including selling “lads magazines” in brown covers and making the watchdog Ofcom more answerable to the views of parents.

Or, much more accurately, more answerable to the views of MumsNet readers. It’s democracy after a fashion, I suppose.

I see the Tories are continuing with Labour’s habit of banning things on the off-chance that this will affect some social ill or other. In America, you get parents freaking out about Janet Jackson’s nipple; in the UK, we crack down on music videos.

I have no idea whether these measures will combat “sexualisation of children”, but I do know they’ll cut down on the number of occasions on which parents feel a bit upset about seeing the cover of Zoo in the newsagents.

Adults are terrified by sex largely because their own parent’s could never talk about it openly or honestly – will the UK be a better place if these measures go through (how will we even measure changes?).

I’m sure there are certain groups that will be thrilled if the tories, sorry, coalition persists with this nonsense?

will the UK be a better place if these measures go through (how will we even measure changes?).

We won’t measure changes, because we can’t. I’d be far more keen on policies like this if we could point to a definite, quantifiable result, preferably one that could definitively say “children are now (x) percentage less sexualised as a result”. Since that won’t happen, what we’ll get instead is a two-year lull until enough people decide that something else needs to be banned as well.

The only solid effects I can think of will be a) the happy feelings aroused in those who pushed for these measures once they get the bans and restrictions they wanted and b) the fact that less sexualised imagery in public is “obviously” a public good, because “everyone knows” it is. Do you want to force porno down toddlers’ necks, you monster?

I said this the last time this came up, but I do wonder how far this kind of thing is compatible with the concept of liberalism. Not at all, is my guess, since liberals are usually against banning things for no other reason than it seems to us to be a good thing, regardless of outcome. Mind you, I said that before these policies were announced, and it bounced off a lot of skulls like a marble pinged off a forehead.

Too little, too late
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1945759,00.html

The Daily Star and The Sun will have to change their ways then.

*sigh*

Can somebody explain what Conservatives are about please? Less government intervention, free market decisions… except in areas we don’t like in which case all the government intrusion you can get?

Do the Tories not have a liberal wing?

Whilst I support the protection of the public from excessive advertising etc, I am incredibly uneasy about the government deciding what is “inappropriate” clothing for a child. I’d much prefer that left as the responsibility of the parent.

Is there actually any known instances of children being maladjusted to a noticeable degree by all the crap floating about? Or is this the result of hypersensitivity by parents who have nowt better to do but worry that their little darlings are growing up too fast?

Quite ironic that we get this latest wheeze from the puritanical moralising social conservatives at the same time that their greatest achievement the War on Drugs, has been declared a failure by the Global Commission on Drug Policy. Obviously a bunch of hippies. Well actually signed by, George Shultz, former US secretary of state, Paul Volcker, former chairman of the Federal Reserve, Kofi Annan, former secretary general of the United Nations, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, former president of Brazil, Ernesto Zedillo, former president of Mexico and Javier Solana, former European Union high representative for foreign and security policy.

When will these people understand that banning things that you do not personally approve of does not solve the underlying problem? Do pre-teens buy their own clothes? If a parent does not want to buy inappropriate clothing for their children then don’t buy it. Calling for bans must mean that they want to control the purchases of others. We really have reached the the bottom of the pit of control freakery when the national government have an opinion of what the population should wear. How will they enforce the new national dress code, search luggage for offensive dresses as people return from holiday? Intercept dodgy looking parcels containing coat hangers from internet shoppers?

I see the so called ‘independent investigation’ is led Reg Bailey, chief executive of the ‘Mothers’ Union’ ……. a Christian group.
http://www.themothersunion.org/

Hmmm

6
I’m afraid that the tory ‘small government’ is an urban myth, just look what Thatcher did after she told us all that she would ‘roll back the state’.

From the Guardian:

The report, which was prepared by Reg Bailey, the chief executive of the Christian charity Mothers’ Union, finds “sexualised and gender stereotyped clothing, products and services for children are the biggest concerns for parents and many non-commercial organisations”.

In response to his recommendations on clothing, it is expected that the British Retail Consortium, following consultation with Mumsnet, the web-based parents’ forum, will announce a new code next week. It is expected to advise retailers against suggestive or gender-specific slogans on clothes, black or enhanced bras, and will propose modest swimwear for pre-teens.

Doesn’t look like you were wrong Rodent lol.

