Shopping with Paedophiles

A Sunderland story went national on Friday. The Sunderland Echo reported that a father who decided to photograph his own son sat on a ride while out shopping with his wife and son at the Bridges mall was stopped by security. The father described what happened:

"That's when the security guard came over and said I couldn't take the picture," said Kevin, 48.

"He said it was the centre's rules because I might be a paedophile.

"I said I was Ben's dad and told the guard he must be exaggerating about the problem.

"He started getting a bit stroppy and radioed his control room.

"I wasn't happy so I took a picture of him, so I could identify him if I wanted to make a complaint.

"When the security guard first came over Ben got a bit upset because he thought I was getting told off because he had got on the ride."

Read the full story here. At first glance, the story might appear just to be a political correctness/lack of common sense story. Of course, a parent should be able to photograph their child on a ride out shopping. That's a normal family experience. Let's change the story. Let's say the Sunderland Echo was a story that a paedophile known to Police was exposed as having regularly been taking photographs of children going about their business in the same shopping centre. How would the readers react? What would the editorial say? We would, I imagine, collectively demand action - "where was security? Why didn't the Police get involved?". So there we are, a shopping centre management and security team that are damned whatever they do.

Our attitudes to paedophilia remain at best confused. If we want to stop these 'lapses in common sense', we need to recognise that somewhere, sometime there is a chance a paedophile might take a photograph of your child for their own gratification. The photograph at the centre of this storm has featured in almost every news report describing the incident. If someone found some sort of satisfaction looking at this image, they now quite easily do so online. Frankly, as we upload more and more of our photographs to photo sites and social network sites such as Facebook and Twitter, people don't need to loiter around in a shopping centre - we're taking the photos for those people. Yet, at the same time, our schools don't include children's photos in their own school prospectuses. Social historians will surely look back at this time and conclude that we must be completely bonkers.

Public Sex, the Internet and the Media: Haven't We Been Here Before?

I do despair at times. Another cruising story has broken over the past few days and it follows a very familiar pattern. On Saturday, the Bournemouth Daily Echo reported a cruising story with the headline: 'Dorset Fury at Explicit Gay Sex Website'. This has in turn been picked up by the Pink Paper and the Pink News. Pink News adds a little more on the original story by writing:'There are no laws which specifically state that having sex in a public place is illegal but police may charge cruisers with "outraging public decency". This is usually reserved for persistent offenders or when activity has been viewed by members of the public.'

Let me put this in the most simple way. This is not true.

I continue to be amazed that people who should know better get the law in the area of public sex arse backwards. Take a look at section 71 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. It specifically makes sex in a 'public' toilet a criminal offence, and largely re-states an offence originally created in the Sexual Offences Act 1967 - the same legislation that 'legalised' homosexuality in England and Wales. Read the Act yourself:

S71. Sexual activity in a public lavatory

(1) A person commits an offence if—

(a) he is in a lavatory to which the public or a section of the public has or is permitted to have access, whether on payment or otherwise,

(b) he intentionally engages in an activity, and,

(c) the activity is sexual.

(2) For the purposes of this section, an activity is sexual if a reasonable person would, in all the circumstances but regardless of any person’s purpose, consider it to be sexual.

(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or both.

This is in addition to the common law which Pink News refers to. OK - moving on to this particular Bournemouth story; a 15 year old male was propositioned by another male in a car park toilet (thus - hello - covered by S.71 folks) and complained to his father, prompting the local paper in turn to 'expose' a series of locations revealed on a cruising website (like so many papers have before). This then led to a local councillor calling for the website to be closed. Jeez, where to begin. OK - I'm not going to defend someone propositioning kids in a public convenience but a number of questions seem pertinent - did the boy look like a 15 year old or did he look older?

The stories report that the guy propositioning the 15 year old asked if the teen was a member of the website the councillor is trying to shut down. Whilst it's possible someone would go in and say outright are you a member of x website', I find it unlikely. What actions did the 15 year old undertake when he entered the space? Did he say or do anything that might have left the other guy at the centre of this to believe the 15 year old was interested? The whole paedophile angle in the story seems from another age and one reader of the Bournemouth Daily Echo responded in a quite brilliant letter to the paper. So brilliant, I reproduce it at the end of this post.

Finally, if you want to read some articles that do discuss the law and public sex, take a look at a couple of my articles on the subject:

'Sexuality, public space and the criminal law: the cottaging phenomenon', Journal of Criminal Law (2008) 71(6) 506-519.

