Gay Male Sexuality Is Under Attack From Without AND Within

There are racist gay men. This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone, given racism is pretty entrenched across the human species. I once had to call an ex-boyfriend to come "rescue" me from a date with a man ranting on about how awful black people are. They are out there.

Owen Jones has written a comment piece on racism among gay men. Needless to say it has conflated some actual racism with some personal sexual preferences. When you are on a "dating" app (or back in the days of Gaydar for oldsters like me) you are presenting what you are and what you want out into the world in the hopes of finding others who share, or mirror, your desires. Perhaps you only want intelligent men for a long term relationship. Maybe you desire men with big arms for a fling. It could be you find only white men attractive. These are not necessarily stating you hate stupid people, people with smaller arms or non-white people. But it is saying that for the purposes of a relationship (or just sex) you have certain desires in mind.

Sexuality is a beautifully complex thing. I'm very much broad-minded about what I find attractive. I find a lot of looks, attitudes and minds attractive for many different reasons. But I also have a couple of "types" of men that I find EXTREMELY attractive. And a few (leather wearers beware) I find extremely unattractive. I couldn't change those desires even if I wanted to. So demanding that people become open to finding things attractive that they don't is a bit much. Should gay men starting trying to find women attractive as to not do so would be misogynistic? I think not!!!!

Unfortunately this sort of ludicrous suggestion helps others pretend racism doesn't exist. Focus on the real stigmas and racism going on out there and stop policing sexuality.

He also finds objectifying certain races problematic. I objectify men with big arms. I can thus quite understand someone objectifying men for another facet of their personality or appearance. The idea it is racist to find a certain skin tone attractive but okay to find only a certain gender attractive is messy at best.

Owen Jones is wandering extremely close to "conversion therapy" territory and towards suggesting male homosexuality itself is problematic. Must we all be pansexuals? Is that where we are heading? Is there no value in individuality?

People with similar mindsets also oppose the "culture" of muscle worship among gay men. This culture is much overblown, and is mainly limited to "the scene". Unfortunately many gay men in prominent positions are part of that scene and forget that out here in the real world male homosexuality is a lot more diverse. Considering muscle worship to be unhealthy due to the body image problems it may cause is a bit much when we encourage bear/cub culture at the same time.

The real issue is this sort of criticism has been internalised by many gay men who nod along in shame when some progressive comes along to browbeat them back into line. It is long past time we stop cow-towing to these puritanical busy-bodies who not only want to get into our bedrooms but want to get into our fantasises.

I would say "we didn't beat conservative busy-bodies only to allow progressive ones to control our sexuality" but can't as we haven't beat the conservative busy-bodies. Oh we thought we had but they've been quietly beavering away... Our Government has many plans to block porn, from adults as well as children, of which this is just the latest example.

If you don't want Christians telling you who to fuck, you'd better start stopping everyone else making similar demands. Otherwise we'll be back to the 1980s in no time at all.

Don't just nod ashamedly in the corner. Fight for the right to love and fuck however you damn well want to. Resist the puritans at every turn!

At Last People Are Waking Up To The Tactics Of The New Puritans

It is a shame anything involving Germaine Greer and her vile comments about transgender people seems to have helped bring some sanity back to the world of political commentary. As we have seen there has been a new puritan spirit rising across the nation as politicians try to ban/filter porn, suppress sex workers freedoms and ban some magazines. And it isn't just in those sort of initiatives one can see it... there's a creeping sense of conformity drifting back across various aspects of our lives. Just look at the adulation given to same-sex married couples and their kids on the gay news outlets for an example of this (having children isn't exactly pioneering, my other half has 4).

Anyway. After some students sought to ban Germaine Greer from giving a talk at a university because, well let's be frank, she's a really horrible person there finally seems to be a few more voices rising up to defend free speech (even if its hers). Ironically many of these voices are ones who didn't stand up against porn blocks or other infringements of our freedoms, but hey the number of Labourites standing up for marriage equality prior to 2010 could be counted on one hand. These things change gradually. Referring to the neo-progressives as a cult is pretty much on the nose except I don't really like the word cult. One person's cult, is another person's religion. Certainly neo-progressives, with their love of woo and hatred of the atheist movement, share much with the religious.

