Numa... numerology

Every so often I get special offers/free giveaways emailed through from tarot.com, which I joined ages ago and have never cancelled my membership because it's free (I still have some paid-for credits waiting to be used there, in fact). Anyway, today's special offer was a free sample numerology reading. And, in the spirit of "it's all just a bit of harmless and silly fun with no actual meaning" I submitted my details as below (with my real birth name deleted here!) and it made me laugh, because it says that with the name SnowdropExplodes, I am in fact a stereotypical Dom...!

SnowdropExplodes
Born: [censored] on 7/6/1978

Your Personality is 17/8

You appear strong and powerful. You have an impressive personality and can influence and even intimidate through sheer force. You have natural authority. Your competence and enthusiasm attract people with resources.

You radiate confidence. People defer to you because they sense your sureness and effectiveness.

You also exude a kind of controlled benevolence. People sense that you are generous, once you are convinced of the worthiness of the cause.

It is important for you to dress well. You radiate a kind of raw power and ableness, which needs to be refined and enhanced by your clothing. You may even dress a bit flashy, but that will not harm you. Quality is among your highest priorities, and should reflect in your clothing.

Although most eights have a strong constitution, they can be prone to indigestion, ulcers, and heart disease due to their reckless eating and drinking habits and their propensity to be workaholics.

Your Achilles heel is your capacity for an egocentric attitude. The negative side of your personality can cause you to be ruthless, greedy, and intensely lonely.

Conversely, you can be spontaneous and excited. You are essentially warm and jovial. In your heart of hearts, you want everyone to be as excited and as happy as you. Those who are around you often sense this. Your coworkers and employees usually like you.

Jayaben Desai dies aged 77

Via the Guardian newspaper article.

I only learned who Jayaben Desai was in the summer, reading a book about "what really happened to Britain in the Seventies". Her contribution to trade union history, in terms of winning recognition both for her race and her gender, is vital to recognise, and although I have little of my own to add, I wanted to mark her passing here. Read the Guardian article, and you will see what an important person she truly was.

Tories try to back down over children's books funding

Following up my earlier post, it appears now that Michael Gove and the Tories have belatedly realised that it might make for some negative press and are trying to walk it back a little.

This is being described as a partial U-turn, but to me it looks like classic doublethink newspeak - maybe children should have funding for reading 1984 so as to unravel this sort of crap in future!

Here's what they actually said:

The department and Booktrust will be working together, with publishers, in order to ensure that we can make every possible saving in developing an enhanced programme.

(Emphasis mine)

Now, forgive me for my scepticism, but it seems to me that making savings usually means cuts to a programme; an enhanced programme usually costs more. To my mind, this is a lie, pure and simple. They are still shutting the programme down. They are talking about finding some way of making it appear as though they are replacing it, but the chances are whatever they come up with will be ineffectual and elitist, keeping education and power away from the poor. So I don't see this as any kind of U-turn, partial or otherwise. It's a faint deviation from the original course, that's all.

Free books for children to be axed

The Guardian newspaper reports that the Booktrust charity's £13M grant from the UK Government is being cancelled.

According to the report:

The Booktrust charity runs several programmes that together provide free books for children from the age of nine months until their first term of secondary school when they are 11, and is widely admired by teachers, parents and authors.

They began as a pilot project in 1992 but were awarded government funding in 2004 to become universal. But 10 days ago – despite having previously offered to take a 20% funding cut – the charity was told it was to lose 100% of its £13m-a-year government grant.

Please read the article in full to get all the details. Outspoken authors, literary figures etc have already denounced the move.

It is impossible to estimate the value of this scheme for young people growing up today. It would be flirting with Godwin's Law to liken this move to the society in Fahrenheit 451, but the temptation is there. Reading, learning, and more importantly, learning to learn and to think, are valuable and vital to a vibrant democratic society and it is no accident that one of the first things socialists did in this country in the 19th and early 20th century, was to fund books for the working men (and in those days they were aimed at men specifically, for the most part) so that knowledge could set them free.

Now it seems as though keeping knowledge reserved for the already wealthy and powerful has become a plank of the Tory-run coalition government's approach.

I can't express strongly enough my disgust at this move and I want strongly to encourage everyone to add their voices to the protest.

Books got me started in life and learning, and are still a vital step in life for millions of others.

Amusement from my jobsearching...

This is a screenshot (with art to highlight the relevant text!) from my online jobsearching using the DirectGov Jobcentre website:

So the question is, do we think that a "personal banker" is a performing artist, a gambling worker, or both? "Tourist Information Officer" just sounds like they'll take your money and run off to the Bahamas to "research tourism"!

Capt. SKA - "Liar Liar"

Via numerous sources, including The F-Word Blog and others.

A protest song about the way in which the Coalition Government has betrayed the people of Great Britain:



The songwriter and performer Captain SKA also talked to the New Statesman magazine about the song and its message.

Browser alphabet meme

Via Fierce Awakening @ The Strangest Alchemy (who didn't include the rules, I found them by googling)

Type a letter in your browser's address bar, and share where it suggests for you. Rules include: Embarrassing yourself, totally cool; violating someone else's privacy, not cool.

a: http://afemanistview.blogspot.com/ - Home!
b: BBC iPlayer - how I watch most of my television these days!
c: - except when I'm watching Jon Stewart on 4oD!
d: Diplomatic Pouch - Homepage of the 'zine for the worldwide Diplomacy boardgame hobbyist community
e: Ebay - I buy stuff online
f: Feministe - I is feministical sumtimes
g: Google
h: Harlot's Parlour - UK sex workers' rights activism blog, written by UK sex workers (and some non-UK ones as well)
i: iPlayer again.
j: Radio Times television listings - the URL is long and had some 'j's in it somewhere.
k: KinkyKent - local BDSM social group
l: Various friends/acquaintances on LJ came up here
m: Matchbox Opera, a phto from their performance of Carmen a few years ago - local opera company, I don't know why this particular picture came up first, but it did.
n: http://www.nfl.com/ - I like me that helmet-rugby game!
o: http://oxforddictionaries.com/ - second place was OKCupid, so I don't know what that says about my browser's priorities!
p: http://www.packers.com/ - Go, Pack! Go!
q: Quiet Riot Girl
r: Ren's old blog, the "Sacked Empire" - still useful for sex worker activism info and stuff.
s: Yours Truly on Tumblr
t: The F-Word Blog
u: Urban Dictionary - useful for finding out what slang terms mean, but a lot of very horrible definitions contributed by some arseholes!
v: This blog again. The first entry that doesn't already appear on this list was youtube. (V for Videos, see?)
w: Wikipedia
x: XKCD
y: Login to my Yahoo mail
z: Online job application form

Sexual Entitlement cluster-WTF

More from Feministe's SSPS:

A series of posts and comment threads begins with Miguel Bloomfontosis arguing that men should feel more sexual entitlement, which is apparently itself a response to posts by Hugo Schwyzer and Clarisse Thorn. Hugo responded on his own blog, and then Miguel answered that with The darker side of sexual entitlement. There's all sorts of weird assertions going on in the various comment threads (especially at Hugo's, where the thread is well over 100 comments long!) and a few wonderful comments as well (usually by the heroes of the day, Hugo and Clarisse). I don't think I have the time or energy to dig right the way into all of them or to respond with my thoughts on those things. I'm going to try to unpick the knotty problem and express where I am at with it all.

Some of the comments, and the issues raised, tie in to the dating issues I covered in my earlier post (also inspired by a link from SSPS!) and it looks as though a lot of the underlying issues in Miguel's post, and several of the "entitlement apologist" comments come from the same issues that I express there (and in my response to He's Just Not That Into You, for which follow the link in the earlier post). I noticed one person referenced the Briggs Meyers thing and their boyfriend is introvert (like me) and very much preferred it that she made the first approach - but I digress.

