Archive for sexuality

Nice job if you can get it…(?)…promulgating myths and prejudices, that is.

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , on May 14, 2013 by Paul Timms

Sometimes its a wonder if someone makes this kind of thing up just so a whole bunch of people, particularly the media can create prejudice in order to exploit and make money from it. When the hell did bisexuals suddenly become the newly chastised and abominable ‘thou shalt not speak of ‘sexuals’ of the naughties? Sorry I meant noughties. Now, apparently according to this ridiculous article, there is a ‘coming out’ process for bisexuals. The main issue is why do these people really feel the need to reveal or promote their sexuality at work as some given human rights issue: that it has become a necessity for everyone to push their sexual orientation in someone’s face? “I’d love to accept this job Mr Rogers but first you must understand I’m bisexual”. What happened to privacy and keeping it to yourself? There is no law that says you have to state your sexual preference when taking on a job is there? Am I still living on planet earth? Let’s all go shouting about our private sexual lives and preferences in the workplace, thereby forcefully creating an equal and opposite reaction, which is almost always malformed in the guise of prejudice. Then society will have to create laws to protect bisexual rights, defend bisexuals against the crude language of prejudices such as “this no place for a …em…..lover of more than one sex confusing orientated…person….thingy…..”. ┬áBut most of all, let’s just give ‘them’ a space where they can safely discuss and promote their sexuality, which of course should be anywhere, including the workplace. Its the right of a bisexual after all to tell everybody what is happening with their sex life. Let’s just off the workplace and call it the sex place and be done with it. I don’t meet someone or go somewhere for the first time and say “Hello every[body], I’m Mr Rogers, and I’m a heterosexual!”


Femen: Why the Nudity?

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on March 27, 2013 by Paul Timms

Why the Nudity

The issue here is more than women being treated as mere objects, as the popular imagination seems to assume on first inspection. It is about who controls the objects and defines them. This is fundamentally what democracy addresses. Freedom of the object. Historically, control has been the domain of men (patriarchy), who have in the long run, controlled the woman’s place in society and through this has played a major role in defining female sexuality.

The point of the nudity is this.The women decide when and where they expose themselves – and of course they get attention. Here, Femen are exposing the Ukraine government that is exploiting the availability of beautiful women in the Ukraine to attract tourists. The government are defining who and what owns the body-object. This is exploitation. The point of democracy is fair and equal access to control of the object and of oneself by oneself. Femen (and feminism) demand democratization of the object, their bodies, in the form of equal rights, which brings us back to the nudity: the purpose of the display is that Femen are a group of women who want to have democratic control over the availability of their bodies, the defining of their sexuality, and the exposing of their bodies, something which should not be decided by the government or any other kind of authority based on their values or for their profit and gain.

I salute Femen! I believe that the violent and negative reactions against their activism and protests are abhorrent, and expose the blatant presence and signs of the oppressive, ideological mechanisms embedded within the public conscience of the ‘herd mentality’; of physical and ideological regimes in place to ensure that the body-object is not democratized. It is indeed a shameful sight to see that so many people fail to see this while invoking violence and negativity towards Femen, and really, women in general – that violence against women is still acceptable if it is somehow validated by the sponsorship of authority. For even if it is about being just naked, what is so bad about being naked after all?

%d bloggers like this: