Posts Tagged ‘Sex’

It was all worth It, says shamed Flowers

In Satire on November 25, 2013 at 5:17 PM

Reverend Paul Flowers has sensationally hit back at critics of his controversial chairmanship of the Co-op Bank.

The Methodist minister – dubbed by some “the Crystal Methodist” – has been released on bail following arrest in Merseyside in connection with a “drugs supply investigation”, and will face an independent inquiry into events at the Co-op Bank, from where he has been suspended, along with from the Labour Party.

This is in addition to investigation Bradford Council is carrying out over his resignation as Labour Councillor amid “inappropriate but not illegal” content being found on his work computer.

All this has created a storm in the press, with allegations of political cronyism and hedonistic excess flying.

But, in a major twist to events, Rev Flowers, 63, has said it was all, kind of, worth it.

“OK, I probably shouldn’t have done all those drugs and all those rent boys and charge all those expenses – but, in my defence, I did have a fuck load of fun,” he admitted.

“That’s what all these papers are forgetting. Yes, I spunked a load of money up the wall…and more! Oi oi! But at least hardly any of it was your money.

“Firstly, it wasn’t billions like in the big financial crash; it was only millions. That’s like pocket change in the City.

“And let’s face it the only people who invest in the Co-op anyway are the Labour Party – who are getting a fucking good deal, let me tell you, and are coming in for a lot of stick now – and Guardian readers, who are well off enough not to miss a few bob.

“If they were hard up, they wouldn’t invest their money in a bank fannying around trying to be ‘responsible’ just as a salve their bourgeois conscience, would they?!”

“The Mail, who have of course been hounding me, and its readers won’t have lost any money (and anyway its hardly short of dosh with all their online celebrity tosh). In fact they’ve probably done quite well out of making me public enemy number one.

“Pretty much the perfect story for them, isn’t it? Church scandal, dodgy bankers, drugs, prostitution, sordid homosexual sex and Labour-bashing. I tick all the boxes.”

“They and their readers profess to hate all these, yet repeatedly buy the papers to read about it all, like moths to a light. Thinking about it, that’s kind of moral masochism, which is probably more fucked up than me!”

Rev Flowers also went on to the say that, had the rent-boy well under half his age instead been a glamourous twenty-something female escort, he would be seen, by many, as a bit of hero.

Imagining what a typical reaction to this would be, he joked: “aaahh, that sly fucker, acting all godly while nobbing some hot little piece half his age on the side…. LAAAAD.”

“Let’s face it, what I did sexually pales in comparison to some of the shit the Church has done, which everyone knows about now and is kind of inured to. And look at pop music these days – a barely legal girl former Disney star, miming masturbating herself and swinging about naked on wrecking ball for ten-year-olds to see!

“So I don’t think my…loose morals, you could say – which were legal, I hasten to add – were really the issue. I think it was more the gayness of it all.

“I appreciate I’m not in the best position to preach at the moment, but that worries me to be honest. We have gay marriage now; we should also have equality of opportunity for depraved, duplicitous crack-fuelled prozzie orgies!”

When we suggested to him, that much of the outrage, instead, stemmed from espousing virtue as part of the Church and practising what many would see as hypocritical vice outside it, the Reverend was sanguine.

“Yeeehhh…..well….Methodism could do with being sexed up a bit, couldn’t it? All that helping the helpless is nice, but interminably dull and worthy,” he said.

“And Labour could do with it as well to be honest…bunch of private school kids bleating about energy bills from their Hampstead Heath mansions.

“Ed Miliband wants to reform the whole economic system, but he’s hardly Che Guevara, is he? He’s more Wallace out of Wallace & Gromit.”

Cameron’s porn laws counter-productive, think-tank claims

In Satire on July 24, 2013 at 1:38 PM

Men could actually be driven to more disturbing sexual images following David Cameron’s clampdown on internet pornography, a leading think-tank has claimed.


The Prime Minister’s measure of compelling internet service providers to make pornography opt-in is designed to limit the effects of the extremes of pornography.

But the Institute of Thinking and Researching Stuff has claimed it could actually increase sexual extremism, as people develop out-of-the-ordinary sexual predilections in searching for alternatives to censored conventional pornography.



The Institute’s Dave Wheeler said: “Remember those times where you go on some natures-y holiday or where your internet goes down for a week or so, and you’re forced to… improvise for your pleasure, let’s say – this is what these new porn laws will be like for many people.



“And it won’t just be the standard knocking one off to the lingerie section of the Argos catalogue either. Our research shows that people will graduate onto cookery shows, property shows, even newsreaders – hoping they don’t cut to images of Syria or something half-way through.



“No part of normal adult life will be left untouched – literally.



I’m telling you, society needs ‘hot horny milfs getting anally annihilated’. They’re a great safety valve for society’.



Bloke A agreed, and defended pornography on unusual grounds – feminism. (He deigned to give his name, partly due to embarrassment, partly thinking being a man was sufficient qualification to speak on the subject).

