I don't know, can't really see the slut-shaming working to this extent here in the UK, let alone other parts of Europe. Hell, Italy had an ex-pornstar as a member of parliament for some time IIRC.
Right, because the UK & much of the EU already have that positive culture. You're standing on the mountain, we're ten thousand feet below in a valley, and you're asking why we can't just hop on up to the peak to join you quicklike :)
I find the whole thing baffling. I find it genuinely difficult to understand how any actor was anything but sympathetic to the women in the story. It brings a whole new light to the idea of 'revenge porn', which I had always assumed was just a way to cause someone some embarrassment and would be quickly forgotten.
The parliament is a sideshow. What happens to an average person in their lives is a totally different story.
But I do find it entertaining that you believe there are no Italian misogynists that would use nude photos or videos against a woman. It's not naive at all. :)
>> But I do find it entertaining that you believe there are no Italian misogynists that would use nude photos or videos against a woman. It's not naive at all. :)
Who said that? Certainly not me. I wonder where you read that?
I said they would find it hard for slut shaming to work to the same extent - i.e. someone's life ruined over a stolen picture.
Ireland has been a Christian country since the 800s or thereabouts. It legalised contraception sometime in the 80s, divorce in the 90s and will have gay marriage some time this decade. None of these things are compatible with Christianity as it has been understood for most of its existence.
Culture can move very fast. In 100 years if there's anyone close enough to look at us as people rather than precursors they will be revolted that we ate dead animal flesh and stuck children in rooms eight hours a day five days a week and sent them back if they left.
And what moved the culture? Legislation. The very same legislation that the Internet libertarian crew who tell us to "change the culture rather than using the men with guns" generally oppose. So, yeah, that kind of proves the point.
No, plenty of times the legislation is pushed through in spite of culture. Look at the banning of smoking in pubs and restaurants. When that was passed in Britain, it was considered hugely out of step with people's attitudes. Now it seems perfectly normal, but that kind of change came long before the cultural change.
I'd say the same about the first legal change to allow gay sexual relationships. If you'd conducted a poll back in 1967 and asked people whether they think homosexuality should be legal, they would have told you absolutely not. The fact that the law changed and it didn't start raining frogs from the sky convinced people afterwards that it was okay.
Much as it pains me to praise politicians, they are sometimes ahead of the public on issues and take seriously some kind of moral commitment to make society fairer even when it is unpopular.
it was considered hugely out of step with people's attitudes
.. as expressed via the newspapers and (some) television. It's certainly true that for a politician to do the right thing, it's necessary for them to go against "public opinion", but I'm not sure that "public opinion" and the actual opinions of members of the public are the same thing. In fact, the ban was introduced in 2007, by which point only 25% of people smoked, down from over 40% of men and 35% of women in 1980 and over 60% of men and 40% of women in 1960. It's just as easy to argue that the ban was only introduced once smokers were in a clear and shrinking minority, hardly an example of great political bravery. EDIT: a poll from 2005 shows 73% of people in support of a ban when given a yes/no choice, although this declines if compromise options such as legally enforced no-smoking areas are offered: http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/43
If you believed the newspapers, you'd think that most British people want to withdraw from the EU (despite voting in favour of the common market in the only referendum we ever had on it), bring back capital punishment (despite it being long gone and there having been no popular campaign for its return) and deport a couple of million people for being insufficiently British (despite the fact that nobody has ever voted for this in large enough numbers to even start thinking about it; the Tories are only against increases in immigration and even this moderation of their past stance was only enough to get them into government via a coalition).
Without wishing to romanticise the good sense of the electorate, generally most people are more reasonable than the media makes them look. I think that's compatible with the notion that politicians follow the prevailing culture (possibly because, via doorstep campaigning and MP's surgeries they actually speak to real people every now and then) and it's the media that makes things look otherwise. It's true that going against the media does require some bravery on the part of our politicians, but I think past experience shows that when the politicians are in touch with what people actually want, it's the media that has to change course and adapt its view of "public opinion" to reality.
> It legalised contraception sometime in the 80s, divorce in the 90s and will have gay marriage some time this decade. None of these things are compatible with Christianity as it has been understood for most of its existence.
"Incompatible"? No, those things are perfectly compatible. Don't believe everything the fundamentalists feed you. Christianity is not first and foremost about the sex stuff; it's about the love stuff. True, gay marriage is new and controversial, but contraception has not been much of a problem outside the Vatican.
Also, you make it sound like Ireland is somehow very progressive, but they're actually extremely conservative on these things. There are other countries that were Christian long before the 800s that have no problem with any of these things, nor with euthanasia or abortion (within reasonable limits).
No, but it would be an easy weapon to take away from them.