The Stonewall Riots – 1969. A Turning Point in the Struggle for Gay and Lesbian Liberation

THE SOCIALIST ALTERNATIVE By Lionel Wright

Something unremarkable happened on June 28, 1969 in New York’s Greenwich Village, an event which had occurred a thousand times before across the U.S. over the decades. The police raided a gay bar.

At first, everything unfolded according to a time-honoured ritual. Seven plain-clothes detectives and a uniformed officer entered and announced their presence. The bar staff stopped serving the watered-down, overpriced drinks, while their Mafia bosses swiftly removed the cigar boxes which functioned as tills. The officers demanded identification papers from the customers and then escorted them outside, throwing some into a waiting paddy-wagon and pushing others off the sidewalk.

But at a certain point, the “usual suspects” departed from the script and decided to fight back. A debate still rages over which incident sparked the riot. Was it a ‘butch’ lesbian dressed in man’s clothes who resisted arrest, or a male drag queen who stopped in the doorway between the officers and posed defiantly, rallying the crowd?

Riot veteran and gay rights activist Craig Rodwell says: “A number of incidents were happening simultaneously. There was no one thing that happened or one person, there was just… a flash of group, of mass anger.”

The crowd of ejected customers started to throw coins at the officers, in mockery of the notorious system of payoffs – earlier dubbed “gayola” – in which police chiefs leeched huge sums from establishments used by gay people and used “public morals” raids to regulate their racket. Soon, coins were followed by bottles, rocks, and other items. Cheers rang out as the prisoners in the van were liberated. Detective Inspector Pine later recalled, “I had been in combat situations, but there was never any time that I felt more scared than then.”

Pine ordered his subordinates to retreat into the empty bar, which they proceeded to trash as well as savagely beating a heterosexual folk singer who had the misfortune to pass the doorway at that moment. At the end of the evening, a teenager had lost two fingers from having his hand slammed in a car door. Others received hospital treatment following assaults with police billy clubs.

People in the crowd started shouting “Gay Power!” And as word spread through Greenwich Village and across the city, hundreds of gay men and lesbians, black, white, Hispanic, and predominantly working class, converged on the Christopher Street area around the Stonewall Inn to join the fray.

The police were now reinforced by the Tactical Patrol Force (TPF), a crack riot-control squad that had been specially trained to disperse people protesting against the Vietnam War.

Historian Martin Duberman describes the scene as the two dozen “massively proportioned” TPF riot police advanced down Christopher Street, arms linked in Roman Legion-style wedge formation: “In their path, the rioters slowly retreated, but – contrary to police expectations – did not break and run … hundreds … scattered to avoid the billy clubs but then raced around the block, doubled back behind the troopers, and pelted them with debris. When the cops realized that a considerable crowd had simply re-formed to their rear, they flailed out angrily at anyone who came within striking distance.

“But the protesters would not be cowed. The pattern repeated itself several times: The TPF would disperse the jeering mob only to have it re-form behind them, yelling taunts, tossing bottles and bricks, setting fires in trash cans. When the police whirled around to reverse direction at one point, they found themselves face-to-face with their worst nightmare: a chorus line of mocking queens, their arms clasped around each other, kicking their heels in the air Rockettes-style and singing at the tops of their sardonic voices:

‘We are the Stonewall girlsWe wear our hair in curlsWe wear no underwearWe show our pubic hair…We wear our dungareesAbove our nelly knees!’ 

“It was a deliciously witty, contemptuous counterpoint to the TPF’s brute force.” (Stonewall, Duberman, 1993) The following evening, the demonstrators returned, their numbers now swelled to thousands. Leaflets were handed out, titled “Get the Mafia and cops out of gay bars!” Altogether, the protests and disturbances continued with varying intensity for five days.

In the wake of the riots, intense discussions took place in the city’s gay community. During the first week of July, a small group of lesbians and gay men started talking about establishing a new organization called the Gay Liberation Front. The name was consciously chosen for its association with the anti-imperialist struggles in Vietnam and Algeria. Sections of the GLF would go on to organize solidarity for arrested Black Panthers, collect money for striking workers, and link the battle for gay rights to the banner of socialism.

During the next year or so, lesbians and gay men built a Gay Liberation Front (GLF) or comparable body in Canada, France, Britain, Germany, Belgium, Holland, Australia, and New Zealand.

The word “Stonewall” has entered the vocabulary of lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, and transgendered (LGBT) people everywhere as a potent emblem of the gay community making a stand against oppression and demanding full equality in every area of life.

The GLF is no more, but the idea of Gay Power is as strong as ever. Meanwhile, in many countries and cities the concept of “gay pride” literally marches on each year in the form of an annual Gay Pride march.

The present generation of young LGBT people and many of today’s gay rights activists were born or grew up after 1969. And over the intervening decades, politics in the U.S. have passed through a very different period. While there have been huge advances in the struggle for LGBT rights, there is still a long way to go to achieve full liberation as the growing attacks by the religious right makes very clear.

Developing Subculture

Why did the Stonewall events happen when they did? How did the initial actions of fewer than 200 people lead to both a wider protest and then the birth of Gay Liberation?

In his 1983 book Sexual Politics, Sexual Communities, the historian John D’Emilio has revealed the pre-history of Stonewall. The author shows how the process of industrialization and urbanization, and the movement of workers from plantations and family farms to wage labor in the cities, made it easier for Americans with same-sex desires to explore their sexuality. By the 1920s, a homosexual subculture had crystallized in San Francisco’s Barbary Coast, the French quarter of New Orleans, and New York’s Harlem and Greenwich Villages.

People with same-sex desires have existed throughout history. What has varied is the way society has viewed them, and how the people we now describe as LGBT regarded themselves at different stages.

The significance of the social change described above, and the emergence of a subculture, for the development of a gay rights movement is that an increasing number of individuals with same-sex desires were able to break out of isolation in small and rural communities. However discreetly, they learned of the existence of large numbers of other gay people and started to feel part of a wider gay community.

In society at large, the penalties for homosexuality were severe. State laws across the country criminalized same-sex acts, while simple affectionate acts in public such as two men or women holding hands could lead to arrest. Even declaring oneself as a gay man or lesbian could result in admission to a mental institution without a hearing.

Within the embryonic subculture, there were fewer places for lesbians than gay men because women generally had less economic independence, and it was therefore harder for a woman to break free from social norms and pursue same-sex interests. During the Second World War, all this changed. With the set routines of peacetime broken, gays and lesbians found more opportunities for freer sexual expression.

