Fantasy Crime

Violence, criminality, civil disobedience and of course death play natural roles in many works of fiction, be they films, literature or drama. The reason that this formula has stood the test of time and remains as prominent a part of fiction as it still does today is simply because so many people clearly enjoy watching or reading them.

Such scenes have a tendency to trigger a part of the brain which derives either macabre fascination, or outright pleasure from the whole thing. There is also the security for the viewer that comes in the knowledge that no actual damage is being done.

Fantasy Victim

There is no real victim of, say, the brutal murder that is unfolding on your television screen, an absence of actual grieving friends or relatives, whose lives have been ruined and scarred for all eternity. “No harm, no foul” as they say, so simply keep watching, or flip the page in the pursuit of discovering ‘who done it’.

Real Crime

Real-life and live broadcasts of such events of course bring with them a clear distinction, as potential viewing enjoyment is somewhat tempered by the damage caused to the real lives of real people.

Real Victims

Losses of homes, businesses and even those lives themselves are checks to the immediate reaction of thinking, “bloody hell, that police car/bus/van is on fire” or more simply, “this is insane…and strangely compelling at the same time”.

Really Good Television

However, a great many people, this bunny included, see civil disobedience and rioting as astonishingly good television, at least on the level of base instinct.

While always conscious of the potential consequences and having natural sympathy for innocents caught up in it all, the initial buzz is something that seems to be beyond our control. In the same way, it’s going to take something pretty good elsewhere to make us change the channel.

The American shock comedian Denis Leary once observed, “people say ‘all your generation did was watch TV.

What did you expect? We saw Lee Harvey Oswald get shot live on TV one Sunday morning and we were afraid to change the channel for 30 years.

Hey, this show sucks!! I know, but someone might get shot during the commercials”. Of course Denis (either inspired by Bill Hicks or copying him depending on your perspective) was joking, but we laugh because it’s true.

Commercial television channels in particular love these sorts of events, since they tap into the part of the human psyche that wishes to either study and examine why they took place, or simply enjoy and talk about them.

News Porn

NewsPorn is a fairly modern term for something that is nothing new in reality. With the Breivik massacre in Norway and now the riots of Friday followed by days of random looting, British lovers of a bit of X-rated news reporting have had more than their fix for 2011.

However, TV schedulers and producers have been using graphically violent and criminal situations in their quest to win the ratings war for the best part of two decades – OJ Simpson scored a NewsPorn double as both his initial police chase then the entirety of the trial were broadcast for the benefit of a mass audience.

Michael Jackson, who was ultimately cleared of luring kids to his gingerbread house at NeverLand, was amongst those who followed suit.

Warzones are covered extensively as entire passages of conflicts are beamed live into the viewer’s front room, with ‘highlights’ replayed later that day just in case you were at work or missed anything. Scores of TV shows have been built around footage of real crimes and/or the (usually successful) attempts of the police to apprehend those responsible.

Perhaps seeing the getaway car chased down and cornered in a cul-de-sac, or the villain falling foul of his own stupidity helps to sell it as ‘public service broadcasting’ or a promotional tool for law enforcement?

Time for a Reality Check?

However, the unavoidable truth is that crime, disorder, violence and chaos, just like their ‘real porn’ cousin, have a propensity for selling to the masses like little else can – perhaps only live sport can compete with them on equal terms?

One final observation – something I’ve noticed from the recent civil disturbances in particular is the way in which they have also activated the macho streak that exists in a great many of us. Why, when presented with the question “what would you do about it?”, are solutions involving the army, live ammunition and street shoot-outs proving disturbingly popular? Perhaps wary of the prospect of innocent people returning from work walking onto bullets fired by those in uniform, or seeing our streets resembling those of a South American dictatorship, this bunny will pass and stick to his original analysis.

No more ‘nice’ policing, where the gangsta culture of London or any other city is ‘understood’ – more than anything, this is a patronising insult to the law-abiding members of such communities. Competent and proportionate application of the law without fear or favour is all that is necessary here. In the meantime, the armchair generals and commanders can put their water cannons and machine guns down. while I should get going, since I’ve heard there’s some looting being shown live on Sky News.

Take care.

Daz Pearce – OutspokenRabbit

NewsPorn is a post from: Anna Raccoon

Previously I highlighted the case of a politician actually being quite normal and in effect saying do I as do, not as say.

However we now have the case of a politician saying do as I say, not as I do.

Even better, this is an MP who vigorously campaigned for the law by which he was hoisted on his own petard. This is the same law which caught the Peter Pan singer Nazril Irham,  previously mentioned on this blog.

Arifinto (yes he does only have one word as his name, not uncommon in Indonesia), was caught looking at a porn video for a few minutes while the other politicians debated some boring issue over whether to build a new parliament building or not.

Now we shall see if there is one law for them and another for the rabble rousing demos crowds.

SBML

Do As I Say is a post from: Anna Raccoon

There I got your attention!

I’ve delayed this post till the weekend for obvious reasons. For many it probably wouldn’t get past your workplace’s firewall so I’ll leave it for you to explain to your other half why you are reading about porn.

Actually this is more about how you use porn. Everyone thinks they know how everyone else uses porn, with Jacqui Smith’s husband’s case being thought as typical. But do you really know. Do you use it for own pleasure or to increase the pleasure with your partner? Do you read, watch or look? Why do you use porn? There are loads of questions that everyone thinks they know the answer to but there isn’t actually much in the way of actual research to clarify them.

When you have politicians creating laws such as the Extreme Porn law based purely on their subjective opinions and not based on any real facts then the country is heading in a dangerous direction where a minority’s opinions affects the majority in a negative way. It might not always be direct, but it creates a climate where those who think they know how others should live their lives get their way and have it set in stone by politicans.

These do gooders might think they are in the right because anyone who uses porn will become a rapist or pedophile or some other sexual deviant. Well that’s the general consesus because no one can prove otherwise.

So to counter this derth of facts a new research project has been setup to look into the use of porn. Please feel free to visit their site and answer a small number of questions. It should take a maximum of 20 minutes. Most of the questions are multiple choice but you are encouraged to explain your answers in more detail. No personally identifiable information other than age, sex and country are asked for.

www.pornresearch.org

SBML

Porn is a post from: Anna Raccoon

What other explanation can there be for his decision to download adult movies on pay-per-view cable TV, to be watched in Ms Smith’s ‘second home’ in Redditch, and then allow his wife to claim the cost back from the tax payers?

What could be more damaging to Ms Smith’s political credibility than to find that the tax payer must cough up for second rate explicit porn to keep her ‘parliamentary advisor’ – aka her husband – amused, whilst she is holed up in her sister’s back bedroom?

Ms Smith was said to be ‘mortified’ today after she was forced to offer a humiliating apology over the expenses claim.

The Home Secretary said she ‘mistakenly’ submitted an expenses claim which included five pay-per-view films, including two adult movies which were viewed at her family home in her Redditch constituency.

The relationship between Ms Smith and her husband was said by Government insiders to be ‘very difficult,’ but stressed that the couple were still together.

Still together? Just as well – we wouldn’t want the tax payer to be paying for a ‘blue movie venue’ when the Minister involved no longer even visits the house, would we?

Tory MP Mark Field said:

‘The entire Commons allowance system is now indefensible. It’s one thing to make dubious claims on the location of your second home but for the husband of a Home Secretary to be claiming for pornographic TV is completely beyond the pale.

‘It’s no good Gordon Brown promising an inquiry at some point in the future. This must be reformed now.’

Is Jacqui Smith’s husband a secret Conservative? is a post from: Anna Raccoon