Sex in the Noughties: How was it for you?
When it comes to sex, New Labour claims that the last decade has been about the rights of sexual minorities and support for victims. In the last few years, however, that view has been challenged by a gathering dissent that includes many supposed beneficiaries of such liberalism. An alternative demand for sexual liberation is …
"Harriet Harman has a shit sex life so we have to, too."
What if David Cameron released the Conservative election manifesto as "I have *awesome* sex. Vote Conservative, and you can, too!"?
Maybe that explains why Berlusconi keeps beng elected.
"We seriously need an equivalent of the US second amendment aka the right to bear arms"
I assume you mean the right to bare arse?
I'll have the dirty grey mac please.
I am actually ashamed of this country and its pathetic, prudish and oppressive laws. We should be living in an enlightened, free and accepting society -- instead we're living in a giant reform school where we're not allowed any freedom of expression or action "for our own good" so we "don't hurt ourselves".
I can honestly say "Not my fault, Guv." I never voted for this shower of incompetents and clearly remember back in 1997 (when I were advising any liberal-wet acquaintances that it would all end in tears, and that Tony was a phoney.
Hate to say "Told you so", but...
That would be you and three-quarters of the population then. Did you vote for a party with a credible plan for changing the system so that a small minority of fundamentalist prudes could no longer lord their hang-ups over the rest of us?
Memo to the British people: you'll keep on getting *crap* governments as long as you persist with a system designed to produce *strong* governments. The current system is explicitly designed to give dictatorial powers to the largest single minority. Yes, you read that right -- minority. Logically, that implies that the system is *designed* to *prevent* the majority opinion from carrying the day.
Parliamentary democracy looks like a fine system of government. Can we have some please?
Thats what you get with socialism at its very worst
Weve probably got a term of Conservative government, during which Im off to France and not coming back
They missed an opportunity here. BDSM should be perfectly legal provided there's been a proper risk assessment beforehand, checking the softness and length of whips, and requiring Doms to go on a training course so that an inspector can certify that they don't hit too hard (or soft, I guess). Subs will be required to register their safewords with a central database.
There's a whole industry waiting out there, along the lines of PAT testing for electrical kit, to calibrate and check the performance of various implements.
Thanks guys, a happy new year to you all from the openminded demographic who are always pleasantly surprised to find such excellently expressed and contextualised sentiments on a 'vanilla' IT site ;-)
As a sign of the changing of the times. The recent report in the Daily Mail that a BBC newsreader is gay was followed by many comments stating "Who cares". This is what equality should be about. Who cares what sexual orientation you have or how you prefer to have your sex. Gays should not out themselves, nor should straights. If someone outs themselves as gay, that is basically pushing their sexuality in your face. What would the PC people say if a heterosexual did that to a gay?
Heart for peace and love to all.
"If someone outs themselves as gay, that is basically pushing their sexuality in your face. What would the PC people say if a heterosexual did that to a gay?"
Like straight men endlessly talking about breasts? Seems to be a fair amount of that on El Reg.
Tell me, do you get shouted at when you walk down the street holding your girlfriend's hand? Do you get things thrown at you? Do you ever find yourself in the farcical situation of having to physically defend yourself simply because you happen to like someone and some bunch of men (and it is ALWAYS men) happen to disapprove of your private and personal choice? It is only ten years since my local was bombed. Forgive me for having a slightly different take on what exactly has changed.
Of course, I should keep all that hand-holding malarkey where it belongs ... in the bedroom.
You live in a very sheltered area if you think gays only ever get abuse from men.
"Like straight men endlessly talking about breasts? Seems to be a fair amount of that on El Reg." .... John Dee Posted Saturday 2nd January 2010 10:02 GMT
Err, as someone who has been reading/studying El Reg extensively for more years than I would care to remember, I would have to say that that statement is totally false, John Dee, which would then raise the question of your agenda in pimping the disinformation.