Women entered both the civilian workforce and the armed services in large numbers, and also had new-found spending power with which to explore their sexuality. In the documentary film Before Stonewall, a lesbian ex-servicewoman called Johnnie Phelps relates how she was called in with another female NCO to see the general-in-command of her battalion – which she estimated was “97% lesbian.”

General Eisenhower told her he wanted to “ferret out” the lesbians from the battalion, and instructed her to draw up a list to that end. Both Phelps and the other woman politely informed the General that they would be pleased to make such a list, provided he was prepared to replace all the file clerks, drivers, commanders, etc. and that their own names would be at the top of the list! Eisenhower rescinded the order. A few years later as U.S. president, however, Eisenhower would get lists aplenty during the McCarthy witch-hunts that were unleashed against thousands of both suspected Communists and “sexual perverts.”

Renewed Repression

With the return to peacetime conditions, the millions of Americans who had encountered gay people and relationships in the services or war economy saw this temporary opening-up of U.S. society come to an end. Most of the new wartime gay venues closed their doors, as service people were demobilized and the bulk of the new women workers were sent home from the factories.

The lid of sexual orthodoxy came crashing down, and a dark age was about to dawn for gay people. But the genie of lesbian and gay experimentation had been let out of the bottle. Things could never be quite the same again. One of the enduring effects of the war was the large number of lesbian and gay ex-service people who decided to stay in the port cities to retain some sexual freedom, away from their families and the pressure to marry.

In the 1940s and 1950s, post-war reconstruction and the shift to consumer production, taking place against the background of the Cold War, resulted in the authorities heavily promoting the model of the orthodox nuclear family to buttress the social and economic system of capitalism. The other side of the coin was a clampdown on those who stepped out of the magic circle of matrimony, parenthood, and homemaking by engaging in same-sex relationships.

The inquiries of the House Un-American Activities Committee led to thousands of homosexuals losing their jobs in government departments. The ban on the employment of homosexuals at the federal level remained in place until 1975. In the District of Columbia alone, there were 1,000 arrests each year in the early 1950s. In every state, local newspapers published the names of those charged together with their place of work, resulting in many workers getting fired. The postal service opened the mail of LGBT people and passed on names. Colleges maintained lists of suspected gay students.

The Birth of Gay Rights

It was against this hostile background that the gay rights movement in the U.S. came into existence. In 1948, Harry Hay, a gay man and long-standing member of the U.S. Communist Party (CP), decided to set up a homosexual rights group. This was the first chapter in what gay people at the time described as the “homophile” movement.

Like all Communist Parties around the world, the U.S. party claimed to uphold the tradition of the October Revolution in Russia. One of the early measures of the Bolsheviks had been to end the criminalization of gay people. But by the 1930s, the rise of the Stalinist bureaucracy had resulted in the resumption of anti-gay policies both in the Soviet Union and world Communist Parties.

In this situation, determined to pursue his project, Hay asked to be expelled from the CP. In view of his long service, the party declined his request. Together with a small group of collaborators including other former CP members, Hay launched the Mattachine Society (MS) in 1950. This took its name from a mysterious group of anti-establishment musicians in the Middle Ages, who only appeared in public in masks, and were possibly homosexual.

D’Emilio describes the program of the Mattachine Society as unifying isolated homosexuals, educating homosexuals to see themselves as an oppressed minority, and leading them in a struggle for their own emancipation. The MS organized local discussion groups to promote “an ethical homosexual culture.” These argued that “emotional stress and mental confusion” among gay men and lesbians was “socially conditioned.”

Notwithstanding the Stalinist degeneration of the CP in which Hay had received two decades of training, the MS founders clearly applied Marxist methods to understand the position of gay people and chart a way forward. For the structure of Mattachine, Hay utilized the methods of secrecy which the CP had employed in the face of attacks by the authorities, but which also developed against the background of the undemocratic methods of Stalinism in the workers’ movement.

To combat the persecution facing gay people, the Mattachine Society was based on a network of cells arranged in five tiers, or “orders.” Hay and the other leaders comprised the fifth order, but would be unknown to members at first and second “order” levels. For three years, the MS steadily expanded its network of discussion groups. Growth accelerated in 1952 after MS won a famous victory over the police when charges against a Mattachine member in Los Angeles were dropped, following a campaign of fliers by a front organization called the “Citizens Committee to Outlaw Entrapment.”

However, the following year, after a witch-hunting article by a McCarthyite journalist in Los Angeles, the fifth order decided to organize a “democratic convention.” When this took place, the Hay group was criticized from the floor by conservative and anti-Communist elements who demanded that the MS introduce loyalty oaths, which was a standard McCarthyite tactic. The radical leadership managed to defeat all the opposition resolutions, and the demand for a loyalty oath never gained a majority in Mattachine.

Nevertheless, Hay and his comrades decided not to stand for positions in the organization they had established and built. This effectively handed the group over to the conservatives. Many who had supported the original aims left in disgust, and it took two years for the membership to be built up again. If the Hay group had stayed active, it could have offered a pole of attraction for militant LGBT people. As it was, the movement was thrown back and a decade was lost.

Whereas the Mattachine founders had advocated an early version of “gay pride,” the new leadership reflected the social prejudice prevalent against homosexuals. The new MS president, Kenneth Burns, wrote in the Society journal, “We must blame ourselves for our own plight … When will the homosexual ever realize that social reform, to be effective, must be preceded by personal reform?”

The position of the new leadership was that gay people could not fight for changes in U.S. society but had to look to “respectable” doctors, psychiatrists, etc. through whom to ingratiate themselves with the authorities in the hope of more favorable treatment. But the problem was that the vast majority of such figures advocated the idea that homosexuality was a sickness.

Towards the end of this period, when a professional named Albert Ellis told a homophile conference that “the exclusive homosexual is a psychopath,” someone in the audience shouted: “Any homosexual who would come to you for treatment, Dr. Ellis, would have to be a psychopath!”

The Rise of Gay Activism

It is thought that many LGBT people who had yet to “come out” (publicly identify themselves as homosexual) became workers in the black civil rights campaign that began in the 1950s. By the following decade, the influence of the civil rights movement was making itself felt within the homophile movement. The “accommodationist” establishment of people such as Burns increasingly came under attack from a fresh generation of militant activists.

Eventually, in both the Mattachine Society and a similarly conservative lesbian group called the Daughters of Bilitis (DOB), the leadership chose to dissolve the national structure rather than see the organization fall into the hands of radicals. Individual MS and DOB branches then continued on a free-standing basis. In these and other city-based groups, militant leaders managed to win majorities, often after colossal battles.

