The author some time ago wrote about how Theresa May’s psychology seemed like a microcosm of Britain’s collective neuroses. As a
person, her inner thinking is defined by her background. The manner of how she
ruled the both the Home Office as Home Secretary and has run the country as
Prime Minister can be explained by the self-evident moral rigidity of her
upbringing: the only child of a priest, growing up in the whiter-than-white
heart of traditional “Middle England”.
There is more than a whiff of poisonously-regressive, moralistic
sanctimony to the manner of both May’s idea of society and the social agenda that her
government has pursued. It is as though under her watch, she wants to actively encourage the authoritarian moralizing that typified the Victorian era, but implemented with 21st century technology.
Under May’s watch, Britain loses its identity as a
progressive Western society, and slides into the authoritarian realm, where
people’s private actions are policed, even when what they are doing is entirely
legal. These are not even people suspected of being criminals or conspiring in
criminal behavior; they are simply doing something that is entirely natural as
human beings. This is done in the name of “protecting children”; as all
authoritarian actions are done in someone else’s name.
In this way, she is taking the idea of “nudging”public behaviour that was introduced under Cameron’s administration, and
applying her own deeply unsubtle, authoritarian methodology: from coaxing
people’s inclinations to hammering them into their head.
The “Porn Block” is merely the logical conclusion to May’s pursuit of a regressive moral agenda that both stigmatizes the private realities of modern life, and removes the right to privacy for those interested in most online sexual content. The consumption of pornography becomes an
implicit “thoughtcrime”: while it is “legal”, those who consume it are made to
feel stigmatized, with all their online private inclinations stored and
recorded. How convenient. The infamous phrase that “people who have done
nothing wrong have nothing to fear” is the exact opposite of the intention of
this policy: they have everything to fear.
Of course, the real intention is as “red meat” to the
Conservative Party’s geriatric grassroots. Of those people, few of them see the
internet as anything else than a corrupting and dangerous influence. Of course,
it can be this, but that is the same any form of media.
Then there are the practicalities behind it, which
explain how the “Porn Block” is such an utterly stupid idea at various levels.
Apart from all the security dangers it poses to users at recording vast
quantities of personal data and sexual interests, it is easy to circumvent the
age barriers using VPN software in any case, making it largely ineffective to
any savvy (underage) internet user. And to those who can’t get around the age
block, then the “dark web” will be another unregulated avenue for them to
explore. In the same way that banning soft drugs simply means that it sends
users to the same dealers of illegal harder drugs (and thus being a
counter-productive government act), the “Porn Block” will simply entice more
teenagers to the “dark web”, where the most extreme content possible can also
be found. So how about that for protecting children from porn?
The fact that this policy is so ineffective,
counter-productive and authoritarian and that is also has occurred under the
watch of Theresa May cannot be mere coincidence. Apart from being a national
leader who is so utterly useless at almost everything she deals with, she then
has to distract her ineptitude with authoritarian policies that can only appeal
to her party base. Even if the policy is disastrous on so many levels, the fact
that her party base would probably love it supersedes all other concerns. This
was true of the “hostile environment”, welfare reform, and “austerity”, and is
also true of the “Porn Block”.
Another social consequence of the “Porn Block” is that
is amplifies the moral gulf between the rulers and the ruled. 21st
century Britain is a "liberal" country, but this is a policy that does not belong
in a liberal country. It is a policy that doesn’t even belong in the West at
all. But Britain’s ruling elite are a class apart from those below them whose taxes pay for the moralizing of their rulers. The rulers don’t care about the
“Porn Block” in practical terms, because they know how to circumvent it already.
Many of them already do this in how they “manage” their tax affairs. In this
way, the “Porn Block” is simply more evidence of the contempt that the rulers
have for the private lives of the ruled. As far as the rulers are concerned,
the ruled don’t deserve one; the “Porn Block” is simply confirmation of this.
No sex (education), please – we’re British
The “Porn Block”, as the government seems proud to point
out, makes Britain a pioneer in online
security. As mentioned already before, the “security” aspect is both dangerous
and pathetically-easy to circumvent. So all this proves, in the same manner as
Brexit, is how hopelessly how out-of-depth and painfully lacking in self-awareness Britain’s government looks to the rest of the world. If the “Porn Block” makes
Britain’s government a pioneer, it is only a pioneer in embarrassing
ineptitude, under the guise of moral authoritarianism. It makes Britain’s
government look like a slapstick version of the “morality police”.
In any case, these actions only underline how abysmal
Britain’s sexual education is compared to most other developed nations, and how
the government’s first instinct is to prevent people from finding things out or
(heaven forbid) enjoying themselves in a way that their rulers find somehow
offensive or socially dangerous. British sex education is almost an oxymoron,
as governments (especially Conservative ones) are so constrained by their own
sexual insecurities they are horrified at the idea of people having an
“education” in sex. They simply cannot countenance seriously talking about it.
The alternative to sex education is the situation
Britain has had for decades: among the highest rates for teenage pregnancy in
the Western world. Government policy that engenders sexual ignorance in society
does not reduce the desire for sex; indeed, decades of evidence have shown it
produces the exact opposite effect.
One glaringly obvious reason that teenagers watch porn
is that – apart from entirely natural hormonal reasons – because they know so
little about sex from their schooling or their parents, online pornography
becomes the only “resource” they can access to discover more about it.
Therefore the most obvious reason that teenagers have such questionable
morality about sex is because, lacking any proper guidance from responsible
adults, they get their “sex education” from porn. The end result of “porn”
being their primary sexual resource, are (male) teenagers with highly
questionable ideas of consent, among many other issues of sexual realism.
But is that really a regression that Britain should be making in
the 21st century – back to a time decades ago when pornography was a
realm that only “perverts” inhabited? It is telling how pervasive that outdated
thinking still seems to be in the socially-regressive mind of Theresa May.
In this way, Britain under Theresa May has become, in
regards to sex, one step closer to the moral universe of puritanical absolutism
with modern technology: a moral plane that is much closer to the contemporary Muslim
regimes of the Middle East and Asia, for example; or to use a fictitious
parallel, the logical conclusion of this path is the descent some kind of twisted British version of Gilead.
Not so much “Under His Eye”, but “Under Theresa’s
Eye”.
No comments:
Post a Comment