So. We have Christian Nadine Dorries claiming that Abstinence classes specifically for girls will be some sort of feminist empowerment, we have the Christian charity Life being asked to give it’s ‘learned’ opinion on sexual health when their main positions are no shagging outside marriage or abortions in any cases, and now we have the Chief Exec of Christian charity Mother’s Union casting his eye over children’s tat and clothing. There’s a pattern there.

I can’t see how this is doomed to anything but failure, I mean even pigtails can be regarded as sexual in the right circumstances.

I’m surprised at the negativity here. As a feminist, yes, I would quite like there to be the cultural space in this society for children to be undefined by their gender identity and sexuality. I’m as against the tyranny of mumsnet as anyone else but why you are automatically condemning this report because of its origins I do not understand. Do any of you have a strategy other than ‘well, parents can always turn these things off’? What are the alternatives between the cultural laissez-faire liberalism you propose and what you see as over-active state control? Why can’t this agenda be captured rather than left to the Tory right?

“I can’t see how this is doomed to anything but failure, I mean even pigtails can be regarded as sexual in the right circumstances.”

Absolutely. And black stockings for girls used to be regular school uniform.

Just banning sexy billboards near schools assumes that pre-teens won’t see the billboards everywhere else. What impressions will pre-teens gain if they go to seaside or the local swimming pool and see trim teens parading in their bikinis? Better to ban that too. What of sex shops in highstreet shopping centres displaying erotic lingerie in shop windows? What of that massage parlour in the next road – the one that advertises on the internet? Or the escort services?

Princeton University has an archive of Lewis Carroll’s photos of pre-teen girls, some “undraped”. To be on the safe side, better to ban Lewis Carroll and all his evocative literary works like Alice in wonderland and Alice through the looking glass.

Whatever happened to all that stuff about deregulation?

I look forward to the coalition taking on the Sun et al.

“lol”

Has anyone here walked round the central shopping centre in Copenhagen?

It’s obvious that this report was commisioned with the intention of trying to distrat the public’s attention away from the Coalition’s policies which will have very real and damaging effects on children.
They will say it’s not their cuts which are making children’s lives harder but a few pop stars wiggling their bottoms on TV.

[12] “I would quite like there to be the cultural space in this society for children to be undefined by their gender identity and sexuality” – and for those who see it differently do you propose a carrot or stick to get them on board?

My guess is that the chief exec of a christian group like mothers union will be pushing the moral arguments from a religious perspective and we all know the gods take a rather dim view of sexuality unless it is the right sort?

[16] what a cynical bastard you are – but absolutely right, of course?

@17: “My guess is that the chief exec of a christian group like mothers union will be pushing the moral arguments from a religious perspective and we all know the gods take a rather dim view of sexuality unless it is the right sort?”

When is the next stoning of the unchaste damsels scheduled for?

20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:

21 then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die; because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.
Deuteronomy 22:20-22
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/kjv/deu022.htm

why you are automatically condemning this report because of its origins I do not understand.

I imagine most of the commenters here would agree with me when I say that I have nothing at all against MumsNet in particular. There are other websites that I have far stronger opinions on, and as a result I don’t think any web community should exert direct influence of this nature on government policy, and that includes sites like LibCon.

As a feminist, yes, I would quite like there to be the cultural space in this society for children to be undefined by their gender identity and sexuality.

Allow me to point out the irony in launching a war on the “sexualisation” of kids in order to prevent them being defined by their “sexuality”. You have to admit, the two proposals look rather incongruous together.

Who exactly is it that’s sexualising kids here? It seems a lot less clear-cut than Zoo and Nuts.

What are the alternatives between the cultural laissez-faire liberalism you propose and what you see as over-active state control? Why can’t this agenda be captured rather than left to the Tory right?

I don’t offer any alternatives, because these policy proposals have such little merit. How will moving Zoo to the top shelf or banning billboards prevent sexualisation of children? If it does, how do we measure it?

The answer is that it probably won’t prevent anything and we can’t measure the effect. That’s why there’s no point trying to capture a crap policy on the left, especially since this is a straight-up populist New Labour horseshit wheeze designed explicitly to score points with an interest group, rather than achieve an observable outcome.