'The only gay in the village: Sexuality and the net', Information & Communications Technology Law, Vol. 15, No. 3, October 2006

Finally, I've got a book coming out on the subject, more info here. Think that's quite enough plugs! Here's the letter from an anonymous reader of the Bournemouth Daily Echo:

'I was absolutely sickened by your story about the gay sex website. Oh no – not about the gay sex, but about the hideous comments that you published from Cllr Smith.

Your editorial standards were appalling in printing her comments which are effectively linking homosexuality to paedophilia and which are possibly the most hurtful and disgusting words I have ever read – it’s 2010 for goodness’ sake!

Yes, Cllr Smith should have had her right to say what she thought, but why include the paedophilia line, the playground line, and emphasise young children?

What strikes me as an even bigger concern is that there is nothing to balance this story from Bournemouth’s pretty active gay community, who have worked for years to try and break down the stereotypes and hypocrisy.

Why print those comments? It doesn’t make sense and is just scaremongering.

Why would a gay man, looking for sex with another gay man, end up propositioning a child, or have sex near a child?

Yes, a small minority of gay men go cruising, that’s not news, especially in Bournemouth!

The majority of gay men do not and never would go cruising for sex.

Straight people have sex in public places too – much more regularly than gay men! You have failed to mention that.'

Resource Focus: Housmans

Usually when I write a resource focus post, it's to highlight a charity, video or website resource that I think is likely to be if interest/use to readers of this blog. Today, I'm going to point you to a slightly different resource but a no less important one. Books; or rather one bookseller: Housmans. As book shops go, this one has radical pedigree. The store originally opened up in Kings Cross, London back in 1945. They were radical then and remain so describing their mission as: 'Whilst acknowledging its roots in the peace movement - and, specifically, in the radical pacifist end of the movement - [we aim] to be a broad-based, non-sectarian shop, encouraging the dissemination of a wide range of progressive and alternative ideas. As the shop's founders recognised, opposing injustice and oppression and the degradation of our planet are prerequisites of a more peaceful society.'

All small booksellers are under threat. Borders hit many hard in the 1990s before itself going bust last year. Waterstones has become more about coffee and best sellers rather than books (the Manchester store continues to be a bit on exception but even that isn't what it was) and all the while, the little bookstores struggle to compete with the ready stock and prices of Amazon. Housmans is unusual, even among this small band of remaining small bookstores. It's radical mission means it continues to sell pamphlets and booklets (primarily reflecting a politics of the left) and important books. They are now taking on Amazon with an online store.

In the best traditions of Housmans, they are also taking an ethical focus, highlighting the work practices at Amazon. In a press release, co-manager, Nik Gorecki commented:“Many of our most politically conscious colleagues use Amazon, and when asked why, it’s because they know of no alternative. But now, wherever they live, people will be able to support independent and progressive book selling from the comfort of their own home. I think it’s essential that we are able to provide an alternative to help dent Amazon’s monopoly, it’s up to sympathetic book buyers to do the right thing, and buy their books elsewhere.”

I don't expect you all to give up shopping on Amazon. If I'm honest, I won't be giving up on Amazon either (sorry Housmans). I have bought quite a few second hand books through the Amazon marketplace recently - supporting many small booksellers around the country. Yet, we need booksellers like Housmans and that means spending money in their store. We need these temples of intellectual thought, debate and radicalism. So, take a look at their online store. They have a section on 'Gender Studies' which then gives options for sexuality, feminism, men's studies and discrimination - a great selection of books. If you want these stores to remain, then consider adding them to your buying mix. Even better, if you're travelling through Kings Cross, call in. I'll be paying a visit this weekend.

A Single Man and Gateway to the Soul

It's rare I go to the cinema. Don't get me wrong, the sound, the big screen, love it. On the other hand, the head in front of me, the rustling in sweet packets, the sipping of drinks, the chatter between folks all really really annoys me. Yes, I am boring like that. Anyway, following the BAFTA success of A Single Man I felt the need to take myself off to see it. Only trouble seems to be that the wonderful cinemas of the North East seem reluctant to show it. I know for those journalists and commentators largely based in a London metropolitan bubble this will seem odd, but here's the thing - worthy films about homos aren't everywhere. A Single Man is a worthy film (an Isherwood book) about homos. It's also brilliantly written, brilliantly cast and filmed/directed. But apparently North East cinemas don't get past the first bit. Then again, that's probably based on what they expect to be an audience reaction/demand and so it's all the more revealing that few are showing it. In the Tyne and Wear region, just one cinema, the small art house Tyneside Cinema in Newcastle is showing it. So off I trotted.