You have though correctly identified the planet's problem, bunches of idiotic men, who would not really be men at all but rather more acting like ignorant and arrogant undereducated disturbed children, and the world is full of them, with them being full of themselves and imagining themselves to be important and a leading force. And quite Delusional in the Extreme are they ..... which I suppose is just a reflection of their not being very bright.
Peoples' sexuality shouldn't be newsworthy. However...
``Gays should not out themselves, nor should straights.''
People "out" themselves every time they let the gender of their partner be known, and I don't think such behaviour should be forbidden.
its not about politicians trying to protect this or outlaw that, its about politicians appearing to do something in order to appeal to the B3 to C2 group of voters in the 50 swing seats
If gardening was more into growing certain plants for their decorative smell and done while wearing leather outfits, you could be damn sure there would be laws passed about it as soon as the first "morally depraved gardener in smell overdose" story appeared in the daily m(w)ail.
<Prime minister>"we in this coming term of parliment promise to force all jasmine growers to register under the controlled garden plants act, and make it illegal for these people to work with pensioners under the basis a few militant gardeners have been known to plant jasmine around old people's care homes"
<whispers> "there, that should pick up a few votes from the stupid brigade"
While the new sex laws have the best intentions, they fail because they are two vague, or dishonest.
I can watch a person being disembowelled in many a horror picture, but be prosecuted if two individuals take part in light consenual BDSM for sexual pleasure, because someone else considers it "extreme". I can watch all manner of violence on TV in the evening, but I still can't watch hardcore porn on a cable channel that is passcode protected, in a house with no kids.. even though most kids can view porn on the Internet with little trouble, and probably do.
The child porn laws may have the best intentions, but people have already been jailed for producing cartoons of kids having sex (eg. the Simpsons case), on the mistaken pretext that a real kid may be harmed. And if I owned a baby photography of myself showing my genitals, I can be prosecuted for owning child porn, even though there was no child abuse when it was taken, and there is no abuse now I am an adult. There are also millions of adults who lost their virginity when under age to an older person (ie. to what would now be called a paedophile), and consider it a blessing, rather than abuse.
If people really cared about abuse, there would be better laws against bullying which happens in every school every day, and makes some kids lives a misery.
The law is an ass.
I have been saying this very thing for years. The double standard is ridiculous.
I can remember when Texas Chainsaw Massacre was deemed so sick that it was banned outright in this country (you couldn't even buy it on video) yet now that very same film can be shown on mainstream terrestrial television without anyone even batting an eyelid.
Meanwhile if you took the most pedestrian sex film from the exact same era, there is still no way it could be shown on TV today. Hell, you can't even show a semi erection on TV never mind any kind of actual sex act.
The most sickeningly extreme violence and torture can be shown (even in Hollywood movies) and yet "love" scenes still have to have sheets sellotaped to the actors to cover up their "rude bits" lest the audience be emotionally scarred for life.
Both censors and lawmakers really need to get a clue.
Do you want the sex scenes to be shown or the violence to be banned? Personally, I'd be happy with the latter, although both would be fine.
"Do you want the sex scenes to be shown or the violence to be banned? Personally, I'd be happy with the latter, although both would be fine."
Replace one form of puritanism with another. Awesome.
If you want to throw another double standard into the ring, how about video games? I can watch Rambo maul people and shred them to bits with machine guns, but if I do it, I'm a potential KILLER! Aaaargh! RUN!
There is nothing remotely Christian about the SNP - but they are a socialist party and as such have the same authoritarian 'we know what's best for you' bent that our current communistic national 'leaders' have.
Agree with your sentiment tho...
Does socialism have anything to do with Authoritarianism? Other that an easy way to erect co-operation by force rather than by agreement?
Who's going to vote Tory, you are! yes you are.
Not normal christians, no...."Free church of Scotland" Christians yes....where being born is a sin, and which you must atone for, for the rest of your life and ergo authoritarian fascist muppets.
I thought it was so stupid that they kicked out a councillor for shooting a rifle in pakistan, on a range where it is perfectly legal.....because it was an "evil babeee murdering gun thingy and we dont like them, ban guns ban guns..wa wa wa wa"
Frankly the whole lot of politicians are hopeless
Howls of derisive laughter, Bruce!
