The Australian Sex Party is a party created to pressure mainstream politics in the name of greater sexual freedom and equality. An important role if a modern country such as Australia is to maintain the progressive society that I´m sure the vast majority of its citizens want. But not only are they doing the noble job of promoting same sex marriage, the abolition of stringent censorship laws, and championing less governmental intervention into adult lives, they are also helping to bring sex out of the shadows of society.
Critics may say that their name is merely designed to shock and gain publicity for a small political party, but, regardless of the reasons, why does the word SEX always provoke such a negative reaction? I do it, you do it, and I´m sure we both enjoy it. Surely such a collective voicing and acknowledgement of this fact is the logical step for a progressive, 21st century society to take in order to be able to discuss sex in an open and mature manner. The problem is that some still hide sex away as an embarassing – even shameful – act, whereas others (mainstream porn, advertising etc) promote it in a highly immature or distorted way.
I wholeheartedly support the work of this party, especially when watching the live debate between Fiona Patten (leader of the Australian Sex Party) and Wendy Francis (Family First Party candidate for Queensland) who´s party still sings that old recognisable tune of outdated, repressive, Gospel-influenced conservatism.
No points for guessing which woman speaks calmly and intelligently, and which only manages to blurt out a beligerant discourse based on paranoia, elitism and prejudice. Why are there people that still believe that the best way to educate is through re-inforcing ignorance? Can´t they see the contradictory nature of these words!? The best way to “protect children” (to use their favorite phrase) is not to cover their eyes and ears at every opportunity!
Watching the debate I was dumbstruck by Wendy Francis´ comment that Australian marriage laws couldn´t possibly be changed because – get this – they had ¨been around forever¨. How can she expect to have even been conducting that debate if we didn’t live in a society where laws change to meet social change? Furthermore, she wouldn´t even be a political candidate if women were not continually fighting for greater social equality and she certainly wouldn´t be voting in the upcoming Australian elections if women hadn´t have fought for and won the right to vote. Hell, she wouldn´t even be talking about politics if society never changed just because certain discriminatory laws and perceptions had “been around forever”.