Cameron gets tough on raunchy pop videos

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/internet/9192366/Cameron-gets-tough-on-raunchy-videos.html

Explicit music videos made by stars such as Rihanna, Beyoncé and Madonna would be given 18 certificates and subject to greater restrictions to protect children, under plans being looked at by David Cameron.

24 thoughts on “Cameron gets tough on raunchy pop videos

  1. Alan Vaughn

    Ah, good idea… While he’s at it he might as well pass legislation that mandates all women under 40 years old to wear a burka, anywhere outside of their homes or normal places of residence.
    Let’s just de-sexualize society completely: sexual intercourse can only be engaged in between couples ONLY for the purpose of breeding.
    Of course all erotica, (including beauty contests, modelling, erotic magazines, pornography), ANYTHING that depicts or describes young women in a possibly sexually enticing state, must be eliminated from society and anyone caught in possession of such indecent material must face years in prison or even death.
    Why bother with these half-measures, let’s just go the whole way to a totally sexless society so we can rid it of ‘paedophiles’ once and for all….
    (According to their stupid logic, they would probably believe if they had no source of arousal such as hot music videos, the paedophiles [in reality: normal men] would just lose interest).

  2. Ramon

    That fag should be protecting children from their single mothers as She is the greatest physical and emotional threat to childrens’ well-being. Raw stats, unmolested by feminist bullshit, don’t lie, If this Cameron he-bitch really wanted to protect children, he would grant biological fathers primary custody of their children. As a result, fewer children would be murdered by their sociopathic single mothers and the delinquincy rate of children would fall down dramatically within a decade. However, since democracy is such a failure, Cameron can NEVER acknowledge such an Inconvenient Truth, even if it undoubtedly saves countless children from a dysfunctional and unhappy childhood.

  3. What about women on the street? I mean you don’t go around watching videos, teenagers could easily be watching a miniskirt in from of them.

    The double standard is that if they were male singers, they will be banned in UK.

  4. Alan Vaughn

    MRA, see my answer (above) it addresses that possible source of ‘corruption’ also!
    Seriously though, if one looks carefully at the trend of the passing of all these stupid laws, one could be forgiven for believing that Islamic style law will soon apply in the UK and eventually to the entire EU and all of Western democracies.
    As with all social engineering: change is introduced gradually, to get people ‘comfortable’ with some minor change, then once it’s ‘settled in’ (when everyone appears ‘comfortable’) with that minor change, they bring in another minor change and so-on…
    Until eventually, as with this discussion on the de-sexualization of women and girls, Islamic law will prevail.

  5. theantifeminist

    Post author

    Why bother with these half-measures, let’s just go the whole way to a totally sexless society so we can rid it of ‘paedophiles’ once and for all….

    Because politicians love the legislative creep – they need a new law to pluck from their assholes every time the female vote is sought or the paedocrite mob needs to be distracted from the economy etc.

    It’s death by a thousand cuts for every heterosexual man with a functioning dick. (Or castration by a thousand cuts!)

  6. theantifeminist

    Post author

    Feminism has more in common with Islam than it has differences. These anti-sex laws appeal to both muslims and the majority of women – together probably accounting for half the British electorate already.

    W.F.Price recently wrote that Obama is confident already that he only needs women and minorities to vote for him to retain power.

    http://www.the-spearhead.com/2012/04/06/obama-writes-off-men-in-presidential-campaign-romney-appears-to-do-same/

  7. theantifeminist

    Post author

    BTW guys, I’ll be away for a week or two, so don’t worry if there are no updates for a little while.

  8. Alan Vaughn

    Yes, I read that disturbing story yesterday…
    I referred to that legislative creep albeit sarcastically in my first comment, which is why you answered it the way I had hoped someone would…
    If you’re going to be away, I hope it won’t effectively open the door to let in more feminist / mangina trolls?

  9. theantifeminist

    Post author

    I’ll still be able to moderate comments but I doubt if I’ll have time to post anything. I might schedule a couple of posts.

  10. Deano

    Ramon – an excellent point. Restricting Rhiannon’s videos won’t save a single kid from abuse, but it will save most feminists from being reminded how low down the scale of attractiveness they sit. The real child abuse going on here is the way a genuinely serious concern has been hijacked by an elite group for their own selfish purposes. Stunts like restricting pop videos show just how unconcerned they really are about the epidemic of physical child abuse committed by mothers.

  11. Alan Vaughn

    Ramon,
    Have you seen the video series on ‘Family’ at href=”http://www.manwomanmyth.com/video/family/” target=”_blank”>Man Woman & Myth’s blog?
    He covers what you’ve discussed here and much more. If you haven’t seen it already, it’s well worth a look – total viewing time on that topic: ‘Family’ is about 3 hours, but it’s divided up into 9 seperarte parts or chapters, the longest of which is just under 40 minutes.
    All of this guy’s video presentations are of world-class documentary standard, better than many docco’s I’ve seen on Discovery or Nat. Geographic channels and it’s a shame that channels such as those won’t allow his work to be screened!
    If they did, it would probably mark the beginning of the end for feminists and of feminism…

  12. Alan Vaughn

    Ramon,
    Have you seen the video series on ‘Family’ at Man Woman & Myth’s blog?
    He covers what you’ve discussed here and much more. If you haven’t seen it already, it’s well worth a look – total viewing time on that topic: ‘Family’ is about 3 hours, but it’s divided up into 9 seperarte parts or chapters, the longest of which is just under 40 minutes.
    All of this guy’s video presentations are of world-class documentary standard, better than many docco’s I’ve seen on Discovery or Nat. Geographic channels and it’s a shame that channels such as those won’t allow his work to be screened!
    If they did, it would probably mark the beginning of the end for feminists and of feminism…

  13. inclinedreader

    However, Gary Barlow, the Take That singer who is now a father of three, last year said he was shocked by the sexual moves some teenage girls performed during auditions for X Factor, the TV talent show he judges.