Within this process, an influential figure was astronomer Frank Kameny, who had been fired from a government job in the anti-gay purges. After unsuccessfully fighting victimization in the courts, he concluded that the U.S. government “had declared war on” him and decided to become a full-time gay rights activist. Kameny was scathing about the old leadership of the homophile movement in their craven deference towards the medical establishment: “The prejudiced mind is not penetrated by information, and is not educable.” The real experts on homosexuality were homosexuals, he said.

Referring to the organizations of the black civil rights movement, Frank Kameny noted: “I do not see the NAACP and CORE worrying about which chromosome and gene produced a black skin, or about the possibility of bleaching the Negro.” As the struggles of U.S. blacks produced slogans such as “Black is Beautiful,” Kameny coined the slogan “Gay is Good” and eventually persuaded the homophile movement to adopt this in the run-up to Stonewall.

The militant homophile campaigners started public picketing with placards and other direct actions, and mounted an offensive against the police and government over criminal entrapment, the employment ban, and a range of other issues.

Twenty years after Harry Hay had first conceived the idea of the Mattachine Society, U.S. society had undergone a transformation. The rise of a women’s movement (with lesbians prominent among the organizers), the shift among black people from a civil rights to a black power movement (parts of which embraced socialist ideas), a revolt against the U.S. war in Vietnam on American campuses influenced by the May 1968 events in France, plus the side effects of other developments such as a rebellion against establishment values in dress and personal relationships among groups such as the hippies, all contributed to gay and lesbian rights campaigns moving into a more militant phase.

One of the strands within the Gay Liberation Front argued that a revolutionary struggle against capitalism to build a socialist society was needed to finally end the oppression of gay people.

Craig Rodwell concludes: “There was a very volatile active political feeling, especially among young people … when the night of the Stonewall Riots came along, just everything came together at that one moment. People often ask what was special about that night … There was no one thing special about it. It was just everything coming together, one of those moments in history that if you were there, you knew, this is it, this is what we’ve been waiting for.”

Originally appeared in Socialism Today No. 40, July 1999

************************************

The first documentary -- in any medium -- about the riots:

REMEMBERING STONEWALL DOCUMENTARY MP3

This documentary, broadcast on the 20th anniversary of the Stonewall Riots, is the first documentary -- in any medium -- about the riots. It weaves together the perspectives of the participants, from Deputy Inspector Seymour Pine, who marshaled the raid, to Sylvia Rivera, one of the drag queens who battled most fiercely that night. The revolutionary impact of the riot is better understood by looking at life for gay men and lesbians in the era before Stonewall, seen through the eyes of people like Bruce Merrow and Geanne Harwood, a gay couple who have been together for 60 years, and Jheri Faire, an 80-year-old lesbian. also examines how Stonewall affected gay politics through the voices of people like Randy Wicker, the first openly gay person to appear on television and radio; Joan Nestle, founder of the Lesbian Herstory Archives; and yippie leader Jim Fouratt, who helped found the Gay Liberation Front on the third night of the Stonewall Riots. 

Producer: David Isay with Michael Scherker / Editor: Amy Goodman / Mix engineer: Spider Ryder at WNYC / Funding provided by the Pacifica National Program Fund. Photograph by Harvey Wang.

WEB: www.sinfulandwicked.co.uk MOB: 07426 490 214 TWITTER: @sinfulandwicked

Am I allowed to laugh? (BDSM) – a Christian Perspective

There are occasions when the Atheist in me has to roar with laughter...... I think I may do some research from the Bible to find Christian encouragement to participate in BDSM. Since all books are open to interpretation.... I will interpret and offer a conclusion that is a positive influence to some nuts. And I am sure Master Drezda will most likely assist. 

So, lets read what they have to say:

Bondage,  Domination, and Sadomasochism  (BDSM) – a Christian Perspective
 I hope that as you read through this page, you will arrive at the same conclusion as I have concerning bondage, sadomasochism and their associated subcultures.   God created us and gave us the wonderful gift of sex to be enjoyed in the intimate bond of  marriage.  God intended sex to be a loving, giving experience, as opposed to a selfish, lustful, or domineering experience.   This page has been written primarily to Christians, but I encourage everyone to consider the points made.
 Definitions:

• Bondage: "sadomasochistic sexual practices involving the physical restraint of one partner " (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)

• Domination: "supremacy or pre-eminence over another; exercise of mastery or preponderant influence" (Webster's Dictionary)

• Masochism: "A sexual perversion characterized by pleasure in being subjected to pain or humiliation esp. by a love object; pleasure in being abused or dominated" (Webster's Dictionary)

• Sadism: "A sexual perversion in which gratification is obtained by the infliction of physical or mental pain on others; delight in cruelty" (Webster's Dictionary)

 Additionally, Encyclopaedia  Britannica says this:  "The sadist, however, often seeks a victim who is not a masochist, as some of the sexual excitement derives from the victim's unwillingness. The level and extent of sadistic violence may vary considerably, from infliction of mild pain in otherwise harmless love play to extreme brutality, sometimes leading to serious injury or death. The satisfaction of the sadist may result not from inflicting actual physical pain but rather from the mental suffering of the victim. Sexual urges may limit the level of violence, but in some cases the aggressive impulse becomes predominant and the sadist progresses to more extreme expressions of his violent tendencies. Sadism may be a factor in some violent crimes, particularly rape and murder."

• Sadomasochism: "The derivation of pleasure from the infliction of physical or mental pain either on others or on oneself" (Webster's Dictionary)

• Submission: "An act of submitting to the authority or control of another" (Webster's Dictionary)

 There are many ways in which people mix the above acts with sexuality.  The term "BDSM" is a broad reaching term that vaguely covers all of the above activities, and there are many subcultures associated with BDSM. Rather than attempt to analyze each group in this discussion, I will present some principle-driven questions that can be asked of the particular activity with the goal of determining whether the activity is pleasing to God or not.

