tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8920850427843688264.post1063152572775392000..comments2023-03-27T07:26:57.437-07:00Comments on ObscenityLawyer: Is using euphemism to render the simple obscure yet another sexual problem?ObscenityLawyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15652268259166107121noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8920850427843688264.post-10326395741449740712012-08-08T15:55:21.814-07:002012-08-08T15:55:21.814-07:00This is a serious BBC problem.
The Today Programm...This is a serious BBC problem.<br /><br />The Today Programme keep doing it with 'offensive' tweets, whether 'racist' or 'sexually explicit'.<br /><br />They refuse to repeat what was allegedly tweeted then tell us how offensive it was. They did it (I think) in the Terry case.<br /><br />It is inimical to accurate reporting.Ferdinandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08449417038009763914noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8920850427843688264.post-41705197580048088192012-01-13T04:45:12.283-08:002012-01-13T04:45:12.283-08:00I think that this boils down to the ‘ assimilation...I think that this boils down to the ‘ assimilation of information’. <br /><br />I agree, there can be a lot of confusion when more technically creative terms are used to describe sexual practices in the course of a discussion. <br /><br />This would inevitably leave people thinking ‘what does that mean?’ or ‘does this that mean this?’ meanwhile, the content is being lost while the listener is trying to ‘decode’ those ‘secret words’. <br /><br />Therefore in order to convey understanding, simpler terms could be used (as they are in Sexual Health Clinics for example), so that there would be no ‘guessing’ at what a particular phrase might mean, thus making the message easier to digest. <br /><br />Elly’s comment was interesting; I think that in order for the case to be assimilated by the population the there was a ‘need’ to categorise the sexuality of the defendant. I think that if this weren’t done, there would be a block on the essentials of the case being absorbed, as the primary thought for many would be (not that it mattered) ‘what is his sexuality?’ Even when the case was finished that question would still be there, while the essentials would be pushed to the back. <br /><br />It seems to be the way in which many of us think, we (as a society) like the forcing of people into categories, such as an individual being Gay, Bisexual or Heterosexual for example. <br /><br />Anything outside of this and we seem to have a problem digesting it. <br /><br />A man who has sex with other men but who says he’s not gay or bisexual would cause a ‘system crash’ for some of us, as it’s outside the set ‘norm’ for how we interpret the world we live in. Unable to accept this new information, everything that was learned (about that topic) is simply ignored, as we choose to ‘stick with what we know’. <br /><br />The Language and words we use are powerful, they enable us to enlighten, educate and understand, though they also allow us to condemn, confine, and restrict, dependant on what is being said and by whom. <br /><br />Risky. But right now, it seems to be the best we have, no it’s all we have. <br /><br />We have to use these skills wisely.Lore Rueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15006904750821788711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8920850427843688264.post-58014863071043494312012-01-08T04:48:32.303-08:002012-01-08T04:48:32.303-08:00I agree with your points but I think, as I said on...I agree with your points but I think, as I said on twitter, that Foucault would be wary of *any* discourse around sex and sexuality. The 'Law of sex' does not just happen in the courtroom but also on the radio, in the papers and on the internet. Talking 'frankly' is different for different people and has different consequences.<br /><br />Frankly I have found the focus on the 'gay' sexual identity of the defendant and the participants in the porn very annoying and problematic as many men who have sex with men, including in pornography do not identify as 'gay'.<br /><br />Language is Power as Barthes, Foucault's friend, said.Ellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01103667133412183125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8920850427843688264.post-17081314760571187752012-01-08T03:39:13.650-08:002012-01-08T03:39:13.650-08:00You're stuck in the world where it's not t...You're stuck in the world where it's not the law, but the BBC 'Producer Guidelines' that dictate what can be said.<br /><br />In a sense, you didn't need to be any more specific than 'sexual acts'. Surely the biggest point is the contradiction between acts that are legal in the flesh, but where the police and law may challenge them if you record them. This is a bigger point than the specifics of the case, and outlines the broader principle quite nicely.<br /><br />(and though the obvious next question is 'what acts', you could be safe in knowing that the journalist wouldn't ask you that)<br /><br />You can still raise the question of how we can increase the safety of anything (from crossing the road, to undertaking sexual acts) if we're not permitted to produce material which can explain and inform about itBorough Boyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047255355988573939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8920850427843688264.post-87025531552467402932012-01-07T17:44:26.020-08:002012-01-07T17:44:26.020-08:00I believe that other terms for fisting could be be...I believe that other terms for fisting could be be brachioproctic eroticism or brachioproctism.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com