What "rights" have been "protected" by laws such as the Dangerous Pictures Act making it a crime to possess so-called "Extreme Pornography"?
This was just one of the many examples of the Nanny State saying "We don't like this, so you shouldn't be allowed to see it/ do it even if there's no absolutely no evidence that it would make you do something nasty".
The only "right" that this Government has "protected" is *their* right to interfere in what consenting adults get up to in private and to tell us that anything that is unacceptable to their prudish "moral standards" should be illegal.
Regrettably, when they're booted out at the next election, it's distinctly unlikely that the Tories would do anything to roll back Nu Labour's moral agenda...
"Regrettably, when they're booted out at the next election, it's distinctly unlikely that the Tories would do anything to roll back Nu Labour's moral agenda..."
Particularly since the Tory party's blue-rinse wing have since time began been social authoritarians to a degree which makes the current government look like libertarians.
Anonymous Coward: "If someone outs themselves as gay, that is basically pushing their sexuality in your face"
No it's not. Gay people are a minority and being straight is the initial assumption, that's society's own ignorance. It makes no difference to you whether they say they're gay or not, so why do you care?
I'm not sure which is worse...that you think all gay people are activists come to rub your face in it, or that you think no one should ever express their uniqueness for the purposes of equality. You criticise PC people - but that's the pot calling the kettle black
"...straight is the initial assumption, that's society's own ignorance..."
Well, maybe you have missed a science class or two, but every successful species, such as ours, has to have majority of its population "straight"* to prevent dying out (as a species, we are not dying out, are we?). Hence, such an assumption is not "ignorant", but "informed".
*) of course, there are also other factors in play, such as distribution of number of offspring per female, but there are no significant gaps there (i.e. either 0 or 10+ offspring with median >2 for survivability).
"...It makes no difference...whether they say...why do you care?..."
It's called spam. There is certainly no big harm to you when someone tries to peddle some blue pills, but when there are many such someones, it's getting overbearing, isn't it? I don't care whether someone likes it to do with hamsters, but why should I be informed actively about that?! Or even being told that it is cool, because some fashion shops want to peddle some drags targeted to that demographic?
I like the phrase "successful species": would that include mankind, because we have conquered technology? or ants, because if our technology fucks up, there is a good chance they will inherit the earth.
How about lions, who top the food chain in many areas, but are not expecially numerous compared to many other species?
And what is this about the majority of the population needing to be "straight" to prevent dying out. I guess, technically, you may be right, as it helps for most females to be straight...but in most mammalian species, it is the fact that males produce lots of sperm whilst females produce relatively few eggs that is key.
one (biological) strategy, given such a state of play, is monogamy. Another is pack or herd groupings, within which a small number of alpha males ...sometimes just a single one... rise to the top and get awarded the right to shag to their heart's content, whilst the majority of males are condemned to a life of lonely celibacy.
Or shagging other males.
I have no idea whether homosexuality is a "natural" behaviour...personally i find the attempt to split sexual behaviours into natural and unnatural both daft and fraught with bear traps: but there is plenty of evidence of it existing in the wild as a natural response to a given species' breeding strategy.
That said, I am not sure I am aware of any species for which tying their partner down prior to love-making and applying a riding crop to their sensitive bits is recorded as a viable mating strategy.
So moralists may yet take some hope from the biological determinist agenda.
Surely the point is that all becomes equal when the concept of outing is no longer understood?
You mean, an objective test? Gosh, that's dangerous thinking, you know.
Someone (an African statesman from a few decades ago, I believe. I'm sure one of you will be able to tell me, but I can't google it up, so that gives you an idea of how long ago it was.) once said something to the effect that "I'll know we've got racial equality when I can shake someone's hand and no more notice the colour of their skin than the colour of their hair."
