Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

(Unintentionally) revealing Guardian article on Paris Lees’ Tory lust

54 replies

hipsterfun · 02/02/2018 10:01

Charm, style, tousled hair: is it any surprise we lust after Tories?

Pick of the comments (not mine):

Not only that, but Paris Lees, with her characteristic confessional incontinence (are there pads for that?) encased by an apparently bulletproof certainty in her endlessly fascinating existence, could have dispensed with the pretence implied in the article that her political convictions run counter to those of the men over whose reactionary fervour she seems so much to lust. I can understand the appeal of a deception that interpolates antagonisms into relations where none actually exist; it generates a delicious frisson of perversity amidst entirely conventional sexual encounters. But, on the whole, I think I'd prefer to be frank.

This is, after all, an author who expressed her support for the legalisation of prostitution in terms that could be summarised as, "this is the world we live in, there's always been the sale of sex, women can choose, therefore they should be allowed to do what they want" (along with pimps, brothel managers and trafficking gangs, presumably). This kind of middlebrow casuistry should be familiar since it forms a large part of liberal discourse in general, which never tires of mistaking a description of things with irrefutable insight into their origins and operations. Likewise the charming capitalist totem that sees that all's well in the world as long as individuals are at liberty to choose freely their own commodification, exploitation and violation. We know they are free to choose this because they are also free to choose the alternatives, which might include homelessness and starvation.

And if that piece of capitalist apologetics sounds familiar, it might be because it is the exact same argument advanced by Vox's Matt Yglesias following the Bangladeshi sweatshop factory collapse that killed over 1000 workers. The one where he wrote that such catastrophes shouldn't generate too much anger or dismay, since the crushed workers freely chose to take jobs in a dangerously built sweatshop knowing that they would be compensated financially for the greater risk to their health. This, Yglesias purred, constituted the "collective calculus" according to which poorer nations resisted regulations or workers rights in order to attain an edge over those they compete against for the right to be exploited the most by vampiric Western manufacturers.

There is of course nothing progressive about extreme narcissism and individualism, which almost certainly explains why Lees found herself repeatedly drawn to right-wing trouser snakes. The fleshpots of the Western world are filled with men who indulge their vices at night to relax from trampling on workers during the day. But then, I suppose, an article right-wing postmodern identitarian hacks fucking neoliberal men wouldn't allow for quite the same level of self-regard, which aside from delight at the objectifying male gaze appears to be the generative force behind most of Lees' work.

OP posts:
Collidascope · 02/02/2018 10:07

I've not read the article yet, but that comment is wonderful.

TallulahWaitingInTheRain · 02/02/2018 10:24

The comment is a lot more interesting and thought-provoking than the original article. Who cares who Paris Lees fancies ffs?

terryleather · 02/02/2018 10:28

Grin Woohoo someone's got PL's number alright...

HelenDenver · 02/02/2018 10:28

"Who cares who Paris Lees fancies ffs?"

Well, quite.

hackmum · 02/02/2018 10:28

Fantastic comment, but why on earth does the Guardian continue to give this self-obsessed idiot so much space?

SisterNotCis · 02/02/2018 10:33

Stunned that little insight into the lust of PL constitutes a mid-week article in the Guardian. Feeling nostalgic for when broadsheets contained substantive news.

SisterNotCis · 02/02/2018 10:34

Cross-post.

terryleather · 02/02/2018 10:35

PL is everything that The Guardian loves - a TIM with pro p0rn, pro sex work credentials doing feminism in the approved leftist dudebro way.

What's not to love?

TallulahWaitingInTheRain · 02/02/2018 10:37

Seriously think a year 10 media project would include more properly researched news and less navel-gazing drivel than our lefty broadsheets are currently offering

UpstartCrow · 02/02/2018 10:37

That comment is the standard of journalism I want to read.

Even people who don't agree with the content must be able to compare and contrast how well written it is.

DickTERFin · 02/02/2018 11:03

That article just read as "Look, look, look all the boys want to shag/marry me, even the posh bigot boy".