Questions that can be asked concerning a BDSM activity:
1. Does the act degrade and dishonour God's temple?  Our bodies are made in God's image and are intended to be vessels of worship (Romans 12:1-2; 1 Corinthians 6:12-20).  When we mistreat someone's body, or allow our bodies to be mistreated, we degrade them and dishonour God.  This is basically mocking the dignity of God's image.   This dovetails with Satan's objectives of marring, abusing or destroying our bodies such that they cease to glorify God. 
 2. Does the act pervert sexual pleasure by mixing it with pain?  Pleasure and pain are opposites, but BDSM attempts to bring them together for sexual gratification.  Pain is a by product of sin (Genesis 3:16-17; Genesis 6:6) and was not intended to be part of creation.  It will be eventually removed from creation by Jesus at the end of the age (Revelation 21:4). God designed us to enjoy many different pleasures, including sex, food, work, art, music and  sports.  Our fallen nature tends to combine sinful acts with our outlets of pleasure.  God does not take pleasure in evil - nor should we as his followers.  David wrote, "You are not a God who takes pleasure in evil; with you the wicked cannot dwell." (Psalm 5:4 NIV)  Consider what Solomon wrote: "A fool finds pleasure in evil conduct, but a man of understanding delights in wisdom" (Proverbs 10:23 NIV) 3.  Does the act stifle the work of the Holy Spirit in your life?   When you consider the definitions of the words involved with BDSM and its associated acts, it's apparent that they are not based on love.  Rather, they are based on malice, hate, cruelty, lust, selfishness, control, and domination.  These attitudes are part of our sinful nature (Mark 7:21-23) and are directly opposed to the attitudes or "fruits" of the Holy Spirit.  The fruits of the Holy Spirit are "love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control" (Galatians 5:22-23 NIV).
 There are many scriptures that warn us not to have the attitudes featured in BDSM.  For example, Paul wrote in Ephesians 4:31-32 NASB, "Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice.  Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you."  (note: the definition of malice:  "desire to see another suffer" (Webster's Dictionary).  For more examples see the scriptures at the bottom of this page. God commands us to walk in obedience to the Holy Spirit and not to gratify our fleshly cravings (Romans 13:12-13).  Paul wrote: "Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires" (Galatians 5:24 NIV).  When we ignore God's commands and  pursue our sinful cravings, we stifle or "quench" the activity of the Holy Spirit in our lives (Ephesians 4:30). 4.  Does the act corrupt God’s perfect plan for love and sex in marriage?   Let's first look at the below scripture to best understand God’s intent for marriage relations:²²Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.
²³For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Saviour.
²⁴Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. ²⁵Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her
²⁶to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word,
²⁷and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.
²⁸In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.
 ²⁹After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church-- Ephesians 5:22-29 NIV

Key ideas from the above scripture:

1. Wives are to submit to their husbands as they do to God.  Our submission to God does not involve punishment, wrath or abuse, because Jesus Christ bore all the punishment due to us on the cross (1 Peter 2:24; Romans 5:1).  We have peace with God and submit to him in reverence and appreciation for the great sacrifice he made for us.  A wife's submission carries no hint of sexual slavery, abuse, suffering or pain.

1. The husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church.  Jesus did not treat the church harshly, nor did he inflict pain for pleasure or seek to dominate them. Jesus loved the church so much that he sacrificed his own body to pay for our sins.  His sacrifice was once and for all, eliminating any need for further pain and suffering on account of our sin (Hebrews 9:26; Hebrews 10:10).  Following Christ's example, a husband has no business treating his wife harshly, inflicting pain for pleasure, dominating her, etc..  Also, the reverse is true as well - he has no business allowing his wife to do those acts to him.  It simply would not be within the character of Christ.

1. A wife should not mistreat her husband because this would be a perversion of the submission and respect that should characterize the wife's role.    Paul likened the husband’s role to that of Christ and the wife’s role to that of the church.  In Ephesians 5:22-24 he wrote, “22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.”  The question we can ask ourselves is, “Did God intend the church to abuse Jesus through pain and domination?” No!  The church's attitude toward Jesus is to be one of reverence, respect and love.  Likewise, wives should treat their husbands with reverence, respect and love. 

1.  We are to nurture our body and our spouse’s body.  We worship God in many ways, but especially in how we treat our body (Romans 12:1-2; 1 Corinthians 6:12-20), which is made in God's image and is a temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 3:16).  It would be dishonouring to God for the wife to abuse her husband's body, and a husband is specifically commanded to cherish and nurture his wife’s body, as he would his own body (Ephesians 5:29-30).   Nurturing, caring and feeding do not carry any connotation of bondage, pain or abuse.

1. Does the act bring you under the rule of a defeated enemy?   Satan hates the fact that through our faith in Jesus Christ, we become co-heirs of God's kingdom (Romans 8:17).  As adopted sons of God, we inherit authority and dominion over sin, Satan and his forces (see authority).  Consequently, Satan seeks creative ways like BDSM to bring us back under his rule (through sin) and strip us of our "divine inheritance" rights.  

 God commands us clearly to not allow sin (or anything other than God) to be our master (Genesis 4:7).  Also, Paul wrote:  12Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. 13Do not offer the parts of your body to sin, as instruments of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God, as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer the parts of your body to him as instruments of righteousness.14For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace. " 16Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey--whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness?" Romans 6:12-14,16 NIV We must remember that Jesus surrendered his own body to be punished once and for all for our sin.  His sacrifice purchased our freedom from the law of sin and death (Romans 8:1-2).  To willingly place ourselves back into some form of bondage would be to make a mockery of the freedom Christ purchased for us.  Paul wrote: Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage.  Galatians 5:1 NKJV
 If we allow ourselves to come under Satan's rule, we will be subjected to his "tools of domination," which he uses to keep people in slavery.  Being subject to these tools is no fantasy!  Here are some examples: 

• Torture: Matthew 18:32-35

• Sickness: Luke 13:11, Acts 10:38

• Affliction: Job 2:7,

• Murder & death: John 8:44, John 10:10, Hebrews 2:14

• Bondage/Slavery: Hebrews 2:14-15, Romans 6:19, 2 Timothy 2:26

 6.  Is the act based on violence or graphic fantasies (e.g. sex, death, rape, torture, mutilation, etc.)?  In an exclusive interview in the 1990's , the late serial killer Ted Bundy shared with Dr. James Dobson how pornography progressively helped him accelerate down the road to sadistic killing.  Interestingly enough, BDSM was involved. 7. Is the act a 'perversion' of normal heterosexual  relations?  People turn to perversions when they are not satisfied with the “normal” pathway of stimulation.  In essence they are saying to God “your plan for my sexuality is not good enough…I want more gratification.”  By doing this we open ourselves up to some very serious consequences. The apostle Paul captures some of those consequences in his letter to the church in Rome: "²⁴Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.
²⁵They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.
 ²⁶Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.