Well what a stonker of a film. First off this is a 'here and queer' film. The opening scene invovles a touching guy on guy kiss - and there are quite a few after, along with the sight of Nicholas Hoult's bum. For me, as a non-film expert, I was struck by two things - the use of colour throughout - lightening and darkening or becoming bland to convey emotions and secondly, the use of eyes throughout the film. Colin Firth is perfectly cast as the central character. Nicholas Hoult is similarly brilliantly cast as the tempting student. You have to believe in the attraction and you do with Hoult. They light him - especially his eyes - to reveal the most wonderfully blue eyes (see screen shot on the right). As I sat watching, I thought you could almost dive into them - a feeling that Firth's character was almost certainly having. As I sat watching, I was reminded of one of my favourite songs - 'Sometimes' by James which has the wonderful line: 'Sometimes, when I look deep in your eyes, I swear I can see your soul'. Many of us can think of those intimate moments with a lover and that irresistible gateway to the soul.

Hoult also possesses the most amazing lips. Go on, watch it and look at them. They beckon, they tempt. It's quite wonderful.

Similarly, Jon Kortajarena as the rent boy Carlos is just amazingly beautiful but also able to convey a smouldering sense of desire. On a basic level, these portrayals make Firth's performance all the more believable.

The most striking feature of this film is it's a powerful gay love story. When we see George (Firth) find out about the death of Jim, his lover, we are reminded about the denial and tension around sexuality that still exists today. It reminds us about the importance of partnership and marriage rights for those who want them. When we hear from a neighbours kid, that their father thinks George is gay and ought to be killed, we are again reminded of small town homophobia - not helped by small towns not even showing films such as this.

Love story it certainly is. Unashamedly gay love story it is also. Yet, the media coverage has not been to focus on the sexuality aspect. I can't yet decide whether that is a good thing or not. All I did know as I exited the building and into the cold air of Newcastle was that I didn't half fancy a drink and a packet of Lucky Strike cigarettes - subliminal advertising seemed bizarrely to have worked.

Check out the James song below.

Boring HIV?

Elizabeth Pisani has written an excellent piece in the Guardian today on the latest proposals around HIV. She's also written a wonderful book called 'The Wisdom of Whores' a couple of years back which I heartily recommend to everyone - a really engaging analysis of the HIV issue. For me, Pisani is an expert who speaks a lot of common sense, and seems to 'get' the reasons HIV rates continue to rise (and openly explains them). Whilst AIDS in her words, has 'virtually disappeared' in the UK, HIV rates continue to rise. She comments in the Guardian piece that:

'One reason for [...the rise in HIV infection rates] is that gay men use condoms less now than they did when HIV = Aids = a horrible death. Now, though, HIV = a pill every day. Boring, but not the end of the world, unless you're the taxpayer ­picking up the tab for it or the epidemiologist worrying that drug-resistant strains of HIV will reignite Aids.'

The the full article here. The first part of what she is saying is essentially the same argument I make, along with a wider queer analysis of HIV transmission and the broader barebacking phenomenon in an article due out later this year in The Journal of Criminal Law. Many guys prefer it 'raw', we may or may not get HIV and if we do, we don't die provided we take the meds, what's the big deal? Well the big deal is potentially costs to the taxpayer etc, not to mention various moral questions but lets at least be open and have an honest debate. The article is called 'Barebacking and the Cult of 'Violence': Queering the Criminal Law' and I've pasted in the abstract below. I'm expecting the article to annoy quite a few people but all I'll say is please wait for the final publication (should be June/July) and then let's debate.

This article seeks to revisit the law in relation to the sexual phenomenon of barebacking. Drawing upon queer theory, this article will seek to critically evaluate the development of the criminal law in relation to the practice of ‘unsafe’ sex by men with other men, known as barebacking, along with the broader casting of the judiciary as sexual custos mores. It will argue that the present heteronormative legal and cultural framework largely reflects a focus upon the ‘good gay’, de-sexed and constructed within a rights discourse, in contrast to Stychin’s ‘bad queer’, sexual and defiant of a narrow heteronormative rights agenda, and embracing ‘unsafe’ and ‘deviant’ sexual practices.

This article seeks to move the analysis of the criminal law on from the doctrinal debates that have dominated thus far, and onto a more theoretical exposition of the criminal law regarding barebacking as erotic play.

Netting a Mum and the Manmercial

The weekend papers had quite a few gender and sexuality stories (still need to read some) but one that caught my eye was about Mumsnet. This is the website that describes itself as 'by parents for parents' and it's increasingly been seen as a key player in the UK General election - giving access for politicos to a key demograph and a space that enables 'mums' to come together. It's probably be seen as sometimes a bit closer to Cameron's Tories (members get a 10% discount at Boden apparently) but as it is a collection of individuals it would be wrong to suggest the 'group' has a political leaning, rather it reflects the middle class nature of a group that log on and share info/ask for advice about being a mum (as opposed to Jeremy Kyle). Crucially, it is just about the Mum. What about Dads? That's the question that the Sunday Times asked this weekend and you can read what Matt Rudd found here.

From mums to Dad's and their hetero manliness. I've previously blogged on a recent Lynx advert and this morning I came across a US ad for 'Old Spice' (does anyone really still buy this?). It brightened up my Monday morning and made me laugh. Take a look and see what you think of this 'manmercial' below.

Gender and Sexuality in the News

Couple of great stories that I wanted to flag up with you all. First off, an interesting piece in the Guardian yesterday called 'A Change of Heart' (different title online) which asks what it's like to discover that you are married to someone who is gay. It's an interesting piece and can be read here.

Secondly, there was a surprisingly well informed and engaging piece in the Daily Mail yesterday which Jane and Andrea. Jane was until the start of this year, John, a well known journalist and Andrea is standing by Jane. When I heard Jane and Andrea were doing the piece I thought in the words of Yes Minister's Sir Humphrey Appleby, it was a 'courageous decision' but I'm pleased the piece has turned out well. Take a look here.

What happened to the globe?

Yes I did have a cool globe showing visitors on my blog until this morning when I tried to add something else and blogger had a total fit which meant I had to get rid of it. I'll try and put it back at a future date when blogger decides to behave again.

Libel Reform Campaign

This post is largely directed at those readers who are not my students but my students should also take a look at the issues (and then think about signing!). Second, apologies for going slightly off topic but given you are reading this you are probably someone interested in reading blogs, online journals and/or academic thought and might/should be interested in this campaign. The campaign is the Libel Reform Campaign and I hope you'll join me and consider signing their petition here. It will also generate an email to your local MP which I hope you'll also consider sending (don't forget to add your address at the top). The Libel Reform Campaign explain their case below:

	Freedom to criticise and question, in strong terms and without malice, is the cornerstone of argument and debate, whether in scholarly journals, on websites, in newspapers or elsewhere. Our current libel laws inhibit debate and stifle free expression. They discourage writers from tackling important subjects and thereby deny us the right to read about them. The law is so biased towards claimants and so hostile to writers that London has become known as the libel capital of the world. The rich and powerful bring cases to London on the flimsiest grounds (libel tourism), because they know that 90% of cases are won by claimants. Libel laws intended to protect individual reputation are being exploited to suppress fair comment and criticism. The cost of a libel trial is often in excess of £1 million and 140 times more expensive than libel cases in mainland Europe; publishers (and individual journalists, authors, academics, performers and blog-writers) cannot risk such extortionate costs, which means that they are forced to back down, withdraw and apologise for material they believe is true, fair and important to the public. The English PEN/Index on Censorship report has shown that there is an urgent need to amend the law to provide a stronger, wider and more accessible public interest defence. Sense About Science has shown that the threat of libel action leads to self-censorship in scientific and medical writing. We the undersigned, in England and beyond, urge politicians to support a bill for major reforms of the English libel laws now, in the interests of fairness, the public interest and free speech.

Is There a Place for Gay People in Conservatism and Conservative Politics?

'Is There a Place for Gay People in Conservatism and Conservative Politics?' is the name of an event taking place later today at the CATO Institute in Washington DC. The BBC Today programme picked up on the event and included an interview between Evan Davis (openly gay BBC presenter/journalist), Nick Herbert (openly gay member of the Conservative Shadow Cabinet) and Andrew Sullivan (openly gay leading journalist at centre-right newspaper The Sunday Times - the biggest UK Sunday newspaper). Wind the clock back 15 years and the mere of existence of such an interview would be headline news.

