Top TV - Get out the Pop-Porn!
Top TV may have done more than getting religious groups to gather their pitch forks with medieval primitive instinct. Top TV seems to have highlighted the fact that we do not yet live in a democracy and that companies charged with guarding public interest are in fact nothing more than puppets tangled in their own ideology.
If you have been stuck in your basement for the past few days as result of depression brought on by the Mayan Calendar, then you may not be aware that Top TV tried to launch SA’s first pay per view Porn channel. Yes, that’s right….they want to give you the option of watching oversized genitals flopping around on your 42” Flat Screen.
When news first broke of the imminent launch I knew it was too good to be true. As a conservative third world country with first world delusions, we would never allow this! Naturally the religious groups, more specifically, Christians against porn, reacted with their normal ferocious promises of fire and brimstone, neatly packaged in the notion of corrupting young innocent minds, with the bonus addition of invoking possible criminal tendencies such as rape.
The FPB (Film and Publications Board) heralded the prevention of the launch by ICASA as a victory.
Sadly, it was no victory. It was us failing once again to provide a true democracy, regardless of whether we like it or not. Yet again, a group of individuals spoke for an entire nation.
Do I want to watch porn? Well, I’ve given it a bash (no pun intended) and it’s not really for me, but I sure as hell want the option of watching it……not that I watch TV….but still…..
Other than the obvious and blatant kick in the nuts for democracy, I feel that these religious organisations are doing more damage to their religion than anything else. A Christian group may think they are promoting God’s word, but if you are a Christian you will know that God did give us free will and also said that no person can judge another? What really tickles my bladder is the fact that they are SO opposed to sex, yet that’s how they got here. They all have sex and I can promise you 90% of them enjoy it. However…I have been to Grand West a couple of times for dinner and not once did I see them protesting outside? Surely any personal blessed with a touch of intellect will be able to realise that gambling is far more destructive than a porn channel?
I agree that porn is not something kids should be exposed to, they do a good enough job of enjoying the real thing……but if you as a parent would subscribe to a porn channel then there is a good chance you have a little video or two lying around already. Although you think your kids haven’t found and watched it yet, I am sure you do everything possible to ensure they are not exposed to it. Would you not do the same with a pay per view porn channel, in terms of allowing them access? Besides, your Internet connection gives them more material than any pay per view can ever do….yet….again…I don’t see a group called Christians Against The Internet?.....Anyway…with regards to the above, it comes down to parenting…..that’s it.
Now, let’s take a look at Porn itself. Many countries across the globe have porn channels on offer, yet they don’t all seem to be decaying morally. So what’s the issue? Well generally any porn movie has an atrocious soundtrack and even worse acting, but it’s about the sex. I agree that women are often portrayed as nothing more than an object of pleasure, but if you think about it, that’s a mind-set based on your own moral values. Not to venture into x-rated blogging material, but if a woman giving a man oral sex is considered as her being objectified by you, then it is as result of what you have been taught about women and the conclusion your morals have drawn from it, combined by how society portrays and perceived it in general. The latter act could also be seen as a power play, where she has all the power and furthermore it could be something far less negative than we make it out to be…..one should also remember there are two sides to this coin, yet when we flip the coin, nobody complains that the man is being objectified…go figure..
For women concerned about their men watching porn, well at least he is at home where you can keep a firm hand on the matter, instead of him being out at the nearest Strip Club, spending double the amount.
For men concerned about their ladies watching porn…….seriously????!!
Could it be that perhaps we as a nation are not yet mature enough for adult content on our screens? In saying the latter, perhaps we are not mature enough to fully understand and enjoy the actual concept of democracy.
But, alas…..as is the nature of our couch potato nation, we will remain on the couch and watch the whole spectacle from a distance, shaking our head every now and again, only to get up and blame government on our way to the toilet.
Comments
@ TSTF
Feel free to re-read my post properly and then to make a comment worth responding to.
@ Wolfe
Feel free to actually engage in a discussion instead of being patronizing - it's as if your view is the only acceptable or right one 
Nanny state?
Is what I'm thinking. If you're arguing democracy and our understanding of it, your point is completely valid. Personally I don't have a strong opinion on this either way (although I do agree with you that being told what to watch and what not to watch by strange old men grates me).
Anyway, too much of a muchness. The channel will be a choice. As a consumer you can a) choose to subscribe and pay more and b) take on board the responsibility of parental control if you have kids in the house.
Re: Nanny state?
Good girl *pat pat*
Seriously?
*sulk* I get ya' olde pat on the head? Nice.
Erm.....
u got 2 pats......
Wow.
Feeling so special right now...
Sies!
