Your Penis Offends My Delicate Sensibilities!

Comments (9)

• Lubyanka: August 05, 2009 20:58

  I subscribed. :) Even though this isn't the kind of magazine I would normally read, I thought they could use my support. I was also very impressed with the way you bigged them up, Carly, and that played a part in my deciding to support them by subscribing, so well done you. :)
  .
  I also agree that the world would be a better place with fewer images of surgically modified women/people and more images of all-natural erections. Go erections! :D

• Jenny (BBBJE): August 06, 2009 14:28

  Also subscribed. :)

• LoveHoney - Carly: August 06, 2009 14:46

  Thanks to both of you for subscribing!
  I know it seems expensive initially but in comparison, an average issue of Cosmopolitan magazine has 200 pages and 80 of those are paid for advertisements. Filament magazine has 76 pages with 2 paid for advertisements, neither of which tell you that you need liposuction or plastic surgery! So that's 74 pages of pure hotness and interesting stories!

• Jen: August 06, 2009 14:55

  Oh I couldn't agree more - looks great. I'll admit, the article on Atheist parenting caught my eye as much as anything else - something close to my heart. Refreshing to see it handled in a magazine. I have a feeling I am going to enjoy this.

  Thanks for the heads-up Carly.

• Elizabeth: August 09, 2009 23:29

  Checked out the site and was reading through their FAQ which includes:

  "Is Filament R18?

  No, but let’s be clear: Filament is for adults. If you’re under 18 and found a copy shoved in a hedge, shove it back. We also strongly suggest you be on another website, such as this one: http://www.cuteoverload.com"

  I emailed them to say:

  
  I see that you suggest that under 18s should visit a site about cute things rather than read the Filament site. Fair enough you redirect them, Filament is for adults. But wouldn't it be better to suggest something like http://www.thesite.org/ where under 18s can get information and advice on lots of things, including sex, rather than pretend under-18 sexual awareness shouldn't exist?
  

• Lubyanka: August 10, 2009 05:12

  I agree that redirecting under 18s to irrelevant websites solely on the grounds that those sites are free of sexuality-related content is insulting to those under 18s who were looking for that content. I really do agree that the cuteoverload redirect is inappropriate and disrespectful to under 18s. I agree that compliance with the law does not have to include patronising rudeness.

  I'm glad you emailed them about that. I hope they make the appropriate changes.

• LoveHoney - Carly: August 10, 2009 09:22

  Personally, as someone who was 'under 18' all of 4 years ago, I don't find that patronising.

  Under 18s who are using the internet know exactly where to go to find pornographic material or sexual information - its not difficult - so why do Filament have to be responsible for redirecting them to the appropriate place?

  If they're intelligent enough to 'stumble upon' the Filament site, they're intelligent enough to perform their own search using Google.

  Under 18s also have an overwhelming amount of sexual advice available to them - Brook advisory, Off The Record, local GUM clinics, school nurses, Family Planning clinics, their GP, ruthinking?, etc. etc.

  It's up to them whether they choose to seek and use that information, it can't be forced upon them by any person or site.

  I think it's more patronising to assume that under 18s can't use a search engine to find this information and need it shoved down their throats instead.
  

• Lubyanka: August 10, 2009 11:14

  I agree that most under 18s are perfectly capable of finding most of what they seek and don't need it shoved down their throats. I agree that under 18 in no way means uninformed. However, I do remember that part of being under 18 meant that I was under other people's authority all the time, which also meant that those people had control over restricting my access to certain information if they chose to. So whatever information is available to under 18s, I think it's fair to say that some of them have access to less of it than others, and they certainly don't *all* have access to *all* of it.
  .
  I also agree that every individual is unique, and so some individuals are likely to respond in one way and others in another. So I know that not all under 18s will feel patronised by being referred to kittens from a sexuality magazine's website. But I think it's unrealistic to expect that if one under 18 doesn't feel patronised, that all of them won't.
  .
  I know that last year I went into a barbershop looking for a cheap basic dry haircut, and the barber refused to do it, explicitly stating that his refusal was based on my gender alone and nothing to do with my hair. I felt unhappy about the fact that the barber's refusal to offer me his otherwise advertised services was based solely on my reproductive organs. That was sexist. I would have been even more unhappy if that barber had referred me to pictures of kittens or handbags. So I think that redirecting individuals to websites with irrelevant content purely on grounds of their age could well be considered ageist, even if it's done to comply with the law.
  .
  I know that if I were searching for a sexuality magazine and found one, only for that magazine's website to turn me away and refer me to a site on geriatric health solely because I'm over 40, then I would certainly feel unhappy about that.
  .
  Why not refer under 18s to a website which has content which is at least related to Filament's? I mean, would it cost so much and be so difficult to extend a helping hand to a young person just in case it might be useful?

• Elizabeth: August 10, 2009 23:11

  This has engendered a lot of debate, good to see.

  I just wanted to follow up as Suraya from Filament responded to my suggestion and plans to change the link. She said thus:

  Hi Elizabeth

  Thanks for your suggestion; it's a very good one.

  Our link to Cute Overload was placed in a momentary decision, more as a piece of humour directed at adults who should happen to click the link than as a statement on teenage sexuality. It certainly wasn't intended to imply that anyone under 18 should be all about kittens and bunnies.

  I'll have a look at The Site and we might just link there instead.

  Thanks!
  Suraya