The interview was to discuss the DC event. The CATO Institute describes it's mission in the phrase 'liberty, free markets and peace', although if one applies the Simon Hoggart maxim of 'if the opposite sounds ridiculous you shouldn't say it', I'm not sure the description is as helpful as it might at first seem. The purpose of this event is described on their website and it seems to be from the starting point that David Cameron (Brit leader of the Conservative party for all those US readers who have never heard of 'our Dave') is some sort of political wizard, describing the event as:

'Under the leadership of David Cameron, Britain's Conservative Party has jettisoned much of its former opposition to gay rights. Cameron supported civil unions for gays and appointed a number of openly gay men to his shadow cabinet. Nick Herbert will explain the reasons for those changes and elaborate on the new Conservative social agenda. Will the United States follow the British example? Our distinguished panel will consider the future of gay people's participation in mainstream society and conservative politics on both sides of the Atlantic.'

The panel for the event consists of: Nick Herbert, MP, Shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Conservative Party, United Kingdom; Andrew Sullivan, The Daily Dish Blog, The Atlantic; and Maggie Gallagher, President, National Organization for Marriage.

Personally, I really don't think the next election is in the bag for the Conservatives (by any means) so I think in some respects this event may well be premature. It's been repeatedly shown that Tory party after 2010 election (win, lose or draw) is likely to be far more right wing than the one booted out in 1997. Members of LGBTory often comes across as startlingly right wing but they are openly gay, encouraging and supporting gay candidates and to be found playing out in gay bars and clubs up and down the country. Whilst, their earlier incarnation, TORCHE, was knocking about in the 1990s, it seemed to be no more than a fringe group consisting of a small band of activists. Sexuality becomes a minor issue, an issue of gloss rather than something that defines the person and given people have always voted on the basis of a broad range of issues - taxation, public services, transport, immigration etc, it has always surprised me that people have assumed you can't be gay and a Conservative.

In any case, what seems to happened is that the reforms of the last fifteen years have themselves been re-cast as conservative. Marriage is a Conservative/conservative ideal - notions family and stability. On sex issues - sex work/prostitution, 'violent' pornography and BDSM, I don't envisage there being any clear difference between the two main parties in terms of practical outcome. In the US, Perry/Prop 8 lawyer, Ted Olson has made the Conservative argument for gay marriage and so the trick is less about re-positioning the party, as it is re-positioning the issue. What will be interesting to see under a Conservative government (if it happens) will be how our notions of civil partnerships evolves as they become ingrained in our culture and the Tories adopt 'family' policies.

Listen to the BBC interview here.

The Legal Shadow of Buggery

Thanks to Tony for prodding me into blogging this story (it's always nice to know someone is actually reading the blog). Although I re-tweeted the story earlier, I've not had chance to blog it until now.

Despite the legislative and jurisprudential developments of the last twenty years, the power of lawmakers from times gone by continues to be felt. A story in in the Guardian, and subsequently picked up by the Pink Paper, reminds us about the lasting legacy of law.

John Crawford, now a seventy year old man living in London was charged in 1959 with the offence of buggery (under the Sexual Offences Act 1956) - one year prior to the publication of the Wolfenden Report and ten years before 'homosexuality' would be legalised for consenting men, aged 21 or over.

When Crawford applied to be a prison volunteer eight years ago he had to undergo a Criminal Records Check. These CRB checks have become routine for so many jobs today but in Jack Crawford's case it threw up the charge from when he was just 19 and charged with buggery. Crawford describes getting the results and what happened next:

'"I saw John Crawford. 1959. Charged on two counts of buggery," he said. "Since then, I've analysed my life and found out the amount of my jobs that I've lost because I've got a criminal record." Now a volunteer who feeds patients at hospitals, Crawford is currently looking for work, and is compelled to disclose his conviction each time he gives his time to charity.

Under the current rules, he could be prosecuted if he fails to mention his buggery conviction under the Sexual Offences Act 1956. "What I want to do is apply for voluntary work and, when it comes to the box on the application form that says 'do you have a criminal record', I want to be able to say no," he said.'

Then it gets a little more complicated, as the Guardian piece goes on to explain: 'Hampshire police agreed to treat Crawford as an "exceptional" case and delete his record from the PNC last month, after being threatened with judicial review by Crawford's lawyer, Anna Mazzola of Hickman and Rose. Despite the deletion, however, Crawford is still compelled to disclose the conviction if he wishes to work with vulnerable people.

"According to the current state of the law, it is irrelevant that the conviction was for an offence which has since been decriminalised on the basis that it was discriminatory," Mazzola said.'

The next phase is described as: 'Yesterday, Crawford's lawyers informed the justice secretary, Jack Straw, that unless the rules are changed they will initiate judicial review proceedings at the high court to challenge Rehabilitation of Offenders Exceptions Order 1975, which compels those working with vulnerable people to disclose their conviction history, even if the record is spent or deleted. They argue the existing system "criminalises" Crawford's sexuality and "condones" his original conviction.'

