Subject Matter

When I lived in Thailand, there were a couple of magazines there entirely devoted to grotesque and gratuituous 'crime scene photos'. Corpses, blood spatter, you name it. I first noticed them amongst a pile of clothing design magazines on the coffee table at the tailors where I was having a couple of suits made for me. I don't think there's a 'should' in the equation. What I feel 'should' happen is quite different from what other people feel 'should' happen, in any given situation. I'm all for setting *personal* limitations in terms of morality, 'correct' conduct, etc., but of course not everyone will adhere to these same principles. That's why you get things like child porn, snuff films, etc. Some people have much ... er ... broader boundaries than others. I feel the only way to control or even protest against such things, is to not buy them, look at them, etc. It's a supply-and-demand situation. If the demand lessens, so does the supply.

Would that site happen to be Rotten.com? “This age thinks better of a gilded fool than of a threadbare saint in wisdom’s school.”

To be honest I think rotten.com is at the tamer end of the fucked up website spectrum. I agree 100% with what AG said. I would just add that the supply / demand thing is especially sensitive on the internet, where many websites earn cashmoney from page visits. By simply clicking on those sites you are adding to their hits and potentially increasing the perceived demand. Now then, as for creative expression and all that, there are no rules. If the people don't appreciate your artistic expression, it's made obvious soon enough. If they don't like it loads, they'll lock you up or hang you to death or something. I got pissed off once when I read a particularly violent rape scene in a shitty airport book, for example. I thought the guy who wrote it was an arsehole for being so graphic but writing so badly. That was a blend of moral and quality objections on my part but presumably his editor felt differently. Think about it like this

Um, actually, it's only the first two lines that are relevant. The bit about the jeans is bizarre. Unless of course, it's wordplay with "genes". That would make more sense. ("What you talkin' 'bout, Enzo?" "Ok I'll shut up now.")

Not so long ago I went to a talk by the picture editor of Bizarre magazine (www.bizarremag.com) - I've provided the website, but it's blocked at the library where I'm currently writing this post... which gives an indication of the kind of publication it is! If you aren't familiar with this mag, it appears, on first glance, to be your average top-shelfer... it is, however, far from average, even in the top-shelf-y stakes. I think it's possibly fair to say, in fact, that it is less blatantly porny than such, but that's not to say its contents could not be labelled as gratuitous filfth by those who are inclined to apply such labels. In this case, however, gratuitous = scenes of crimes, weird sex and... erm... general weirdness. That is, the sort of stuff being discussed above. Now the person who gave the talk seemed like a very nice chap. He admitted he only reluctanctly sought out some of the pics he was required to seek out by his employers, but generally speaking, he seemed to be of the opinion that the majority of the material - specifically, in his case, photographic material - in the magazine was there for artistic purposes, humour (in the case of strange-looking animals, mutations and so on) or to illustrate a social point - e.g. beating your woman is wrong. Some of the images (as you will see if you click on the website), however, are pretty in-your-face. And "artistic" includes regular features on corpse photography, autopsy photography and so on. The artistic side of me wants to say that everything is/should be acceptable, but we should merely be careful potentially offensive material is clearly labelled and presented in appropriate contexts. But there is always a chance of things getting in the wrong hands - e.g. a child picking up an 18 cert DVD bought by their parents and watching it without their knowledge. I tend towards an anarchic viewpoint of "society will regulate itself" these days - i.e. if people are pretty much left to their own devices, with few or no rules (legally speaking), they will pretty much sort themselves out of their own accord, and the world won't become a chaotic, murdering, raping, looting hell-on-earth... the opposite end of the spectrum is some sort of dictatorial nanny state, where our every move is watched and regulated. The ideal is perhaps somewhere in between. The over-arching question, I suppose, in this and similar cases is... can the general public be trusted to regulate themselves, or does the legal system need to be fine-tuned to account for every shade of moral greyness? Hmm, perhaps I've expanded this topic into a wider arena than it was intended... :/ pe ps oid ... What is "The Art of Tea"? ... (www.pepsoid.wordpress.com)

