Should we ban some Christmas songs?

Baby it's cold outside has met with some controversy recently, with some radio stations refusing to play it because it endorses pressuring women into sex, or even date rape. A couple of weeks ago, before I'd heard this news, I was musing to myself that perhaps the lyrics should be: "I really can't stay / OK fair enough, take care." And then the rest of the song could be an instrumental! I find Tom Jones a bit creepy, and the thought of him trying to convince a less than willing young lady to spend the night turns my stomach.

A man who just won't take no for an answer in real life might be a problem... But this is a song, not real life. Tom Jones' creepiness notwithstanding, it seems to me that really, the song needn't be interpreted as date rape, as some people have suggested. I would think that many of us in relationships have had conversations where one partner says they need to go somewhere, and the other tries to convince them to stay. So I'm not convinced that the song is endorsing anything untoward, and I don't think it needs to be banned.

But what of the other contenders for most offensive Christmas song? People have objected to Do they know it's Christmas and Fairytale of New York too.

Do they know its Christmas has been torn to shreds. It's been accused of treating Africa as one homogenous culture, and making factually inaccurate claims (no rivers flow - what about the Nile? There won't be snow in Africa - what about atop Kilimanjaro?) And it's been charged with being patronising (do they know its Christmas? Well yes they probably do, given how many Africans are Christians) and it is said to propagate the "white saviour" mentality. I discussed this issue in another post, in relation to the issue that misinformation and white saviour mentalities help to secure more donations for Comic Relief, and I argued that documentary footage for the programme ought to be honest even if fewer donations are received as a result. But a charity song seems a different kettle of fish, where factual accuracy seems less important. Or as Geldof so eloquently put it "It's a pop song, not a doctoral thesis. They [critics] can fuck off." So Do they know it's Christmas can stay off the naughty list, methinks.

Fairytale of New York is about two people who fall in love, then it all turns sour. With gambling, alcoholism, and epithets such as 'slut' and 'faggot', it doesn't seem the most likely contender for a favourite Christmas song - yet it is. Those words are offensive, but why should that make us ban a song? Bleep it if necessary. I must admit that when I heard my little boy singing "you scumbag, you maggot..." I did think oh no please don't say it. But he followed it up with "you piece of old junk" (which he obviously borrowed from the previous verse - and cleaned up the language too!)

But songs with dodgy lyrics aren't a specifically Christmassy problem. I had the same feeling when I heard him singing "for 24 years I've been living next door to Alice. Alice? Who..." But again, mercifully, his innocent little ears told him the lyrics which followed were "Alice? Who's the talking Alice?" So yes, Fairytale of New York does have some words in it we don't want our kids to learn, but it's still a great Christmas song (and one of my son's favourites), and deserves to be played. I heard a version by Ronan Keating which used the lyrics "you're cheap and you're haggard" instead of "you cheap lousy faggot", so that should hopefully satisfy critics.

"But Christmas is wholesome"

There are thousands of songs out there with offensive themes and explicit lyrics. It seems to me that rap songs are frequently about knife crime, drive-by shootings, nonconsensual sex, and that the "songs" are littered with words like bitch, ho, ni**er and of course the F word. But these songs are widely available and widely enjoyed. Compared to rap music, Fairytale of New York is like a nursery rhyme (not Baa baa black sheep though, that song is as offensive as black coffee and a blackboard.)

But maybe the objection to Fairytale but not to rap songs is grounded in the idea that Christmas songs ought to be more wholesome than non-Christmas songs?

Well...

I was born and raised in Macclesfield; a nondescript northern town whose only real claim to fame is the Macc Lads - a rock band whose songs have some... um... controversial lyrics. Most of their songs are about getting drunk, sex, chips and gravy, fighting, and bodily functions. To give you a flavour, here's an excerpt from the Macc Lads' song Fluffy Pup "I spent last night tryna chuck me bird / But she were clinging to me leg like a lovesick turd / I said "Your tits are too small and your legs are too short / I want a fit bird from Sunday Sport / I can't hear me records when you sit on me face" […] "You can cook / you can fuck / you can do the washing up / but I've had enough / go on, fuck off..."

You probably wouldn't expect a band like the Macc Lads to produce a Christmas song, but they did. When Feed the World was in the charts back in 1985, lead singer and lyricist Muttley Macc Lad didn't pass up the opportunity to offend, and wrote a little Christmas ditty called Feed your face. Here's an excerpt: "Watching Live Aid 'Sit up straight you scruffy ni**er' [...] Feeling peckish so I went down the chippy, bought some pies and pasties / didn't give any to the starving ni**ers so I'm a fucking Nazi / Feed your face, don't give them a second thought". Now that is an example of an offensive Christmas song which doesn't get much air time. Geldof quite rightly slammed it. But should the Macc Lads' song be banned? No, I think not. (If you find the N word as objectionable as I do, then it's worth reminding ourselves that rap uses this word with far greater frequency than the Macc Lads do - in fact, I think this may be their only use of the term.) It's just music, and - like rap - people should, generally speaking, be allowed to listen to what they please.