So on the one hand we have an interesting legal dilemma worthy of extensive discussion in an academic workshop. Yet, we also have a powerful reminder that law is more than something limited to dusty books or academic discussion. It can have a profound and lasting impact on peoples lives long after the politicians and policy makers have moved on. I would think a regulatory change is possible, maybe likely but not without difficulties. If one were to amend the regulations so as to allow people convicted of a repealed offence to work with vulnerable people, what about those people for whom a specific offence has been repealed but a new differently termed offence has been put in its place that you would have thought someone might now fall under? Similarly, what about those offences that might cast some cloud over an individuals 'moral character' and thus still be of relevancy in dealing with society's most 'vulnerable'? I'm not persuaded by these issues, but I'm sure that they and/or others like them will be thrown up by Government lawyers.

Vulnerable groups have this extra protection because of their very name and so what might seem straight forward is likely to be anything but. Nonetheless, I would have thought it not beyond the wit of law-makers to overcome these difficulties.

Labour in Sex Industry 'Crackdown' Pledge

The Sunday Times carries a piece today about a pledge the government will be including in their forthcoming general election manifesto regarding the sex industry. According to the paper, 'advertisements for massage parlours and escort agencies are to be banned'. Only newspapers seem to be talked about which, given the modern age of the web seems anachronistic at best. It's not clear whether this will be an obligation imposed on newspapers - so they will have to decide if an ad is actually a 'sex ad' or the people placing the ads will be the ones committing an offence. I'm sure the newspaper will be ever so grateful for this further nail int heir coffin too.

If the government intends extending it to the web,. the question about liability remains and there are also huge questions about the online 'ad hoc' sex workers I have talked about - those who in response to a question for a meet in a chat room might reply "yes, I'll do x for £20" or such like.

In terms of policy direction, it's not surprising. Harriet Harman had previously tried to persuade newspapers to remove these ads voluntarily but this latest proposal, reflects the newspapers unwillingness or inability to carry out such a change. This new policy seems, to my mind, unworkable and we shall have to see if it makes it into the final manifesto.

A final note of interest, the government is also once again relying on the Poppy Project 2008 survey into the sex industry - which has repeatedly been used by those seeking to bans ex work/prostitution and has repeatedly been criticised as flawed and inaccurate by the majority of academics active in this field.

Read the full article here.

Sex Education 60s Style

I normally save these quick items just for Twitter but Heresy Corner has a fascinating post about sex education in the 1960's - or rather a likely hoax on sex education in the 60's. The hoax makes it even more interesting - revealing more about our attitudes and ideas today - and how they inform our sense of humour. Well worth a look, and it can be viewed here.

Filth and Sushi: Bindel Takes Aim

Anyone remember the late Mary Whitehouse? She was an intrepid moral crusader against 'filth' on TV during the 70s/80s (and immortalised in Spitting Image). I was reminded of her today after reading a piece by Julie Bindel in the Guardian. I know I know, what was I expecting? She's written a piece on Nyotaimori - which is essentially eating Sushi off a naked woman's body. As a gay man who hates fish, I can't begin to tell you what's wrong with this mental image but anyway...the venues for these events are apparently secret (according to Bindel) so as to prevent 'a group of angry feminists' turning up with placards, as had happened at one event in Seattle. Needless to say, Bindel therefore completes the various stages to find her way into this secret world and is suitably disgusted at the end of it. She concludes 'not for the first time that evening, I wished I was outside in the freezing cold, shouting and waving a placard'. Now then, I'm not one of those people who wants to censor Bindel or nail her to a cross but as I say, I am reminded of Mary Whitehouse. She always seemed to be saying "last night I watched a programme on Channel 4 and it was the dirtiest thing I ever saw". That she did this every week led to the realisation that she must have been hunting out the 'dirtiest' programmes on TV so as to be suitably outraged. Bindel similarly seems to be on the lookout for outrage. Next week, Julie Bindel engages in a lesbian group orgy and tells us "I didn't enjoy it, they are disgusting traitors to their sex". Well, maybe.

You can read the Bindel piece here and take a look at Spitting Image's take on Whitehouse below.

The Not so Beautiful Game

Last nights Newsnight included a feature on homophobia in football. The piece was particularly interesting for including the FA's advert designed to tackle homophobia which had it's launch suddenly canceled. Annoyingly, the BBC haven't made it available as a separate clip on the Newsnight site and I can't yet see it on YouTube. The best option (happy to be corrected) seems to be to watch it on the BBC's iPlayer (for UK license fee payers) which is available here. The item begins at 29.42mins and this link should (hopefully) take you to that point.