Howard Jacobson has also got the measure of the latest type of prude.

Our country is in a censorious mood. The more educated we are, the less we are prepared to tolerate views contrary to our own. Shake any institution of higher learning and a dozen boycotters will fall out of it. If the academic community gets its way, we will soon all be speaking with a single voice.

Others are also getting a sense of just how far things have already gone. In universities the students are cleansing their courses of anything that might offend.

Using tactics like trying to get someone fired to silence them (then getting upset that their own businesses might get hurt in the blowback), we are seeing the real "morality" these puritans are preaching.



But more are starting to stand against the shaming.


Nick Cohen says it all here.

The Puritans' Perfect World Will Be Built On Police Raids And Human Misery

If one were to believe the "Lose the Lad's Mags", "No More Page 3" and generally anti-porn types, you'd think that the banning of "objectifying" or "sexualising" images would have no negative effects. In their perfect world everyone benefits from the removal of such images and everyone is happy.

Of course what they tend to forget is what happens to those who still try to view their "banned" materials. As we head towards web filters in this country and an outright ban on internet pornography in Iceland, it really is time to remember what happens when a country bans porn. We get police raids, trials, public shaming and a suppression of various "erotic" forms of free speech (be it feminist books, LGBT materials etc.). How can I claim this? Because it has happened before.

We can get a glimpse of the future thanks to the recent, so-called, "Twink Trial" in our own country. Here, of course, internet porn is not illegal. But images of child abuse are, thankfully (as someone who believes in individual freedom I believe that a child cannot give consent and thus any such sexual abuse is rape). However even this justifiable and necessary ban leads to unintended consequences. At the Twink Trial a gay man was arrested and charged because he had viewed "Twink porn". Twink is a word used to describe a man of youthful appearance, usually 18 - 21. Despite the fact he was viewing a "legitimate" porn site with all the correct US standard forms of age checking, his life was turned upside down and he was accused of being a paedophile. In this case no offense had actually been committed and, eventually, the case has been dropped. But it does provide an example of just the sort of thing that will happen if we continue down the path we are going on.

People will have their lives ruined. We will force those porn companies who keep records and abide by current legislation out of business and leave porn to an underground criminal element who won't have such scruples. The police will become ever more adjudicators of morality. Who will decide what constitutes porn in the brave new world some seem to want to bring about?

Many debates I've engaged in on this argument have been with people who see it as a purely "intellectual" exercise. They are feminists or Christians (or both) who see the world through their ideological eyes, but when I confront them with the results of previous prohibitions, of the effects on women's groups and LGBT people, and on individual liberty they have laughed it off as "interesting" information. They seem to be unable to accept that they are heading towards supporting a state enforced moral standard which will be backed with real force and have real consequences. Accepting that seems harder for them than accepting porn can sometimes be harmful is for those of us who support liberty (but who know liberty is imperfect and messy).

"Porn Trolls" Or "People Who Like To Take Pictures Of Themselves Naked"

There are quite a number of reasons why someone might want to take pictures of themselves naked and post them to individuals, or anyone who happens to pass by, online. Few, however, would send naked pictures of themselves from a personal account (one that can be traced back to them) for malicious purposes.

So to hear Benjamin Cohen (someone I have some respect for thanks to his work with Pink News and on marriage equality) help propagate calling them "trolls" is a bit sad. Now don't get me wrong, if you receive an unwanted naked picture (especially of someone you wouldn't be attracted to even if you were into receiving naked pictures) it's something you'll want to stop happening again. Block them, certainly, and report if they harass you on the social network. It is certainly a social network faux pas to send naked pictures to someone who doesn't want them. Whatever happened to a good old fashioned "Wanna see my cock?"?

The lazy labeling of such socially awkward people as a "troll", that modern day boogey-man, does nothing to help educate people and is likely only to make them more socially awkward! The word "troll" is becoming increasingly used to slur those we don't like, as I said back in July.

