Lily Allen F*** Word Video Too Risque for daytime viewing on MTV

Found at Sparkle's

MTV are worried about the use of the F word in Lily Allen's smile video and are only showing it in late night slots.

"The popular music channel has relocated the promo clip for Allen’s number one hit ‘Smile’ to late-night airing only because it features the word “f**k”.
Allen fumed: “They (MTV) said, ‘We don’t want kids to grow up too quickly,’ but then you have Paris Hilton and the Pussycat Dolls taking their clothes off and gyrating up against womanising men, and that’s acceptable. "

Breasts on MySpace

Erika has highlighted the sorry state of affairs over at MySpace where breasts are acceptable but only if suitably sexualised. Breastfeeding a baby is however completely unacceptable.

The following avatar was deemed unacceptable and removed.

Yet the following is perfectly acceptable.

Hathor's site at myspace seems to have gone but I took a copy of this earlier.

Sign The Petition

The Birqini

The Birqini has been designed by an australian muslim woman - Aheda Zanett.

Burqini on the beach - Interview with Aheda.

Responsible Animal Rights Organisations

Responsible Animals Rights Organisations

In Defense of Animals

Friends of Animals



PETA - why not to support them

Why is rape so easy to get away with?

Another article about how rape victims have only a tiny chance of seeing their attacker convicted.

Not only are women who report rape routinely viewed as liars; it would seem that once a woman becomes sexually active she is no longer allowed to say "no" on subsequent occasions.

"If there is too much in the defence's favour, such as she was carrying condoms, it is unlikely to result in a conviction."

In 1998, a headline appeared in the local Grimsby weekly: "Man faces rape charge". He had dragged a 15-year-old girl down an alley and assaulted her. The CPS decided not to pursue the case. That man was Ian Huntley. At the time, he was not seen as a danger to the public, and neither are the majority of other "opportunist" rapists who get away with it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,2003229,00.html

Institutional Sexism - Rapists Immune from Prosecution

Excellent article in The Independent which examines the legal systems attitudes to rape as a crime. The article highlights the current situation where the legal system consistly believes the best of men and the worst of women. The message to men is that unless they have a previous conviction they may rape with impunity and immunity.

************************

There is a crisis in the criminal justice system: despite years of heroic efforts by the survivors of sexual violence to help us understand that rape is not an excess of desire, nor the incontinent rush of incompetent men, that it is a crime of domination, the system believes the best of men and the worst of women.

Despite the rapport between survivors, feminist self-help networks and scholars and some senior police officers - not least Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, himself an expert in rape prosecution - rank-and-file policing delivers no better outcomes. Despite the enlightened Sexual Offences Act 2003 , judges and juries, it seems, would rather not convict men.

The message to men is that unless they have a previous conviction they may rape with impunity and immunity. Most of their victims - thousands of them - know who their attackers are. Sometimes the police track them down; sometimes they don't bother.

There is exemplary policing, but typically the police give up too early. Judges and juries acquit too easily. Politicians, with few noble exceptions, keep schtum. Women feel muddled, abandoned and ashamed. Men feel got-at, angry and ashamed.

Hardly anyone with any power to do anything about it helps men to think about the reform of their relationships with women. The most moralising government and interventionist Home Office in living memory doesn't get it yet: that the sexual disrespect of women is domination worth condemning.

This is a crisis - it is a crisis of knowing. Popular prejudices about love and passion, of sex and sobriety, still result in women being blamed if they do not fight to the death, or extend goodwill to men rather than regarding them with permanent, paranoid vigilance.

The body of the woman still has to be the battleground mapping the evidence of conflict: she has to show the scars of dangerous, perhaps self-destructive, resistance to overwhelming force. Otherwise the conflict is translated as compliance.

If drink is involved - as it often is, Britons being the biggest drinkers in Europe - then the woman is maligned as irresponsible and the man forgiven as merely reasonable.