There's a number of assertions to the tune of "women like aggressive, dominant men" (that's from Miguel's first post) and "being a Nice Guy doesn't work but when I decided to be a bastard I was more successful" (Brian, on Hugo's post - incidentally, his "I am" rather than "I play" is interesting, since normally "Nice Guy" is a role, a tactic used, rather than an actual personality type; it seems as though he identifies himself with his role). Now, recalling from my previous dating post that for some reason people seem to interpret "making the first move" as "being aggressive", and observing that Brian equated making more approaches with being more of a jerk, then we can see why these erroneous conclusions might appear to be true to the people making them.

If "success with dating" is defined purely by the gross number of people of one's target gender with whom one has dates and/or relationship, then it follows that if the average success rate of an approach is 5% then a person who makes 200 approaches will do rather better than someone who makes 20 approaches (on average, the "aggressive" person who makes 200 first moves will have 10 dates or relationships as a result, whereas the person making only 20 will have just 1). However, if success is defined as a higher or lower percentage of approaches that lead to dates then I'm not convinced that being "dominant" or "a jerk" is more successful. It may very well be that the perception that women prefer jerks etc, is in fact false and that if less aggressive and less jerkish men made as many approaches (or if women made the approaches instead!) then we would quickly see that the number of jerks who were successful in dating would fall off dramatically.

I don't want to say a lot about the discussion over the exact meaning of "entitlement" in Miguel's posts (there's a lot of discussion going on on the comments threads about it) but I think that figleaf's concepts of the "worthiness trap" (shorter version) and the "two rules" are useful to give us some idea of the problems in the statement, whichever way we look at it. I think those links say pretty much everything I would add to the conversation.

One thing I definitely wanted to pick up on though was Miguel's apparent miraculous ability to read the mind of a person who is at best the friend of a commenter on a friend's blog; discussing someone known only as "friend of Alexa", with whom Hugo Schwyzer had sexual relations while she was his student, Miguel reads far more from Alexa's comments that this friend "doesn’t feel used or harmed" by the relationship, and, "she said you were awesome" than I could have gleaned about this person's desires, motivations, reactions. This sort of mind-reading and clairvoyance seems to run like a thread through both of Miguel's posts about how women think and react and feel about all manner of things.

It's also a bit creepy (to my mind) how Miguel generalises from this one instance to say that "therefore it is unequivocally a good thing for men to feel entitled and take chances". My favourite sport for metaphors seems to be American Football, and today I'm going to refer to one of my sporting heroes (I'm leaving aside his personal conduct issues - I suspect he probably did send those inappropriate text pictures, and I don't admire him for that) - Brett Favre. Brett Favre is and was famous for throwing some incredible passes. He was and is also famous for throwing a lot of incredible interceptions. Some of those incredible passes were passes he should not have thrown because they could so easily have ended up as one of those incredible interceptions instead. Favre tended to get away with them more often than a lot of quarterbacks would, but you would certainly not coach anyone to throw the ball the way Favre did and does (I recall seeing footage of Mike Holmgren chewing out Favre for making those passes, whether they were good or interceptions). Point of this analogy being that making passes on students, whether it turned out well or not, is still not a good idea and something you would want to coach against, not for.

Stretching the analogy farther (probably farther than it realistically can go!) - you'd want to coach men to trust their throwing arm (that is, to believe that they can be desired, contrary to those "2 rules of desire" on which so much of society seems to operate, that figleaf identified) but equally you'd want to coach them to recognise when a pass is not on an instead throw the ball away (that is, when it's not appropriate to make an approach or when a rejection comes, to accept it for what it is and not see it as some entitlement that has been denied).

This seems to have turned into a bit of a brain dump, these all feel like half-digested ideas that came up from the threads and posts mentioned. But anyway, I don't feel like I can add more at the moment.

Again with the "girls should never ask the guy" thing *sigh*

I originally wrote this as a comment but then thought it was probably not the right place to have my say (the blog post asks specifically for women's tried-and-tested rules of dating) and decided to cut-and-paste the comment here as a blog post instead. It's a reply to a post by Faith at AOFB called One From The Dating Files: Why Women Must Not Be The Aggressor (Found via Feministe's Shameless Self-promotion Sunday thread). Quite apart from the rather disturbing notion that it is necessarily aggressive to be the one making the first move (which didn't seem to be an implication of any of the actual post text). I'll quote a couple of relevant bits from Faith's post and then the rest is as I originally was composing it as a reply.

Back in the olden days of my 20’s I once looked askance at the book The Rules because I thought it contained a lot of archaic, anti-woman rhetoric that went against current norms.

...

Ultimately, as time has passed I’ve had the opportunity to revisit the book and as such I’ve undergone a shift in perspective about many things, I now realize how useful a lot of the advice is.

...

Since a reader commented that they liked that I’d shared some personal information I will talk about something else I’ve learned when it comes to dating. This was a critical mistake on my part, too and only reaffirms that women must behave like ladies if they want to be treated as one!

Lesson #1: DO NOT ASK A GUY OUT!!!! While someone will offer their exception story to the contrary we are talking about the standard operating procedures for women in a patriarchal society. Do not be the “man”.

True story: I was at a hardware store with a friend a few years ago when the clerk who rang her order was clearly checking me out and he was cute! ... My friend said something to me about how it was obvious he was interested and maybe he couldn’t say anything because we were customers but I dismissed it. I thought if he didn’t say anything there was a reason why. So a week later we’re back (I made her go) and I swear I walked in and out twice to buy gum, a newspaper, whatever. ... But the guy did not ask me out. Finally I went back in and said something about how I thought he was cute…and it was awkward and painful. He told me he had a girlfriend, I apologized and do you know how stupid I felt? VERY!!! I wish I could say I was 16 and didn’t know any better.

Can I, as a man (or at least, I self-identify as a man; I sometimes think dating advice book authors would disagree with me on that!), say that this rule is NOT as hard-and-fast, or accurate, as you're suggesting? Although my familiarity with it is from the "He's Just Not That Into You" set of rules (here's what I had to say about that book's formulation), and not "The Rules", I still think it's a load of rubbish - unless you're specifically interested in only one type of man.

The anecdote about the clerk at the store doesn't impress me much, because anyone (male or female) making the first move has the same potential pitfall to overcome - not knowing if the person being approached is already attached. Your feeling of "VERY stupid" is commonplace to guys who take the initiative in the way you demand, why would you think that only men should feel stupid? Figleaf @ Real Adult Sex has a great post recently about just this sort of thing: Em & Lo on Rejecting Romantic Overtures: It's a Lot Easier to Be Polite About it if You've Ever Reversed Roles.

This is just a normal part of being the one who makes the first move. Some men take it in their stride, for others it's a big blow each and every time and it takes a lot of emotional energy for that type (i.e. my type) to get back up and try again. My story: I go to dancing classes and one of my aims in signing up was to try to meet women of my own age. Eventually a woman about my age started attending solo and during her first lesson I managed to dance with her a few times and have a conversation. It took me a whole week of building myself up to make the next step and be ready at the next class to ask her for her number and/or to go on a date. That next week, the very first thing she said to me was, "Hi [my real name], I'd like you to meet my husband." So I guess I was saved from feeling as stupid as you did from having made that first move, but I still felt pretty stupid and deflated and "I wish I could say I was 16 and didn’t know any better." And it had cost me a whole week of anxiety and worrying about "is she interested or isn't she?"

I’ve had enough guys ask me out just for breathing in their general vicinity that I was not even remotely interested in to know IF THEY ARE INTERESTED and KNOW YOU ARE RECEPTIVE they will TAKE THE LEAD.

Again - only a certain type of man will do that. Just because extroverted men will act that way, if you never approach the introverted guys then you'll never know whether they're interested. I suppose if you're certain that you only want to date extroverts then it makes a good rule, but introverts can be pretty good lovers too. I suppose also that it could be considered playing the percentages in that it's estimated that 75% of people are extrovert and only 25% are introvert, so there's at best a 1/4 chance that the hot guy who might be interested but hasn't said anything, is actually interested. But then, what are the odds that a guy approaching a woman will get his interest reciprocated?