If we forget about that, as the troll word was being quoted from (Scientologists look away now) a psychiatrist, the tone of the article is all very prudish. The conclusion, better sex education, is one we can all agree on. But the problem is not that people are posting naked pictures of themselves. There is nothing, intrinsically, wrong with the naked human form. The problem is that they aren't engaging with others in a way the person they are engaging with wants them to. It is poor communication. Plain and simple.

The implication by the psychiatrist that there should be consequences for posting naked pictures on your social media feed (which people can choose to follow or not) is left unchallenged, as if we'd all agree that people shouldn't ever express themselves in that way. Though Cohen says he isn't a prude, leaving that hanging at the end of the article seems a little prudish.

"Eww... naked bodies" isn't going to dissuade a teenager from publishing a naked picture of themselves. Explaining to them that sending them directly to those who might not want them isn't on, and that there are risks involved with posting yourself naked online, would be a whole lot more useful and less Victorian.

Cohen's unfortunate encounter with someone who didn't quite get he was on Facebook rather than Gaydar (showing my age there) could've have ended with him blocking the person or him trying to educate said person about why offering a threesome to someone you don't know would be receptive is not really on. Instead it ended with him having that person's account closed which educates no one, shames someone who was probably already a bit socially awkward and is the ultimate expression of "prudery". Cohen went on to say on Twitter that what that person did was "wrong" so, to him, that means it is okay to have his Facebook account removed.

That is like the "lose the lads' mags" approach to combating domestic violence and sexual abuse. I.e. it achieves nothing.

Sad really. Just another sign that the New Puritans continue to make inroads back into our lives. Cover up folks, nanny is back.

Why I Am Not A Feminist

I'm nobody special so there shall be no profound truths, and no reinventing of the wheel, here. But I felt it was time to write up why I personally disassociate myself from the word "feminist".

It isn't easy. I support women's liberation. When I say women's liberation, I mean total freedom. Freedom from the need to conform to other's demands, freedom to choose who they associate with, what activities they partake in, what career they choose. Of course freedom doesn't mean any of us get what we want (life is never that simple) but we should have the chance at least.

What does that mean in practice? It means that I support the right to choose. Not just on abortion (abortion is something I personally struggle with; a woman's right to choose is not) but also if a woman wishes to choose to be a stay at home mum, all power to her. If she wants to get involved in sex work, then so be it. If she wants to fly to the Moon and be bloody super awesome, then Hell yes.

In short I want for women what I want for myself (and all men). The right to be individuals, with their own personal wants, needs and dreams.

I just don't see feminism as supporting that. Over the last few weeks I've seen self-described feminists say that women don't have the right to choose to work as models (of the "glamour" variety, although I've always thought it must be way more glamourous not to be a glamour model and instead to be someone, well, glamourous). This is because, supposedly, such work is not good for society as a whole. I am disturbed by this argument which seems to be a rehash of the very worst of the pro-life arguments. By arguing from "the greatest good" position, feminism is simply splitting hairs with "traditionalists" (for want of a better term and to avoid insulting people with more puerile terms) over what women should be allowed to do.

I've also seen it said that feminism will "liberate" men from their stereotypical roles. What this really means is that feminism wants men to NOT do anything those "stereotypes" represent and that feminism has no intention of allowing the freedom for men to choose not to conform (or conform if they wish!). This isn't liberation. That is like freeing some political prisoners (consisting of a few conservatives, a few liberals, lots of communists and a Monster Raving Loony party member) and then telling them they must now conform to one political worldview from now on and declaring this to be a "liberation". Truly the gay rights movement and the concurrent metrosexual revolution has done far more to liberate men from conformity in the last 20 years (although seems like there is a new conformity forming, damn it) than feminism has managed in 50.

Feminism is heteronormative. Studies on porn and lad's mags and their effects on men and women tend to completely overlook the use of gay porn and gay magazines by men and women. I've had feminists tell me that the reason for this is because the historic subjugation of women makes a man sexualising a woman quite a different thing to a man sexualising a man. That it does. Thus it must be something far more complicated in society than the sexualisation of others that causes the just concerns feminists have. The argument that sexism is endemic in society just makes me want to shout "I know!" and remonstrate forcefully with the person making that argument to show them that ergo their attempts to ban porn and lad's mags are attacking not even symptoms let alone the cause of sexism in society. Heteronormativity is hardly a new thing in feminism, it has been going on for many years.