This means the episode will vanish in the next couple of days so get a move on and view it while you can. It doesn't seem to be on the FA's YouTube channel but maybe it will appear there eventually. Ogilvy, the company behind the advert also has it's own YouTube channel and it may well be that, it might also get posted there. Obviously as ad campaign's go, the FA's decision to now hide this advert after it has been screened on national television is barmy. Come on FA, get it out there.

As you've probably gathered, this whole controversy stems from a decision by the FA to cancel the screening of an advert at the 11th hour which was designed to tackle homophiobia in football. Given the film was FA-led it was a curious decision and speculation was rife that the event was pulled due to a lack of support within the football community/amongst players and because it was too hard hitting. The official line was that the FA needed to undertake 'further consultation'. Pink News has more on the advert story here.

Kick it Out - the campaign group which seeks to target racism and homophobia in football had welcomed the film on Monday, commenting in a press release that: 'The film has a strong narrative that will reflect the reality of gay abuse and kick-start awareness of both the need to tackle homophobia and to help to educate our target audiences to understand what is abusive, illegal and damages our game'.

The story was briefly picked up on the Today programme this morning and the Guardian includes a really good comment piece on homophobia in football. It points out that there remains only one professional footballer who has come out and he (Justin Fashanu) took his own life in 1998 following homophobic abuse so it's not the best advert for coming out. Yet, given that it's estimated there are around 4,000 professional footballers in England and Wales it seems unthinkable that no-one within that group actually identifies as gay.

Well done Newsnight for obtaining and screening the ad. I found the advert incredibly affecting but then I'm a gay man. For me, the film instantly brought back memories of terror, those moments of fear and hatred that I, and so many others have suffered (and many continue to suffer) in the course of their lives. I've certainly experienced every phrase and the physical display/posturing that this advert shows alongside those terms. These feelings were followed by an anger at those who spread this hate - and let's be clear - it is hated. I think the advert would be effective at motivating moderate thinking people into saying, "yes, this is unacceptable". Nonetheless, the pessimist in me also wonders if kids will be repeating scenes - shouting the same slogans on trains and the metro for example. I don't know, but I do know something needs to be done and the FA needs to start addressing this very serious issue. This video could be one step in the right direction but given the FA is incompetent at even launching the film, you do wonder how committed they are.

Perry v Schwarzenegger: Judge Walker Outed

Only in California. Yes, the judge at the heart of the Perry v Schwarzenegger trial has been outed. The San Francisco Chronicle ran a piece yesterday that opened with: 'The biggest open secret in the landmark trial over same-sex marriage being heard in San Francisco is that the federal judge who will decide the case, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, is himself gay.'

Such a statement invariably avoids any accusation of 'outing' in the way that Matthew Parris famously outed Peter Mandelson on Newsnight by saying 'he most certainly is gay' and later stating that he thought everyone knew (it turned out, we didn't). BTW - if anyone can find a clip of this, I'll add it to the post. So too, were those of us who don't live in SF and listen to the socio-legal gossip grape vine surprised by the news. Personally I was gutted. I thought Judge Walker has been an outstanding judge thus far, fair and asking some excellent questions of both sides. If he now comes to the view that prop 8 should be overturned, it will be inevitably rubbished as a 'gay judge' who was biased all along. If he decides that prop 8 should be upheld, many will accuse him of being a traitor. He is, quite simply, screwed no matter what he does. On the plus side, we now have another (sort of) out judge which I guess must be a good thing.

Blogs outside California will be increasingly picking up on this story and I suspect the European dailies will also start picking up on the story. One other judge, interviewed in the Chronicle piece put it rather well when he repeated the question "Is it newsworthy?" and replied (whilst laughing) , "Yes."

When Playing with Balls Just Isn't Enough

If Mrs Smith working as the Asda/Wal-Mart meeter/greeter was caught having an affair with the neighbours husband would we care? Would we even know? I don't think so. We certainly wouldn't sack Mrs Smith for fear she might damage the supermarket brand. With the exception of her neighbours wife (and perhaps related family) we could assume that her meeting and greeting skills would be just as valid as before. Her trustworthiness in drawing to our attention the bargain of the week would be just as (un)trusted as before although any condom promotions might bring an additional smile to our faces. Yet, the same is not true of being England Captain. Clearly, in order to kick a ball around the pitch we must know that you're not knocking off another players wife. Yes, the John Terry story has got me mystified (and that's the closest I'll get to talking about football).