²⁷In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

₂₈Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.
 ²⁹They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips,

³⁰slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents;

³¹they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. "  Romans 1:24-31 NIV
 Here are the key aspects of the peoples’ behavior:

• They degraded their bodies with one another

• They worship created things instead of God (sexual fantasy is a form of worshipping the body)

• They explored additional areas of perversion (homosexuality)

• The consequences of such actions included:

• They were given over to shameful lust and a depraved mind

• They received a "due penalty" for their perversion

• They were filled with every kind of wickedness, including malice and murder

• They became heartless and ruthless

 Pursuing BDSM-related activities may produce similar results, because they often involve degrading the body, worshipping something other than God (sex, body, pain, control, punishment, power, etc.), and exploration of other forms of perversion.  Once we open ourselves up to the associated consequences, it becomes very difficult to regain a clear and right mind.  However, recovery is possible with God's help. If the answer to any of the above questions was "Yes", then I would encourage you to refrain from practicing the activity. Consider these additional verses:
Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth" 1 Corinthians 5:8 NKJV"But now you yourselves are to put off all these: anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy language out of your mouth." Colossians 3:8 NKJV"³For we ourselves were also once foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving various lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful and hating one another. ⁴But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, 5not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit"  Titus 3:3-5 NKJV "Therefore, rid yourselves of all malice and all deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and slander of every kind."  1 Peter 2:1 NIV "Do not drag me away with the wicked, with those who do evil, who speak cordially with their neighbors but harbor malice in their hearts." Psalm 28:3 NIV
"²¹For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery,

²²greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly.
²³All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.' "  Mark 7:21-23 NIV
 "But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God's holy people." Ephesians 5:3 NIV "Therefore, as God's chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience." Colossians 3:12 NIV "Do everything in love." 1 Corinthians 16:14 NIV

WEB: www.sinfulandwicked.co.uk MOB: 07426 490 214 TWITTER: @sinfulandwicked

Passion Play - How the Romans in Britain changed theatrical and legal history

In October 1980 a daring new play opened at the National Theatre. News of its graphic violence and simulated male rape soon had Mary Whitehouse up in arms. No surprises there. But no one could have guessed what would happen next. Mark Lawson on the drama than changed theatrical - and legal - history

How The Romans in Britain changed theatrical and legal history


WEB: www.sinfulandwicked.co.uk
MOB: 07426 490 214
TWITTER: @sinfulandwicked

SEX in Britain 2015 - The Study Results

•  Academic compiles fascinating overview of the nation's sexual habits

•  Study is most comprehensive review ever into UK's bedroom behaviour

•  Stats show over the average adult has less sex than three decades ago

•  Those aged 16 to 34 less likely to have sex than many older couples

Could there be a more universally fascinating topic than sex? Are you having too much? Not enough? With the right person? Did you start early, or late? Are you normal?

There can be few of us who haven’t wondered how our sexual experiences compare with everyone else’s. But it’s not as if we’re short on theories. Every day, it seems, surveys are released promising new insights into our sex lives.

But what can we really believe? What’s true and what’s nothing more than an old wives’ — or online magazine readers’ — tale?

SEX in Britain 2015 Part One: The most in-depth study ever

• Academic compiles fascinating overview of the nation's sexual habits
• Study is most comprehensive review ever into UK's bedroom behaviour
• Stats show over the average adult has less sex than three decades ago
• Those aged 16 to 34 less likely to have sex than many older couples

Could there be a more universally fascinating topic than sex? Are you having too much? Not enough? With the right person? Did you start early, or late? Are you normal?
There can be few of us who haven’t wondered how our sexual experiences compare with everyone else’s. But it’s not as if we’re short on theories. Every day, it seems, surveys are released promising new insights into our sex lives.
But what can we really believe? What’s true and what’s nothing more than an old wives’ — or online magazine readers’ — tale?

WEB: www.sinfulandwicked.co.uk
MOB: 07426 490 214
TWITTER: @sinfulandwicked

The Only Truly Compliant, Submissive Citizen In A Police State Is A Dead One - A vanilla submissive?

A very interesting view of the American vanilla population and how they are, possibly, subject to the same compliance and submission expected of BDSM submissives. Could it be? Below is John W. Whitehead's views -  www.rutherford.org

“Do exactly what I say, and we'll get along fine. Do not question me or talk back in any way. You do not have the right to object to anything I may say or ask you to do, or ask for clarification if my demands are unclear or contradictory. You must obey me under all circumstances without hesitation, no matter how arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory, or blatantly racist my commands may be. Anything other than immediate perfect servile compliance will be labeled as resisting arrest, and expose you to the possibility of a violent reaction from me. That reaction could cause you severe injury or even death. And I will suffer no consequences. It's your choice: Comply, or die.”— “‘Comply or Die’ policing must stop,” Daily KOS

Americans as young as 4 years old are being leg shackled, handcuffed, tasered and held at gun point for not being quiet, not being orderly and just being childlike—i.e., not being compliant enough.

Americans as old as 95 are being beaten, shot and killed for questioning an order, hesitating in the face of a directive, and mistaking a policeman crashing through their door for a criminal breaking into their home—i.e., not being submissive enough.

And Americans of every age and skin color are being taught the painful lesson that the only truly compliant, submissive and obedient citizen in a police state is a dead one.

Who are These Leather People

Who are These Leather People, and Why do We Need to Include Them?

Kink History, Culture, Communities and Dilemmas

WEB: www.sinfulandwicked.co.uk 

MOB: 07426 490 214 

TWITTER: @sinfulandwicked

Spank me silly: sadomasochism and the modern woman

Courtesy of: The Conversation & Lauren Rosewarne (Senior Lecturer at University of Melbourne)

"The poster for Secretary is up on my wall at work. I actually paid to see A Dangerous Method purely for Jung’s novel approach to therapy (and God do I hate period films.) While I probably won’t read all of Fifty Shades of Grey, I’ve certainly read the dirty bits.

No surprises: spanking has long been on my mind.

Journalist Katie Roiphe recently offered her take, writing in Newsweek about an apparent surge of reddened rears in pop culture. Roiphe proposes that while the spanked-into-subordination fantasy is nothing new, its contemporary popularity reflects women’s burgeoning power. Power in the workplace, power in the bedroom. Apparently we ladies are a little nostalgically misty for those heydays of patriarchy so we’re reminiscing through bedroom oppression.

While many sex-positive feminists have criticised Roiphe for overlooking women’s own sexual agency and for peddling an unsubstantiated thesis about women’s dissatisfaction with power, I kinda think she makes some valid points.

What trans and genderqueer people think about the origins of gender variance

Crossdreamers




WEB: www.sinfulandwicked.co.uk
MOB: 07426 490 214
TWITTER: @sinfulandwicked

How has #queer theory influenced the ways we think about gender?

Thanks to: LaurenTapp

How has queer theory influenced the ways we think about gender?

In this essay, I aim to examine the ways in which ‘queer theory’, as a theoretical approach, has influenced, and at times advanced, our understandings of ‘gender’. In particular, I will be paying attention to the ways queer theorists, such as Butler, have problematized and deconstructed the ‘sex/gender distinction’ within her work, Gender Trouble, in 1990. Developing these ideas, I aim to show that the queer approach to gender has allowed for better trans and non-binary inclusion within the study of gender due to its refusal to accept biologically determinist theories of gender. However, queer theory has been critiqued by trans and non-binary scholars, for its lack of attention to the material conditions of transgender lives – often featuring disproportionate violence and discrimination compared to the cisgender (non-trans) community (Hines, 2007; MacDonald, 1998; Monro, 2005; Namaste, 2000; Stryker & Whittle, 2006). Following an examination of these problematic effects of queer theory, I hope to provide a remedy to the critique by blending an intersectional and materialist analysis of non-normative gender identities with the deconstructive and non-naturalizing elements of queer theory. It is my aim to show that a combination of methods, both feminist and queer can provide the most compelling and exhaustive analysis of gender.

Transgender kids. #LouisTheroux #Transgender

Louis Theroux travels to San Francisco, where a group of pioneering medical professionals are helping children who say they were born in the wrong body to transition from boy to girl or girl to boy at ever-younger ages.

 At the Child And Adolescent Gender Center at UCSF Hospital Louis meets children who have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria. Louis is told that children as young as three can show signs of rejecting the gender they were assigned at birth, leaving parents with a difficult dilemma - do they start transitioning a child who is still developing their own identity, or do they wait and risk making the change once their body has gone through the transformations of puberty?

 It is a decision that can be the start of a complex series of medical interventions, from puberty blockers to hormone replacement therapy and eventually gender reassignment surgery. Louis spends time with children and their families as they negotiate their way along this life changing and emotional journey.

To buy or not to buy. BDSM & the law

WEB: www.sinfulandwicked.co.uk MOB: 07426 490 214 TWITTER: @sinfulandwicked

How Many People Engage in SM?

Thank you to: 

https://ncsfreedom.org/key-programs/education-outreach/what-is-sm/item/364-what-is-sm-how-many-people-engage-in-sm?.html

A handful of significant sociological studies have been done to determine percentage of the population engages in SM activities.

The 1990 Kinsey Institute New Report on Sex reports:

Global Sex Survey

"Researchers estimate that 5-10 percent of the U.S. population engages in sadomasochism for sexual pleasure on at least an occasional basis, with most incidents being either mild or stage activities involving no real pain or violence. Most often it is the receiver (the masochist), not the giver (the sadist), who sets and controls the exact type and extent of the couple's activities. It might also interest you to know that in many such heterosexual relationships, the so-called traditional sex roles are reversed -- with men playing the submissive or masochistic role. Sadomasochistic activities can also occur between homosexual couples."

June M. Reinisch, Ph.D. with Ruth Beasley, M.L.S (1990). Kinsey Institute New Report on Sex, St. Martin's Press: pg. 162-163.

A new Playboy poll by Dr. Marty Klein appeared in November, 1998, p. 81:

• 18% of the men and 20% of the women have used a blindfold during sex.
• 30% of the men and 32% of the women have tied someone up or have been tied up during sex.



News.com.au

• 49% of the men and 38% of the women have spanked or have been spanked as part of sex.

 A survey by Hunt (1974) of 2,026 respondents found that:

• 4.8% of men and
• 2.1% percent of women had obtained sexual pleasure from inflicting pain and
• 2.5% of the men and
• 4.6% of the women obtained sexual pleasure from receiving pain.

These numbers are probably underestimates, because the erotic response to "pain" is only one aspect of SM. (M. Hunt, Sexual Behavior in the 1970s, Chicago: Playboy Press.)

A mid-1970s independent research organization poll funded by Playboy surveyed 3,700 randomly selected students from 20 colleges found that 12% women and 18% of the men had indicated a willingness to try bondage or master-slave role-playing. (Playboy, "What's Really Happening on Campus", October 1976.)

A survey by E. Hariton (1972) found that up to 49% of women fantasize about submissive scenarios during sexual intercourse with 14% doing so frequently. (E. Hariton, "Women's Fantasies During Sexual Intercourse with their Husbands: A Normative Study with Tests of Personality and Theoretical Models'" unpublished doctoral dissertation, City University of New York.)

Paul H. Gebhard, is an anthropologist and was the executive director of the Institute for Sex Research at Indiana University from 1956 to 1983. Gebhard noted in Fetishism and Sadomasochism (Dynamics of Deviant Sexuality, 1969, pg. 79.) that "consciously recognized sexual arousal from sadomasochistic stimuli are not rare." The Institute for Sex Research found that one in eight females and one in five males were aroused by sadomasochistic stories.

In 1929, Hamilton's marriage habits survey reported that 28% of men and 29% of women admitted they derived "pleasant thrills" from having some form of "pain" inflicted in them. (G.V. Hamilton, A Research in Marriage, Boni, New York.)

WEB: www.sinfulandwicked.co.uk 
MOB: 07426 490 214 
TWITTER: @sinfulandwicked

As a kinkster, who will you be voting for this general election? POLL

WEB: www.sinfulandwicked.co.uk MOB: 07426 490 214 TWITTER: @sinfulandwicked

This murder in Ireland has made me rethink my sexual practices - BDSM safety V abuse

THE ISSUE OF 'PERSONAL SAFETY' IS A VERY IMPORTANT ONE WITHIN THE BDSM COMMUNITY. 

Emer O'Toole's article in the Guardian Newspaper reminded me how we must never forget personal safety, the safety of all within the BDSM community. It may be a subject we don't vocalise enough, but we should shout it out more often. Abuse is everywhere. Mental, physical, emotional. As a community, we should be taking a more pro active personal involvement towards safety. 

Below is Emer O'Toole's article, I have also linked other articles which relate directly to abuse and BDSM.

"In Dublin, Graham Dwyer, a married architect, has been convicted of the murder of Elaine O’Hara, a child care worker with whom he was engaged in a BDSM relationship. The motive was sexual gratification. O’Hara was vulnerable, suffering from mental health issues, and Dwyer exploited this, banking on the likelihood that her disappearance would be read as suicide. He hid evidence of the murder at the bottom of a reservoir. If it were not for 2013’s unusually hot, dry summer, that’s where the truth would have remained, and Dwyer would be walking free.

