Why is the Guardian so anti-porn? Cont.. (59)

This bit that you cut out so you could distort what I was saying and take that pop at me was where I spelt out what I'm saying:

:T:

www.tanos.org.uk
www.bridgewood.org.uk
www.ownership-possession.com

Edited 29 May 11, 11:08 AM by tortoise

and the papers well what intelliant person would read them anyway,,

Please excuse crap spelling cause i,m rubbish

Since this thread has been continued, I hope that I can thank Tanos for clarifying the above without seeming sycophantic.

I have met people from all points on the Left/Right axis that wanted control over how others get their rocks off; there really is no equasion between wanting to seize the means of production nor an agenda of grinding down the masses, and telling people not to do kinky sex.

When I came on The Scene in 1986 I had been living on the leftie hippy scene in Nottingham - I still (just about) consider myself a Socialist - but there was no question of my being able to be out as kinky among those people because of the regime operated by the feminists*. One could smoke all the dope one could afford, but fancying a woman was *wrong*; one could never have admitted to it for fear of being ostracised.

One of the very liberating aspects of The Scene was that none of the women wearing big boots and corsets said that they blamed men for making them wear them - they all seemed far too enthusiastic to be doing it all to please men.

I think the observation that the staff of the Guardian contains people that are anti-sexfreedom is a very useful one, and that it might be best be considered without either Capitalists or Socialists trying to make political capital at the expense of the other; surely we are broadly united by a wish to express our sexuality without the interference of authority.

*And the Vegans, who would have tied you to a tree and set fire to it for confessing a leather fetish.

(Oh, I must add that I don't mean to imply that I think that all vegans and all feminists want to stop people having kinky sex, because that would be silly; I am referring very specifically to a group of authoritarian Lefties that contained both Feminists and Vegans in the 1980s in Nottingham. I am quite happy to provide their names on application)

The Boat is a wonderful SM party; if you join us you will have a lovely time.
http://www.the-firm.org/boat.htm

Gawd don't anyone dare mention Champagne Socilaists , too late

Sissy by name & sissy by nature
He [or she] , who is afraid to pick up the dice will never throw a six .
I am one of the few who lives what's called .....the Lowlife

Interesting thing though is that only a decade or so earlier the lefty hippies were ushering in an era of free love.

"LIKE"

"Wisdom begins in wonder” (Socrates)
"Imagination is more important than knowledge" (Albert Einstein)
Ubi caritas et amor, Deus ibi est. http://www.informedconsent.co.uk/posts/226772/

http://empressm7.uboot.com/ http://www.socialkink.com/empressmartine Vampire, pro/lifestyle ts dom/switch.Ageplay mummy/aunty/AB,medical play,domestic,energy, outdoor specialist."Awsome! But whose's look after the country's security? The FBI pull double shifts!"

Labour haven't been left-wing since Neil Kinnock decided to shift them further right. This idea that they are somehow socialist or left-wing is mostly propaganda and rhetoric, not actual fact.

Some people, such as myself, call ourselves "left-wing" because we want to help the disadvantaged, not because we want to control other people's lives. Which is yet another misconception. The desire to control is irrelevant to the political spectrum because it happens on both sides, as Tanos pointed out. Its only the aforementioned rhetoric and propaganda (enthusiastically spouted by the Daily Mail/Express) and a the lazy association/equation with authoritarian communism that convinces people that socialists want to control everyone.

ETA: I don't support Labour in the least, but have been accused of it despite utterly despising New Labour. All because I defended them from misconceptions people had (in particular, Gordon Brown being responsible for the recession....). This is how powerful propaganda and political rhetoric can be at influencing people.

Edited 29 May 11, 1:34 PM by CaptainQuo

It's not based on Victorian anything. It's based on a minority of freelance writers that produce articles for the newspaper that are feminist, and appear to be radical feminists at that. I'm not surprised Ishmael had problems with the feminist left, because there are studies that show BDSM was heavily ostracised by feminism at the expense, ironically, of women's sexual freedom. Even lesbians who practiced BDSM were outcasts (reactionary lesbian feminism was the culprit!), although thankfully that position is not practiced to nearly the same extent. Having said that, I only have studies from the US, not the UK, which may be different.

The Guardian itself is NOT anti-Porn, because they employ freelance writers who have both defended it and slated it in the past.

As for those who believe more right-wing papers are somehow less anti-porn, they are naive at best, brainwashed by ideological rhetoric at worst.

Edited 29 May 11, 1:30 PM by CaptainQuo