I’m a bit tired of having to make variations on this, but bad, ineffective policies are still bad and ineffective regardless of whether their intended purpose is good. I’ll leave it to other readers to decide how “good” the intentions are in this case, given it amounts to a gaggle of religious and middle class types regulating children’s dress and proscribing immoral materials in public space, so that the Tories can score easy points with a section of the electorate.

BTW, I raise the concept of liberalism, not because I’m opposed to state intervention – I’m very much in favour of it in many areas, provided it will have a proven positive effect – but because it’s an excellent base from which to view policy. Essentially, will this policy have a provable positive outcome that offsets its expense and hassle? If you can honestly answer “Yes”, I’d love to hear why.

[19] ‘mothers union’ aims to;
*promote and support married life
*encourage parents in their role to develop the faith of their children
*maintain a worldwide fellowship of Christians united in prayer, worship and service.
http://www.themothersunion.org/vision.aspx

Mothers’ Union is firmly rooted in a VOLUNTARY ethos – no wonder our Dave was smitten by Reg and his army of christian groupies?
http://www.canterburyprovincemu.org.uk/lichfield/images/at%20msh.jpg

(ps Reg is the one with the beard)

“So. We have Christian Nadine Dorries claiming that Abstinence classes specifically for girls will be some sort of feminist empowerment, we have the Christian charity Life being asked to give it’s ‘learned’ opinion on sexual health when their main positions are no shagging outside marriage or abortions in any cases, and now we have the Chief Exec of Christian charity Mother’s Union casting his eye over children’s tat and clothing. There’s a pattern there.”

So should Christians not get involved in debating social policy? Or are you claiming that only Christians want to the above?

Personally, I’m quite glad that there won’t be t-shirts on sale for little girls with the Playboy bunny on them.

Some comments on this thread just seem to want to knock Christianity any way they can. That’s the Guardian’s job.

“i raise the concept of liberalism, not because I’m opposed to state intervention – I’m very much in favour of it in many areas, provided it will have a proven positive effect – but because it’s an excellent base from which to view policy. Essentially, will this policy have a provable positive outcome that offsets its expense and hassle? If you can honestly answer “Yes”, I’d love to hear why.”

Flying Rodent – I agree. I’ve got a statist side and a liberal side – and this issue definitely brings out my irritated liberal side.

If the invisible hand of the market has decided that 7 yr old girls want to have padded bras then what right-thinking Tory could oppose that?

The invisible hand of the market, my arse. You might be comfortable with the government outsourcing public decency crackdowns to MumsNet and little clubs of religious believers, but I’m not. This is one area where the slippery-slope argument finally acquires some merit – what else do middle class mothers and Jesus fans disapprove of, and how far would the Tories go to earn Brownie points with them? Quite a lot and quite far, I imagine.

Call me a crazy, Utopian dreamer, but I have this mad idea that government policy should be based on research, evidence and observable data, rather than on what seems acceptable to a bunch of who-the-Hell-are-they cliques, in exchange for positive press. MumsNet and the Christians may very well be incredibly perceptive experts on public morality, but I have my doubts and really, I’m not comfortable having them make policy decisions on my behalf.

2. the a&e charge nurse – “Adults are terrified by sex largely because their own parent’s could never talk about it openly or honestly – will the UK be a better place if these measures go through (how will we even measure changes?).”

Come on. The Baby Boomers are now starting to retire. There is probably not a mentally competent adult left in Britain who can even remember a time Mary Whitehouse was taken seriously.

The number of people still alive who have problems talking about sex in the UK is probably down into the single digits. And mostly immigrants.

If adults are terrified of sex these days, it is because it is so often terrifying. Porn has got a lot nastier – and so have young people’s sex lives.

“I’m sure there are certain groups that will be thrilled if the tories, sorry, coalition persists with this nonsense?”

Perhaps. But it is more likely that as the Tories realise they can’t do anything about the important issues, they will look for a token gesture to make to prove to themselves and everyone else they are actually in “power”.

7. Cylux – “Is there actually any known instances of children being maladjusted to a noticeable degree by all the crap floating about? Or is this the result of hypersensitivity by parents who have nowt better to do but worry that their little darlings are growing up too fast?”

Known instances? You mean like the worst teen pregnancy, teen STD and teen abortion rates in Europe? Those sorts of instances?

I am not so sure parents are hypersensitive. The real argument is whether the rest of us care enough to sacrifice our freedoms.

@26 I don’t think any of that actually counts as being maladjusted.