I've never thought of myself as racist, but it struck me when I first heard it (about twenty years ago?) that I failed the test (and I'm still failing it, and before you ask, no I don't particularly notice blondes unless they are blokes.). Of course, I blame society, but if I were black I'd be pretty pissed off with smug gits who describe themselves as non-racist but nevertheless take note of my skin colour and then blame "society" for them doing so.
It's a fair test.
It sounds a bit like Nelson Mandela to me from the early 80's. Thanks for making me feel old mate. I have to now contend with the fact that this was a few decades ago and accept that I was around before the pervasive acceptance of the InterWeb and Google as being the moral compasses in our society.
-Yes it sounds like I'm bitching, as that is the one sign of a brilliant comment; in that: it includes irony with the broaching of a new topic to further your own social agenda.
-Oh stop whining and shut the F up -make a change- we have a fair(?go on flame me?) system of politics vote/mobilise/petition/DO SOMETHING!!
With all my tender love Stu
-regardless of if your hetero/homo/bi/hermaphrodite/whatever I love you all xx
<quote> Someone (an African statesman from a few decades ago, I believe. I'm sure one of you will be able to tell me, but I can't google it up, so that gives you an idea of how long ago it was.) once said something to the effect that "I'll know we've got racial equality when I can shake someone's hand and no more notice the colour of their skin than the colour of their hair." </quote>
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
Dr Martin Louis King - 1963
http://www.usconstitution.net/dream.html
Whilst I agree that some acts of legislation are passed by politicians to try to gain votes, in Harman's case, she's a known feminist and has some ideas which even women often regard as stupid. That is, she's not doing it to gain votes, she's trying to force upon the masses her way of thinking and trying to create legislation to achieve that.
Huh paper you take stuff to extremes much?
There are plently of fairly unpleasnt people that will use whatever reason (gay, overweight, red hair, whatever) as the reason that few people like to be around them and will use this to beat people over the head with whatever "it" happens to be.
I have ran to a couple like this and its really fucking annoying...mind you the converstions normally ended with "no its because your a <insert what ever profantiy came to mind>"
Ao what if someone is "whatever" unless its going to impact on me why should I give a flying fuck?
Unfortunately, and as missed in the article, the Sexual Offences Act 2003 also outlaws kissing and cuddling between consenting under-16s. This is a sort of catch-all to allow the police, CPS and government to have discretion over what pubescent behaviour they consider unacceptable. However, instead of a parent sending a child to their room, it's potentially prison and the sex offences register.
This socialist government is giving us a very predictable cultural revolution.
There aren't many places a considered article like this appears these days. Taking my 3-year-old goddaughter to the park recently made me feel a bit awkward - man on own with young girl - when there is, of course, no reason to feel this way. I know this (of course) and so do her parents - they know me well enough (and have for 20 years) to completely trust me with her.
This is the country we have become, in the past fifteen years or so. And remember: no matter what we do, those who wish ill, in whatever form, will still manage to achieve it (this applies to so many areas doesn't it? Terrorism, for one springs to mind.)
In my opinion the one positive difference this government has made since 1997 is the banning of smoking in public places; ironically this is yet another prohibition they have imposed, even if it's one I agree with. Confusing world, isn't it?
"Taking my 3-year-old goddaughter to the park recently made me feel a bit awkward - man on own with young girl - when there is, of course, no reason to feel this way."
I expect her father feels the same way. More power to your (and his) elbow.
It is really ironic that a Labour government born of the Women's Lib generation should have got into bed with the small-c conservatives of the country to pass laws that reinforce the socially unacceptability of *parental* childcare. And then they have the cheek to wonder why women aren't rising to top jobs!
Good article that.
An earlier-generation man I knew often bemoaned the way you couldn't tell a man from a woman now that they all wore jeans. I asked him what his motives were in wanting to know?
Nowadays it would be ditto gay/straight/ambidextrous. Ditto Catholic/Protestant/Other. I'm glad we're free now.
I wish they'd leave the Naked Rambler alone to do his naked rambling. I wish protectionist laws weren't later applied to areas they weren't designed for like using RIPA to stop people moving house to get their kids into a school that they want to get them into because of published league tables to let people know where the good schools are.