***

After re-reading the OP to extract the quotes at the head, I realised that actually, I don't qualify as a man by the definitions used there:

Patty Stanger often refers to women who display “masculine” energy often turn-off men. At least the non-thugs, non-bad boys, non-issue-plagued ones. Weed out all the little boys, those confused about their roles, the over-pompous jerks, closet deviants, the ones in relationships or worse with multiple women on the side and the guppies. Just throw them back!

Well, I'm a non-thug, and a non-bad boy; I'm not a little boy and while I am certainly gender-variant (and all those good things listed in the box on the right!) I am not confused about any of it but proud and happy in my roles. I don't think of myself as pompous or a jerk and, "Relationship? I wish!" However, while I wouldn't say I am plagued by issues, I certainly haz them and they are a part of my psychological composition which - yes - does play into my introverted/shyness (although how much the issues are caused by those rather than vice versa would make an interesting debate in its own right). And although I am not closeted about my kinks, I certainly am in a lot of vanilla folks' estimation a "deviant" (a hateful, and hate-filled term). But then - having issues is just a part of being human. I deal with mine and manage to cope and get by. True story - dating SNS, on our very first date our route through London involved crossing the Millennium Bridge and my acrophobia was very apparent. I was open and honest and shared my vulnerability that day and, though I got jittery and close to a panic attack, SNS and I were on the same wavelength. Does that make me less of a man, that I had those issues, but faced them and coped with them, and wasn't afraid to show them? As it turned out, she and I shared histories of mental health issues we both experienced so that was all good - but that points to a way in which "issues" could be somewhat ableist in nature as a criterion.

As for "deviant", well, it certainly narrows the field for me a bit; but I don't expect every woman to share my kinks - and it certainly doesn't make me any worse of a lover in general. And my kink has little to do with why I tend not to approach women first (even if it turned out eventually we weren't compatible sexually, that's something that most 'nilla couples wouldn't be exploring as a deal-breaker immediately, I imagine?)

UK Government to ask ISPs to block all "adult" material

Via Informed Consent discussion boards:

It seems that Communications Minister Ed Vaizey has called leading Internet Service Providers in the UK to a meeting next month, at which he will ask them to introduce an "opt-in" system to prevent people viewing pornographic material unless they specifically inform their ISP that they wish to do so.

The move is being presented, as all infringements on civil liberties initially are, as a way of protecting the children - in this case, to protect children from being presented with pornographic images. The Guardian newspaper reports:

"This is a very serious matter. I think it is very important that it's the ISPs that some up with solutions to protect children," Vaizey told the Sunday Times. "I'm hoping they will get their acts together so that we don't have to legislate, but we are keeping an eye on the situation and we will have a new communications bill in the next couple of years."

The action follows the success of moves by most British internet providers to prevent people inadvertently viewing child pornography websites. Now ministers want to see adult pornography controlled with similar technology, with sites blocked unless people specifically request access to them.

This seems to reference the Cleanfeed system that is policed by the Internet Watch Foundation and which blocks sites on a blacklist. This caused some problems not so long ago when a Wikipedia article was flagged as containing child porn and the IWF blocked the whole of Wikipedia.

Quite apart from the ethical problem of allowing the principle (what else could a government ask ISPs to block unless there's an opt-in? Political information, perhaps? And what political/policing implications does it have that somewhere there will be a list of people who have requested to receive so-and-so type of information?) the technology is still a long way from being perfect. The stories still exist of breast cancer discussion groups having members being asked to stop using the "obscene" term "breast". The Telegraph article about it points out:

However many technology experts said the plans were unworkable even if the broadband providers signed up to a voluntary code.

It relies upon the Government or the internet service providers themselves having a comprehensive and up-to-date list of pornographic websites.

(This, again, seems to describe the Cleanfeed system, which I already mentioned.)

Raised in the discussion at Informed Consent, there's the point that this will not just block porn, but also such things as: information about safer sex practices, information about how to negotiate consent, quite probably information and support for survivors of sexual assault or rape, and lots of other things that, while obviously sexual in nature, are things to which we probably want teenagers to have more (not less!) access.

So how do we define what is "pornographic"? An automated system blocks porn, but probably also blocks other things including some or all of: breast/cervical/testicular/prostate/etc cancer discussions, academic research into pornography; medical research or information; rape victim support and resources; sexual health and education; news reports; LGBTQ information, communities and support groups; kink communities such as Informed Consent, Bondage.com, Fetlife etc. I system that requires human operation is open to all the same kinds of errors that any human is capable of making, including blocking things they shouldn't, and not blocking things they should; accidental release of sensitive data; misuse of the system for political or personal agendas. It seems axiomatic that corruption flourishes where censorship grows (that is the idea behind WikiLeaks, for example, and behind the old US Revolutionary slogan "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance").

TNW:United Kingdom makes all these points. It also reports that:

Conservative MP Claire Perry describes the current Internet as the “Wild west”. “We are not coming at this from an anti-porn perspective. We just want to make sure our children aren’t stumbling across things we don’t want them to see.”

Well, indeed. But here's the thing - the internet is really just like the wider world in general. In the big shopping mall in Tunbridge Wells, there's an Ann Summers store. And there's lots of people, most of whom are perfectly nice, decent folks I am sure, but on average there have to be some bad apples wandering around that store at least some of the time. Not to mention the treacherous escalators (yes, that's a Mallrats reference). I would hope that one wouldn't allow one's child to run off unsupervised in that large store, with all those perils around. But that's the thing here: wanting to block stuff on the internet is ultimately about trying to escape from the need to look after one's kids. Nannyware (software designed to block selectively, or allow remote supervision of, a child's browsing) is really a poor substitute to direct in-person parental supervision of a child's browsing (but I accept that in a world where typically a household needs two incomes that isn't always possible, which is why nannyware is a worthwhile thing to have). Governmental supervision is the worst of the lot (as the TNW:United Kingdom article argues).

Tanos, writing on the Informed Consent thread, observes:

Another thing is that a lot of effort is put into making it easy for people in countries like China, Saudi Arabia, Australia, and Iran to evade their governments' censor-walls. The UK will just be added to that list and it will be trivial for anyone (especially children) to get round this. Pushing the filtering to the ISPs actually makes the filtering less effective in that respect.

While I don't know how easy it is just yet for people to do that, I do know that every attempt at controlling how people spread information has rapidly been bypassed - one need only look at the problems that the music industry has had over trying to stop people sharing songs with their friends to realise this, and methods of copying supposedly uncopiable material and distributing it became commonplace. That's a losing battle.

I believe that if we are worried about what children are learning from porn, then we need to start teaching them about porn and sex earlier. If the government is concerned about "children from being exposed to sex at an early age" and "the hidden impact of pornography" (as according to the Telegraph article) then firstly, there's a lot of mainstream media that seems very determined to sexualise children from an earlier and earlier age; but most importantly, sex starts to become a biological drive almost from the onset of puberty. Should we not be preparing our children for that anyway so that they can be safer? And, while we're talking to them about what healthy sexuality looks like, then we can also talk about the ways in which porn is useful and the ways in which it is different from what sex is like in real life. I would hope this is obvious, but I have to say it anyway: I am NOT advocating promoting porn to under-age folks - I am advocating letting them know what it is so that they can deal with it responsibly when they encounter it.

To the puritanical sex-negative attitude, it may seem paradoxical, but to me it is yet another example of the principle "the forewarned is the forearmed"; to protect children from porn and inappropriate sexual influences, we need to teach them about sex and porn, and we need to get in there early.

International Day to End Violence Against Sex Workers

17th December - actually finished about half an hour ago in the UK, but I have been distracted by my immediate life, and to be honest, I couldn't think of anything really new to say about the issues. Here's just a few of the great posts that other people have come up with to say it better than I have the skill to right at this moment:

Clarisse Thorn has a guest-post up at Feministe on the subject that's really good: Whore Stigma Makes No Sense.

