Theists actually believe this stuff!

Monday, November 17, 2008

The Australian Sex Party

A new political party in Australia. They need 500 members to form a party.

Posted by Luke at 3:49 AM

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

A party that represents the interests of misogynists is a party that represents the interests of misogynists. I wouldn't vote for the Australian "Sex" Party any more than I would vote for the Christian Democratic Party.
I agree with gay marriage and sex education, but defining misogynist and contemptible commodies as "sex" is about as unacademic as it is deceitful. The political economy of sexual labour means absolutely nothing to this collection of imbeciles and industry schills because the Eros Foundation is as right-wing as the religious right they purport to resist because they're essentially free market fundamentalists who believe men should have the "right", or privilege rather, to produce and buy and view whatever they want no matter how racist or sexist or heterosexist it is, which is irreconcilable with left thought with regard to hegemony and media.
They're politics are neo-liberal.
They're as Right as any other political party who represent an industry at the expense of people of colour or women or the working- poor.
You are, of course, entitled to your right to vote for a party of boneheads complicit to patriarchy and capitalism at its most unconscionable (i.e. defending multi-billion dollar industries that propel the trafficking of girls and women, that exploit cheap labour in former Bloc states, that normalise and reinforce hyper-masculinities and violence, that sexualise racism and coercion) but don't pretend that you're some sort of progressive that gives a shit.
Patriarchy is Patriarchy whatever it's costume. The magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church condemns women to lives of misery but then any party that would eclipse the reality of sexual labour with liberal bourgeois myths and anti-censorship rhetoric to defend the indefensible also condemns women to lives of misery. I suspect that you believe you're somehow immune to the socialisation of complacency when it comes to Patriarchy because you're an Atheist. Your support for this political party demonstrates that you're as complacent and as apathatic as any papist.

November 17, 2008 at 4:58 PM
Anonymous said...

Given the cheerful overuse of the word "patriarchy" with a capital P, along with all those other happy catchwords that indicate a rabid feminist of the Dworkinite species, I suspect there is no use even replying or trying to argue with you.

Still, may I suggest you step back from your old-fashioned assumptions about the nature of pornography. The old line about how it's all about exploiting and objectifying women doesn't really fit in with the reality of those women who choose freely to work in porn, nor with the experiences of the vast majority of people who watch it. Yes, there is still exploitation within the industry and issues of how a lot of porn portrays sex, but in rampantly dismissing all sexually explicit material as "misogynist" you only end up supporting wholesale censorship and at the same time help to suppress the efforts of those trying to change porn from within.

Have you been to visit GoodDykePorn.com or seen the films of Tony Comstock or Petra Joy? Are you OK with these things being labelled as "misogynist" and casting their creators into the roles of slave-drivers or exploiters? Are we to only censor all the straight porn because gay porn isn't "misogynist" and meets your high standards for non-capital-P-Patriarchy?

The Eros Association offends your anti-capitalist sensibilities but since when did atheists have to give up on capitalism? It appears that, for you, the word "progressive" means belonging to a very select club and gives you a nice wooden box from which to snipe at others with holier-than-thou sentiments. It's very reassuring for your ego, I'm sure.

In the end, you are basically advocating censorship and, as such, you are just as bad as Family First and the rest of them.

November 21, 2008 at 8:12 PM
Anonymous said...