Feminism is too much dogma and not enough facts. Feminists are keen to point out studies that suggest lad's mags sound like rapists (but not enough like rapists to stop men from choosing to identify in a blind test more often with comments by rapists than lad's mags, sounds like lad's mags might be restraining men rather than the other way round!) but don't present evidence that banning lad's mags (and/or porn) has had a positive effect in other societies. Some evidence certainly suggests the effects are anything but good for many of us. Calls for them to rethink don't just come from "men who just want their porn", they come from women who want their sexual freedom. It is a similar, but even more lopsided, problem when it comes to feminist views on prostitution.

And a surprisingly large number of feminists are transphobic.

I know what you are going to say: Jason, there is more than one flavour of feminism. Sex-positive feminism! Don't tar everyone with the same brush. I accept that my use of the word feminist above does tarnish everyone with the same brush. I know lots of people who describe themselves as feminist who wouldn't share any (or at least a majority) of the beliefs above. But the problem is that, to me, feminism as a concept has become tarnished. I don't think feminists are evil. I think they have some very worthy aims. But I believe that the methods and ideology that are used to get to the feminist "utopia" are not justified and will ultimately fail.

Ultimately feminism divides people, fails to speak up for 50% of the population (at least) so can hardly be considered "liberating" and relies too much on a puritanical certainty that some things are inherently bad. It ignores individual choice, and fights against women's right to choose how to live their lives.

So no, I'm not a feminist.

Are Women Unable To Be Trusted To Make The Right Decisions?

I've been brought up by my Nan and my Mum to believe women are my equals. I work in an overwealmingly female workplace (and industry). The people I know personally who I most admire are all women. But the messages I've been getting from feminists over the last weekend seem to be completely at odds with my beliefs.

What do I mean? Well it seems "young girls" (for which read 18 year old women) aren't capable of making decisions about what to do for work until they are 21. Doesn't anyone think this infantalises women somewhat? Are you really saying that a 20 year old man doesn't have the ability to choose whether to get photographed naked (as Chris Mears, not a model, did recently)? Because you must think that is unacceptable if a 20 year old woman couldn't choose the same thing.

Some feminists are saying women don't actually have the capacity to choose because of their socialisation and the fact that an individuals right to choose is trumped by society.

 • But what if it’s a woman’s choice to be glamour models or lap dancers?  

Mainstream media outlets glamorise the ‘porn star’ life. For example even though much research shows that prostitution is overwhelming abusive and exploitative, the media friendly story is still one of the ‘Belle du Jour’ fantasy of a successful and glamorous call girl. Instead of showing the realities of lap dancing, page 3 or prostitution, the media focuses on discussions on women’s choice to participate in the sex industry. 

Actually, the issue of choice is complex. We have to look at all the factors which influence our choices, including the way that the media and popular culture glamorises the sex industry. Even if we could establish that it truly was a genuine and empowering choice of a woman to go into one of these industries, the harmful impact that their normalisation has on society makes the issue much bigger than one of individual choice.

The pro-life activists out there just nodded in agreement.

Homosexuality and male objectification really throw a spanner in the works of these arguments. To accept that women are unable to make a conscious, fully aware decision to work in the sex industry, porn or as a glamour model, one must hold that either:

1) People such as Zeb Atlas are also unable to make this decision. He's a straight man who does gay porn. If men and women are equal and sex work is always (or mostly) exploitative, he must be a victim too.

or

2) Men and women are inherently unequal and that men can choose this for themselves but women (for some unknown reason) do not have the ability to do so. 

Perhaps there are other options, rendering this a false narrative, but I really cannot accept either one of the above proposals. Men are quite capable of choosing to flaunt their bodies for the pleasure of others as a job without being victims (which is not saying some aren't, nothing is so black and white). And, I believe, women are equal to men and thus also quite capable of making informed choices about their lives (whilst some may well be exploited). 