 A woman is dead: another victim of intimate partner violence. And treating her death with due respect should mean an examination of the social context that allowed a man to convince a woman that his sexual desire to stab and kill her was within the bounds of the acceptable. It should mean attention to the cultural mainstreaming of BDSM.

On Valentine’s Day this year, Universal Pictures released its film adaptation of EL James’s erotic novel Fifty Shades of Grey. Back in 2012, The Guardian asked me to review the book to mark the sale of its ten-millionth copy. I kept it light – riffing on James’s infamously terrible prose and characterisation, and musing as to whether the far-away film version wouldn't leave us feeling a little less glib and little more, well, worried. The day is come, and I admit a heavier feeling. What is, at heart, the tale of an abusive relationship in which a reluctant, inexperienced and infatuated young girl is controlled and beaten by a rich sadist, is now being offered up as a sweet Valentine’s Day treat for naughty couples.

BDSM communities have been quick to distance themselves from Fifty Shades, and, indeed, from any beliefs or behaviours incompatible with informed, enthusiastic and uncoerced consent. This is because BDSM communities are often, in my experience, very politically switched-on places. However, it’s also my experience that kink communities are reluctant to acknowledge problems with the ideologies underlying their sexual practices, focusing instead on the pleasure or relationship benefits to be gained from BDSM.

I’m making this critique not as a judgmental outsider, but as someone who participates in BDSM behaviours and events and understands the excitement to be found therein. I’m making this critique not as a kink-shamer, but as a challenge to myself: what are my reasons and justifications for inviting or accepting male sexual violence? And, at this point in history, when kink is becoming ubiquitous, I’m calling on all responsible, egalitarian kinksters to take a step back from personal desire and pleasure and ask similar questions.

We live in a sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist society. This gross fact informs our identities, our beliefs and our desires: it’s part of us at the most fundamental cognitive level. A prevalent theory in kink communities is that BDSM creates a sandbox or play space around impulses that have their roots in sexism or other prejudice, consensually mirroring non-consensual societal power dynamics. The sandbox allows role play that expurgates, inverts or otherwise contains hierarchical desires. It may give subs control over situations that would – in reality – make them feel powerless, or allow doms to cathartically express violent urges: in short, the sandbox gets it all out of our systems.

Except, this isn’t how human psychology functions. We do not siphon off fiction or play from our social realities. Rather, the values and norms of the fictions we consume or participate in suffuse our world views and influence our actions.

Participating in violent sports or fictions does not always make us less violent, in fact it can do the opposite. Watching aggressive pornography does not quell our desire for aggressive pornography, but, contrarily, can create a desire for increased violence. If we know and believe this about video games, movies and porn, then why do we suddenly deny it when it comes to BDSM? Perhaps it’s because it makes us feel defensive, and so, instead of conscientiously examining a) the social conditions that have led to our fetishisation of female pain and submission, and b) the ways in which our sexual practices strengthen and reinforce those social conditions, we shout “kink-shamer”.

In the 1970s, this issue split second wave feminism. Activists such as Robin Morgan, Alice Walker and everyone’s favourite straw-woman Andrea Dworkin wrote smart, impassioned rhetoric against BDSM. And sex-positive feminists such as Susie Bright and Candida Royalle reacted just as passionately and intelligently, with publications and erotic projects proclaiming that they’d fought long and hard for their sexual liberation, and they weren't going to be told what to do with their beds and bodies by priest, pastor or feminist sister. In 2015, at this powerful moment in feminism and with this sea-change in social attitudes towards BDSM, I believe it’s time to reopen the debate in a spirit of solidarity, openness and honesty. I believe that we owe this to vulnerable women, like Elaine O’Hara, whose submissive desires can leave them open to male aggression in the most tragic of ways."

MISTRESS LEYLA ~ BDSM

Some Notes On Safety For Meeting Online and Off

null

Detecting Fakes

Every day I am confronted by friends, acquaintances and those recommended to seek Me out with questions regarding a person (or people) that they feel may be perpetrating a scam against them. I don't mean the common E-Mail scams (such as "Viagra Cheep" or "Lose 40 pounds by Summer") but the much more insidious scam involving the creation of one or more fake personalities.

The key difference between S&M and ABUSE

Consent = Is an agreed approval of what is done and/or proposed by another. Abuse = to use so as to injure or damage: MALTREAT Abuse is not negotiated Abuse is an out of control environment Abuse does not have safe words An abuser does not give a damn about the victim Abuse is always one sided Abuse is never negotiated.

I Never Called it Rape: Addressing Abuse in BDSM Communities - KinkAbuse.com


Thinking More Clearly About BDSM versus Abuse - Clarisse Thorn


What is the Difference Between BDSM and Abuse






WEB: www.sinfulandwicked.co.uk 
MOB: 07426 490 214 
TWITTER: @sinfulandwicked

A 'whoops' or not. Internet surfing and the badly placed advertising.

 Firstly, I ask you..... What do you see in the web snippet below???

OK.... This is what I see: 

WEB: www.sinfulandwicked.co.uk MOB: 07426 490 214 TWITTER: @sinfulandwicked

TRANS-DENYING FEMINISTS (AKA “TERFS”) – TRANSPHOBIC OR JUST PLAIN WRONG?

"I had generally avoided the “debate” over trans rights and transphobia, which is characterised by plenty of heat and little light, until I debated against Julie Bindel last year on pornography at the University of Essex. There had been calls to cancel the debate, based on Bindel’s alleged transphobia (despite the debate having nothing to do with the issue), and we were inevitably met by a shouty little group of students accusing Bindel of being a TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminist)."

Trans-Denying Feminists (aka "TERFs") - Transphobic or Just Plain Wrong? - Sex & Censorship





WEB: www.sinfulandwicked.co.uk MOB: 07426 490 214 TWITTER: @sinfulandwicked

A Field Guide to Procrastinators

This comic from twenty Pixels came out a couple of weeks ago, but I'm just now getting around to sharing it with you. But that's nothing compared to how long it took 20px to actually get around to drawing it! 

Which kind of procrastinator are you? And don't try to tell us you never put off 'til tomorrow what you should do today. I am at least half of these types

SOURCE

WEB: www.sinfulandwicked.co.uk MOB: 07426 490 214 TWITTER: @sinfulandwicked

Uganda: ‘Toxic laws’ cause surge in homophobic hate crimes

“Repression in Uganda is increasingly state sanctioned through the use of blatantly discriminatory legislation that erodes rights guaranteed in the country’s Constitution."