Bound, Not Gagged linked to the Asia-Pacific Network of Sex Workers' parody of "Bad Romance", called "Bad Rehab".

At Harlot's Parlour, there's a piece about the efforts by Merseyside Police to end violence against sex workers, and their support of the commemorative day.

I'm not an adult movie performer just yet!

Following up on this post, in which I revealed that I am looking into finding my way into the porn actor business (preferably in bondage or S/M porn since that's where my sexuality really lies):

The company mentioned in the post phoned me back today, and the answer is... I'm not going to work for them.

They wanted between £400 and £600 up front. The deal was that they said I would be expected to appear as an extra in at least 2 shoots per month with a minimum promised earnings of £1,000 per shoot (so minimum annual earnings of £24,000 being promised) and up to £4,000 depending on how much sexual activity was involved for me.

Fortunately, I had made sure to ask sex worker activist and editor of Harlot's Parlour, Douglas Fox, about a) whether the company was known to have a reputation and b) the usual sort of deal to expect. The advice was emphatic - "Be very cautious of anyone who wants money up front. Most sex workers pay a percentage to an agent for finding them work after they have found them work not before." After all, you can never tell beforehand who's a scam artist and who's for real. I like to think that I'm smart enough to recognise that people who ask for money up front are not to be trusted (much like those "you've won the [Random Foreign Country] Lottery Draw, if you send us your money we'll give you $$$millions!" deals...) but having insider advice (and being able to say on the phone "I asked a guy in the biz and he says...") made it easier to spot and easier to say "thanks, but no thanks".

I've no idea if they are scammers or not. They may very well be perfectly decent and honest folks working there. But for my safety (and the fact I don't have that kind of money to pay up front anyway!) I decided to take it no further.

The idea is going on the back burner for a month or so while I go off visiting friends and family for the holiday season, but a quick scout on Google suggests that there may be other agencies recruiting in this area. So I haven't yet given up on the plan to gain first-hand knowledge of (this part of) the (UK) sex industry.

I must admit, when I was told about the expected workload I felt a little doubtful as to whether that much (and in particular, being expected to do that much) would end up feeling like a problem to me. It certainly felt like a narrowing of the field of consent (or more accurately, the field of ability to withdraw consent) and that made me uncomfortable. I don't know how typical that policy is (and I can see a definite rationale for it from an agency's point of view regardless of whether the fees are paid up front or as a percentage of earnings, although that doesn't mean that agencies do it). I can only report my initial reaction in this instance. For myself, I have already decided to go on with the idea, which means that yes, I have decided that I think I could deal with such a workload if it turns out that it is a typical demand.

Oh, and if anyone wants to discuss "privilege" here with respect to my ability to turn this down - I'm currently on Jobseekers Allowance and Housing Benefit, and find myself slowly but surely sinking into a debt trap. I need money, and sex work would be a pretty good way to get it if I can find my way into that business. The Coalition Government has some pretty nasty plans regarding benefits claimants (i.e. me) so although I guess JSA and HB money keeps me from absolutely having to take the work in this instance, my freedom to manoeuvre isn't that great. It's more freedom than some folks have, for sure, but a heck of a lot less than plenty of other people's. I could not realistically turn down the chance to earn 2 grand a month for a couple of days each month of being used/directed/exploited sexually, if someone were to make that as a serious/genuine offer (and I felt confident of actually receiving that money). The deal-breaker here was purely the "money up front" part, which meant caution demanded I treat the offer with scepticism.

Jody McIntyre is a class act

Via The F-Word Blog, where Laura Woodhouse has pretty much said all that needs to be said about this.

An eloquent and passionate advocate of the protesters' claims, having been among the protesters himself, Jody McIntyre was awarded an interview on the BBC due to the fact that police officers had dragged him from his wheelchair and across the road during the protests, and the video of this incident made it onto the internet. Mr McIntyre took the opportunity to put forward the case against the tuition fees hike and against the police tactics. The interviewer used it to try to discredit the protests and diminish the significance of an unarmed person with a disability, being dragged from his wheelchair and across the street.

Please do read Laura Woodhouse's article on The F-Word (and use the links there to make a complaint!), but to make sure the video of the interview gets spread still further, here it is:



FWD has also posted a transcript of the interview.

"If I Ruled The World" - Consent

Clarisee Thorn @ Love Bites has posted a quick recap of the post by Jill at Feministe discussing the Julian Assange rape accusation. I have steered clear of this debate, and continue to do so, because it all seems like "whose side are you on?" The points that Clarisse picks out from the OP and the comments thread seem to sum up where I'm at with it, so I'll leave it at that.

However, she also picked out a thought-provoking comment on that thread by Egil Möller, discussing how we can define consent in a legal sense:

I think there are a few important philosophical questions to ask, given a non-religious/non-honor-based sexual assault law:

What can you consent to (gangbang, slapping, getting tied up)?
What constitutes giving consent (verbal, non verbal)?
When does consent have to be given (at the very moment of sex, or can it be given in advance)?
What constitutes withdrawing consent (verbal, nonverbal, safe-word)?
When can consent be withdrawn (can it be withdrawn post-factum?)?
How do we handle misinterpreted signals (didn’t hear the “no”)?
How do we handle situations where some or all involved are affected by drugs/alcohol?
How do we handle situations where someone is sleeping (re. consent given in advance)?

There are probably more questions, but those are the ones off of the top of my head.

I decided to see if I could come up with a legal framework that would work well for me as the basis of rape/sexual assault legislation, that would allow for "common-sense" interpretations of scenarios but clearly set out the stall as far as consent is concerned. In essence I am trying to encapsulate in this a shift from the "reasonable belief" defence in English law to a rape charge (that is, it's not rape is the assailant had a "reasonable belief" that the victim was consenting) towards a "well-founded belief" test - so that one must check the foundations of one's "reasonable" belief before going ahead. I've tried to keep things gender-neutral and avoid assumptions about numbers of participants in this (thus answering whether you can consent to gangbangs etc). I think I've covered all the issues raised by Möller, and maybe a few more, but if you're not clear how this framework would operate in any situation, ask in comments and I'll try to clarify further.

[Square brackets indicate explanatory notes I've added already. ]


So with that, it's time for a game of "If I Ruled The World"...

Sexual Assault Law under the SnowdropExplodes Regime:

Rape is defined as any nonconsensual sexual act involving more than fleeting contact with the genitalia. Sexual assault is any other nonconsensual sexual contact.

Consent must be clearly communicated. Where consent is not communicated verbally, it must be on the basis of signals of which all parties have already communicated their mutual understanding. If there is any doubt about the meaning of any verbal or non-verbal signals, then it is the responsibility of the person initiating sexual advances to confirm that consent has been given before proceeding.

[Example: if someone invites you in for coffee, then before sexual contact takes place you have to check e.g. "is that coffee coffee or sex coffee?"]

Consent can be negotiated at any time and on any bases that seem appropriate to the parties involved, so long as coercion is not involved. If coercion is used to obtain consent then that consent is invalid.

Consent is only valid to the extent that it can be withdrawn. Where consent has been given in advance, that consent is only valid until such time as it is withdrawn, either before or during a sexual encounter.

[This has been the basis used by the BBFC for banning any R18 porn video that includes gags (the BBFC don't know about the concept of safe signals, it seems).]

Consent can be withdrawn by any clear and easy-to-understand signal, either negotiated beforehand [e.g. safeword, safe signal] or verbal, or through shared understanding. Where commonly used words such as "no" or "stop" have been by prior negotiation given other meanings, then some other term or signal must take their place [e.g. safeword, safe signal]. If there has been no clear negotiation then all words must take their common meaning [that is, "no" means "no" and "stop" means "stop" unless otherwise clearly agreed]. If sexual contact continues once consent is withdrawn, then it is nonconsensual sexual contact and constitutes sexual assault or rape. If any doubt arises as to whether consent has been withdrawn, then consent cannot be assumed and it is the party's responsibility to confirm whether consent is still present before continuing.