Professor Liz Kelly's research among survivors, the Met's own research into 677 rape-case files, the accumulated wisdom of the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo), Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and the Crown Prosecution Service are all converging. They are telling a complicated story about rape: it unsettles the "common sense" about where rape happens and to whom and why. It is not the man in a balaclava by a dark canal; it's a man the woman knows.

"It's more mundane - rape is about the complexities of everyday life," says Kelly. Rape sometimes strikes like lightning, but usually it is only ordinary, inside - not outside - a relationship. Dave Gee, an adviser with Acpo, draws attention to the distinction between "stranger rape and relationship rape" - it is this disparity that confounds the system. It also confuses the society, which doesn't seem to believe that "real rape" happens in "real life".

Police ideologies were challenged and changed by the rape crisis centres organised by the women's movement in most cities in Britain during the Seventies and Eighties because the police knew they knew more about rape than they did. The nation was transfixed by Roger Graef's mesmerising fly-on-the-wall documentary showing Thames Valley police harassing a victim in 1982.

Women do not get justice from judges or juries - yet juries are only us. "The country we live in is the jury," says South Essex Rape Crisis Centre. There have been huge efforts to "keep women in the system, to support a woman from report to court, but the system doesn't work".

The organisation adds: "We know the impact rape has on their friends and their families and their colleagues - and on men. Everybody, women and men, is being controlled by the impact of a small percentage of perpetrators. We're used to talking about women fearing to go out at night, but we don't talk so much about the impact on men and their uncertainties about how they should behave. All of our behaviours are led by the effects of perpetrators over the everyday lives of women - and men."

Professor Kelly warns that the crisis in the courts - those decisive public tribunals - is encouraging despair: "There is a lot of evidence that something fundamental needs to happen, that the criminal justice system needs to totally rethink the construction of cases in the courts. But it isn't happening. I am very worried that the adversarial legal system and institutional sexism can't deliver justice to women. I don't want to think it, but that's what it feels like." She believes that "the police will need to run the whole process differently".

Dave Gee warns that rape is still the only crime in which "too often society judges the victim before it investigates the offence".

It is not as if the Home Office does not know - Professor Kelly's research was published by the Home Office; ministers and Parliament were closely involved in the mighty overhaul of the law on sexual offences which yielded the inspired changes on consent and capacity.

But there is bad faith between the victims and the system, which squanders the best evidence available to help judges and juries deliver justice - that of the women themselves. Our culture cannot empathise with victims because it sympathises with defendants and their version of events. A woman's abuse is a perpetrator's pleasure, no means yes, and submission is consent.

But even this self-deception requires the effort of interpretation. And if we demand it of the perpetrators we must demand it of ourselves. We all need help to raise our collective consciousness. We can do it: we have changed our minds about smoking and fox-hunting and beating children; we have made drinking and driving lose its legitimacy. Now is the time for a cultural revolution against sexual abuse and rape.

article

Victim Rights Ignored by Judge

From SparkleMatrix

Shocking case where the judge does not want to ruin a promising football career so the self-confessed guilty defendant walks free.

Callum McKinlay, 16, last week admitted filming a friend having sex with a young girl and then distributing the pictures to schoolfriends. McKinlay, who has played for the Scotland Under-16 squad, was told by a sheriff he would not be punished for fear of harming his football career.

According to The Scotsman both police who investigated the case, and the mother of the girl, claim the incident has been massively underplayed and are enraged that both the young men involved escaped the most serious criminal charges.

Quote from a source at Tayside Police:

"The Crown has not moved on as we have in recent years when dealing with sexual crime, and the interests of victims never seem to be the main concern for prosecutors."

From reading the details of The Scotsman Article it is clear that both boys involved in the case were orginally charged with rape, serious sexual assault and sex with a minor by the police. Despite the fact that video evidence existed to back up these charges The Crown decided to drop proceedings.

In fact the defendent walked free on even the lesser charge of making and distributing indecent images as the Sheriff didn't want to damage a promising football career. The rights of the victim have been completely ignored in this case.