John Stuart Mill (I love Mill!) in On Liberty wrote that offence is not harm. There should be freedom of speech, and that involves the freedom to offend. As ever, Mill hits the nail on the head. You might be offended by Feed your face, Feed the world, or indeed Baa baa black sheep, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to exist.

Am I a hypocrite?

My last blog post was calling for books about child abuse to be banned, and now here I am supporting artistic freedom - am I being hypocritical? Well, I think not, and actually, last week's argument and this week's argument are very similar.

Last week:
X is similar to Y
X is banned (illegal)
Therefore Y should be banned (illegal)
(Where X was child porn, and Y was child abuse books)

This week:
X is similar to Y
X is not banned
Therefore Y should not be banned
(Where X is rap music, the Macc Lads etc, and Y is the Fairytale of New York etc)

All I'm calling for is consistency in what we ban or don't ban. If music is an area where we support artistic freedom to the extent that we allow music about drive-by shootings and fights, then a song about a man trying to get a woman to spend the night, or a song which uses the word "faggot" is small fry.

If someone were to turn my argument against me and call for consistency in my beliefs, they'd need to show that a book about child abuse has enough in common with a Christmas pop song that they ought to be treated the same. I think Socrates himself would struggle to show that.

Conclusion

Some well-loved Christmas songs have the odd word or sentiment which some might find at odds with 2018 political correctness, but if people enjoy listening to such songs, let them. It's Christmas after all, live and let live.

If you aren't in the PC brigade, then you might like this tongue in cheek list of offensive Christmas songs. Some amusing examples are "folks dressed up like Eskimos" = cultural appropriation;  "He sees you when you're sleeping, he knows when you're awake" = Santa is a peeping Tom. And how about "Children gays open-mouthed, taken by surprise" = supporting homosexual abuse of children.

Happy Christmas.

Stop the books about child abuse

Wander around a bookshop and it won't be difficult to find masses and masses of books about child abuse. Amazon even has a specific section dedicated to books about child abuse! I think "A child called it" was an early pioneer of this genre, with its black and white photo of a sad-looking child and its provocative title, it became a bestseller. Since then, hundreds of child abuse books have followed. Many follow the example of pale backgrounds, washed-out photos of sad-looking children, and provocative or disturbing titles like "A special place" "Stop, Daddy, stop" and "Our little secret". These books are obviously flying off the shelves, because each year, yet more books about child abuse pop up, ready to be consumed by people who enjoy reading about child abuse.

Am I the only one who finds this disturbing?

Child pornography is illegal. You wouldn't find it on the shelves at eye level in Asda, nor would there be a whole section dedicated to it in Waterstones - and rightly so. People who abuse children are the scum of the earth, and people who want to look at images or videos of child abuse are a pretty close second. So why is it seemingly perfectly acceptable to read about child abuse in graphic detail? People wouldn't buy their grandad a subscription to a child porn website for Christmas, so why do they buy their granny yet another book which describes child sex abuse?

Below I consider and reject several possible reasons for thinking that looking at child pornography and reading about child abuse are morally distinct. Perhaps we should stop short of making these books illegal, but I do think we should stop these books from adorning the shelves in bookshops, and carefully monitor people who buy or read such books.

It's not all sexual

OK so not all books about child abuse are about sexual abuse; most are "merely" about emotional and physical abuse, and neglect. But some books are about sexual abuse, and those are my main targets in this post.

And as an aside, although there might not be a specific law against watching people beat, torture, kill, emotionally abuse or neglect their children, we might (rightly) think that people who enjoy watching these things are doing something morally troubling, if not wholly wrong. Yet we seem to think it's fine for people to read about all these types of abuse: Why? Some possible reasons are discussed below.

Visual / literary medium

Firstly, child porn is visual, whereas child abuse books are literary. Perhaps we differentiate between them because we think it's wrong to look at abuse, but OK to read about abuse? This is probably a distinction that most people do make, but without good reason.

Suppose there was a website where paedophiles share stories about the sexual things they've done to children (sadly, such websites probably do exist). If a person were to spend an evening reading the stories on such a website - but without looking at any pictures - I think we would view this person as morally bereft, and almost as bad (if not just as bad) as someone who looks at child porn. So this makes me think that it's not just about the distinction between the visual / literary medium.

The author

So if it's not the visual/literary distinction, then maybe it's because most child porn is created by the perpetrator, and shown from the position of the perpetrator, whereas child abuse books are told from the point of view of the victim.

Or at least, that's what we're supposed to think. How many readers really check whether the author of a book is the victim? Perhaps some authors of child abuse books are actually perpetrators, retelling the abuse they've committed from the point of view of their victim. Or perhaps the stories are fictional, the author detailing their appalling sexual fantasies in literary form. I imagine that at least some of the child abuse books on sale are as a matter of fact written by paedophiles. Still think it's OK to read these books?