Consent can be rendered invalid after the fact where some information comes to light that materially affects the nature of the acts as understood by the participants. Examples include discovering after the fact that the other person was knowingly contagious with a STI but did not disclose this information prior to sexual contact; discovering that a payment for sexual services has not cleared properly (e.g. a sex worker's client's cheque bounces); discovering after the fact that a partner did not use contraceptives/a condom. [Most of these principles have been, as I understand it, established in English case law, although I think the sex worker example is an exception because as yet, sex workers and their clients are not allowed to negotiate consent on the basis of money]

The question of "to what can one consent?" is more difficult because it crosses into non-sexual law as well, for example, when discussing BDSM, the law in England is about assault rather than rape, and as yet "mutual sexual enjoyment" is not accepted as a "good reason" to give consent to anything above "trifling and transient" physical hurt.

Personally, I believe that any activity for mutual sexual pleasure should be considered legal where all parties are consenting (if they aren't consenting, then that automatically negates the "mutual" part of that phrase anyway). Where it is conducted as a sexual activity, I would on a legal level want to apply the same standards as outlined above.

This still leaves a "grey area" in the area of "consensual non-consent". Since consensual non-consent means that that within the relationship it has been negotiated that there is no means to withdraw consent then for such a relationship not to be rape under this framework, then there would have to be a way to withdraw the consent to the negotiated rules of non-withdrawal and have that recognised immediately. That leaves a problem for the consensual non-consent fetishist (particularly the bottom, that is, the one who wishes to feel that zie has no ability to withdraw consent) in that withdrawal of blanket consent looks a lot like withdrawal of specific consent. If there are any threatened relationship consequences of such withdrawal then that could be construed as emotional coercion by the top (after all, "you'd do it if you loved me" is sufficient to constitute emotional coercion in other circumstances).

Consensual non-consent would therefore remain perilous in legal terms under my framework since any sexual encounter under consensual non-consent rules could be considered rape or sexual assault; the relationship only remains "not-rape" if the bottom continues not to report it as such, and in fact is willing to state under oath that zie was consenting. I haven't yet worked out a way to structure a law so that consensual non-consent is legally protected but cannot be exploited by abusive partners using coercion to create the appearance of consent.

The final point to address is that of intoxication (alcohol or drugs) and "what if they're asleep?".   I would still apply the measure of "able to communicate withdrawal of consent".   Getting drunk and agreeing to have sex that one later regrets having is a part of the risk involved in taking a substance that one knows affects one's decision-making - as long as you decided and communicated "yes" to having sex, then I don't see why that consent should be ignored.   However, getting drunk and having someone ignore your slurred "no, I don't wanna!" is not an informed risk, it's someone ignoring your "no!"   That's definitely rape.   If you're so drunk (or intoxicated) that you are unable to slur "I don't wanna!" then even if you said "yes" earlier, a would-be sex partner can't rely on that still being true and that makes it rape.   Someone who is asleep cannot communicate consent or nonconsent so that also is rape.   Incidentally, if someone loses consciousness during sex (for any reason!) I would hope that the natural thing is a) try to revive them and b) call a fucking ambulance!   Date-rape drugs, of course, are designed to make it impossible to withdraw or withhold consent, and so that is covered above.

Anyway, so that's what I've got at the moment - comments and suggestions (of a respectful and non-misogynist/misandrist/whorephobic/kinkphobic nature) welcome!

My "Extreme Sexual Purity" results...

Found via fierceawakenings:

The Extreme Sexual Purity Test

The extremely long and in-depth new sexual purity test. Not for the faint of heart.

You have earned 234 points out of a possible 780. The test is based on a point scale, where you earn points for different things you've done, and different items carry different weights.

Your experience score is 30 / 100. This indicates a medium low amount of overall sexual experience. A higher score indicates more experience. The average for men is currently 41 / 100 - your score is 27% lower than the average.

Your desire score is 94 / 100 (100% romantic desire and 88% sexual desire). This indicates a very high amount of overall sexual desire. The average for men is currently 61 / 100 - your score is 54% higher than the average.

Your ratio is 0.3x. This is calculated by dividing your experience score by your desire score, and it indicates how much you have acted on your desires, or how experienced you are relative to your level of desire. The average ratio is 0.7x.

See how YOUR score compares

I think this gives a misleading picture, because, of the questions asked, the main things that I want to do but haven't are all related to sex with other men. However, I think there were several things to which I admitted that I fantasised about them but haven't done - the reason being I don't really want to do them, just fantasise about them. So possibly I've acted on my desires rather more than the ratio suggests! Also, the main reason I haven't acted on the homosexual interests is that I have yet to find someone with whom I feel okay doing that. And in other areas, I have acted on my desires only to be rejected and thus have not had the opportunity to act out my desires.

Which kind of leads to the second point I want to make. I have a low "experience" score, and that's probably a fair conclusion. But I can't help but feel that it's the right answer but for the wrong reasons. I think it might come from the fact that I haven't had many sexual partners (and also, all those things that I fantasise about but haven't done because I don't actually want to do them), rather than the amount of stuff I've actually done (which, with those limited number of partners, feels like I've done quite a lot). There again, the measurements seem to be on a different axis from the ones I would choose to define "experience".

This is what I try to keep talking about:

Via Shakespeare's Sister and The F-Word Blog:

A great video (with transcript at the link above) of Tony Porter explaining the "Man Box":



There's more to it than that (I think the "roadmap" that Shakespeare's Sister refers to certainly needs a bit of work!) For example, the classic "appeal to daughters" argument at the end is one that I find a little bit questionable. It's tended to be used as a pseudo-patriarchal, possessive/protective way (that is, the emphasis subtly lands on "my" in the sentence) so that it seems still to say that women are property of men to be preserved in value and then bartered/sold. While it's true that I don't want a child of mine to suffer the world that inevitably a girl/woman will encounter, and that's the key point that I feel Mr Porter is making, the "appeal to daughters" argument is not always the best way to do that. For me, I wouldn't want either for my (as yet non-existent) son to experience the "man box" enforcing that Mr Porter reports he finds himself doing almost unconsciously to his son.

Does anyone know about this company?

Does anyone know anything about a company called Fantasy-Flix, operating as (in their terms) "The Adult Film Star Agency"?

I'm asking because I decided when I saw their advert in the local ads paper that I might as well contact them and see if they have a part for a spanker/bondage guy.   Seeing as I'm not as bothered by sex, and the idea of sex work, as some people, and Lord knows, I could use a job (some cash!) right now or in general.

So I've responded asking to find out more (especially how they make their money, what the fees are and how they work!)   Told them where my kinks lie (mainly Top, mainly straight, bondage and spanking, and BDSM in general) and where I am approximately in the country.

However, it would be very helpful if I could hear from people who have had encounters with them before to find out if this is a decent, ethical operation or if it might be a bit dodgy.

I guess that I'm putting my money where my mouth is (or mouth where someone's money-shot is going to be, or some other sex-related variant!) to try this stuff out and who knows, I may be a "Adult Movie Star" soon (heh, as if!   But appear in a professional porno, anyway).

Judge for yourself if you think I can pull it off (so to speak!): me in the nude (NSFW link!   But you guessed that because it's got nude photos on it, right?)

More on protest and the students

After my diatribe yesterday, I have some more things I would like to say about protest, democracy, and all that stuff, based on the reactions that have been published in the press and from politicians today - as compared with the experiences of people who were actually there at the protest (all reported as a live blog today at The Guardian).

The politicians all condemn the violence and Prime Minister David Cameron has said (after once again intimating that damage to property is far more of a concern than damage to people's bodies - what the police were intent upon doing - or people's lives, which is what the PM's government were busy doing in Parliament that day) that the police were there "to defend the right of peaceful protest".

