Archive for the ‘reg bailey’ tag
Feminists and Femiservatives Ban Raunchy Ads in the UK
The femi-islamification of the UK proceeded apace this week with the news that ‘indecent’ advertising billboards will be outlawed everywhere. Indecent in the UK now apparently means any image of a female in a sexually suggestive pose. Advertisers can still dare to risk fines or imprisonment by showing women in bikinis, but if she is in an ‘indecent’ pose – for example with her hands on her hips – then the the advert will be deemed illegal and a threat to the sexual innocence of children.
The move comes ahead of a Downing Street summit this week between David Cameron and companies involved in leading the Coalition’s campaign to combat the sexualisation of children.
Banning raunchy billboard adverts near schools was one of a number of recommendations made in May this year following a Government-commissioned review by Reg Bailey, chief executive of the Mothers’ Union.
While billboards will be allowed to carry posters of models wearing bikinis, they will not be allowed to show them in poses that are deemed to be sexually suggestive, the ASA guideliens rule.
This will cover everything from images of stockings and suspenders to poses where the legs are parted or even hands are placed on hips.
Reg Bailey is the head of the fundamentalist Christian/femiservative group ‘the mother’s union’. The UK is supposed to be a secular society, with less than 3% of the population attending church regularly. The present coalition government includes ‘the liberal democrats’, which to a naive person, should have something to do with pursuing policies that are liberal and democratic – rather than imposing religious edicts that a Saudi Arabian mullah would approve of.
The original report into the sexualisation of children was written by Linda Papadopoulos, an American pop psychologist and feminist now living in the UK, and somebody who loves to attend children’s charity galas in incredibly revealing and sexualised outfits.
Of course, the logical next step is to control what children wear. Dressing up billboard models with burqas instead of bikinis won’t, in itself, have much impact on the vast numbers of barely pubescent girls walking around in semi-transparent spandex leggings and g-string in every town and city in the UK (and giving conservative middle-aged men uncomfortable erections). Not when every other 20 year old woman in the UK is wearing the same and the younger girls are noticing all the male attention that such clothes attract.
In fact, the ‘review on the sexualisation of children’ has already made a recommendation that fashion brands stop making children’s clothes with ‘inappropriate’ materials. Unfortunately, as far as feminists/femiservatives are concerned, this won’t be enough to stop 15, 16 and 17 year old ‘children’ displaying their perfectly near naked and fertile rumps to every man who passes them – unless you actually ban the selling of such clothes to anyone under 18, ID checks and all – which is probably where we’re heading. In the Islamic world, it is only when girls begin puberty (i.e at 12 or 13, when they cease to be children in the land of non-feminist reality and start to become attractive to men) that they are required to cover themselves up. In the Western feminist world, we will soon have a sort of curious ‘reverse’, at least for a while. Only ‘children’ will be required to cover themselves up – under the pretence that it is to save ‘children’ from being ‘sexualised’. Of course, what feminists and femiservatives are really trying to do is to stop and disempower the the most fertile and desirable group of females – teenage girls – from attracting male attention and driving their own aged haggard selves crazy with sexual envy and fury.
Meanwhile, as children’s innocence is protected by the billboard burqa police, probably every other teenage ‘child’ in the land is watching videos of mexican drug gangs beheading rivals with chainsaws and the like. And reading, with a curious erection, of the latest dirty pedo to be disemboweled in prison – wot, no video?
On a lighter note…there are a number of videos on YouTube where sexy young women have attached spy cams to parts of their body to show what disgusting dogs men are, through secretly capturing every glance at their see-through spandex clad butt. Well here’s a video where the tables are turned. A muscular, fit young man attaches cams to every part of HIS body, and then goes out and meets women. What do you think these non-objectifying women are going to be staring at?
British ‘Mother’s Union’ Demands De-Sexualisation of Teenage Girls
The British government this week demanded an end to the ‘sexualisation of children’. The calls came after the results of an ‘independent’ report by an organisation calling itself the ‘Mother’s Union’, and led, rather oddly, by a man – Reg Bailey. The report calls for restrictions on sales of sexualised and ‘gender stereotyped’ clothing for children, and also backs stronger measures to prevent children viewing sexy MTV videos, lad’s mags in newsagents, and, of course, internet porn.
If you take a look at the homepage of the Mother’s Union you’ll see that it’s an explicitly Christian family organisation. This is what apparently counts as an ‘independent organisation’ fit to decide legislation in 21st century secular Britain.
This report actually follows, and mirrors, an earlier one conducted for the out-going NuLabour government. That report was the work mainly of pop-psychologist Dr Linda Papadopoulos, a transplanted American feminist who revels in wearing highly sexualised costumes at children’s charity galas :
Linda Papadopolous - Don't Do As I Do, Girls
Her report claimed a clear link between sexualised imagery and violence towards females, as well as supposed evidence that teenage girls were being bullied into posting naked photos of themselves onto social networking sites.
It couldn’t possibly be that teenage girls have similar minds to 30 year old American pop psychologists, and simply enjoy being attention whores, like the sexual beings that they are?
Let’s be clear – there is no such thing as the sexualisation of teenagers. Only the artificial de-sexualisation of teenagers. Girls in their early teens have been marrying and begetting families since the dawn of human history. In fact, this has been the norm until the last century. Society doesn’t sexualise teenage ‘children’, mother nature does – through the flood of estrogen coursing through the female body at the menarche, the onset of puberty which has remained constant at around 12 years of age throughout most of recorded history (the apparent later onset of puberty in girls during much of the last 150 years appears to be something of an anomaly).
Of course, what we have here again is feminists (and their Christian femiservative sisters) exploiting the absurd definition of teenagers as children in order to restrict sexual competition from their younger rivals. It really is as simple as that. And to do this without any regard for the potential harm that this artificial sexual infantalisation of young adults (which teenagers always were and should still be) might have for their long term mental health, or ability to function as adults, is nothing short of abuse and exploitation.