Sandra Brown, founder of the Moira Anderson Foundation, a charity that works with families affected by child sexual abuse and has supported the girl's family, said: "The balance in the justice system is clearly still not right. This girl is a vulnerable child, the sort of person the system is supposed to protect, yet she has been let down because the interests of the young men involved and their futures have been given priority."

Useful Fact for The Day

My interesting fact for the day is that you can report newagents who flout the National Federation of Retail Newsagents Guidelines to Trading Standards.

Apparently the deal, struck between newsagents and Home Office officials, is not legally binding but trading standards will be able to reprimand offending outlets.

"Newspapers such as the Daily Sport can remain on the bottom shelf if they are folded in a way to conceal sexually explicit content."

"Spokesman Colin Finch said although it was a voluntary code extending existing restrictions on top shelf titles, trading standards officials could reprimand offenders."

Woolworth's "Family Friendly" Top Shelf Policy

Woolworth's promote themselves as family friendly store. To quote from their website:

"one of the UK's leading retailers focused on the home, family and entertainment"

I find it quite surprising that a family focused store like Woolworths actually stock publications like Zoo and Nuts at all. But thats another story. Woolworths do put their magazines such as Zoo, Nuts etc on the Top Shelf. But laughingly this top shelf is only four and half feet high.

Four and half feet - that's the the height of an average nine year old. That doesn't meet with my expectation of Top Shelf. So although I favour moving these publications to the top shelf; I feel that Woolworth's implementation of a top shelf policy is somewhat lacking. A Top Shelf should not be at the eye level of an average nine year old.



I was also quite surprised that this family friendly store positions Zoo and Nuts within handsreach of Power Rangers magazine and a range of other children's magazines.

My Hairy Experiment

2006 has been an unusual year for me in that for the first time in my life I made a conscious decision not to remove my body hair. Body hair is something that I have removed since it first appeared as a teenager and my granny declared that I was turning into a hairy monster.

Removing my body hair was something that I just did every few days. I liked the way my shaved legs felt smooth and sensuous. I tried various forms of hair removal but stuck with shaving as it's quick, painless and cheap. However frequently my shameful stubbly legs would be hidden away underneath trousers during the working week and then shaved sensously smooth on a friday evening to celebrate the arrival of weekend.

In many ways I felt that in the hair removal game women had been dealt an easier hand than men. Most men shave every day and cannot easily hide their face stubble from view. As a woman it is quite easy to hide your body hair from public view. So shaving everyday is not a requirement. But going to the beach or wearing summer clothes would always mean thoroughly removing any exposed body hair. I never really thought about why I removed my body hair. It was simply something that was expected. I have only ever seen one real woman with hairy legs and nearly every image that I have ever seen in the media is of smooth, hairless women. Consequently my own sense of attractiveness was intrinsically linked with being smooth and hairless.


So over the years I shaved, waxed and imaaced in an effort to be attractive and sexy. In my own head there was a clear understanding that body hair was something to be ashamed of. It was dirty, abnormal and unattractive. Even the appearance of stars such as Julia Roberts in her hairy armpit dress did not cause me to question this view. Hairy armpits and legs on a woman were simply unattractive and unfeminine. One interesting aspect is that although I experimented with the brazilian concept I found that I just did not like my nether regions being bare. It just didn't look right to me and seemed a bit too childlike. So except for my bikini triangle I removed most of my hair.

Then one day my legs developed some sort of irritation and my legs became incredibly itchy. I would scratch my legs until they bled. I had huge scratch marks all over my legs. I thought that some sunlight would help my legs to heal. So I started wearing shorts and skirts to let the summer sun soothe my legs. It struck me as being quite bizarre that I was prepared to expose my horrible scratched,scabby legs to public view but only if they were hairless. I began to think a bit more about body hair and realized that our society has major taboos about body hair.

I began to notice that a huge variety of women's leg were on display: attractive, unattractive, shapely, fat, bruised, dimpled, old and young. But they were all completely smooth and hairless. With exposure to sunlight my scabby legs gradually improved. But the seed of an idea had been planted.