I've spoken before about the lad's mags issue but it has reared its head again with the Co-op threatening to drop them unless they "cover up" in some sort of magazine burqa. Why not Attitude and Gay Times? Do they consider heterosexuality more "dangerous"? Or do they just think women should be covered up but men can flaunt their body all they like? I'd go as far to suggest that by treating male homosexuality as "safe" in comparison they are being somewhat homophobic. I know that seems a bit topsy turvy ("Oppress me please!") but sometimes I find some "right on" people think us gays are all safe and cuddly and desexualised. Really we are just as sexual as any other man. 

I'm never, ever going to stop fighting for the individual. The right to choose how you live your life is paramount. I believe women have the right to choose what to do with their bodies. More importantly, I believe women have the capacity to choose what to do with their bodies. Can we please stop acting as if women are delicate little flowers who don't know what is good for them? It is extremely patronising and if you think men get the wrong messages from porn, can you imagine what messages boys are picking up from some of the arguments I've pointed out above? 

UK Sleepwalking Into Censorship? More Like Running Into It At Full Pelt

We do not live in a free country. We all know that. Our libel laws are ridiculous. Our freedom of speech is curtailed should we be "offensive". We live under the gaze of corporate and Government officials. Even some websites are blocked. But we can at least try to hold on to some of the freedom we do have; we aren't Saudi Arabia or China after all.

But won't somebody think of the children? Every debate seems to revolve around those special transient state human beings under the age of 16. Marriage equality was bad because "children need a mother and a father" (we all saw what happened to Lot's daughters after their Mum died after all). And an open internet is bad because children might see things they shouldn't. And when we say "see things they shouldn't" we don't necessarily mean "what their parents or their future informed selves wouldn't want them to look at" but rather we mean "what the Government and ISPs have decided they shouldn't look at".

And we aren't talking about just porn here. Much has been said about how David Cameron's anti-porn filters will not work (and that the case that porn is harmful is still not firmly made). But more needs to be said about how these are not just porn filters. These opt-out filters will almost certainly default filter things from websites about suicide and self-harm through to "extremist material". Who will decide what constitutes extremist material? I find a book that discusses incest, murder, genocide, praises family breakdowns and proscribes execution for the smallest of crimes very distasteful and extremist. But are ISPs really going to block the Bible? Will Scientology websites be blocked? Or Greenpeace? Will the Rapture Ready forums be off limits? Or Queerty? Where will the line be draw and will it be fixed or ever changing?

Isn't it optional though? Yes of course it is. For people like me it'll be optional. Sure we'll then appear on some list at an ISP somewhere and the police will occasionally check whether a "person of interest" has his/her filters on or off as a way of deciding whether to investigate further (because it'll be a sign they are up to no good of course!). But it is optional. Will it be optional for women with controlling husbands? Or for men with overbearing wives? Will it be optional for kids in a religious household? Will it be optional in web cafes? Will it be optional in houseshares or when you are renting a room which comes with wi-fi? "Oh could you remove the filters for me?" will be regarded as "I wish to do something very naughty online". Who is going to ask it in anything other than the most open relationships and friendships? The Governments continued conflation of child abuse pictures, simulated rape imagery and porn does nothing but shame those who just want the Government to leave our internet alone and hardly promotes an honest conversation in the home.

I said 3 years ago when this was first proposed that porn was the litmus test of freedom. Sadly I didn't have the foresight to see that the Government wouldn't be satisfied with just porn. This isn't even a slippery slope argument... these extra options will go live with the porn filters.

As a Lib Dem I'm very, very ashamed that these proposals have come from a Government containing members of the party. And I'm equally saddened to see so many social conservatives who've spent the last year moaning about their freedom of speech suddenly so enthusiastic about censorship. Well when I say "saddened" I mean "unsurprised and slightly amused". They are predictable buggers.

A Loaded Topic Indeed, But Shops Should Be Allowed To Sell Lad Mags

The fate of lad mags must surely be the one thing on this planet that I really shouldn't be concerned about. 1) I'm gay, so most of the content (i.e. barely clothed women) is of little interest to me, 2) I regard cars, football and exercise with the disdain they all very much deserve and 3) I'm nearly 30!