Bollocks they were.   there is no such thing as peaceful protest in this country any longer, because it has been proven not to work.   When a million (maybe 2 million, depending on whose figures you use) can march in a peaceful protest right past Parliament, and be utterly ignored by those inside, that means there is no purpose to peaceful protest.

Peaceful protests also seem to end up being treated as "violent protests waiting to happen" by the police, who use the same militaristic tactics regardless of the protesters' intentions or behaviour - "kettling", baton-charging and even mounting cavalry charges against the trapped protesters.   the entire purpose of which is summed up by Bob Brecher (quoted on the Guardian link at 11:46am), professor of moral philosophy at the University of Brighton:

The "violence" that occurred — and the disproportionality of physical violence against the person used by the police as against that used by demonstrators is significant — was deliberately engineered. The twofold intention was to ensure that the demonstration received "a bad press"; and to dissuade future protesters.

Three of our students, I have just been told, are unable to attend classes today, having been physically attacked by the police.

That's what peaceful protest gets you. If your protest threatens to disturb the Powers-That-Be or actually force any change at all in their mindset, then you will be treated as violent. The only reason that the 1-to-2M people march was able to go ahead peacefully is because they weren't actually going to force a change in policy.

The police know that they are coming to do battle, and they defend their "right" to do so, and go out of their way to deny protesters recourse to the law to protect themselves - because the police protect the law from us, not vice versa.   Steve, from Brighton University (reported at 4:03pm on the Guardian link) reports:

I was at the protests yesterday and witnessed many examples of police brutality. My 19-year-old sister was forced to the floor by police when caught in a crowd and when attempting to get up was punched in the face by a male officer. She is sporting a black eye this morning. I was also punched in the face by an officer and when I went to make a note of his numbers, two of his colleagues spotted me doing so and placed their hands on his shoulders, making sure I couldn't see them. I continuously asked for him to make his numbers visible. His response was to smirk and say that he couldn't hear me. The police behaved in a totally disgusting manner. I saw many, many examples of this type of behaviour throughout the day.

There is no right to peaceful protest in this country. There pretty much hasn't been, ever, but certainly not since the Mayday protest of 2001. They managed to find pictures and footage of violence in that protest, too - but there (as reported to be the case yesterday by "A Cambridge student", quoted as follows at 1:32pm on the Guardian live blog link), "Almost all of the defacement, fires, etc occurred after kettling – this is not to excuse that but to point out that kettling did not contain the destruction as much as incite it."   Luke from Kingston University (quoted at 2:02pm at the same link) echoed that sentiment about yesterday.

Kettling is designed to hurt people, or at least make them suffer physically for having the temerity, the audacity, the gumption, to say, "No, this thing that our government is doing is unacceptable." The reports from people who were there yesterday all come back to this, describing what was done to them - for example, being trapped and left in the cold winter air for hours in the night on Westminster Bridge (which is, to my mind, getting close to torture conditions if you did that to someone in isolation).

Is it any wonder that people get angry, and then get violent? Throwing paint - even throwing Christmas baubles (which are made of glass, usually, and so potentially could do some injury to someone not wearing protective gear - but then, what is a riot uniform except "protective gear"?) - is not "violence", and this seems to have been the part that was premeditated. Other violence that happened seems to have been anger, anger directed at the police for their abuses on the day, and anger at the government for abuses being perpetrated daily in Parliament against us, the people. Burning stuff (like, a couple of park benches - what a terrible thing [/sarcasm]) is a natural reaction to the fact that it was bloody cold, and there was nowhere to go to get warmth.

Again, there is no right to peaceful protest now in this country. If you are peaceful, you will still be treated as though you are violent. If you are treated as though you are violent, eventually you will have violence perpetrated upon you (perfectly within the rights of the police to do so, apparently), whether or not you did anything to deserve it (other than daring to raise your voice, and your head above the metaphorical parapet).

It worked for Martin Luther King Jr. and his followers. To be peaceful but allow the batons to come raining down. But I do not know that it can work that way for us (and besides, as the civil rights movement in the 1960s went on, there were other groups who used violence and arguably their contribution was also crucial).

I do not like the conclusion that is left after the past 10 years or so of protests. And the conclusion is this: the police are coming for battle whether the protesters do or not, and the only question is whether we (as protesters) want to bring a knife to a gunfight - or a gun. Yesterday, I talked about taking inspiration from the man whose statue stands outside the Palace of Westminster, Oliver Cromwell. If we are going to protest, then I think protest organisers now have to think about planning a proper military-style tactic for dealing with police kettling and mounted charges. You can still say, and even intend, to hold peaceful protest. Let the police and the government be the ones who force the use of such tactics, by all means. But for God's sake, and for the sake of democracy and liberty, have a plan. If it needs armed violence, then be ready for that. If the police are going to treat this as a battle, if they are going to be militaristic about it, if they are going to use these tactics, then protesters have little choice but to respond in kind.

Here's one idea for dealing with the charging horses:

Pikemen.

That sounds nasty, but bear with me: at these protests there are plenty of banners being waved on long poles.   I'm not suggesting putting sharp pointy bits of metal on those poles, but using the poles braced against the floor to face the charging men just as pikemen used to face cavalry charges in old battles seems like an option to discourage that police tactic.   I don't know how feasible it would be to use the banners themselves as flapping, scary barriers to try to scare the horses.   I don't like the fact that these ideas could still (even without metal pointy tips) very well lead to horses being injured (the riders made their choice when they came arrayed for battle and when they chose to make the charge - if people defend themselves against such a charge, that seems fair to me).

I'm not a military genius, so I don't have an answer for how to move troops (by which I mean, "protesters") so as to counter effectively the kettling manoeuvres of the police.   Given that many protesters are, by inclination or by identification, anarchists - organising effective tactics might prove difficult anyway...!

I have never, ever, in my history as an activist, attended a protest where my intent was to use violence.   I have never gone prepared in any way to commit violent acts.

But after the last decade of police action against protesters (and yes, I'll include the pro-hunting protests in that as well, even though I liked watching the toffs get whacked over the head with truncheons for a change, instead of the hoi polloi - I am a slave to my class prejudices!) I have to conclude that I have no other choice but to have some regard for being able to fight back.   So the next time I go to protest about something, you can bet that I will be ready, with some form of makeshift (and deniable) weapon about my person.   Even if it's just my walking stick (which I likely would need for support anyway on a protest march).

I repeat - this is not my preferred choice.   This is the hopeless, anguished, frustrated position into which the police and successive governments have backed me and mine.   The analogy here is not Martin Luther King's pacifist protest, but the ANC's and Nelson Mandela's non-violent stance, which eventually gave way to sabotage, guerilla warfare and terrorism due not to a desire to hurt or do violence, but because nothing else was left to them.   People forget - it's in Mandela's "Long Walk to Freedom" autobiography that this is so - Nelson Mandela was returning from what would today be called a terrorist training camp when he was arrested and sent to Robben Island.   No, I'm not likening the student protesters to Mandela or the ANC's struggle to end apartheid, but I am saying that sometimes protest is forced into violent paths because they find that the peaceful ones are being closed off - which is what the ANC found.

Some people point to the fact that a few people, who were intent on violence from the off, used hard missiles that they must have brought along, to discredit the mass violence that followed.   But a) such people have no opportunity to use their projectiles unless the police become confrontational in the first place, and b) the anger of the majority should not be dismissed because of the mendacity and hatred of a few.

More and more, I find myself forced to the conclusion the the police are the enemy, and that is not my natural or desired attitude but one that has been forced upon me, and reinforced, over my expeirences of protes and of watching reports of others protesting in this country.

I remain a radicalised democrat.   Violence to restore democratic accountability to our government is, sadly, necessary.

Condoms in porn?

"Patient Zeta" (real name Derek Burts) in a recent HIV alert in the California porn industry has come out publicly to argue for compulsory condom use in porn.   His argument is that "Making $10,000 (£6,319) or $15,000 (£9,479) for porn isn't worth your life. Performers need to be educated."

