Sunday, 5 June 2011

Sexualisation - "Fighting the Right"

Ok, it seems like I am not done with this topic yet.

Let’s take it slow. What it’s important to understand is this: it’s been a while since the “Right” discovered how to trip “progressives” into undermining their own arguments. This is how they do it:

They present an outrageous, preposterous, extreme, ridiculous, raging argument that nobody could possibly agree with. The progressive bunch bites right into it and oppose the argument. But because the argument is ludicrous to begin with, firmly rooted in the “extreme right”, the progressives end up making the argument for something on the “centre-right”. And that was the point all along. To give validation to ideas that are less than barmy, instead of presenting ideas that are actually good and revolutionary.

Wait, what does any of this have to do with “sexualisation”?

Let’s apply the previous idea to sex. The Right comes up with something preposterous, like Nadine Dorries arguing that “girls should be taught to say no”.
Now you probably agree with me that this is insane, from every conceivable angle. If for no other reason than that the word “no” is usually fairly well known amongst English speaking people.

Now, what do progressive people do? They stand up and say “There is nothing wrong with sex, sex is good”.

DANG IT! You’ve just made their point for them!

Now, I’m going to say something that will come as a shock to most people independent of which place they like to inhabit inside the political spectrum.


I know, I know. Shocking, isn’t it? But it’s true; I can prove it. Here it is, in a few words.


Never. Not even in the name of “Christ”. Want proof? President Mondo Fucko was passing laws for making “abstinence only” education in public schools at around the same time as Britney Spears was playing out to be an underage pop-sex star.

Once more: IF THE RIGHT REALLY WANTED TO STOP “SEXUALISATION”, IT WOULD BAN MTV. And pretty much everything else in our modern media.

So when the “Right” comes out with nonsense about “abstinence” education, what they actually want is for “progressives” to effectively support the sex industry. Because THAT is where the money is.

And why do they need any support? Because people are getting worried about this “hyper sexualised” culture we live in. In the exact same way as people get worried about this “hyper sugar and saturated fat” culture we live in. They look around and notice that a) sex imagery is everywhere and b) they can’t do anything to stop it.

So people get worried, and understandably so. The Right, being better at ruling the world than the Left, picks up on this “worry” BUT, and here’s the key, they DISTORT THE SOLUTION. They say “of course you are worried about “hyper sexualisation”, I totally understand”. That’s the “bite”. Then people turn and listen to them, and they throw their bit of crap “let’s ban sexually active teenagers”. Which is a “solution” that steps right into fascism. And is doomed to failure, which is precisely the point.

They do the exact same thing with fatty foods. It goes like this: “of course you are worried about “hyper sugar and saturated fat”, I totally understand”. And then they throw the solution, “let’s ban fat people”. I am not joking, that is precisely what they argue for. For more on that, read Melissa's posts on fat hatred.

This is a typical tactic from the Right: show concern for the wellbeing of society while you fail to acknowledge the existence of society. In other words “gee, the world is looking wrong, I tell you what, let’s change individual people, who are all separate from one another”.

You only have to read what Dorries says. In order to make her argument, she describes
*Sexual imagery
*Teenage magazines
*Pr0n channels
*Lad’s mags
*Computer images

And what does she suggest as a viable solution? Changing sex education at school. From the “big” stuff powered by humongous corporations, to a few hours in the lifetime of a child. Yeah, that will shift society, that will.

Like I said, this doesn’t work. And they know it. If Nadine Dorries really had a problem with sexualisation, she would argue for tackling the issue at the root: ban the magazines, ban the padded bras, ban the music videos. (There would be nothing surprising about this, the Right has been banning things since the beginning of time).

They don’t do it because they don’t want to. They don’t care two hoots about “sexualisation”. They care about gathering support from worried parents, they care about appearing “concerned” and “moral”. They even care about brainwashing children, creating conflict between their sexual desire and their worldviews.

They don’t care about people. They never have.


Mary Sunshine said...

Another great post, Mary. The right-wing British government has just recently banned sexualized clothing for pre-adolescent "children" (i.e. girls, but the word "children" plays better). They've also banned the portrayal of children in advertising that shows adults in sexually-charged situations.

No doubt, a successful strategy to defuse some of the rage of the general population at severe public service cuts.

Mary Tracy said...

It's all about pretending that they care, trying to echo people's worries but either doing nothing or doing too little too late.

So nobody can say they don't care about society just because they happen to be cutting every form of public service.