Dunno about you, but a political name like "The Australian Sex Party" conjures up an image of a buncha bacchanalian blokes 'n' babes who just wanna shag up a storm. At first, er, blush it implies strong support for the passionate pursuit of (hedonistic) happiness free from state interference, right?
But when you look into what they're about it doesn't really seem to be the case. Since they've been a minor but nonetheless noticeable political force in this country they have presented a far more doctrinaire image than their name implies. They're pretty PC, actually.
For example, they are big time supporters of same sex marriage. While this is hardly a traditional position there's no denying that the campaign to have it made law has been highly dogmatic and even censorious. Its proponents keep saying how much popular support there is for "marriage equality" yet they don't want the punters to have their say in a plebiscite. These authoritarians want the change to be made by pollies instead -- for the people's own good of course.
You'd think that a truly socially libertarian party would be a bit reluctant to sign up to this suss "top down approach" wouldn't you? (Also, since when did marriage have anything to do with sex? Two things are nearly mutually exclusive! Just kidding.)
Sure, they are for big time recreational drug use legalization, which is pretty rebellious, dude. But their current crusade is primarily focused on the issue of medicinal marijuana. And in this, it looks like they are even trying to out-do the Greens.
Even the Greens are back-pedalling. At the end of March, 2016, the Greens in Victoria voted to not allow medical cannabis to be available to sick and suffering adults. That's right. They voted only to allow medicinal cannabis to be available to children with specific forms of epilepsy. Nothing else.
It's not just this issue that puts them in the same category with those doctrinaire inner city latte slurpers. This particular passage in an article about the ASP joining forces with the Hemp Party sums them up nicely:
The Sex Party occupies a vacuum left by mainstream party inaction on legal reforms with not insignificant popular support, from euthanasia to abortion, marriage equality, legal aid access and prison reform, humane processing of asylum seekers and medical and recreational cannabis.
All of which may sound familiar to Greens supporters (not that kind of green).
Where the Greens and the Sex party essentially differ, according to Patten, is in tax matters, a function of the latter’s roots in essentially being a small business lobby group. It is also displeased with the Greens’ role in teaming with the Liberals to change Senate voting rules in a manner likely to see the drying up of preference swaps that previously propelled micro-party candidates into office. It is likely to withhold its preferences from the Greens in various theatres, which could be a boon to Labor.
Given the highly PC niche they are carving out it seems odd that they would even have the word "sex" in the title, dunnit?
Looks to me like it's there for promotional purposes more than anything else. And not surprisingly it has been effective. Sex sells, after all ... Still, it does strike me as more than a tad ingenuous.