

Now, can we also agree that, if we don't think it should happen we should not up the ammount of people who go to look at them? Do you not understand that you gave that page more hits?

I don't know what the correlation between DM > OCUK and OCUK > Paedos is. You, somehow, do.

Do you not understand that the more hits something gets, the higher the chance is they will report similar things? To make money off the back of sexualised girls under the age of consent? They did'nt just WRITE about it, they had to show PHOTOS of it too.

I started this thread. Are you under some kind of illusion that you're arguing with me here. This is my thread, I posted about this very thing! Jesus Christ.

I dont understand, how have the creeps missed out if they already read it? I'm talking about the creeps that may have gone to fap off about it because YOU sent them there.

I sent them there? Let me get this straight - it's MY fault that deviants are fapping because I linked to a thread to one of the most widely read websites in the UK which posted pictures of potentially underage girls (which, by the way, was the entire point of my OP) and your summary is that it is MY fault?

No. I prefere they did not happen also. I also would prefere that things like this were reported in a proper fashion, not 'not reported'.

I have no idea what this means.

Again, no, that is not what I am saying.

YOu say this a lot. Perhaps it would be easier if you did manage to convey what it is you mean instead of having to rehash your poorly worded arguments time and time again and ignoring the questions that you can't answer.

I'll use a very simple example: Give someone who has never tasted sugar some sugar, and they will probably want some sugar again in the future. In this example, equate the sugar to the photos.

So, don't talk about it and it doesn't happen. Change the record.

 

[Threepwood]

Okay. I've come to the conclusion that you are either intentionally being obtuse and thick, or you are actually obtuse and thick....

The correlation between the DM and OcUK, is you. There is no correlation between Ocuk and pedos.

Yes, you sent more people than there would have been to that article (and it's photos). It's your fault that the article got more hits than it would have done. You just gave the DM more reason to do the thing you are campaining about in the future.

It means a: The DM reported that in a bad way & b: You reported it in a bad way for linking to something that should not get any more hits than it already did have, and you behaved EXACTLY the same as the DM. Furthering the audience.

I'm forced to say that a lot, because for some reason (intentionally or not) you seem to be a bit thick at understanding what someone is saying.

Finally... No, not 'dont talk about it and it doesn't happen', talk about it in a way that does not emulate the way the baddies do it, like the DM.

As for changing the record, you really are a total hypocrite. Change the record? Bloody hell! You really are such a condescending little weasel on these forums. You might think you get away with it in your 'cute' comedy fashion, but meh, it's actually quite sad.

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

Okay. I've come to the conclusion that you are either intentionally being obtuse and thick, or you are actually obtuse and thick....

The correlation between the DM and OcUK, is you. There is no correlation between Ocuk and pedos.

Yes, you sent more people than there would have been to that article (and it's photos). It's your fault that the article got more hits than it would have done. You just gave the DM more reason to do the thing you are campaining about in the future.

It means a: The DM reported that in a bad way & b: You reported it in a bad way for linking to something that should not get any more hits than it already did have, and you behaved EXACTLY the same as the DM. Furthering the audience.

I'm forced to say that a lot, because for some reason (intentionally or not) you seem to be a bit thick at understanding what someone is saying.

Finally... No, not 'dont talk about it and it doesn't happen talk about it in a way that does not emulate the way the baddies do it, like the DM.

As for changing the record, you really are a total hypocrite. Change the record? Bloody hell! You really are such a condescending little weasel on these forums. You might think you get away with it in your cute comedy fashion, but meh, it's actually quite sad.

You're right, I'm the problem. I'm the thick one. I can't believe I didn't see it before. Thank you for taking the time to post the answers to the questions you felt comfortable answering and ignoring those which didn't fit with your world view.

No, the pleasure was all mine. Really.