I definitely agree on the need for safe sex education, not just for porn performers but for all people (even those who don't have sex ever - after all, a lot of people listen to a celibate guy with a funny costume who hangs out in Rome!)

I don't know that it necessarily follows that you have to enforce what you believe to be the right choice.

Incredibly knowledgeable (and yep, porn performer) Renegade Evolution explained the debate succinctly at her old more activist blog, and talked about why she is opposed to compulsory condom use in porn.   She also talks about how (contrary to the assertion made by the doctors in the BBC article) "I would be safer fucking in the mainstream porn industry in Cali without condoms than I would be just casual normal people fucking ... in Washington DC".

I can't find the post there, but I seem to recall a guest post by Ernest Greene (also someone knowledgeable about porn due to being involved heavily in the industry!) describing just how effective the screening process in the California porn industry actually is.   I also seem to recall that California is the only place in the USA where porn is sufficiently legal and regulated that such screening is possible.   This screening is what detected that Mr Burts had contracted HIV and ensured that all co-performers could be tracked and quarantined until their status could be ascertained.   Crucially, though, Mr Burts appears to be claiming that it was not, in fact, as part of the California industry that he contracted the virus but as part of a Florida (which thus would presumably be unregulated) porn shoot.

I'm not an expert.   I can't contest on the grounds of stuff I know, that the assertions made by Mr Burts and by Dr Robert Kim Farley as quoted in the BBC article, are wrong or misleading.   I don't know one way or the other.   I do know that Ren Ev (who knows a lot more about it than me) says that condom use is ultimately down to the performers' preference and that in her experience this is always respected or a shoot won't go ahead.

The reported experience of the porn industry is that the regulation system in California is the most effective way of controlling the spread of STIs; with regular check-ups for performers, a clean bill of health being required for a shoot to go ahead, and keeping track of who performed with whom and when.   This should not just be national, but transnational in scale - but for that to happen, the legal status of pornography and making it needs to change - to be decriminalised.

Maybe then, when we consider the application of health and safety law to pornography, we would after all decide that (as Dr Farley suggests) "Just like a construction worker wouldn't go into a construction site without a hard hat, an adult industry performer shouldn't be having sexual acts without a condom."   I have heard it said that in (at least some types of) porn, using a condom can be more risky, not less (it appears the link to my source for that no longer works, so I can't back it up right now, it was reported in a long thread covered at Ren Ev's old blog that porn performer Nina Hartley said it).   So maybe the current system, with the obvious duty of care for producers and performers to make sure everyone was properly screened before making porn, would be sufficient to satisfy the health and safety laws.   I don't know one way or another, although my sympathy lies with letting performers choose and with NOT enforcing condom use.

I also repeat: sex education, safe sex education, for EVERYONE is essential.   Definitely, performers need to know the risks and to be able to make an informed choice about what protection to use.

If nothing else, that is a lesson on which all sides of this debate can surely agree.

Students put us to shame

I used to be a pacifist, or at least committed to non-violence as the only legitimate mode of protest.   I've lost faith in that, as previously recorded on this blog.

So nowadays, I have sympathy with the students and other protesters today who fought (and went prepared to fight) against the police protecting Parliament from them.   My main criticism is that they don't go there with a battle plan or any objective other than making a noise and doing some damage so that people notice they were there.   Democracy has become divorced from the people in this country and so it seems fair that revolution (to be fair, some speakers are reported by tonight's Channel 4 News programme to have been advocating that) is an appropriate response.

In this case, the evidence is this: the Liberal Democrats ran their election campaign on a basis of abolishing tuition fees paid by the student - one of the very first measures introduced by Tony Blair's government in 1997 and steadfastly opposed by the Liberal Democrats ever since (and one of the first major protests I attended as an adult).   However, on joining with the Conservative Party to form a coalition government, they signed up to the exact opposite: increasing tuition fees to a much higher level than ever before, saddling students with lifelong debts in future, a measure that tonight was passed by the Commons.

I voted for the Liberal Democrat candidate in my constituency.   He didn't win (this is a safe Conservative seat) but I did it on a basis of their manifesto, and yes - their commitment to abolish tuition fees was a factor in that.   The Liberal Democrat MPs who were elected no doubt owe some of their support to that policy at least.   But to hold onto the tiny sliver of power that the Tories are allowing the, the LbDems have sold out.   There is no other term for it.   When this happens, it becomes apparent that democracy is corrupted, decayed, broken and perverted by those who have been elected.   The elected government has become the enemy of democracy!   Before, the New Labour government was the enemy of democracy for its continued and relentless encroachments upon civil liberties and privacy.   This new government is no better.   It is clear now that it doesn't matter what policy or principle you voted for, the people in power act only on one principle: "it is the first duty of those in power to hold onto that power".   We have even seen Vince Cable make a variation of that statement in interviews (although he couched it that they have to do bad things to keep power, otherwise they won't be able to do any good things).

This is how I explain my identification as a radicalised democrat.   That when the peaceful, legal, processes of democracy have broken down to this extent that it is legitimate - even incumbent upon us, to look for ways to make the message in more direct ways, which will inevitably lead to conflict with the forces charged with preserving the status quo - the police, in the first instance.   If you know you're going to meet violence (and believe me, even if you set out to protest peacefully, you will meet with violence and force from the police) then you can choose to surrender, or go prepared to fight back.   If I could get to London at the moment, I would probably be there now and not blogging from home, and I would be getting involved.

The tabloids are wont to describe any British armed forces fighting overseas as "our brave boys" defending "our liberty"; well, the protesters fighting in London tonight are people I call "our brave boys", fighting for democracy and "our liberty".

I doubt very much that anyone would manage it, but I think Oliver Cromwell, whose statue stands outside Parliament, (or more accurately, the Leveller movement within the New Model Army) should be an inspiration, and yes - people who care about democracy in this country should be inspired to form a new New Model Army and take back the power from the elected aristocracy with whom we are saddled in the so-called Commons, and yes - sweep out the actual aristocrats who inhabit the Lords as well.   Restore Britain's freedom and democracy to what they should be: responsible to the people, protecting and upholding the people, defending the essential rights that make us able to grow.

I'm a Marxist/Engels-ist/left-wing Commie type, so I'd like to see direct participatory democracy based on economic as well as political democracy.   But that's less important right now than just to make the voices of the people matter at all outside of a few weeks every 5 years.

I do feel sympathy and regret for the police officers who have been injured during these protests.   Like foot soldiers in any battle or any war, they are there because of decisions made by their political and military masters, they no doubt have family and/or friends, and a whole life and conscience outside of their work.   But when they put on the uniform and are sent into battle, they become a barrier to free expression and democratic involvement of the people.   That means that they must be pushed aside by whatever force they make necessary and unfortunately, that's when people get hurt.

But now, in my heart, I wonder how long it will be that the British will be "disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable", rather than, "to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."   To my mind, it is the case that the British government, for successive governments now involving all three main parties, has been destructive of our rights, and yes - I do believe that the preamble of the US Declaration of Independence makes one of the most measured and just cases for the necessity of revolution that has ever been written (leaving aside the fact that the man who wrote the document was a slave-owner and white supremacist, and thus not genuinely the best advocate of democracy who ever lived, even up to that time!)   So, I call myself a radicalised democrat and hope that the protests today and tonight herald a future generation who will take on the mantle "to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."   And, of course, do so with proper view to keeping a firm hand on their shoulder at all times (another famous quotation from the formative years of the USA springs to mind concerning vigilance - too often nowadays used to justify the government spying on the people rather than the other way around).

So, yes - when I was that age, I would have been appalled at the violence of the protesters but now, thanks to the actions of Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown and finally Cameron&Clegg, my heart is no longer encumbered at the thought of "my side" doing that.   This saddens me (and to be fair, I still draw the line somewhere!) but it does not trouble me as it might have done once.   I have been "radicalised".