If Loaded, FHM, Nuts, Zoo and pretty much any other magazine aimed at the majority of young men were to suddenly disappear, would I really feel that bad? Probably not, I would have thought. In fact, if you had told me yesterday that they were going out of business I may have taken you out for a celebratory pint.

However...today, a "Lose the Lads' Mags" campaign was launched via a letter to the Guardian. Rather than attempting to convince men that such magazines are beneath them or just pressuring stores that sold them to drop them, they have taken the tack of threatening the use of the Equality Act to get rid of these magazines from stores to protect employees from "pornographic material".

Something about this really rubs me up the wrong way. I've heard all the arguments about the objectification of women, the evils of pornography and the horrors that result from a man reading Nuts (personally I think the true horror is what a man needs to be like to actually want to read Nuts, but hey that is just me). But none of them ever really address things with an even view. Gay men, and I very much include myself in this, objectify other men all the time. I've had women not just reading 50 Shades of Grey in my presence but openly discussing the intricate details of what is described in there (including within my work environment). In fact I've had women at work send me half naked pictures of men and ask me exactly what I think about them. But my sexuality, and those of the women I work with, seem to be "acceptable", yet heterosexual male sexuality is looked at as if it something to be deeply ashamed of, controlled and kept away from "decent" people.

I believe sexism still very much exists. And I think rape and violence are real issues (when they happen to women or to men) that need to be discussed and solutions looked into. I do not believe that reading Nuts is what changes a man from being a decent, upstanding member of society to being a rapist or a abuser or someone who doesn't hire a woman for a job she is capable of merely because she is a woman.

But I also believe there is an almost puritanical dislike of heterosexual men's sexuality that really is beginning to border on the insane. So shops get rid of Nuts, Zoo, Loaded etc (is Loaded even still published, let alone still read?). Shouldn't they get rid of Gay Times and Attitude too (especially their naked editions)? Aren't those naked issues actually sexual harassment of any male employees? Are gay bars and clubs up and down the land in breach of the Equality Act for exposing their employees to copies of the free gay mag Boyz? Let me tell you, the contents of that magazine make Nuts and Zoo look like a Ladybird book. I've asked this question many times before but are male porn stars being objectified? If men reading Nuts makes them have a poorer attitude to women (rather than that I suspect some of those who read Nuts have a poor attitude towards women, which is quite a different thing) doesn't looking at gay porn mean I'm more likely to treat men badly? I personally don't think it does, and thus is can't be the act of objectification that is the problem.

I absolutely hate to say this but: Toby Young makes some good points over at the Telegraph. Caron makes some reasonable points about feeling uncomfortable with men reading these sort of magazines in public. However, I feel uncomfortable when a straight couple start making out in front of me (a mixture of not wanting to appear to be looking at them and not wanting to be seen to be not looking at them on purpose as this would mean I had seen them which would be embarrassing enough; a very British problem), but does this mean I would expect them not to? I'm not a big fan of it that is for sure. What about the man who gets uncomfortable because the guy across from him is reading Attitude? Is that man within his rights to remonstrate with the Attitude reader? I think not.

This is all a bit of a brain dump, and would almost certainly be ripped to shreds by any feminist intellectual out there, but I really feel very uncomfortable indeed about telling off men (generally of the lower, poorer classes) for daring to buy something others don't like.

What The #LDConf Did, A View From Afar.

This post might be better known as "things that interested me at the Lib Dem conference". 


A Review Of Drug Laws


An excellent, sensible proposal was put to conference suggesting that a panel be formed to review our current drug laws and propose new ways forward. This might mean the liberalisation of drug laws among other things. As someone who doesn't do drugs and who, as a child, lived through the experience of a drugs raid, you'd think I wouldn't be sympathetic towards liberalisation. But I believe, based on my feelings and on the evidence I've seen, that the current way of dealing with drugs is causing more problems than it's solving and if we are to deal with drug addiction as a society there are far better and more civilised ways of doing it than just a blanket ban. 


I was extremely please to see conference pass this. 