It's amazing to me...I wonder when we as a species decided it was ok to watch each other having sex all the while grunting like animals. Such an intimate act between consenting adults should be extremely private and not be broadcat for the entertainment of the masses. I'm with the religious "nuts" on this one...sies man!!!
Sies is when you kiss you grandmother and she sticks out her tongue
I think that decision came around the same time we decided to celebrate cleavage day, desigh skimpy clothing, swop saliva in public, have half naked girls at car shows (you were there righ?), ignore world hunger, ignore murder, employ people on race colour and deny people basics rights due to their colour, have bottle stores, when we started downloading videos of people getting hurt, watching films of where two actors are naked together.....the day we gained the arrogance to judge others.....yes, I think it was around that time...
Lastly....funny that we sould grunt as animals....I mean..if we WERE animals I would understand it! Fortunately we are a super sophisticated entities...
*sigh*
The inability to edit your commments teaches you to type slower as you cannot fix your typo's, hence making you look like a complete illiterate tool....which I am...but still
Freedom of Expression is often misunderstood by the Religious bigots
I don't watch much TV, and have no desire for Top TV, porn or no porn. However, I am constantly saddened by South Africa's inability to embrace true democracy, and true freedom. If the religious bigots do not want to watch oversized genitals flopping on their flat screens, then I am sure that even a flat screen comes with an "off" button. Or even decide not to buy Top TV... But what gives them the right to decide what others should watch (or do)?
Truthstrangerthanfiction above clearly demonstrates a bit of fiction. Democracy is NOT majority rule. I suggest some reading is required there. I cannot see the jump from porn to human trafficking??
People gave their lives in this country for democracy, for freedom to live & express their lives in the way they want. They did not do so in order that a group of sexually repressed bigots can enforce their superstitious beliefs on the rest of us. There is a lovely bumper sticker which sums it up for me - "Don't like Abortion? Then don't have one."
@ Dissol
Try chewing a little on this: "Majority rule is often listed as a characteristic of democracy" @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
Why quoting Wiki can make you look silly...
Well done, you found a neat little line on a page on Wikipedia, which seems to support your view. Hmmm...I would suggest that you start by reading the rest of the paragraph where you snipped that quote! The very next sentence (starts with "however..."!!) mentions the "tyranny of the majority". It is almost meaningless to try to summarise a difficult concept such as Democracy in one web page, which is why there are many, many excellent books on the subject. Democracy cannot be summarised as majority rule, for the very reasons that are given in your (missed) quotation!
@ Dissol: why not reading other comments sometimes makes you look foolish
How about reading my next comment further below to see I did not selectively use a piece to support my views. I expanded on the rest as well. I could access the "deep web" and get different academic articles from universities to support some of the views but wikipedia seemed to suffice. I think it carries as much weight as your arguments, if not more.
Freedom of Expression - such an interesting notion
I assume that the "religious bigots" succeeded in blocking the launch of a PPV porn channel by democratic means and not say by holding the FPB to ransom one Friday afternoon and demanding they scrap the channel or else. Right??? Then if they played the democracy game (i.e. freedom of expressing your opinion) better than the people who wanted to launch such a channel or those who wanted to watch it then well done to them. Or is it only democratic if the "religious bigots" don't win?
Democracy & Freedom of Expression clearly misunderstood by some
Sadly, it would appear that some people think that democracy means the majority gets whatever it wants. While I would question that even South Africa does not have a majority of religious bigots, that is not what Democracy, or the Freedom of Expression is about. Indeed, many, including me, would argue that one cannot have a true democracy without Freedom of Expression. The majority have a responsibility to protect the rights of minorities too. Why should someone else (even if they happen to be in a majority) decide what other people can watch? I don't much like all the religious programmes available on TV, but I would defend anyone else's right to watch them.
@ Dissol
So how do you balance the two? Your freedom to bliksem a guy (you're just expressing yourself) and his freedom to have you not harm him physically. Your freedom to smoke and his freedom to clean air. Your freedom to be profane and his freedom to live in an environment that's not profane.
See "Majority rule is often listed as a characteristic of democracy" @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy. It does warn against the tyranny of the majority but says everyone has an equal opportunity to be heard e.g. vote. So if 100 people have 1 vote each and 70 vote against pornography, then it is a free & fair election according to democratic principles, isn't it? However from a philosophical point of view this gets tricky because what if 84 vote that murder or rape is acceptable - what then?
Freedom of Expression
Maybe you need to read your own limited quotation a bit more carefully, as it does state that Freedom of Expression is considered an essential of any democracy. But you are suggesting we can throw that out, merely because some religious bigots may be upset, with what others are watching?