Ms Naughty,

"In the end" your mention of "alt" porn is of no value because essentially you defend the right to access all pornography no matter how racist or sexist or heterosexist it may be. Family First? If you feel the need to resort to adolescent-level dichotomies of "religious fanatics" against porn vs "enlightened citizens" for porn which are as inaccurate as they are immature considering the fact that socialist and humanist and feminist theorists critique pornography as much as "religious fanatics" then I'm not wasting my breath arguing with you either. I have no time for imbeciles with the intellectual capacity of 15-year-old boys who "think" that neo-liberalism is "progressive". Family First? The irony is that your politics as as right-wing as you erroneously label mine because your anti-censorship rhetoric and drivel is the same lassez faire attitude that drives the market at its most unconscionable, constitutional fundamentalism and the "right" to distribute hate literature. By the way, by your own logic, or lack of rather, if I'm no better than Family First simply because of the association of opposition to porn then you're no better than some misogynist piece of shit that uses porn while completely self-aware of a very, very real hatred for women. Go figure. I notive you have little to offer in the way of objecting to the sexualised racialism that infects pornography or any attempt to counter a few cold harsh facts with regard to it either. I'm sure things are nice in your white middle class rose-coloured world where the truth is but an afterthought. I won't revisit this idiotic blog because I have better things to do than engage with someone whose engagement with left theory is evidently about as non-existent as their capacity for tenable debate. Go back to your two-dimensional unacademic fantasy world where "big, bad censorship" is a greater threat to human rights than exploitation and capitalism and hegemonic depictions of people of colour and women and where anything goes is anything but a juvenile and pathetic daydream for faux-libertarians who talk about "freedom" while abstracting the idea to accord it to accommodate indivuals with existing privileges at the expense of the freedom of others.

November 21, 2008 at 9:48 PM
Anonymous said...

PS: Oh...I see..."holier-than-thou". You need to open your eyes. This blog belongs to some pseudo-intellectual who thinks that atheism makes him "smarter" than someone of faith. THAT'S holier-than-thou.
You were right about one thing. Atheists needn't resist capitalism; or patriarchy as is evidenced herein. Atheists are as susceptible to the socialisation and reinforcement of classism as they are to that of racism and sexism and heterosexism like their religious brethren. That was the point of my original post. Which you missed somewhere along the way when instead you thought it was a good idea to defend an entire industry with minority examples. Somewhere right now a white middle class woman accorded the capacity to choose is choosing a career indulging pimps and misogynists alike. So what's your point? By allowing such experiences to eclipse the big picture you show little more than cruel apathy and no knowledge of either hegemony or how the value of consent is impacted upon within the marketplace. Your inane comments with regard to the term patriarchy only serve to demonstrate that your engagement with queer theory is as "thorough" as your engagement with gender or labour and market theories. I have better things to do with my time than to argue with someone over the internet who is defending not just those consumers of porn as "enlighened" as yourself but every damn Joe Average Woman Hater that uses porn as well. If socialists and radical feminists and humanists that critique porn as exploitative and misogynist are no better than religious zealouts that think it's merely "obscene" than anyone who defends porn for whatever reason is no better than something much much worse so your little rant is as unacademic and ridiculous as it is fallacious. You're either being simply intellectually lazy or you're as "clever" as the author of the blog. Good f- Riddance.

November 21, 2008 at 11:09 PM
Anonymous said...

PS: Oh, and reliance upon liberal bourgeois myths about what the MAJORITY of porn and its users is/are or is/are not does not an argument make. Any stranger to the subject who took a look at the internet let alone those of us who research the industry thoroughly knows your assertions are as stupid as they are false. The third most lucrative industry on the planet doesn't thrive on a "fair" and "feminist"-friendly platform and to attempt to assert otherwise is as unacademic as it is unrealistic so you're either being quite deliberately intellectually-dishonest to try to advance your feeble argument or you're a complete imbecile. If you're being dishonest then you're little more than an industry schill or perhaps just some jerk who thinks her "right" to watch something is greater than the rights of women harmed in the production of products that you wish to watch. If, however, you do honestly believe the ouvre of a handful of dubious directors and their fans outnumber the number of pornographic commodities like Teen /@&' !? Volume 221 and the misogynist boneheads that view that shit at leisure online and off then you are in dire need of both a reality check and education.

November 21, 2008 at 11:59 PM
Anonymous said...

"I have better things to do with my time than to argue with someone over the internet..."

Wow, for someone who has better things to do, you sure spent a lot of time writing up 3 long, outraged posts.

And I'm now wondering if it's worth *my* time replying to someone who is so completely caught up in their ideology that the best they can do is spew insults on an atheist blog. Why aren't you off fighting the people are your real enemies?