The Infamous "Ban" On Page 3 Girls


I think Andrew Emmerson said it best in his post stating clearly that yesterdays F26 motion doesn't ban Page 3 girls. As someone who reads more sensible libertarian publications such as Reason Magazine, I did find the knee-jerk horror of the libertarians on Twitter hilarious. Calm down dears, it's only a conference motion. 


However... I have major issues with the fuzzy, ill-thought out way the particular part of the motion in question was written:

“Tackling the projection of women as sex objects to children and adolescents by restricting sexualised images in newspapers and general circulation magazines to the same rules that apply to pre-watershed broadcast media.” 

1) Can only women be "sex objects"? Would this motion deal with sexualised imagery of men?
2) Restricting? How? Complete ban? Moving to the top shelf? Doing the same as what WH Smith did to gay mags recently? Totally unclear, which means it's open to the "Lib Dems Would Ban Page 3 Girls" accusations people have already been making! 
3) "same rules that apply to pre-watershed broadcast media" WHAT?? We are talking about very different media formats here and I cannot fathom what this might mean. The Sun can only be sold after 9pm? 


I've always found it bemusing that lads mags have, until recently, always been on one of the higher shelves in a magazine store whilst The Sun, the Daily Star and worse the Daily Sport were all on the floor where anyone could see them. I've found that inconsistent and you know how I dislike that. But I really don't see what this motion was trying to achieve. Pointless and should never have been passed. 


Science Not Stigma; Overturning The Blood Ban


Since I last wrote about the Government's stance on the blood ban, they have changed their mind and now brought their position to the point of only banning gay men who have had sex in the last 12 months. As you can imagine I find that just as ridiculous as the originally suggested 10 year ban! 


Thankfully today the Lib Dem conference voted to make overturning the blood ban for men who have sex with men completely. Despite the half-way house approach to LGBT rights that this Coalition Government appears to be taking (doing as little as they can get away with whilst still being considered better than Labour), the Liberal Democrats continue to move ahead of the pack when it comes to LGBT freedom. Good move conference. Good move!

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Porn: The Great Litmus Test Of Freedom

Porn is controversial. It incites a great deal of discussion, from those concerned with protecting children and those protecting women, over it's morality. Governments seem desperate to control it, even in the face of it's widespread popularity. This controversy makes it a wonderful "litmus test" for whether a society is really free.

I've talked about it before in the context of wanting some answers over exploitation in pornography. Now we have Ed Vaizey, the communications minister, bringing it back into political debate after suggesting ISPs should force people to opt-in if they wish to view what the ISPs or the Government regard as porn.

Even if you buy into the idea that it's the Government's job to protect children from pornography in their own homes, I think this policy risks overreach (i.e. blocking sites that aren't pornographic especially regarding sexual health and LGBT issues) and would be nearly impossible to successfully implement. Kids don't "accidentally" wander onto porn sites, and those who want to find them will still find them even if most are blocked. So what does it achieve other than sending a signal to the country that the Government cares more about control and less about leaving people to live their lives the way they want?

A silly, nanny-state suggestion from a Government that was meant to know better.

Hands off our internet!

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Exploitation In Porn

So. A favourite argument among anti-porn activists is that the women in porn are exploited and it encourages exploitation of women by men. As a gay man, who doesn't have much of a vested interest in this argument, I often wonder how they square this argument with certain things (and this is not an attack, I just haven't heard the defense against these accusations):

1) Are the grown, muscular men featured in much of gay porn "exploited"? If so, who by? And if not, then are activists saying men and women do not have an equal ability to participate in porn as adults?
2) The rights and freedoms of women have only increased during the period of relaxation of laws censoring porn. Not only that, but rape has significantly decreased. So how can one say that increased porn usage leads to a degradation of society as a whole (I accept increased porn usage can have adverse personal effects on addicts etc.) and to less rights and freedoms for women?

Anyone out there willing to offer me honest opinions on this (again this is not an attack, I am just interested to hear some views so keep it nice and non confrontational please)?

Arguments from religion can be considered as already heard and understood.

This blogger works for nothing but the joy of writing but always appreciates things bought from his wishlist