Vetting to stop anyone seeing kids unaccompanied by politicians who wouldn't know one if it bit them. DPA and HASAWA to stop nearly anybody doing anything. I'm so glad we're free now.
I've been very mild in this post so that I can't be accused of a hate crime. I daren't say I love children or I'd be a paedo. I daren't say I love everyone or I'd be a sexual deviant. Deviating from what? I'm far more confused now than I was a decade or two ago, when laws still included the word 'reasonable'.
Prosecuting the naked rambler was and is a total and utter waste of taxpayers money and his time. Solely to keep a few old bats happy, last time less than 10 complained, and the judge in perth (dimwits central) said pretty much "I think nudity is a perversion and people should not be subjected to naked men, so off to jail with you"
Another judge told him to cover up, which he refused to on a point of principle so again with the stalinism "naughty naughty man, off to jail with you"
Frankly this country has become a total and utter farce and a disgrace, sometimes think the septics should have waited a few more months before pulling our backside out of the fire in ww2, perhaps then some of the inbred "ruling" classes would have been eradicated in an invasion....sad when things like that seem like a positive step eh? :-(
I didn't realize at first, but it seems that doing an intoxicated person is a criminal offense in the UK now. The question is, doesn't it outlaw sex altogether in most of the country?
The big problem is that most people haven't had the benefit of hearing such a balanced view or being informed about what is actually happening in sex law - the tabloid reading public see headline after headline about dangerous perversions which treaten them and their children and feel saffer in the knowlege that the4 government is closing the noose arounf the necks of all those dangerous miss-fits.
I'm lobbying for a vote for change at the next election; a concerted effort to cause a hung parliament and Lib Dem / labor or tory coalition which might actually bring some scritiny to future legislation and block or improve the bad stuff that has sailed through Parliament over the last 12 years.
Please join the group here to give your support...
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=215927229917
How could I rate it anything other than: orgasmic!
We have lost a lot of liberty in the last decade, this is all part of the same story. We won't regain it until the majority of sheeple in this country wake up.
I get exactly the same when walking with my grandaughter.
And in the shops.
In fact, walking alone in the park is "dubious" now....although if I'm walking the dog it seems that I'm an "ok" type of guy...............go figure that ?
"Sexual violence and childhood sexual abuse are amongst the most serious and damaging crimes in our society"
Just below copyright infringement right?
So why do people vote for them? Stop blaming the incompetence of government, and put blame where it is due, the idiots who keep voting for them.
Have done is destroy the Country and now they bleat about "bew" policies that, if they were any good, they should have brought in 10 years ago at least. All this is about is trying to get back in for 5 more years of destruction and filling thei OWN pockets with taxpayers cash.
Get lost Brown we dont want you, Mandleson or any other of your incompetents.
Sounds to me like life on the other side of the Pond is hopelessly mired in Victorian views and its double standard. It took the US Supreme Court one decision to settle the issue more than ten years ago: what happens in the privacy of your abode between consenting adults is nobody elses business. Now that is what I call liberating.http://www.theregister.co.uk/Design/graphics/icons/comment/thumb_up_32.png
The day we look to America for a moral compass we may as well just jump in the Atlantic and end it all.
Ah, this is the country that has the "Defense of marriage act", where same sex partners are not entitled to the same federal rights as heterosexual couples, with "don't ask don't tell" polcies. The country where it's illegal in some locales (eg New York City) for private citizens to own handcuffs. Where "18 USC Section 2257" requires intensive record keeping to "prove" the person in the picture is over 18....
The US position is far from settled (and, indeed, may be going backwards). Sexual equality and tolerance is a LOT more than just bedroom privacy.
And here I was thinking the Mother Country was all about civility, justice and respect for the commoners rights. We got nothing on you guys when it comes to oppressive laws and Big Brother. After all, George Orwell was an English author and journalist
Good old GB has replaced USSR for me when it comes to freedoms and naming a country we could be living in to be worse off.