And why can't you link to your own blog so I can see where exactly you are coming from with such vitriol?

You claim to be someone who "researches the industry thoroughly". Really? Can we see your references? And yet you know nothing about me and the eight years I have spent working within the porn industry, trying to change it from within,

If you think I see this issue in black and white you are very, very mistaken. I do not for a minute disagree that there is exploitation or ethical problems with parts of the porn industry. I have very little time for the vast majority of content that the US porn industry produces. I have seen my share of offensive porn sites and I know that some porn entreprises rely on exploiting young women who don't know what they're in for.

And yet there are plenty of women who have chosen to work within porn and they would be offended if you called them victims.

And there are a growing number of producers who are working to create positive porn that does not exploit those involved and that offer an alternative vision of sexuality.

I refuse to throw the baby out with the bathwater. And understanding the shades of grey does not make me any less interested in trying to make things better.

It is my belief that censoring porn does not help to change things. Nor does insulting those who wish to discuss the issue.

Rather than abusing me for "not engaging with leftist/queer theory" (because you'll be examining me later?) why don't you go over and read the blog of Audacia Ray, a writer who is fighting for the rights of sex workers and doing her best to change porn for the better? Why don't you stop wasting your precious time writing comments and instead get out there and practice what you preach? If there are women being exploited by porn, go out and fucking help them to help themselves. Hands on, that's my advice. Work some of that anger out on the people who are your real enemies.

And now I have spent too much time replying.

Perhaps I should have kept this comment to one word, newly enshrined in the dictionary of which you seem so fond:

Meh.

November 23, 2008 at 4:22 PM
Anonymous said...

Ms Naughty,

I am aware of your blog and your good intentions and I do, in fact, do active work in this area so you're wrong on both counts. Some of the directors your site celebrates do work that I and I know others do still critique as hyper-masculine but you are, of course, entitled to your opinion as much as anyone. Some works might not even constitute pornography but that's another debate entirely. You did make a rather dramatic leap from first asserting that the majority of contemporary pornography was "fair" and "feminist"-friendly to then acknowledging that the majority of it is anything but. Whether this was due to short term memory loss or dishonesty to try to convince me of a lie doesn't particularly matter I guess. You will notice, however, that I feel no need to lie to try to advance my argument. I stated my convictions and some cold harsh facts about porn (e.g. U.S. pornographers exploiting cheap labour in Eastern Europe). It should be no mystery, however, why so many people who defend pornography will resort to lies. I contest the assertion that "censoring" products where production is shown to be abusive or exploitative is counter-productive. It's a cop out to try to validate the distribution and sale and consumption of all pornographic materials no matter how exploitative or misogynist they are. If you believe that child pornography should remain "censored" then it makes no sense why pornographic materials that have been acquired through abuse or drugs or exploitation shoud remain "uncensored". What's the difference - sexual violence is sexual violence regardless of the age of its victims. There is no difference. It's a cop out. We don't talk about "censoring" cage eggs. We don't talk about "censoring" documented child abuse. e don't talk about "censoring" the "right" of industry to exploit cheap labour. It's not even about "censorship". The "big, bad censorship" line is as meaningless as it is manipulative. It's calculated to prey on the fears of people who believe their rights are at stake. But why do the rights of pornographers and consumers eclipse those of a woman who may testify that she was abused or exploited during a shoot? There is nothing "fair" nor "feminist", regardless of the gender of the film maker or advocates, about "i-ism" which operates at the expense of others. No matter how much you argue that porn can be "fair" or "feminist", or that it's about "sex", it's essentially a commodity and it's about capital. If pornographers want to make a buck at all I suspect they're somewhat compromising their capacity for "fairness" or "feminism". Your well-intentioned work seems futile within a culture that increasingly normalises a quasi-paedophilia (this saturates even mainstream adult pornography) and misogyny and violence but it is, indeed, well-intentioned. I think we will just have to agree to disagree. Peace.

November 23, 2008 at 6:26 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)