Africa and the Anti-Gay Drive

Earlier in the week, Newsnight broadcasted a powerful piece on Uganda. Today, Pink News reports that 'deputy foreign minister Henry Okello Oryem has said his country's anti-homosexuality bill is likely to be changed before it passes into law'. The exact details are not given. This follows global pressure from Obama and Gordon Brown to abandon a proposed law that would execute homosexuals. With other anti-gay laws proposed in Malawi it seems that Africa is somewhere I should definitely put on the 'no holiday' list. In all seriousness, how many of us do contemplate 'they would kill me' in terms of choosing where they can/should travel to? As ever greater amounts of Africa appear to erect the barbed wire and 'no entry' notice to homosexuals, there is a challenge for global leaders to think more holistically about their approach. Brown and Obama have no worries about telling 'tin pot' African countries that have no strategic importance to the west what to do, but we seem much more reluctant to do so to our neighbours. Brown has an opportunity to condemn the views of the Pope who has announced controversial plans to visit Britain in September and used the announcement of his visit as an opportunity to attack Britain's equality laws, following his earlier attack on gay marriage - calling it an 'attack' on creation.

In this month, LGBT History Month, our political leaders need to learn the lessons of the past and condemn homophobia wherever it might be, and no matter how politically inconvenient it might be. Watch the Newsnight piece here.

Sexualities: Table of Contents

A new issue of Sexualities is now available. More info here.

Two Cans of Paint: A Transsexual Life Story, with Reflections on Gender Change and History

Raewyn Connell

Sexualities 2010;13 3-19

The Incredible Shrinking Lesbian World and other Queer Conundra

Arlene Stein

Sexualities 2010;13 21-32

‘My Strength is Not for Hurting’: Men’s Anti-Rape Websites and their Construction of Masculinity and Male Sexuality

N. Tatiana Masters

Sexualities 2010;13 33-46

Native Sexual Inequalities: American Indian Cultural Conservative Homophobia and the Problem of Tradition

Brian Joseph Gilley

Sexualities 2010;13 47-68

A Foreign Adventurer’s Paradise? Interracial Sexuality and Alien Sexual Capital in Reform Era Shanghai

James Farrer

Sexualities 2010;13 69-95

The Absent Spouses: Gender, Sex, Race and the Extramarital Sexuality among Chinese Migrants in Japan

Gracia Liu-Farrer

Sexualities 2010;13 97-121

Book Review: Tim Dean, Unlimited Intimacy: Reflections on the Subculture of Barebacking. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2009. ISBN: 978 0 226 139387 (hbk) 978 0 226 139395 (pbk). $60.00 (hbk) $20.00 (pbk)

Patrick O'Byrne

Sexualities 2010;13 123-125

Book Review: David M. Halperin, What Do Gay Men Want? An Essay on Sex, Risk, and Subjectivity. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2007. 169 pp. ISBN 13: 978 0 472 11622 5/10: 0 472 11622 3 (hbk) 13: 978 0 472 03365 2/10: 0 472 03365 4 (pbk). $17.95 (hbk)

Nicholas de Villiers

Sexualities 2010;13 126-127

European Court of Human Rights Marriage Challenge

Peter Tatchell and Outrage are launching a campaign to bring about a simultaneous legal challenge to the ban on same-sex marriage and opposite-sex civil partnerships. Academic lawyer, Robert Wintemute has agreed to represent the parties in Strasbourg. Tatchell states in his press release:

“Our plan is for several gay and straight couples to file a joint application to the European Court of Human Rights, to overturn the ban on same-sex marriage and opposite-sex civil partnerships. The aim is to secure full equality in civil marriage and civil partnership law. We want both systems open to all couples, gay and straight, so that everyone has a free choice, without discrimination,”

Outrage concludes the release by calling for volunteers: “We are looking for same-sex couples who have been together for at least three years, live in London, feel comfortable talking to the media, have no skeletons in their closet, don’t have a civil partnership and who want a civil marriage.

“They need to be willing to commit to the legal case for at least five years, which is the length of time it can take to complete an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights,”

So presumably - 'skeleton in cupboards' excludes those who've ever engaged in public sex, visited a sex club, engaged in group sex...and those are just the things that spring to mind. Of course, I understand why that line is there and if I was the lawyer in the case I might very well have put the line in the release, but as an outsider looking in, it does seem another instance where queers attempt to pass as straight in order to gain more vestiges of straightdom.

Read the full press release with contact details here.