Good luck trying to stop Primark et al selling sexualised clothing to pre teen children. That will be hard enough, but on the other hand, wait till Cameron tries to ban music videos from TV as well. Two powerful lobbies there who have the money and the inclination to resist him, mumsnet and the Christian union. We live in an age where the media are pumping pictures of Jordan et al into teenage faces at every turn, is it any wonder that pre teens get caught up as well?

The Tories need to learn that when you ride the ‘free market in all things, right reason or none’, pony then you got to go with it where ever it goes. No use bleating about it when it dumps on your nice little carpet.

Btw, anyone interested in the type of images shown at pre teen children on a daily basis, need to ask their grandchildren what their favourite programmes are. Not so much the programmes, per se, but the adverts in between. I personally am happy to let them watch the BBC because of the lack of adverts, sit down and watch Sky’s output and you will be a little shocked at what you see. N o, nothing as bad as semi porn, but pretty striking images, none the less.

[25] Norman Wells of the Family Education Trust (who is against sex education being taught in school) says – “Contrary to the prevalent view among sex educators, young people do not need to learn about a wide range of ‘sexualities’ and sexual behaviours; they do not need detailed information about the full range of contraceptive methods; and they do not need to be presented with a menu of sexual options from which they can make ‘informed choices’ when they feel they are ‘ready’ to become sexually active. Modern sex education is characterised by a lack of honesty, a lack of modesty, a lack of any moral framework worthy of the name, and a lack of respect for marriage as the proper context for sexual expression”.
http://www.famyouth.org.uk/publications/too-much-too-soon.pdf

I imagine members of Reg Bailey’s ‘Mother’s Union’ will be nodding their christian head’s in agreement with our Norm – meanwhile the Gruniard reckons 1 in 6 parents have not discussed sex with their teenage children.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2000/oct/25/parents.education

Now the ABSENCE of conversation about sex (between parent’s and children) sends a very powerful message – despite a culture saturated with sexual imagery or sexual references many parent’s still do not talk to their kids about what all of this stuff signifies.

The obvious question is why – my first instinct is that absence of sex talk is firmly established as a trans-generational pattern amongst most families (leaving aside the token and obligatory birds and bees cliches).

I mean how open was/is YOUR conversation with your Mum or Dad about sex, because my experience would have kept Alan Bennett in material for at least 2 books and 3 plays – don’t forget it was AB who said “children always assume the sexual lives of their parents come to a grinding halt at their conception”.

@21 A&E

http://www.canterburyprovincemu.org.uk/lichfield/images/at%20msh.jpg
I love the pic! I reckon Reg has just goosed the one on the left.

[28] “The Tories need to learn that when you ride the ‘free market in all things, right reason or none’, pony then you got to go with it where ever it goes. No use bleating about it when it dumps on your nice little carpet” – you mean the market doesn’t know best in all sphere’s of life?

No wonder one or two tories end up like this when confronted with such contradictions
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_lwmJ7prTI&feature=related

[30] He-hee – Reg loves to dispense pearls of sexual wisdom to the ladies?

So the government wants to move lads’ mags three feet higher in newsagents? Wow. Still, when Rowan Davies on LibCon wanted a Labour government to do this, she thought it was a good idea. I may have accidentally derailed that thread, but my basic points still stand: first ‘I don’t think the objections to ‘porn’ will be satisfied with the symbolism of the putting Zoo on “top shelf”‘, but more importantly (link):

[...] it’s precisely the the casual assumption that going after porn is an ‘easy win’ (or ‘low hanging fruit’) that leads to bad sex law in the first place or to the sexism which means no porn for women on the ‘top shelf’ (work safe link).

When I checked on my local WH Smith this morning, Zoo and Nuts were on the top shelf. Result!

I wonder where WH Smith will display that new PC video game: Modern Warfare 3?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N83kjDPy75Q&feature=related

@ 5 and 14 – Ha Ha. Too true. Has Cameron run this past news international?

With this and his other recent policy initiative on “extremism”and British values, Cameron is in danger of looking seriously silly for not thinking through the implications.

OMG – even the Fail has joined the bandwagon – surely the time has come to protect our children from Ga-Ga’s tits?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2000003/CFDA-Fashion-Awards-2011-Lady-Gaga-The-Edge-Glory-sheer-slips-reveals-chest.html

Thank god for Reg and the mothers union.

