Sex Gawker Bound to Disagree
posted by February 14 at 9:27 AM
onGawker doesn’t think there was anything wrong with “naming and shaming” the kinky Canadian—a retired college prof—whose bondage scene at New York’s Nutcracker Suite went horribly, horribly wrong. Gawker:
The sex writers, Emily Farris at Nerve and Dan Savage at every alternative weekly ever printed [the item I wrote about it is here], plus Jeff Bercovici at Portfolio, want the professor’s identity protected. They wonder about the news value in printing his name. They wonder why he’s being “shamed. ” What problem does the New York Post have with kinky sex?None, from the looks of things…. There’s nothing wrong with going for some kinky sex in a dungeon. There are surely many, many people who do so without the knowledge of their spouse. But someone who specifically asks and pays for a dangerous situation, because that’s what he gets off on, has no reasonable expectation of privacy if an accident should happen and he should lapse into a coma. The cops will be called. The wife will find out. A reporter will show up at the hospital.
The bondage coma story, which is a staggeringly awesome story by the way, should be covered like any other story precisely because the sex fetish is not shameful, and because the likes of Nerve and Dan Savage surely don’t want companies like News Corp. making judgement calls on what is shameful.
Running with the identity of the of the kinky prof was salacious and mean-spirited… just like The Post, I realize. (And just like my column often is.) And perhaps the kinky prof should have realized that, should something go wrong with his edgy sex scene in a commercial dungeon, his name could wind up in the papers, and his family could find out. What bothered me about the Post’s treatment of this story, however, was not the wallowing in all the kinky, salacious details (just like my column), but the Post’s declaration of war on kinky people—as if there aren’t kinky people that read the Post, write for the Post, run the post, and own the Post.
Here’s that infamous quote again: “The Post will happily name every adult caught in a dog collar.” Okay, fine. But what are the odds, you suppose, that among the thousands of people that work at the Post, there’s at least one—maybe a few dozen, maybe a hundred or two—who have worn dog collars outside of an amateur production of You’re a Good Man, Charlie Brown? Staggeringly high, I should think. (And if anyone has any pictures, I’d love to see ‘em.) And if being named & shamed is good enough for a college prof that nearly asphyxiate in commercial dungeons, it’s good enough for News Corps execs that profit from their public humiliation.
And you can argue that a sex fetish isn’t or shouldn’t be shameful (like I do in my column), but you can’t argue that the Post’s stories on this college prof attempted to make sex fetishes look shameful, and that the Post shamed this poor, desperate, still-disoriented-from-three-days-in-a-coma kinkster into disavowing his kinks. The asswipes at the Post shouldn’t be able to write pieces shaming people for their kinks, and threaten to do the same to anyone else caught being kinky in public, and then see people who believe there’s shameful about kinks come to their defense.
And finally…
Black leather, inter-generational sex, possible rice queen—should Mr. Murdoch, sitting in his glass house, really be throwing stones at other kinky men past retirement age?
Comments
Okay, I don't know what "rice queen" means, but it sounds racist. Have a care, eh?
From Wiki:
Surely there must be at least ONE alt-weekly somewhere out there that doesn't run your column . . . I'm just having a hard time thinking of one.
Surely you of all people understand the concept of the combative newspaper dude who likes to stir shit up.
Murdoch and the Post don't give a shit if they step on anybody's toes, including their own staff. They're trying to sell newspapers. If they PROMISED to out a different secret kinkster every day, their circulation would soar, and they'd be happy as pigs in shit. It's what they do.
I do. That's why I'm stirring back, Fnarf...
@2: So because it is a racist term, and you posted the Wikipedia link to prove it, that makes it okay then?
I meant to bold this part, Greg:
"The term is considered gay slang and depending on the context, may be considered derogatory..."
I don't think, in this context, that it's derogatory.
So you take issue with Nick Denton and Gawker, yes?
Oops, sorry--no, you don't.
HIPAA.
you forgot troll-like in your list of Murdoch attributes...
I think only ultra PC Asians get too bent out of shape about "rice queen". I've had Asian friends use the term themselves, as well as "taxi cab" applied to slutty, Asian women...
There's some pretty skanky derogatory terms in the world. I'm not sure that "rice queen" ranks very high.
You're trying to increase circulation for the Post? Why?
So those of us in human collars, as opposed to ones made for dogs, are okay in the Post's eyes?
They will name anyone in a dog collar?
Why do they hate Red Bushies so?
(no, I'm not actually joking ...)
yeah I am sure that printing his name would protect him. And that the moon is made of cheese, and the president has a brain. God what a crock. Dan, I agree with you. For what thats worth
So because he has an Asian partner, that makes him a "rice queen" and therefore kinky? Because a white guy can't be with an Asian and not have a fetish? And you don't see how that is inherently racist and derogatory?
Uhh... no twee, its also because she looks about 30 years younger than him. And please read the offending sentence again: "POSSIBLE rice queen"
Anyway, surely they married because of his charming personality!
Looks like an ad for ED medicine. The Post and Rupe have no class. Unless you're bucking for a job with NewsCorp, you just accept that it's par for the course with them. It's just some cheap Aussie crap aimed at discrediting a Canadian (and given that no Canadian supports what gives Rupe a boner, there's an another axe that the Post can grind for its benevolent master).
The hypocrisy knows no bounds at the Post. Next week, they'll be running editorials urging the candidates not to use the war in Iraq to get themselves elected. It's a rag, just accept it and move on.
Shut the fuck up Greg.
What's wrong with Rupert Murdoch's face? It looks like his chin is trying to escape to the right while his head goes the other direction.
Rice queen is derogatory. Please, from now on, refer to white men that love Asian women as "Gook fuckers."
Carry on.
@19: Just as soon as I'm done with your mom.
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).