Should creative expression have limits? It always does. Nothing, but nothing is going to stop creative expression happening, it's whether that creative expression is sanctioned as acceptable that matters. For instance, it feels okay to write a novel about child abuse, if you manage to produce something from it that casts some light on child abuse, or manages some other redeeming value. It doesn't feel okay to write a novel that says 'Child abuse is great! I highly recommend you give it a whirl!'. I imagine most people are familiar with the 'square- off reel' of exploitation films. Common to exploitation films of a vintage, you'd get an hour or so of unholy, filthy, odd or salacious material, bracketed by someone, possibly a 'doctor' or 'official' saying "We all know that this stuff is bad, but in the interests of inquiry, lets have a really, really, really close look, at length, to see just how bad it is." Often, the more shocking or upsetting aspects of human nature are shown, then a less thought full artist will add something of this type to 'redeem' all of the difficult stuff that we've seen. It's really difficult to integrate a complex moral view into art. Most fail, especially when they try to deal with potentially unpleasant or morally ambiguous subjects or material, and end up with a square off reel. I'm a bit puzzled by people who find are uncomfortable to find images that should be disturbing disturbing. Shouldn't you be more worried if you don't find images of rape disturbing? Some people don't, you know. And that does disturb me. The question you ask, I think, is whether it's your own response you're worrying about or the response of 'those other people'. People tend to have a much more draconian idea of what 'other people' should be allowed to see. Cheers, Mark

...which leads to the question of whether or not gratuitous material is likely incite the behaviour it is showing or whether it will just attract people who would commit such acts in the first place...? Can we really blame graphic computer games, films, etc, for the ills of our society, or is this kind of inference merely media scaremongering? And what of the idea that some types of, in particular, games actually serve as an outlet for people with "unsavoury" tendencies? That violent videogames may actually reduce the amount of violent crime? It may be time to re-open the "are videogames evil?" debate, in light of the fact that Manhunt 2 is about to go on the shelves! pe ps oid ... What is "The Art of Tea"? ... (www.pepsoid.wordpress.com)

There is a difference between sex and violence.I have no problem about the former but a lot about the latter.Sex even on the wilder shores is normal human behaviour.Violence is perverse.Adrenalin is addictive.People become used to it and need higher doses to get a fix.Surely we cannot allow sites that incite child abuse rape and murder.If we do we are a very effete species.

And yes video games do affect children.They wire their brains in certain unhelpful ways as well as interfering with the practice of human interactions.Mature and stable people can probably (only probably because of PTSD) be exposed to pretty much anything and remain intact.This leaves a large part of the population vulnerable .

And yes video games do affect children.They wire their brains in certain unhelpful ways as well as interfering with the practice of human interactions.Mature and stable people can probably (only probably because of PTSD) be exposed to pretty much anything and remain intact.This leaves a large part of the population vulnerable .

And yes video games do affect children.They wire their brains in certain unhelpful ways as well as interfering with the practice of human interactions.Mature and stable people can probably (only probably because of PTSD) be exposed to pretty much anything and remain intact.This leaves a large part of the population vulnerable .

Sex and violence are not so different, surely? At least with either's potential to lead to pain and abuse... pe ps oid ... What is "The Art of Tea"? ... (www.pepsoid.wordpress.com)

As far as video games go, it's worth noting that since violent video games really became popular (circa the release of Doom in 1993) violent crime has fallen pretty dramatically. http://www.avinashv.net/2007/06/23/violence-in-video-games/ http://techdirt.com/articles/20050721/1915214.shtml

"And yes video games do affect children.They wire their brains in certain unhelpful ways as well as interfering with the practice of human interactions." Well, I think it's all a question of balance. It's not good for kids (or anyone else) to spend 15 hours a day playing computer games. Whether that leads us to the general conclusion that violent computer games 'wire their brains' is another matter. Otherwise happy and contented young people who play nasty computer games, don't generally go and commit acts of extreme violence. In the case of young people do commit acts of violence and have previously played violent computer games, I'm not sure there's any strong evidence of cause and effect. Personally, I'm happy to object to gratuitously offensive stuff - such as the game that was banned recently - on the grounds that I find them really unpleasant but I think drawing a direct link to acts of violence in society is hyperbolic.