Uganda: 'Toxic laws' cause surge in homophobic hate crimes

WEB: www.sinfulandwicked.co.uk MOB: 07426 490 214 TWITTER: @sinfulandwicked

From India and Turkey to Oxford, we live in a perpetual state of war against women

On some days I don’t need to read the news. I know it already. It is basically a list of the women and girls who are the latest to be abused and killed. If it is nearer to us – a teenager murdered and dismembered – we are saddened, while consuming every detail. The dead girl’s face will watch us for a while. And just when it feels too much, her face will soon be replaced by another.

We fixate on individual loss as we feel our way for clues that might help us escape our already dark imaginings. And in the night we wonder where our children are, and who they are with, and what they are doing; we walk ourselves through scenarios in which somehow these awful things would not happen to our children. Or to us. Or to anyone we know. This is the collective secret of motherhood. Let it be someone else’s.

Now, though, we are at one of the recurring stages in the news cycle where, unless we switch off altogether, some things become impossible to ignore – although of course they have been ignored deliberately for a long time. The abuse of young girls? Now it is Oxford – nice Oxford, where in fact a quarter of children live below the poverty line. As with Rotherham and Rochdale, the stories of ongoing abuse and rape finally emerge. If this is all about Pakistani grooming gangs, indeed let’s investigate it fully. But such gangs can operate only in an environment in which the adults who come into contact with these girls do not appear to value them or see them as children. Even when they are turning up with their crotches soaked in blood they are seen to have consented to relationships with much older men, or memorably described as “unrapeable”. Consent only exists for the right class of women.

The right class of women are certainly not to be found in Yarl’s Wood, where asylum seekers are detained. As with the child-abuse stories, all those who work with refugees have been talking about the sexual harassment and self-harming that has been going on there for a long time. This is not a sudden revelation, but now the evidence is there: Serco, the private company running the centre, may have to answer some serious questions. The abuse is systemic.

After years of silence, Turkey’s women are going into battle against oppression  ~ Elif Shafak

In Turkey, women have been out on the streets because of a rising tide of sexual and domestic violence. Since Özgecan Aslan, a 20-year-old student, was murdered after an attempted rape and her burned body found by a riverbed, women have been vocal about the rolling back of their rights by the AK party, with many of its supporters saying that the murdered woman was to blame for seeking “sexual freedom”.

In India, politicians want to ban India’s Daughter, Leslee Udwin’s important documentary about the gang rape of Jyoti Singh. In this film, one sees the attitudes of the rapists and the defence lawyers. It is hard to say which are the most disgusting. Over and over, they state that basically she deserved it for being out with her boyfriend, and that if she had not fought back she might still be alive.

The response of the Indian political class at the time of the attack was appalling, many talking about “adventurous spirit” leading to inevitable rape. Singh was flown out for medical treatment in Singapore, so horrific were her internal injuries, and when she died there her body was brought back not to her village, but cremated at night to avoid more protests. Television at the time – I was there – was suddenly full of middle-class women from Delhi also saying they did not feel safe.

So sexual autonomy and freedom from violence remain an impossibility for most of the world’s women.

In this country, we move from one abuse story to another, not wanting to make the necessary connections. Rape is now recognised as a war crime. What isn’t recognised is that we live in a perpetual state of war. Here comes the obligatory qualifier: terrible things happen to men and boys too. Not all men and boys are terrible, but we operate in a system in which half of us live in fear. According to our level of privilege, we can mute that fear or we can insulate ourselves by focussing on ever-smaller issues. Thus we have feminism as a series of lifestyle choices: can I be a feminist and wear frills/join Isis/not like the new Madonna album?

Sure, that’s easier than trying to dismantle a system that operates very well for some, the world over. When David Cameron says he is going to do something about child abuse, one wonders how he will admit its scale, or admit that the lives of working-class girls are not important to him and, even if they were, that this is beyond the scope of his rudderless government. The make-believe election we are having will always be more of a priority for those who run things.

The war against women is waged routinely and globally. Equality of the most basic kind cannot exist when a woman’s life and her words are always worth less than a man’s. But in the darkness of the night, what haunts us are not broken systems but the faces of the broken girls. So, so many. All the time.

ORIGINAL SOURCE: GUARDIAN: Suzanne Moore


WEB: www.sinfulandwicked.co.uk MOB: 07426 490 214 TWITTER: @sinfulandwicked

Turkey’s first women’s daily aims to make women’s voices heard

Turkey’s first ever women’s daily newspaper continues to be published in the southern province of Mersin, where 20-year-old university student Özgecan Aslan was brutally murdered last month.

“Mersin Kadın Gazetesi,” (Mersin Women’s Daily) which only employees women staff, has been appearing for five years and aims to end violence against women and amplify their voices.

It recently published a special edition for March 8 International Women’s Day, printed on a purple background, using photographs of the killed Aslan and many other women who shared the same fate on its front page. Some 5,000 copies were printed and distributed free of charge.

Zeliha Akkuş, the daily’s grant holder and a retired teacher, said they do not cover topics that other newspapers use to catch women’s interest.

“We do not cover topics such as cellulitis, hair care, or how to chat up man. Rather, we cover violence against women and women’s rights stories,” said Akkuş.

She added that the daily’s op-eds are generally written by housewives writing about their daily life experiences.

“In their pieces, women write about their experiences as if they are chatting with their neighbors,” said Akkuş, adding that they often get positive reactions from men as well.

She also explained the meaning of the daily’s logo and the message it gives to readers.

“In the logo, we have a high-heeled shoe and a butterfly. The shoe means that we, women, are coming with our footsteps. The butterfly symbolizes a call that even though the life of women is short, they should participate in solidarity acts and events,” said Akkuş.

WEB: www.sinfulandwicked.co.uk MOB: 07426 490 214 TWITTER: @sinfulandwicked

‘Fifty Shades Explored’ – A Qualitative Study of How Female Readers of Sexually Explicit Material View ‘Dominant/Submissive’ Sex and Relationships

This study aimed to investigate how female readers of sexually explicit material view ‘dominant/submissive’ sex and relationships. This was achieved through a qualitative design, utilising open-ended questionnaires and grounded theory analysis. 

The results indicate several areas whereby exposure to Fifty Shades of Grey and its associated ‘phenomenon’ was perceived to have influenced attitudes on a personal and wider level- namely through a process of increasing knowledge, awareness, openness and acceptance accompanied by reducing stigma and, in some cases, influencing behaviour. These findings can be utilised to orientate further exploratory investigation of the influence of erotic literature on women’s attitudes.


ANDREW ROSS









WEB: www.sinfulandwicked.co.uk MOB: 07426 490 214 TWITTER: @sinfulandwicked