This year I read a few blogs where women discussed their experiences with their body hair. Eventually it dawned on me that practically every women in the world has naturally hairy armpits and legs. This is the natural state of an adult woman. The increasing trend to hairlessness is certainly part of a fashion trend. But it goes beyond that. Hairlessness in woman is deemed to be an essential part of personal hygiene. Men can be clean with hairy legs and armpits but a woman who exposes her hairiness is considered dirty. I find this concept difficult to comprehend.

As women we are meant to pretend that our body hair doesn't exist. It is simply not feminine. This has caused me to question what feminity is all about. The world tells me that an adult woman with body hair is not considered feminine. Perhaps I aspire to being a woman rather than being feminine then. They do not seem to be the same thing.

Ultimately as a heterosexual female I want to be attractive to men. I want to find a mate. Is hair removal just part of the game we play in finding a mate? Is it simply part of the process of making ourselves appear more attractive. Just another tool like hair dye, lipstick or ear-rings? Perhaps but it doesn't seem like that to me. I can choose whether to dye my hair or wear lipstick. My family would not object to me arriving at a family wedding with undyed hair and without lipstick but hairy legs would be a bit much.

The strong emotional reactions which the visible presence of body hair on a woman would cause also surprised me. One female journalist in The Daily Mail claimed Trinni Woodall was letting the side down by appearing in public with hairy armpits. A female blogger refused to buy an album because the lead singer of the band had hairy armpits. These reactions of disgust towards the natural state of a womans body saddened me.

So I decided to conduct a little experiment on myself. I would stop removing my body hair. I wanted to see what I looked like as an adult hairy woman. It struck me as odd that I had no idea what my natural unshaven armpits and legs looked like.

Initially the growth of stubble was iritating but within a few weeks this passed. After five months the hair on my legs doesn't feel iritating at all. It feels quite smooth and much less irritating than stubble. I was surprised by how hairy my new "man legs" were. A womans hairy legs can actually be as hairy or even hairier than a mans. My hairy status has changed how I dress in that I don't wear sleeveless tops or short skirts in formal settings. I am quite wary of the negative reactions which my body hair may elicit.

My expectation is that men will find my body hair unattractive and masculine. However in reality I don't think men find my body hair anymore difficult to deal with than I do myself. Man legs on a woman is not something that we are used to. We have a lifetimes worth of conditioning to expect smooth hairless female legs.

But interestingly even with this lifetime's worth of conditioning I am growing to love my bleached blonde leg hairs. Ironically now my legs feel silky smooth all the time and not only when I have just shaved. I feel that I have been freed from my enslavement to the razor. Certainly some might say I have merely swapped my enslavement to the razor for one with bleach. Perhaps that it is true. But I like my new hairy smooth blonde legs. Sex however is much more spontaneous as I don't need to worry about stubbly legs. I am now constantly smooth. My freedom from the razor comes at a price; short skirts and sleeveless dresses in a work situation would probably cause uproar. But this is a price that is worth paying. They will be denied the beauty of my wonderful hairy legs!

Yet I am aware that in our current society my hairy body makes some sort of statement. Do my hairy legs mark me out as an anti-male feminist? Certainly I expect my hairy legs and armpits will limit my pool of potential partners. My current view is that my body hair will act as a filtering device to eliminate any of the more superficial potential mates. My hope would be that anyone who can't see past the societal conditioning about female body hair is simply not worth wasting any time on. The alternative view would be that my potential mates will made up of those who are so desperate that they don't care. Naturally I am adopting the former view.

From a personal viewpoint I don't regard my hairiness as being anti-male or anti-female. It is just a personal decision. Certainly I picked an easy time of the year to try my experiment in that when needed I have been able to easily cover my body hair. But I regarded this experiment as being more about whether I could accept my own natural hairiness or would I view my body with disgust. A hot summer next year will bring new challenges and decisions about strappy tops.