All about Eve

What is it with religion and sex?

Fear, perhaps? Fear in particular, of women...

All the 'big three', monotheistic, Abrahimic religions have misogynistic aspects; many of their leaders continue to preach anti-women and anti-sex messages to the faithful, as well as using political clout to attempt to influence the lives of non-believers as well.

Yet puritanism is growing, particularly in Islam. Where puritanism grows, people find ways for outlets, as an article in Der Spiegel shows. But as the writers illustrate, puritanism also produces results other than frustration.

The common thread is women and female sexuality. It needs to be repressed. Women are to blame for 'The Fall' – Eve tempted Adam with the apple (knowledge). You want to keep men obedient and faithful? Then keep them ignorant. And you know, it's not a man's fault if he can't resist the temptations of a woman – so she wears a veil or a burka to stop the man being tempted.

Not that such an idea is unique to Islam; after all, it's not that many years ago that, if a female rape victim was prepared to press chanrges and go to court, she'd be treated as the criminal – her sexual history (if any) would be scrutinised and blamed; the question of what she was wearing would be analysed to see if she provoked the assault.

Christianity, of course, likes its women to be a bit like the Madonna – although a dose of the whore helps, if only for the sake of maintaining (and increasing) the numbers of the faithful. Ideas of monogamy and marriage and anti-abortion and anti-contraception (some of these varying across the Chritsian sects) help to avoid the faithful woman's inner whore escaping too much.

To (slightly) paraphrase Bertrand Russell: "religion... has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world."

Or, as the Spiegel article points out, it's downright immature and unhealthy.

Blair's Catholic mafia outed at last

Well, it seems that Ruth Kelly has finally shown her true colours.

Who cares about her position as equalities minister, her spiked garter must have been getting particularly tight of late, as she’s now put the brake on further anti-discrimination legislation being implemented.

It appears that Kelly (plus her deputy, the religious Meg Munn, and her boss, the religious Tony Blair) want to allow discrimination – as long as it’s by religious groups, against gays, lesbians and bisexuals.

The legislation would stop religious bodies refusing services to anyone on the grounds of sexuality so, for instance, a religious hotel wouldn’t be able to turn away gay clientele; but Blair’s Catholic mafia are not only worried about that sort of thing, but also that it might mean issues such as ‘faith schools’ (current woolly euphemism for religious schools) not being allowed to block gays and lesbians using their premises on the grounds of sexuality, if they receive public funding.

It’s been said before, but what was going on when Kelly was handed the equalities post? A member of crackpot fringe sub-sect Opus Dei, which (together with the mainstream Catholic church) has extremely negative views on homosexuality, how can she possibly be fully committed to promoting and implementing legislation that’s aimed at ending discrimination against gays, lesbians and bisexuals?

Nietzsche would be rolling in his grave – or perhaps this is inevitable if we’ve ‘killed God’? With the middle religious ground cleared by the advance of secularism, does this mean that the extremists can fill that void?

One thing’s certain – if we think that the only religious nutters are Muslims, then we ignore a serious danger within. Of course, the current trend of making Muslims in general scapegoats for a whole host of problems is the perfect smokescreen to push through an increasingly religious-influenced agenda.

Fundamentalists of any variety, religious or political, are dangerous.

Huge progress has been made in recent years on sexuality equality. Let’s not allow the loons to hold back further progress.

Blogging for Backlash

Today is blogging for Backlash day.

The British government remains determined to push through its ridiculous and ill-concieved legislation, On possession of extreme pornography.

To be as brief as possible. The plan for this new came out of the case of Graham Coutts, who was convicted of the murder of Jane Longhurst. Coutts was apparently rather fond of 'violent' porn and this was blamed for his partner's death – apparently by strangulation. However, Coutts had a long history of breath play – witnesses in court testified to around 200 occasions on which he had safely indulged this interest – it certainly predated his viewing of 'violent' internet porn.

This last summer, senior judges suggested that the jury in the case should have been offered a manslaughter charge. In other words, they accepted the possibility that Coutt's defence – that it was a game that went wrong – was at least as possible as murder.

Last year, the government started its consultation process into the proposed new law, which would make it an offence to view porn for the first time. But the consultation was massively flawed. The initial document from the Home Office admitted that no evidence exists linking viewing any kind of porn with violence toward women and children, but still pushes forward, apparently in the name of 'protecting' women and children. Apparently, even if a woman consents to make an "extreme" porn movie, she needs protection.

There's nothing about men in the porn industry needing protection – which illustrates just how paternalistic this planned legislation is.

But there are many other problems. The Home Office hasn't defined what will constitute "extreme" porn. During the consultation, suggestions materialised that the Home Office may be considering basing its banned list on the list of subjects that the British Board of Film Classification deems too 'heavy' for 'R' rated films. This includes watersports and, of course, female ejaculation, since the BBFC doesn't believe that this exists and anything claiming to be female ejaculation must really be pissing.

Nobody has yet explained why watersports are so dreadful that scenes need censoring – but then logic has no place in any of this.

Of course, one of the other problems is what would happen if you accidentally opened or downloaded images that were banned, and the police came calling.

Then there's the privacy issue, which comes up because of the Human Rights Legislation.

Of course, it's all a good distraction from the almighty cock-up (so to speak) of Iraq.

Get informed, get involved and tell others.