Fascinating new developments here;
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/lads'-mags-lack-the-integrity-of-'knave'%2c-says-cameron-201106063906/

Whilst I am sympathetic to the report’s findings, and join the flock of moralists who squawk at the idea of Tesco’s selling padded bras and thongs to under 12’s, I also find the underlying moralistic nature of the argument worrying.

There is a difference between the slow soft sexualisation of children that leave them with bizarre, unattainable understandings of sex, relationships and (as the review blurred sex and politics so can I) politics and the naturally inquisitive nature of children who are on a path towards adulthood.

The question remains how we protect children whilst not simply crushing their natural sexual curiosity…I have tried to answer that question here http://bit.ly/iYwYHE

The sad but real fact is that youngsters are impacted by sexy adverts, displays and pics every time they walk down a high street or see the red top tabloids displayed on the newstands.

They soon get to appreciate the significance of the top shelf of the magazine racks in supermarkets and newsagents. I’d never heard nor looked at the Nuts magazine for lads until I saw someone’s post here about it being put on top shelves – which acts as a promotion.

It would be wise IMO to compare what happens in other west European countries so see if there is anything to learn. For reasons that are not understood, Britain tops the league for teen pregnancies in western Europe and I cannot believe that is because we are way ahead in the promotion of sexy clothes for youngsters and the displays of sexy adverts.

And why the special concern about the sexualisation of youngsters? Is no one else concerned about the violence portrayed in popular video games and the effect that has in subliminally creating notions of social norms and values?

The idea that children can be fed material depicting the most extreme violence while sex remains a taboo, was a product of the Victorians – all of the old folk tales contained quite a lot of sex. When the Grimms got hold of them, they edited it all out.
Since that time we have fed very young children violent stories which make modern video games for older children look quite tame.

@ Bob B

” Is no one else concerned about the violence portrayed in popular video games and the effect that has in subliminally creating notions of social norms and values?”

Plenty, yes. They tend to be a little hysterical, moralising, and sciencaphobic.

Try this balanced account of the research into whether violent video games encourage aggressive behaviour:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_behavioral_effects

I interpret Cameron’s “initiative” in raising the issue of the early sexualisation of children as an instructive example of what’s called dog-whistle politics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics

The real purpose is to attract the support of (understandably) many concerned mums into believing that nice Mr Cameron understands their concerns. As for doing anything effective about it . . .

I first came across a bundle of Confessions of a Working Girl, by Miss S (Penguin Books, 2007 ) in the section of the best selling family paperbacks in a Tesco Extra store, where all the books were steeply discounted.

The Victorians made sex a taboo in their official ideology but the reality was very different:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/r.ball/documents/prostitution.pdf

In families without money, by the late 19th century thousands of young girls were leaving school at 12 and entering domestic service, which was typically a live-in poorly paid job with only occasional days off. By contemporary accounts – eg Walter’s Diaries or Frank Harris’ autobiography – many were willing to engage in casual prostitution of one kind or another on their days out to augment meagre earnings.

The lingering notion of some virtuous past age of innocence in Victorian and Edwardian Britain is a myth. By the 1851 census, half of Britain’s population were urbanised – and youngters working in farming got to know about farm animals mating soon enough.

@8. Richard W: “Do pre-teens buy their own clothes? If a parent does not want to buy inappropriate clothing for their children then don’t buy it.”

That misses the argument about pester power. When parents do buy inappropriate clothing (demonstrated by manufacturers making the stuff more than once), the problem is about stupid parents; about parents who do not understand that “sexy” clothes are inappropriate for children.

Big Society, cough, has its role. A chat at school gates with another parent may assist the misguided. From somebody like them rather than a middle class know all like me. From a friend.

@40. Steve: “I have tried to answer that question here…”

And failed very badly. You argued about the age when children determine a sexual identity. High falootin’ stuff. But you accompanied it with an image from Zoo magazine featuring two adult female models.

How were young teens in France in the decadent 1960s going to interpret this?

Juliette Greco: Déshabillez-Moi (1967):
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3e0vh_juliette-greco-deshabillezmoi_music

The BBC banned this record in Britain:

Jane Birkin et Serge Gainsbourg: je t’aime mon amour . . moi non plus (1969)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LctKineGSP0

@ 44 Bob B

“Try this balanced account of the research into whether violent video games encourage aggressive behaviour”

LOL. Every claim referred to in that article is POV, unfounded or unproved. The article itself says as much.