What if it turns out that some child porn photos / videos are shared online by the child themselves? This wouldn't be enormously surprising, given that 'sexting' is a thing among tweens and teens: they share pictures of themselves naked or performing sex acts on snapchat, whatsapp, and other platforms. But surely we wouldn't think that it's OK for someone to view these images of child porn simply because the child (even if they've now grown up) was complicit in the sharing of the images? Someone who shares images of themselves being on the receiving end of child sexual abuse is (as far as the law is concerned) just as guilty as anyone else who shares images of abuse.

So if some books are written by paedophiles, and some child porn is shared by the victims, then the "who is the author" argument doesn't help us to distinguish between the morally acceptable and the morally unacceptable, if we're wanting to show that books are permissible but images are not.

Why people read / watch

So maybe the reason we distinguish between child porn and child abuse books is because of the reasons why people read or look at them. I think the assumption is that people (usually men) who look at child porn photos and videos are doing it for sexual excitement and gratification: they find the images arousing. Whereas the assumption with child abuse books is that the people (usually women) who read them are reading it with sympathy and horror; they come away from the book thinking how terrible the abuse was.

But suppose that someone who reads a lot of child abuse books with sadness and horror decides to start looking at child porn with sadness and horror too. Suppose they go online and seek out horrible videos of child abuse and rape, and they sit there watching them feeling sad and disgusted with what they're seeing. I think we'd see such behaviour as decidedly odd, if not wrong and  criminal. We'd say "you shouldn't look at child porn, even if you're looking at it in sympathy".

And suppose a paedophile enjoys reading the child abuse books for sexual gratification. Suppose he sees the books as a way of indulging his sexual fantasies in a legal way. Suppose the rape and abuse scenes in the child abuse books are so arousing for him that he masturbates while reading them. I bet some people do do this. I think we would see this as morally troubling that someone would find these books arousing. I don't think we'd just shrug and say well it's fine because it's only a piece of literature, and buy him another child abuse book for Christmas.

This is probably the most convincing of the arguments, but given that we don't know the real reasons why someone looks at or reads about child abuse, it will be tricky for us to distinguish between those who are looking at or reading about child abuse with sympathy, and those who find it exciting. So we revert back to saying pictures-and-videos - bad, books - good.

No legal restriction on books

Perhaps the only reason why we feel that looking at photos of child abuse is wrong (but books about child abuse are fine) is simply because the former is illegal and the latter is not.  Those who look at child abuse pictures do so in secret, in their own homes, through untraceable proxies. They keep it secret from family and friends, and if they are caught with all that child porn, they'll be prosecuted. It's not socially acceptable to sit on a train watching videos of child porn. Whereas reading child abuse books is legal; people who read them don't need to do so in secret, and if the police discover that someone owns a lot of child abuse books, nothing happens. It's (seemingly) socially acceptable to sit on a train reading a book about child abuse.

But laws are fairly arbitrary, and change over time and borders. In some countries, (Japan, perhaps?) there are no laws against child abuse (in countries where child marriage is practiced, it is acceptable for a man to have sex with a little girl so long as he is married to her). And there are probably some countries where child abuse books are illegal. If UK laws had been the other way around, and it was illegal to read child abuse books, but legal to view child porn, then would public opinion switch too? I think it probably would. If people secretly went online to read child abuse stories, but child porn magazines adorned the shelves of Sainsbury's, would our opinions switch too? I think they would, and if I'm right, then we are fickle and uncommitted to our beliefs, proving that there is not much of a distinction between child porn and child abuse books; it's just legal precedent and social convention.

All together now

A final possibility is that some or all of the above reasons group together to distinguish child porn from child abuse books. Child porn is visual, illegal, usually created by abusers, and the viewers are (mostly) men who are watching it for sexual gratification. Child abuse books are literary, legal, usually created by victims, and the readers are (mostly) women who are reading it with sympathy.

When put like that, the argument seems more convincing... but if as I've shown above, each of the constituent parts of the argument are unconvincing, then merely adding several unconvincing arguments together doesn't really make it convincing. Five wrongs don't make a right.

Conclusion

It doesn't look like the law or public opinion on this pseudo-distinction between child porn and child abuse books is going to change any time soon. It looks as though, for the foreseeable future, looking at child porn will (rightly) be seen as abhorrent and immoral, but reading about child abuse will (wrongly) be seen as a perfectly legitimate pastime.

Am I the only one who finds this distinction weird? I don't know. But whenever I meet someone who enjoys reading books describing child abuse, I can't help but feel disturbed, and I wonder why they are reading these books. If you ask me, books which describe child abuse in graphic detail should not be adorning the shelves of supermarkets and bookshops, available for anyone of any age to buy, read, and enjoy. I suggest that the readers of child abuse books should be viewed with suspicion, and perhaps even scrutinised by the police.