Match.com's advice on questions for your date

Via the Yahoo news service, an article posted by Match.com called 5 key questions to ask on a date (written by Ayren Jackson-Cannady). This time, the advice is based on that given by Eve Hogan, author of How to Love Your Marriage: Making Your Closest Relationship Work.

My scepticism is somewhat understandable, as regular readers will know going on what I've had to say about Match.com's dating/relationship advice (as picked up by Yahoo) before now (e.g. this and this). But I thought it would be fun to look anyway.

The aim, apparently, is "ask questions that aren’t too personal, but still reveal your date’s tastes and his or her values."

The five suggestions are:

1. What's your favourite scene from your favourite book/movie?
2. What do you love about your job?
3. What's your definition of a relationship?
4. If money were no object, what would you do with your life?
5. Will you share an embarrassing moment with me?

Up to a point I can see what they're getting at with these, but some of them made me smirk because I don't think my answers are quite what the author(s) expect.

Here's my answers:

1. Gosh, do I have to choose one?   It probably depends on my mood at the time, really.   Probably the scene where Selina Kyle turns into Catwoman in Batman Returns, but it could be any of a dozen or so really.   Also the scene in Carl Sagan's Contact where Ellie is in bed with her lover discussing deep science.
2. Right now, I haven't got one (and that sucks) so it's a bit of a mean question to ask really!
3. Two or more people relating to one another, I guess.   It depends so much on the people involved, what defines the relationship.   "Different strokes for different folks", as the saying goes!
4. Try to take over the world!
5. Sure.   How would you like me to embarrass you?

Now, that last one in particular is definitely not what they meant but it was immediately how I read the question - and it ties in very much with my kinks, especially sadism! Speaking of which, if I haven't already sounded out the other person about kink and such, question 3 could be really awkward for me (which is just one reason why the very vague and uninformative answer). How do I explain that for me a romantic relationship between me and another person will involve a consensual Dominant/submissive dynamic? Whereas if I have sounded them out about it, or if (as is more than likely) I've met them through a BDSM forum (either online dating or at a munch) then we'll already have talked about this stuff upfront.

Question 1 is, apparently, supposed to show what a person values, but I'm not sure that that works at all, except for a very narrow subset of personality types. A lot of people watch movies or read books to escape from real life, so the things that they enjoy are just ways of escaping their real selves for a little. Not everyone who watches violent action movies has any desire to be violent! And, as I said, my answer depends a lot on my mood anyway. I chose Batman Returns because I love the visuals and the epic nature of the transformation, high emotions, magical resurrection, and so on. But the scene in Contact (the novel, it doesn't appear in the film) I chose because it's geeky and sexy and silly all in one, which appeals to me on all levels (that one probably is the closest indicator of what makes me tick, actually). If I was feeling particularly kinky, I would probably say the opening scene(s) of The Story of 'O' (again, the novel, not the movie version). If I'm feeling a bit more light-hearted and shallow I might go for something with lasers and big explosions, maybe from the Star Wars Trilogy (I might also go for the climactic battle in Episode II). All these and more are possible answers, that may show something about some aspect of what I like, but there's no way to know how much or what it actually shows, just from a particular answer. There's no short cuts to finding out about a person!

Question 4 also is supposed to show what a person's hopes, dreams and regrets are. I'm not sure how helpful my answer is in that respect. I guess what it shows is that I take the question's premise a little too literally - "If money were no object" is a concept that my imagination can give a lot more scope than the suggestions made by Hogan and Jackson-Cannady, of "The answers can range from a desire to travel to going back to school to learning how to play the violin."   I suppose conquering the world would likely involve some travel, but that's not really the key thing about it!   If asked to scale down my dreams a little, I might settle on devoting more time and energy to music - both classical composing and popular music performance (if money were no object I could hire a studio, recruit some decent musicians and make my masterpieces of rock come to reality at last!)   I suppose you might also suggest that it implies a sense of humour, but I'm only ever half-joking when I say I want to rule the world...

Sure, these are good questions to ask on a date because they are likely to be useful ways to make interesting conversation happen, but trying to suggest that they'll give invaluable insight is just barmy.

Anyway, I'm now dead curious to know who among my readers would give what answers to these five questions!

GWS shows oppression of men

It looks like this may be not be the intended purpose of this episode of Girls With Slingshots, but it's a really good point to be made from it anyway.

A brief description of the cartoon strip:

3 men. One of whom is in the early stages of a relationship with a woman (Melody), the other two are his friends (there are more biographical details, but they don't impact on this episode). The dater is called Chris, and his two friends are Zach and Darren

Frame 1: Chris looking nervous.
Zach - "So you guys haven't, uh..?"
Chris - "Not yet."
Darren - "How long has it been since the last time you"
Chris - "3 years"

Frame 2: Chris looking shocked because...
Zach & Darren - "OOOOOOOOO"
Chris - "Wh-- It's not THAT bad!"
Zach & Darren - "Yes it is, honey."

Frame 3: Chris grimacing hard.
Zach - "We're gonna have to start him on Book 1"
Chris - "Guys"
Darren - "You see Chris, when a man loves a woman--"
Chris - "AUGH"

-----

Now, you tell me which gender is oppressing, humiliating and/or enfeebling Chris in this comic? I'll give you a clue: there are no drawings of women in this episode.

And yet, for some reason, so-called Men's Rights Activists would tell you that women are responsible for doing these things. Melody has nothing to do with what's happening here.

This comic strip highlights how male gender oppression starts. All the explanations and expectations of masculinity start and are enforced in exactly this way: men humiliate, enfeeble and belittle those who don't at least pretend to live up to those ideals. This is how men learn to be "men" and masculine, and how in turn women's ideas of what a man "should" be are formed. It's also how men's idea of what a woman "should be" are formed, and that's why men's freedom from oppression actually gains from feminism and from women breaking free from gendered oppression of women.

We have a thing or two to do ourselves, of course - women being freer won't necessarily stop men doing these things to each other. We men need to do that, and thereby help our sisters (the feminists) with their liberation as we work for each other's.

And that's the final key point. Men are not in a position of being fully able to fight for our own liberation. In this we can learn from the hoplites of ancient Greece, each of whose survival in battle depended upon their neighbour's shield and fighting ability. Similarly, each man's liberation from gendered oppression relies on his neighbours being willing to put down the tools of oppression and stop the instinctive mocking of those who don't perform the narrow definition of masculinity properly.

If you want another, more modern (and USAian) metaphor, then think of the offense team in NFL. Nobody can be successful on offense unless someone else does their job well. A receiver needs the quarterback to have time to throw the ball accurately - otherwise he'll never have an opportunity to catch the ball and score. The quarterback needs the linemen to hold back the rush long enough for him to find an open receiver to catch the ball. The running back also needs the linemen to do a job for him, to open gaps between the defending players so that he can run through those gaps and make gains. And each lineman needs to know what his fellow linemen are doing and needs them to hold up on their duties, because otherwise he'll find himself overwhelmed.

In this metaphor, what we men need to do is hold our blocks so that someone else can make a great play - and to know that equally, someone else will hold a block for us when it's our turn to carry the ball.

It starts with NOT being like Zach and Darren in the cartoon. And it's a lot easier if we lose the misogynistic assumptions about women as well. If we stand alone, swinging our swords wildly at anyone who steps out of line (woman or man), then we will be cut down easily by the real enemy. But if we stand together and level our spears at the true target, and cover our brothers and sisters with our shields instead of cutting each other down, then suddenly our differences and our choices are freer even though we march together. If the next person is gay (or a woman, or trans, or Black, or whatever) then it should not matter - his (or her) freedom is my freedom. Freedom means defending everyone else's right to be different from me, while they are defending my right to be different from them.

But we only get to be different from each other if we are willing to pay the price of working together to make it possible.

I seem to have drifted a little bit from my starting point (gendered oppression) and now argued right back to the ethical foundation of communism. All derived from a comic strip about dating.