The interesting stuff with Man Hunt 2, the recently 'banned' computer game by Rockstar games, is that the company's defence has been roundly panned, even by industry voices that had been supportive of the company through previous controversies. In essence, what they said was that their game was no more extreme than any number of exploitation films, and that the kind of things depicted therein were common currency in film. In this, I think that they're substantially correct. What's interesting is that, due to their interactive nature, games are considered to have more moral weight than other forms of entertainment, as if the person playing a game is making a series of judgements as to correct conduct, rather than being a participant or spectator of a pre-established spectacle. In the case of Man Hunt 2, it is not as if the player is given a choice whether they wish to set up an organic farm instead of killing and maiming other characters. In this, there seems to be an idea that the player of a game is in some way the author of its outcomes, rather than the people who created it, or that the creators of a game are encouraging depraved behaviour in a more direct way than people who write books or make films. This makes me wonder, is it worse to write unpleasant or morally repellent materials, or to choose to read them? Cheers, Mark

Try to imagine being a child/teenager whose grasp on reality is weak and whose abusive experiences have resulted in lack of empathy.I spend regular time with children like this.Now tell me that advertising doesn't work .Violent materials give form to violent impulses and fantasies.Violent materials may not directly cause as in a to b but if we /society permits the pollution of kids minds we are saying they are not worth protecting.We are saying violence is OK.After all what is written or produced is meant to make money. It is not to promote thinking,it is not for arts sake.But yes we are responsible for what we do, what we write as well as what we read.

We should continue to be responsible for the safety and mental well-being of our children, and we shouldn't allow creators of gratuitous (in whatever sense) videogames/films/books to put out onto the shelves whatever kind of material they like... but where's the line? There are such grey areas in this kind of topic, and also questions of context - where material is sold or made available, how it is certificated or labelled, etc... At what point do we say the material in Game A is acceptable, but the material in Game B is not? Is it OK, for example, for an 18 cert game to feature shooting a corrupt military general in the head (with accompanying blood-spray and the like), but not okay to lop off the head of a rival gang lord with a meat cleaver? Is it OK to shoot raptors but not bears? Or to chop off the limbs or mythological beasties but not stab a (relatively) innocent soldier in the back? How do we decide such things for the satisfactions of all concerned? pe ps oid ... What is "The Art of Tea"? ... (www.pepsoid.wordpress.com)

teachers are a bad problem. Most of them are bored wannabe's. The amount of ppl I know who simply don't have the gutso to inspire and influence young minds. "..can't get me promotion in bio-research lab so decided am gunna do teacher trainin...duh..." And that's it...taking that attitude (that 'settling for second best') into the classroom isn't gonna do any good. Find passionate teachers...and I mean TEACHERS!! And things would be different. wax on... wax off.... When the power of love overcomes the love of power, we'll find peace. - Jimi Hendrix

Yan - while I agree that not all teachers are good at their job, I think it's lazy and dangerous to blame schools for everything. "Oh, my daughter's been on chatrooms till 3:00am, it's that school's fault...", or "My son has no ambition or purpose in life beyond playing computer games - those damn teachers...". Surely this is a bigger problem than that, and parents absolving themselves of responsibility is just as unhelpful as a few shit teachers (who I don't deny do exist).

Blame, blame, blame... Everything is to blame. Schools are to blame, teachers are to blame, parents are to blame, the government is to blame, videogames are to blame... Society is to blame! It's easy to say the ills of our society are down to this, that or the other, but the difficult fact is that it's a complex mixture of this, that and the other. Yes, we have to start somewhere, but how about starting with the fundamental precepts of the culture in which we live? Most things which Daily Mail readers, politicians, even well-meaning commentators on this or that aspect of society, focus on, are merely symptoms... Our Western, Capitalist, 21st century society has its basis in a number of fundamental presumptions which perhaps need to be challenged - e.g. formal education is good, working hard is good, having a career is good, making babies is good, democracy is good... I'm not, in the context of this particular posting, saying I agree or disagree with any of the above, but don't we perhaps need to challenge and question the things that lie at the root of our modern, western society? It's easy to clip at the stems, the petals, the leaves; the roots tend to remain unseen, if we are even aware of their existence, but it's the roots from which everything else grows. Digging at the roots, maybe even extracting a few, will be a long, hard, slog, but like I said, we've got to start somewhere. Of course, that's even presuming there is anything terribly wrong with society! (another root...) pe ps oid ... What is "The Art of Tea"? ... (www.pepsoid.wordpress.com)