The whole premise of "hot tory boys" is a ruse for a self indulgent validating fapp session. Boring.

scalliondays · 02/02/2018 11:16

This was a good comment on PL revealing her oh so interesting secret:

"Twitter was aghast when I revealed my truth."
It probably fancied a change from being in meltdown.

SlowlyShrinking · 02/02/2018 11:23

Does PL get paid for this stuff? Confused

SlowlyShrinking · 02/02/2018 11:27

Definitely another case of a mediocre man dressing up as a woman and getting opportunities he wouldn’t otherwise have got. Freelance journalist? Why??

SameTerfDifferentUserName · 02/02/2018 11:31

Why are the Guardian not embarrassed that people are writing comments that are better than their shitty articles?

AngryAttackKittens · 02/02/2018 11:32

We need a disgusted smiley for things like Paris wanking on about who he wants to shag.

Also, "we"? Speak for yourself, love.

AngryAttackKittens · 02/02/2018 11:33

Second best comment.

"I think I'd take this article more seriously if it hadn't been accompanied by a picture of Boris Johnson - a man who looks like a cooked ham in a Worzel Gummidge wig."

Faceicle · 02/02/2018 11:40

I can't work out the Guardian's agenda. Are they just pathetically dudebro, or has their begging for money led them to some sinister big pharma pockets?

boatyardblues · 02/02/2018 11:41

I opened the Guardian homepage today to see what’s going on in the world & saw the article about a small number of Rohinga transwomen being stripped and humiliated near the top of the page. It made me furious - where is the high profile coverage of the thousands of Rohinga women and children (girls and boys) who have been gang raped, some to the point of serious injury, by Burmese soldiers? It seems that violence against women, girls and boy children is entirely unexceptional. I’ve finally #PeakGuardian-ed. If you’d told me any time in the last 30 years I’d have switched to the Times I would have laughed in your face, but here I am. Sad

HomeTerf · 02/02/2018 11:42

DickTERFin that was what I took away from the article. Paris wants us to picture her sighing over her lady-problems, while suitors line up at the door of her boudoir. Once she finished writing it she possibly wandered over to the mirror to sing a couple of verses of 'I feel pretty'.

It's wistful fan fiction, not journalism.

SameTerfDifferentUserName · 02/02/2018 11:51

I like the hashtag #peakguardian Times reader here too. I can only conclude that the guardian editorial team has suffered a collective psychotic break! It is utterly ridiculous.

hackmum · 02/02/2018 12:01

What's happened to the Guardian is that a few years ago it decided to create a website and put all its content on it for free. Not only that, it decided to put lots of additional free content on the site that wasn't in the print edition. The thinking was, I imagine, that somehow they would work out a way of monetising it, probably through advertising.

It hasn't worked out that way. Economically, it's been disastrous, mostly because almost all online advertising now goes to Google and Facebook. Far fewer people buy the print edition - why would they, when they can read everything online?

Knowing how much people like to read opinion, part of their strategy has been to have a constant stream of opinion pieces on their website that don't go in the print edition. They usually expect a fast turnaround on these pieces and don't pay very much for them (I believe the going rate is about £100). So if they want to bring people to the site, they need to publish pieces that people will click on, and the truth is that the sorts of opinion pieces people click on tend to be either fluffy or controversial or both. You can see how Paris Lees fits nicely into that agenda.

The Guardian does still publish quite a lot of good journalism, including some strong investigative pieces. It just tends to be well hidden because they're giving priority to the clickbait.

Ereshkigal · 02/02/2018 12:04

I think he's trolling his own acolytes here.

SameTerfDifferentUserName · 02/02/2018 12:05

Thanks for the analysis hackman That's really interesting. I refuse to click on guardian links any more. I consider it lower than the mail.

I'm of an age that I've never purchased a newspaper I've always gone online for my news.

Recently because of this absolute farce I've taken to buying print news, mostly the Times.

Mrsmiguelcervantes · 02/02/2018 12:09

How amusing to think that no Tory boy unless gay would touch Paris and his franken vagina with a barge pole.

Swipe left for the next trending thread