Don't Be shy

Just a reminder to please comment on posts :-) I look at the traffic stats to the blog but you all seem to be silent most of the time! Just click the comments link at the end of any post or one of the quick mood reactions if you're in a rush! It's great to discuss and debate things on Twitter or get positive (or negative!) feedback but those thoughts tend to get lost or (especially with my goldfish memory) forgotten.

Circumcision Ban Off SF Ballot

I don't think circumcision is as big an issue here in the UK as in the States but it's been getting some steam over there recently. Anti-circumcision (or mutilation as they see it) campaigners attempted to get a proposition on the ballot for this November, which if successful would have banned male circumcision. I've written previously that I didn't see how it could be constitutional and now a judge as upheld that view.

The San Francisco Chronicle reported this week that 'the proposed law violates the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of religious freedom and a California law that makes regulating medical procedures a function of the state, not cities.

'The ruling by Superior Court Judge Loretta Giorgi confirmed a tentative decision she issued a day earlier and came after she heard arguments from proponents of the ban, which would have made San Francisco the first U.S. city to hold a public vote on whether to outlaw the circumcision of minors.'

The local context is discussed on the excellent Petrelis Files blog here. The debate in San Francisco might have just hit a brick wall but I don't think it's the end of the issue.

New York, Marriage and a Bucket of Cold Water

I previously posted a brief blog post on the legal developments in New York which have enabled same-sex marriage. As the celebrations were in full swing, the academic George Chauncey reached for a large bucket of water to pour over proceedings:

“Most of the time, an awful lot of the nation doesn’t want to be like New York at all,” Chauncey told the New York Times. “I suspect that many people will take this as one more sign of what happens in the Northeast, and in New York in particular, that they don’t want to have happen in their own communities.”

He is of course probably right. Passing of gay rights in the diverse and arguably, more liberal Northeast is one thing but it is not representative of America, in much the same way that London does not represent the UK.

His comments were joined by those of veteran campaigner and writer Larry Kramer. Today, he increasingly appears like some ghost of Christmas past who happens to share a wardrobe with Steve Jobs. So he appears rattlign his chains in a black turtle neck and is easy to dismiss as an angry old man. Of course, that doesn't make him wrong - and far far far from it! Also according to the NYT:

“These marriages, in whichever state, are what I call feel-good marriages,” Mr. Kramer said. “Compared to the benefits heterosexual marriages convey, gay marriages are an embarrassment — that we should accept so little, and with so much hoopla of excitement and self-congratulation.”

He's absolutely right. Someone asked me earlier this week how the new right to marry might impact on immigration rights, say a Brit now wanting to marry someone in New York. It makes no difference. Nada, nilch. Why? Well, we have to thank that piece of legislation that Bill Clinton signed into law and which Obama has said he'd like to see repealed - the Defence of Marriage Act or DOMA.

DOMA means that same-sex marriages are not recognised at a federal level - presenting a huge limitation on same-sex marriages in the USA and also meaning that the federal law can't recognise such a marriage for immigration purposes.

The developments in New York are therefore an important step but the challenge is to both repeal DOMA and ensure the continued spread of same-sex marriage (and other forms of legal relationship recognition) outside the existing pockets of progressiveness.

The recent developments in New York are an important step, but merely a step.

A Matter of Pride

25 September 2011 should mark a historic date for the gay community in Sunderland, offering the first Pride in the city. I say 'should' as last year was meant to mark the first 'Sunderland Pride' but it collapsed in confused circumstances. Ryan Houstan has written on the origins of the current group, describing how 'it was back in October 2009, when they were sitting in a bar having a few drinks and putting the world to rights, that Ramsey and Taylor were struck by the idea that Sunderland should have its own Pride.'

Spark FM - the radio station of Sunderland University - has been an important forum for interviews and news (and searching the web, is the only place I can get a clear line up for the event). I was struck, as I read more about the plans for 2011, with the similarities with another northern Pride -Huddersfield.

Whilst Huddersfield has a working website, Sunderland does not. It is a small plucky venture with a Twitter account (151 followers) and a Facebook groups page (1683 members). Held together by a small group, the event is rightly modest and realistic in outlook as evidenced by the organiser 'Camp Arnie' in this interview.

Just making something happen is an important first step that requires considerable effort by all involved. However, I find it hard to see who it will pull in beyond a small Sunderland crowd. I hope I'm wrong but whilst other events - notably Newcastle's Northern Pride event -have made sure they've got a clear workable website alongside other paltforms to distribute information, but communication from Sunderland Pride has been less than ideal. Such short-falls can perhaps be forgiven as teething problems.

It seems a small but determined band. Contrast that to the mass volunteer events for Manchester Pride which along with Blackpool, Brighton an London serve as destination events. Of course, Sunderland realistically can not compete with those events and that's the important point. Not being Manchester or London tells us what smaller Prides such as Sunderland's are not, but they do not tell us what they are.

This is the central dilemma facing small Pride events. Is it an excuse for a party? Is it about increasing 'visibility', does it raise funds? Does it foster a sense of community? All important questions. For me, the bigger question for the city and wider community is whether the event is outward looking or inward looking.