"Our Western, Capitalist, 21st century society has its basis in a number of fundamental presumptions which perhaps need to be challenged - e.g. formal education is good, working hard is good, having a career is good, making babies is good, democracy is good..." Why? "don't we perhaps need to challenge and question the things that lie at the root of our modern, western society?" Not unless we're suggesting an alternative. Osama Bin Laden and his team are doing so, of course.

ggggareth - agreed. Hormones are an issue, too. There are many issues, and I suppose it all boils down to culture and conditioning. Problem with GB...we're peering in the wrong direction for cultural inspiration. When the power of love overcomes the love of power, we'll find peace. - Jimi Hendrix

Here's a teaser for you all: Choose from each pair of cultural artifacts the more problematic of the two and explain your reasons: 1. American Psycho the novel or American Psycho the motion picture? 2. A picture of an ejaculating penis drawn on a bus stop or a representation of an ejaculating penis appearing in a computer game? 3. A motion picture that shows a detailed account of the abduction and subsequent rape of a thirty two year old women, or a newspaper that contains a detailed account of the abduction and subsequent rape of a thirty two year old woman? 4. A comic book where a murderer details his motivations and explains why it is his right to kill another person, or a television programme that follows a police investigation into the murders he has committed? 5. The novel Lolita by Nabokov, or an interactive adventure game where the player is in the role of Humbert Humbert? 6. A computer game where a character decides to kill another character or a documentary about a person who decides to kill another person? What do you reckon? Cheers, Mark

Mark, that's really great stuff. The only one I feel strongly about is 5 - although it's a slightly unfair match-up because the issue with computer games seems to be the 'glorification' of anti-social behaviour. Nabokov didn't glorify HH. The game would be the more problematic. 6 & 4 & 3 & 1. No problem with either option although I personally find movies that depecit acute powerlessness (rape, torture, etc) unwatchable. 2. Well, that is a difficult one. I'm going to pass on that for now.

"don't we perhaps need to challenge and question the things that lie at the root of our modern, western society?" Not unless we're suggesting an alternative. If the challenging and the questioning leads to an alternative, then we should suggest an alternative. Osama Bin Laden and his team are doing so, of course. Erm... yes... as are anyone else who believes the roots of western society are flawed. I would suggest we should (very simplistically speaking) slow down, be more tolerant and peaceful, stop growing so damned much and be more in touch with our natural environment. Does this tie in with what "Osama Bin Laden and his team" are doing...? the issue with computer games seems to be the 'glorification' of anti-social behaviour Seems to be, perhaps, if you believe what the anti-videogame media tell you, but I think you may be surprised just how "moral" many videogames are... but of course, like every other form of media, they don't always get it right and there are "immoral" exceptions. pe ps oid ... What is "The Art of Tea"? ... (www.pepsoid.wordpress.com)

Personally, I'd love to see holographic tech used in the porn industry. Could someone also invent "I just want a cuddle" for us lonely people. :) When the power of love overcomes the love of power, we'll find peace. - Jimi Hendrix

"Erm... yes... as are anyone else who believes the roots of western society are flawed. I would suggest we should (very simplistically speaking) slow down, be more tolerant and peaceful, stop growing so damned much and be more in touch with our natural environment. Does this tie in with what "Osama Bin Laden and his team" are doing...?" Well, a large chunk of your suggestion isn't really a suggestion at all. The basic premise of Western society isn't intolerance and violence. You may be suggesting that our basic economic model shouldn't be focused primarily on growth. That's fine but if economic policy isn't driven by a desire for increased production and efficiency, there's a gap which has to be replaced by something else. I'm not clear what that would be. I don't think we're growing too much at the moment. There's a lot of people who aren't eating enough. Of course, it's possible we're growing the wrong things in the wrong places.

I was talking about economic growth! ;) The "gap" you speak of could be a replacement of the "faster and more" ideal with "slower and less" - this may seem like an oversimplified concept, but it is one which often seems to be greeted with a kind of disdain and horror... We should do less? What kind of blasphemy is this?! Small is beautiful and all that. Working hard is not, in itself, a virtue. We need to stop believing we need to expand, expand, expand! Re intolerance and violence... It is not the basic premise of western society, but these are certainly powerful precepts. I'm not necessarily talking intolerance in the most commonly assumed context - racism, etc - but intolerance of thoughts which go against the grain... and I know I bang on about this one, but I mean, for example, the idea that we should all slow down, work less and produce less. People who believe in such ideas are not tolerated! And "violence" does not necessarily mean literal physical violence... pe ps oid ... What is "The Art of Tea"? ... (www.pepsoid.wordpress.com)