Freedom of Expression comes with a few limitations, but the fewer the better. There are certain circumstances (usually where the exercise of one, will cause physical harm to another). So yes, in a reasonable society I am allowed to smoke, but it would be considered unreasonable to blow the smoke into your face. Hitting others is generally frowned upon (there are exceptions, but everyday pugilism should not be condoned). But what the blog here is referring to is actually censorship, which runs against the current of Freedom of Expression. Your example falls flat in several ways. Let's say a democratic election is held in South Africa, and one party comes away with over 50% of the vote. So they are in the majority, yes? Then they decide to abolish opposition parties, & to make any dissent to the ruling party as illegal. According to your theory they would have been acting democratically, and so this would be allowed? Worrying...
In the example given by Wolfe, I cannot understand why some people (even if they are the majority - which is questionable) feel that they have the right to dictate what others may watch. It is none of their business. In a free, democratic society, I should be able to watch & read what I want, without fear of censorship. I don't worry (well, OK, I do worry, but I understand it is their right!) what other's watch or read.
RE: freedom of expression
Once again, your focus on my "limited" quotations seems so trivial. This isn't the place to paste pages of info but to engage in a discussion. Your continuous harping on freedom of expression at the cost of everything else is very "either/or" (Western Philosophy) focused. How about a "both/and" (Eastern Philosophy) approach? I did not say that we should abolish freedom of expression nor did I say that democracy is perfect. Both taken to their extremes bring about a societal/moral dictatorship.
What I find interesting is how you and Wolfe are so set on not being told that you (or others) cannot watch porn by whoever (the religious bigots according to Wolfe). But I find that a little hypocritical considering that the government tells you to drive on a certain side of the road and you do so. The government tells you to pay taxes and you do so (not including legal tax avoidance here or that fact that you may be Al Capone). If you have children, their schools request certain things and you comply. So why don't you decide to go against all of those rules? Why don't you just drive on any side of the road today. Why don't you decide to not pay your bond or car payments for the next 3 months? It seems that you only shout for freedom of expression when it suits you. Why not allow another man the freedom to express his anger or sexual drive by murdering you or raping your wife/girlfriend? Seems like you like to focus on the aspects that are comfortable and convenient to you but neglecting to balance that with responsibility.
Re: Freedom of Expression
Freedom of expression does not mean that anyone can choose which side of the road you can drive on. It does not mean that you can choose not to pay taxes. I cannot follow your logic at all. Freedom of expression means that no on group has the right to decide what another group can watch (or read). Sure, it makes sense in public theatres to have a rating system which enables the public to know what different films may contain. Do you really think it is right for any group (whether in the majority or not) to be allowed to censor what the public may watch? Recently, there was a pretty ropey billboard advert put up in Sandton by some church group, which mocked atheists. There was a court case, and the billboard was taken down. It was suggested by a religious friend that I was presumably happy (given my own views on religion) that the courts had forced this to be taken down(http://tauriqmoosa.wordpress.com/2012/01/16/offended-atheist-gets-stupid-christian-billboard-taken-down/). No, I was horrified that the courts took such a decision. There is a quote (often mis-attributed to Voltaire - as he certainly embraced the concept in his Essay on Tolerance) by Evelyn Hall: "I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say so". In any democracy, but more so in a young, vulnerable democracy like South Africa, we should oppose any move to restrict our freedom of expression.
hmmmmmm
I find it interesting how all the comments are saying the same thing just from different angles.
Everyone is 'worried' about censure and the eradication of freedom od speech/expression but are also concerned by the unbridled use of that freedom (history being a good teacher.)
the ethos to a great democracy is the quality of the ongoing conversations but common sense and responsible actions must alwys be the overiding qualities.
@TSTF
In response to your last comment giving me permission to engage in discussion instead of me being patronising and thinking my opinion is the only one that counts...I would like to confirm...you are 100% correct about the latter!
Fair enough...seeing that you asked so nicely....here is what I have to say about your original comment:
You start off by telling me that my understanding of democracy is jaded and that democracy is "by the people for the people"...you continue to say if the majority group = majority rule and that it is a constitutional right to oppose it....you finish off this section stating that the Greeks attached responsibility to it.
Now...I need you to explain something to me...I quote "Sadly, it was no victory. It was us failing once again to provide a true democracy, regardless of whether we like it or not. Yet again, a group of individuals spoke for an entire nation".....is it just me or did I just imply with the latter that a minority group spoke for the majority group? Does that not mean it's NOT democracy? If this is correct....how on earth do you get to tell me my opinion of democracy is jaded based on what you said during the first part of your comment?? Are you trying to sound clever or did you just happen to miss that part of the post? Lastly, if you went into "deep web", whatever that means...then you would find that the Greek and Romans had erotic murals in their homes aka (porn).....how responsible....