He said: “All these feminists want us to look at women not just as sex objects but for their talent and intelligence and stuff, right?



“But us men think about sex every three seconds, isn’t it? So how is it possible to look at women in a nice, non-sexual way without porn?!



“If we can’t actually see Busty Kendras as naughty young doctors, we’re going to start visualising all doctors – and teachers, and scientists, and high-powered executives – like that. And all the time – not just most of the time, like now.



“We can’t help it. It’s evolution…I think.



“Would feminists want that situation?! I don’t think so…”

Keep the state out of our love lives

In Opinion on February 26, 2013 at 9:28 PM

Onanists beware! The Icelandic government is trying to push through legislation that will make porn illegal – and in doing so, I imagine, create an awful dilemma for that great bastion of morality, the Daily Mail (the Mary Whitehouse in it disapproving of the porn, but its strident anti-nanny state stance scornful of the government inference). As the Observer reports, a nationwide consultation has found broad support for the measure from lawyers and police operating in the area of sexual violence and health and education professionals, according to the country’s interior minister Ögmundur Jónasson.

She also said: “We are a progressive liberal society when it comes to nudity, to sexual relations, so our approach is not anti-sex but anti-violence. This is about children and gender equality, not about limiting free speech.” To be sure, this is a well-meaning stance, but not an altogether consistent one. The stated motives behind are admirable, but, contrary to Jónasson’s claims, it is undeniably also restricting freedom (granted, not necessarily freedom of speech – not much of that in porn – but it’s a distinction without a difference). It’s the classic problem for liberalism – how far is one tolerant of ‘intolerance’. Nick Cohen summed up an equivalent problem – that of the problem of Bangladeshi integration into British society – brilliantly when he said liberal multiculturalism “contains the seeds of its own negation. It can either be liberal or multicultural but it can’t be both.” It seems the Western world faces a similarly paradoxical choice over porn – either ‘progressive’ through ‘illiberal’ means (censorship) or ‘anti-progressive’ through ‘liberal’ means (freedom of expression).

It’s a strange problem because in many similar cases of freedom of expression the cause is unarguably noble – not necessarily the case when the freedom fighters are, essentially, fighting for their right to jack off with ease. It’s certainly a significant step, not least for a country which prides itself on its liberal sensitivities. But those in favour of censorship – for, despite some claims, that’s what it is – do have some strong arguments on their side, including evidence suggesting correlations between porn and porn addiction and rises in violence and gender inequality. And the move does seem to have wide support in Iceland. But the measures do somewhat suggest that porn is some outside malevolent force, imparting evil on unwitting citizens. This is, of course, rubbish. People make a free choice to watch porn, and it can actually support healthy sexual relationships, by cordoning off more extreme aspects of sex into the realms of (sort of) unreality, just like violence in computer games. And the internet didn’t invent porn – think of all the stories of curious pre-teens raiding their dad’s cupboards and finding stashes in the woods. So, chances are, just like pirated movies and illegal sport streaming, those who want to look at horny MILFs that much will always find a way, such is the labyrinth nature of the internet.

What’s far more disturbing – if unlikely to be implemented – is the Observer‘s accompanyingeditorial, which advocates the teaching of relationships in schools. It argues “it is travesty that the mechanics of sex are a compulsory part of the school curriculum, while an understanding of relationships, a vital part of emotional and physical wellbeing, is not”. Superficially at least, it’s well-intended. But when examined it just dissolves into a heap of left-wing nanny-state rubbish, which should only serve to make us grateful that the state generally stays the hell away from our private lives – something that should be expected but looks positively praiseworthy compared to the authoritarian nature of many governments and religions (often one and the same thing of course).

The truth is relationships and sex are (literally) f***ing minefields. Any attempt for the state to intrude further into non-criminal in this would inevitably draw widespread criticism from those of all political persuasions. Just look at how Michael Gove’s proposed changes to the history curriculum are being praised by the right and condemned by the left. Personally, it’s to the great credit of UK education that it gets attacked by both the right and the left, but – having previously been a teacher (albeit a substandard trainee) – having to negotiate various political pitfalls just add to an already onerous workload.

So, any kind of ‘relationship education’ would either be somewhat radical and incur the wrath of parents, protective and angry (quite reasonably too), over the state telling their kids how to live their lives; or, more probably, it would be meaningless, cover-all-bases mush. For instance, what would teachers be supposed to say about the practices of arranged marriages and stay-at-home women, both prevalent in many Asian communities? It also puts teachers in very tricky water with personal relationships with pupils (if individual kids even give a damn what their teachers think, that is).

The reason kids are taught about the mechanics of sex and not relationships is that the former is governed by universal fact; the latter is most certainly not. What works for one, will definitively not for another. Much better, surely, for people to learn about this in the outside world, from experience, rather than textbooks or intentionally sterile words from teachers.