I would suggest, by the way, for lighthearted and more serious words on the concept of slowing down, visit... www.slowdownnow.org pe ps oid ... What is "The Art of Tea"? ... (www.pepsoid.wordpress.com)

If hard work really IS that great, the rich would keep it to themselves... now who said that...can't remember.... When the power of love overcomes the love of power, we'll find peace. - Jimi Hendrix

Pepsoid, When you say work less, do you mean try less? I'm a great believer in meaningful unemployment, but that doesn't seem to be what you're talking about. I, for example, would like to work less so that I can do other things. These other things, I reason, must be completed through effort and time. And, as I only have a limited amount of lifespan, I'd like to fit as much in as I can. So, in regards to what you seem to be talking about, would I be doing less or doing more? Or would I be speeding up or slowing down? It seems to me that there's a whiff of a fake arcadian past to your suggestion Pepsoid. Back when we had less things and less outside pressures, things were still shit. We certainly may have had a slower pace of life, but dying of cholera or spending days beating the chaff out of corn by hand doesn't strike me as being any more rewarding. Some people have to live fast lives so that others can choose not to. It's an argument I always had with anarchist friends. Unless you are prepared to accept a drop in living standards, access to amenities or to other benefits of modern life, you can't have a situation where everyone 'opts out of the rat race'. The situation is that someone always has to do the shit jobs, someone always has to organise things and someone always has to things when they don't really feel like it. Fair enough if you want to live in a small relaxed bubble, but don't complain if you bins don't get emptied, your post doesn't get delivered or your broadband goes down. And heaven forfend that you get ill, because your medical staff will amble towards you chewing straw and then administer you a nice cup of tea. Cheers, Mark

"I'm not necessarily talking intolerance in the most commonly assumed context - racism, etc - but intolerance of thoughts which go against the grain... and I know I bang on about this one, but I mean, for example, the idea that we should all slow down, work less and produce less. People who believe in such ideas are not tolerated!" People who believe in these things are tolerated. The Green Party, who broadly follow your approach, have representatives on lots of elected bodies across the country and are regularly invited to appear on Newsnight. It's not that people don't tolerate this kind of thinking, it's that they disagree with it. In fact, a lot of mainstream politicians do claim to agree in principle but they are unable to answer the questions that Mark raises - and ultimately nothing much happens. Lots of people would like a relaxed, slower life for themselves, very few are as keen on the consequences of a more relaxed slower life for others.

Why all this talk of replacing Version A of Society with Version B of Society? I'm not talking about electing a new government or even a new form of government. I'm talking about each individual person challenging their own deep-set beliefs in how one should or ought to live one's life. If "Society" then changes as a result, then that's a bonus! pe ps oid ... What is "The Art of Tea"? ... (www.pepsoid.wordpress.com)

The 'society' stuff may possibly have been provoked when you said these things, amongst others: "I'm not, in the context of this particular posting, saying I agree or disagree with any of the above, but don't we perhaps need to challenge and question the things that lie at the root of our modern, western society?" "I would suggest we should (very simplistically speaking) slow down, be more tolerant and peaceful, stop growing so damned much and be more in touch with our natural environment." Of course, it's possible that in the latter quote, you were having a go at people who grow too much in the gardens or allotments. In terms of this: "I'm talking about each individual person challenging their own deep-set beliefs in how one should or ought to live one's life." I don't accept your assumption that all or even most individuals have a set of deep-set beliefs about they should live their lives or that those who do are necessarily avoiding challenging them.

I'm not assuming that anyone has deep-set beliefs which they avoid challenging, but isn't it a worthwhile exercise for anyone to question and challenge where their beliefs come from and whether they truly, deep down, believe what they say they believe? How often do you hear people say "This is right" or "That is wrong," but when challenged on their reasoning, somewhat fall apart? I know that I, myself, often have my beliefs (in all sorts of stuff) challenged here on these very forums, which, even though I admittedly often find it hard to thoroughly back them up, and I often find myself (or am accused of) contradicting myself, I always think it is personally useful to have those beliefs questioned. pe ps oid ... What is "The Art of Tea"? ... (www.pepsoid.wordpress.com)