You then continue to say that you gather these religous groups are concerned about human trafficing and then round it off saying it is something I should also be concerned about.
Please explain to me how a pay-per view porn channel has influence over human trafficing? Considering that I have not seen a porn channel yet, could it be that they advertise contact details of your local Human Trafficing services? Your comment further implies that human trafficing is something I am not concerned about. Just tell me again how you seem to know what concerns me?
You continue by mentioning that religous groups are concerned about vulnerable minors.
Uhm.......whether you may or may not know...I think this concern extends far beyond religous groups? That is a valid concern, but as I mentioned in my post, if you read it properly...it's okay to have casino's and bottlestores around us..is that not exposure to vulnerable minors?
You then tell me that if I have a suggestion on where my right to watch porn will not infringe on the rights of those who do not want to watch it, that I should give it.
Seriously? Did you miss the complete point of my post? I am not even going to waste another character to try and explain it to you, but here is my suggestion.....make it pay per view...that way it's not publicly accessible, unless you subsrcibe to it and at that point it would come down to basic parenting.....or are you saying that parents in SA are not capable enough? Furthermore..seeing that you appear to be such a staunch advocate of getting rid of all things that could affect poor vulnerable minors...what exactly are you doing on the Internet?
And then....the grand finale..you finish off by saying that the top shelf in supermarkets etc. is all mine...
I quote...."....and it’s not really for me" is it starting to sink in why I told you to not to waste my time unless you read my post properly?
Then.....later you mention in a comment to Disssol: (the religious bigots according to Wolfe).....I have re-read my post a couple of time...please show me where I used the word "bigots"? Do you make a habit of putting words in people's mouths?
Now let me set the record straight....I enjoy a good debate and have no problem engaging in discussion with anyone...HOWEVER....you appear to spend more time trying to sound clever by doing flash searches on keywords in "deep web" (I still don't know what this means) than you do to actually contribute some valid points based on the topic.
What's more scary than Porn is the fact that your "jaded" understanding and opinion, which you so subtly lace with a condescending tone, is available for everyone to read.
I see you have children...I suppose you had sex then? So instead of watching it on TV you did the real thing....hmmm....so based on what you say above...how many people have you raped? How many women have you imported? I mean surely if just watching it can induce the latter, then doing it must be so much more powerful?
I also see you are a very religious person, based on the last paragraph in your post titled "Decisions, Decisions!"...that was you...right?...(ja..your old deleted posts are still floating around in "deep web"....now your comments start to make sense...however...who are you to to make assumptions that I like porn, that I do not care about human trafficing etc....does God not teach you not to judge? I have respect for religion....but do you not have respect for free will? Was that not what God gave us? The right to choose!? Spread His word...sure...but don't speak for Him....
Then....when we look at your post "Rights or Responsibility" you almost managed to quote the entire Bible to make your point. Now...I am curious...your avatar is that of HULK...you could have chosen any avatar out there, instead you chose one of the dark side of a fictional character...an alter ego consumed by rage that wrecks desctruction where it goes...also known as the opposite of Good....also known as ..evil?....can you see the point I'm making or must I spell it out for you?
Like Dissol, I really battle immensly to follow your logic. Why don't I drive on any side of the road today?? Are you for real?
Then....your example of 84 people (majority) saying it's okay to murder, what then......are you actually trying to compare the right to life to the right to watch TV? Please tell me you are not really comparing the two as that would be embarrassing...it would be the same as saying: "In Texas where murder carries the death penalty as it is a crime, they should give the death penalty to people that speed as it's also a crime"........
You asked for me to engage...happy?
Member Login
Digital Blogs
General Blogs
RE: Top TV - Get out the Pop-Porn!
Great to see you took some time to engage on this topic but sad to see you slanting towards being intolerantly tolerant. Your understanding of democracy seems a little jaded. Democracy is in essence "by the people for the people" and has the effect of majority rule. If any group (in this case your referral to "religious" groups) happens to be the majority, then you have democracy - majority rule. That you don't agree with it or appreciate it is your constitutional and moral right. The early Greeks also attached something to early democracy - responsibility. This is something our modern/western world lacks. I gather that most of these "religious groups" are concerned with the human trafficking taking place in our country - something you should also be concerned about. I guess they are concerned about access to porn, specifically with regard to minors and the vulnerable (a group with privileged protection according to our constitution). So if you have any suggestions where your (and others rights) to watch porn will not violate the majority's right to not have it available publically or accessable by minors/the vulnerable, make them known. In the meantime - that top shelf in the supermarkets and that backroom/shelf in the DVD store is all yours :-)