30 April 2011

When You've All Wiped Yourselves Down

I came home yesterday, after carefully avoiding everything, to find that there's a facebook page dedicated to roughly sodomising Pippa Middleton. More searching of the terms 'smash', 'back', 'doors' and 'in' reveal there's a similar one to her title-heavy sister. There's also one for the lovely Cheryl Cole. I'm pretty sure most of the major female celebrities have had a smash-your-back-doors-in page dedicated to them at some point.

Now, whether or not these women would like having their back doors smashed in or not is sort of irrelevant. Even if they would, they'd probably be - as well as obviously very flattered as anyone would be - a little bit creeped out at the thought of over a thousand randy internet-gnomes formulating action plans over pictures of their bottoms.

"Ah!" you might say, "but if you get rich and famous off the back of your fantastic arse, then surely your arse has to give something back to the community in the form of boisterous anal sex fantasies". Which is arguably true. Cheryl Cole probably puts an awful lot of gym-work into her arse and other bits, knowing their importance to her professional career. Her Future-Maj probably wanted to join the royal family, even if it was only secondary to marrying her boyfriend. But Pippa Middleton. I'm not sure how Pippa Middleton asked for her fame. Pippa Middleton has been catapulted into some rather intimate, slightly degrading, and disturbingly public sexual fantasies and why? Because she went to her sister's wedding in a nice dress.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why I'm a republican.

13 April 2011

More Bollocks About Real Men

A friend just stuck this up on her bookface.

This, I find in parts infuriating and in parts relieving. Relieving because I no longer have to feel the slightest bit of guilt about the hellish human trafficking industry. I own a penis. A real one, made of actual penis flesh and penis blood, with which I was born. So now I realise I'm off the hook for the abhorrent transportation of young women, often children, for a lifetime of sexual slavery, which is perpetrated exclusively by women, transmen and replicants.

But then I also find it offensive, counter-productive, personally offensive and, above all, bollocks. The problem with men who use trafficked prostitutes isn't that they're not "real". It's that they are nasty, rapey, self-centred little shits. The insinuation of "real men don't buy girls" and "real men don't rape" is that, because a man can't acquire the free, consensual use of a vagina for an evening, he's somehow failed at his own gender.

The theoretical problem with this is that it conflates all sex work with trafficking - "buying" women as slaves with paying women for sexual services. This feeds into a general hostility towards sex-workers themselves which even a lot of feminists buy into. But it is also incredibly offensive and insulting to me personally. I'm not very good with women. I've had one, in total. I'm probably worse at getting laid than most of the Fake Men who rape or use prostitutes. I never quite learned the whole pulling/seduction thing, and I'd be lying if I said this made me happy. But, since I'm flat broke and limit myself to consensual sex on ethical grounds, this basically translates to me not having sex. If Gerard Butler and all these other halfwits are to be believed, my moral failing is the same as that of someone who pays to rape people, and that the main thing wrong with the people trafficking industry is that it fails to fly the penis flag high enough. So don't look for a picture of me with a sign any time soon.

Edit: Quiet Riot Girl has some fairly sound ideas about it too.

12 April 2011

Me Me Me Me Bloody ME

So they've done it then. The French have gone and banned the burka, and it's probably only a matter of time before The Generic Republic of Muslamistan retaliates with a ban on berets, stripy sweaters and stinking of garlic. So why have they bothered, apart from crude electioneering and appeasing their far right? Obviously we can rule out actual freedom and dignity for Muslim women as, well, how the fuck does it actually make anyone any freer? Are any oppressed housewives really going to be saved? If they've adopted the full veil of their own accord, then how does it save them to force them to strip it off? If they've been forced into it by their husbands, then their relationship with their husbands isn't going to be changed by whether or not we can see their nose, except they might just stop leaving the house at all. As I've said before, it's a ban on a symbol of oppression, not oppression itself. A ban on the outer, public signs of misogyny that does nothing to make it go away. Ok, so maybe the odd wife-beater will realise the black eyes will show up in public, but let's be honest with ourselves, and look who it is getting handcuffed for freedom.

This reminds me of the Daily Star's take on the humanitarian crisis in Lampedusa:
ITALIAN Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi last night effectively gave 20,000 Arab refugees free passage to the UK.
There's another clue if we look at why we're not banning it here: it would run "contrary to British instincts". Our tabloids can't look at sickening fear, desperation and poverty abroad without worrying about our ethnic purity being soiled. Our government declines mandatory face-nudity, because it's not quite compatible with our petty, sense of arbitrary national identity. The French are so outraged by women's oppression that they demand not to have to look at it any more. We see the injustices suffered by Arabs and Muslims the world over, and the first thing we think is "how can we stop it affecting us?".

We really are a ghastly bunch of self-centred cunts in Europe, aren't we?