That’s what I was talking about when I said that people who go on about violence in video games are hysterical and sciencaphobic. They’re so anti-video-games (or so terrified of a medium they don’t fully understand) that they’re not interested in whether or not games actually make people violent. Instead, they either:

a) Assume that violent games make people violent without any evidence at all.

b) Assert that these games make people violent using useless evidence that fails to distinguish between correlation and causation, and/or fails to assess the extent to which violent video games PREVENT violence.

c) Simply state that “violence is bad”, which obviously ignores the fact that video game violence isn’t actually real.

You appear to be in camp (b).

“LOL. Every claim referred to in that article is POV, unfounded or unproved. The article itself says as much.”

The state of research into whether violent video games – and cartoons – promote aggressive behaviour is fluid with some studies claiming to find associations while others don’t. There is a similar fluidity about research claiming associations between consumers of “extreme” porn and manifestations of extreme BDSM behaviour.

It’s almost always possible to turn up with some examples of those who have been adversely influenced – and they often end up in gaol. The question is whether such tendencies can be predicted:

Can video games make kids more violent? A new study employing state-of-the-art brain-scanning technology says that the answer may be yes.

Researchers at the Indiana University School of Medicine say that brain scans of kids who played a violent video game showed an increase in emotional arousal – and a corresponding decrease of activity in brain areas involved in self-control, inhibition and attention.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16099971/ns/technology_and_science-games/t/does-game-violence-make-teens-aggressive/

@49 If I could be arsed (I can’t) I bet I could find some research that finds that vidja gamez actually cause people to chill out cos they’re working out their aggressive impulses blowing up explosive barrels in Half Life 2.

“If I could be arsed (I can’t) I bet I could find some research that finds that vidja gamez actually cause people to chill out cos they’re working out their aggressive impulses blowing up explosive barrels in Half Life 2.”

I’ve already said the state of research into all this is fluid.

In any event, science – real science – evolves in this way of empirical studies testing hypotheses.

The research physicists still haven’t found evidence of the the Higgs Boson – which is predicted to exist by the so-called Standard Model.

There are two incompatible theories of light – a particle theory and a wave theory. We live with that.

Try this on the early identification of individuals at risk for antisocial personality disorder
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/reprint/182/44/s11

If valid, the implications are frightening – such as holding a young individual for “treatment” because they are deemed likely to behave in anti-social ways.

@ 49 Bob B

“Researchers at the Indiana University School of Medicine say that brain scans of kids who played a violent video game showed an increase in emotional arousal – and a corresponding decrease of activity in brain areas involved in self-control, inhibition and attention.”

What’s that got to do with anything? No doubt violent games stimulate parts of the brain associated with violence, but does that actually affect behaviour? Does me playing Call of Duty today make me more likely to punch someone tomorrow? Like I said, your evidence is a joke.

Furthermore, that article claims that the only difference between Medal of Honor and Need For Speed – a shooter and a racing game – is violence. Literally, it says “The only difference? Violent content.” If you’re not into games, this is like saying the only difference between Some Like It Hot and Pulp Fiction is that Pulp Fiction is in colour.

This proves that either the author of the article hasn’t got a clue what they’re talking about, or that they’re parrotting someone who carried out the study yet doesn’t have a clue what they’re talking about. Either way, it’s laughable.

“What’s that got to do with anything?”

I’ll try going slowly. That Indiana University School of Medicine brain scan research reportedly shows that the action of playing violent video games is associated with reduced activity in parts of the brain associated with self-control, inhibition and attention.

It is differentially significant if playing non-violent video games does not display similar brain responses and/or if some individuals show consistently more pronounced decreases.

Increasing numbers of neurological research studies apply this scanning technique to see how specific areas of brains respond with different stimuli or activities – years back, I volunteered for a study in one of the big London teaching hospitals because they need large numbers of subjects to generate sufficently large samples. I spent an hour in one of those scanners – this was of special personal interest as the physics prof from my alma mater – Sir Peter Mansfield FRS -was awarded a Nobel prize for developing the scanning technology.

At the very least, these studies inform the treatment of stroke victims. The implications become frightening if it becomes possible to predict the behaviour of individuals in response to specific stimuli – which could be violent video games or porn.