    “Music videos are so sexual these days,” he said. “It all filters down. We had girls auditioning for the X Factor and you wouldn’t believe the kind of moves they were doing. I sat there and thought, Jesus Christ.”

    Now correct me if I’m wrong – but the minimum age for contestants on the X Factor is 16. Which means even under UK law, they are at or above the age of consent.

    If 16-year-olds moving “sexually” horrify you, then obviously it’s been a very long time since you were 16 yourself. If not chronologically (Gary Barlow is only in his early 40s), then definitely mentally.

    In a way it’s ironic, if not disingenuous on Barlow’s part – the very same female demographic on whose wet adolescent dreams he forged most of his recording artist career, he would apparently nowadays like to see wearing chastity belts.

  14. Alan Vaughn

    I think he might be suffering a bit of that same jealousy the feminists he appears to support suffer from, except for a slightly different reason of course. Unlike most of his sexual trade union colleagues, this mangina Barlow wants his wet dreams you mention to come true and because he knows that can’t happen – he can’t have these hot 16+ y/o girls, he would indeed want them wearing chastity belts under their burkas (that he would no doubt, also prefer them to wear).

  15. Alan Vaughn

    Sorry Ramon, I totally f#*^+d up, see below: it has the link to Man Woman Myth’s site.

  16. inclinedreader

    My point is, people like him and his Take That band mates rose to stardom in times of unprecedented sexual liberation, where unbridled hedonism was the flavor of the age, and as the biggest teen idols of their time, they probably all had more than their fair share of random casual sex with groupies from their target audience.

    But now that he’s a middle-aged dad, it seems that all of a sudden he and his generation thoughtlessly eat up and wilfully spread all kinds of feminist and moral conservative propaganda. Which essentially makes it deliberately hard for today’s young people to enjoy the same freedoms, and that includes sexual freedom, that their own generation 20 years ago was lucky enough to be able to indulge in and take for granted.

    And that is perhaps the biggest dishonesty in all of this. For decades, until they themselves became middle-aged burnouts, life was one big party with all the sex, drugs, and rock’n roll they could (and sometimes couldn’t) handle. But now that a new young generation is on the rise, today’s middle-aged has-beens can’t stand the fact that every sexually explicit video clip, every pop singer’s raunchy outfit, every instance of unapologetic sexual hedonism is a constant reminder that the torch has been passed. That they are no longer the center of attention, and that today’s young people have taken over.

  17. Theodore Dalrymple made the same point. He stated that prison inmates that sire illegitimate children are hypocrites when they attack “paedophiles”.

  18. joe

    What an idiot, so you can have sex at 16 but can’t watch a crappy music video. The guy is a dick.

  19. Alan Vaughn

    Joe,
    yep it appears so, but my bet is that this would be the first part of their overall plan to increase the age at which young people can legally have consensual sex. The sexual trade union would like to see that raised to 25 or older if possible, but they’ll settle for raising it from its current 16 years to 18 to start with. It’s already 18 in most American states.

  20. theantifeminist

    Post author

    Sorry Jack – I only took my LG smartphone to Spain and it conked out after a few days. I could try the system where readers have to enter 4 displayed numbers or text in order to post their comments (which is then approved automatically) – the problem with that is that feminist trolls would be able to post comments (which I would delete).

    Andrew had several comments put in the spam folder, so I apologise to him greatly.

    I’ll put a new article up in the morning. Thanks for continuing to leave comments when I was away.

  21. Alan Vaughn

    theantifeminist,
    while you were away, I visited a few other ‘MRA” blogs and was quite alarmed at the number of paedocrites among their supporters and commentators.
    I was always aware that Reddits, i.e. Reddits mangina’s rights was essentially a group of spineless manginas, however I didn’t know until very recently one of the more ‘reputable’ men’s rights activism blogs, namely ‘AVfM’ shared the same views as the sexual trade union, thus are in effect supporting one of their most oppressive and HARMFUL (to men / boys) ideologies…

    See this angry discourse of of paedo-hysterical ignorance between highly regarded MRA:
    Aoirthoir An Broc Masculinist and a REAL MRA calling himself ‘JdL’.

    This sort of ignorance really infuriates me, because apart from the obvious paedocrite denial it also asserts support for some of the most unfair and oppressive laws ever mandated against any group of people. Perhaps they simply don’t know that these Draconian laws were lobbied for and won by the sexual trade union, but I doubt it. It’s far more likely that because of omnipresent and rapant paedo-hysteria, they are too afraid to oppose or express any kind of dissent about them.

    Somewhere in the same blog, I even chronicled a short reply to someone explaining how my grandparents were married at 16 and 17 yrs old. (g.mother 16, g.father 17). My grandmother had her first child, (my uncle) soon after turning 17. She’d been married over 1 year by then.

    So my question is: if they are afraid to object, or show dissent, even anonymously: are they really MRA’s?

  22. Alan Vaughn

    I was referring especially to this final exchange (in the same thread linked to above):

    JdL
    I find it highly ironic that the entire theme of this article is to chastize women for cheapening words, specifically the word “war”, yet the author, and the commenters almost without exception, enthusiastically participate in cheapening the word “rape” when it suits their agenda. For the record, I don’t think that the seduction of under-18, but sexually mature, teen girls should be classified as “rape” either.

    Aoirthoir An Broc Masculinist
    Fuck off JDL. It IS rape when someone is forced to have sex against their will, or when they are incapable of consenting. A child is incapable of consent.

    It does not cheapen the word rape to call an act of rape, rape. Go fuck yourself and the rock crawled out from under.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>