Does it seek to have a private party that can be cheerfully ignored by everyone else (as happens in large part at Newcastle's Pride) or does it create a large event that's hard to miss - as in Manchester, Brighton or London? A parade helps to do this, but a small group of people hinders rather than helps.

Thus, these smaller events are more often about saying to one another 'we exist', but unless they engage with wider audiences, it's just the same old bar crowd meeting up on a different day. At the very least, it needs to draw in people from across the region and penetrate the public's consciousness.

I hope Sunderland Pride comes off this year - it is located between freshers week and the first week of term which may give it a boost with students - but whatever happens, there are wider questions for us all about the purpose of these events, large and small.

UPDATE: Thanks to @markglover for flagging up this lovely blog post by Miche Doherty regarding Pride in Belfast.

Policing Public Sex

I've recently been working on a book chapter for a Routledge book to be published next year entitled Policing Sex, and edited by Paul Johnson and Derek Dalton. The book can be pre-ordered here. My chapter focuses on the policing of public sex, specifically 'dogging', but as with my ongoing book, Public Sex and the Law: Silent Desire, the issues of how the police police public sex is discussed. ACPO documentation and individual force policy documents (where they exist) offer us a comprehensive 'by the book' explanation of tactics, whilst the media offers is insight into one or two strategies of a wider strategy.

Nonetheless, there still appears to be different approaches by different police forces and Northumbria Police in North East England appear to remain one of the most hardline forces. Last week, they released a press release which served to prompt cruising alerts and news report warnings. The original press release an be viewed here. The BBC faithfully reported the story in a bid to 'scare off' cruisers from visiting one North East cruising venue.

The police begin the story with some humour to catch the attention of journalists -an interesting strategy in itself - stating: 'Don't get caught with your pants down urge police.'

They then clearly outline their rationale - complaints from the local community before extolling their protection of the public. Never known to miss an opportunity to evoke 'families and children' in the policing process, they comment:

"We want all people, including children and families, to be able to enjoy the woods so our officers will be conducting regular patrols and taking action against anyone committing public sex acts in the area around Hedley Hall Woods."

Fair enough, if cruisers are engaged in acts during school holiday at mid-day, and I can understand policing at that time. However, does policing a venue at midnight or two in the morning protect 'children and families'? Could the Police have therefore advised of a directed campaign? Of course they could. Did they? Of course they didn't.

The press release moved on to issue a pretty serious threat and one that's been reported on a number of cruising and dogging sites for some time, but for which I was lacking independent evidence for. The Police state that:

"Our patrols will be taking the registration of any vehicles suspiciously parked in the area and the owners of these vehicles may be subject to a home visit by one of our officers."

So, home visits. The Police drawing up outside some suburban home to tell a husband that they recorded his vehicle in a car park the other evening. Was it him? What was he doing there. His wife, sits in another room, their tea going cold. Her mind races as she wonders why the Police have arrived, what do they want? What has he done? Is he some paedophile, some sexual eviant? Is this the moment that their life starts to fall apart?

It all sounds like some naff plotline from a film of life in 50s Britain. The trouble is it is a potential reality for many as the Police engage in this unfocused tactics, spending hours driving up and down country lanes and sat in isolated car parks. At a time of police cuts,

(1,143 posts at Northumbria), how much of a priority is this?

BlakeMason, Legal Consciousness and a Porn Kerfuffle

What a kerfuffle! The British porn studio, Blake Mason describe themselves as 'the biggest British hardcore video download site on the web!'. Launched in 2005 by Brits Jason Blake and Adam Mason, the company takes the Lucas 'clean' porn philosophy to a new level describing themselves in the following glowing terms:

BLAKEMASON is about more than just making great films. You see, we treat everyone involved with the site with absolute respect at all times. We don't offer our models drugs of any kind (Viagra included!) and we don't try and touch them up either. This makes the guys feel welcome, relaxed and very uninhibited ;-) That makes us known as being some of the nicest people in the business and we pride ourselves on making each film shoot as relaxed and fun as possible. And we also donate 5% of all profits to charity – almost unheard of in most companies!

I must confess that regular performer Luke Desmond (NSFW - porn link!) is a compelling reason to watch at the best of times, but it seems Blake Mason has had a bit of a shine taken off their quality twinky/chavy brand this week thanks to Twitter.

On Monday an interesting series of tweets and allegations from Blake Mason regular (NSFW), JP Dubois offered an insight into the sometimes imperfect world of porn, and the workings of BlakeMason on this occasion. He apparently travelled down from Manchester to Plymouth for what proved to be a disastrous shoot thanks to an unknown player. It got off to a troubled start as JP tweeted:

This was later followed by:

It was from this tweet that things seemed to kick-off. JP Dubois is in a relationship with fellow porn star Sam Barclay who didn't hold back in his valiant defence of his boyfriend. He asked his twitter followers:

He went on to complain that his 'poor baby' didn't get the chance to shower before he left and arrived home from the long journey in the early hours of the morning, having apparently been required - according to Barclay - to sign a release in order to get his travel money. He noted that there appeared to be some decline in conditions working with the company too, noting that he had previously been better looked after and better paid than JP was apparently now being treated. It also seems that a fee was paid, but not was expected.

Barclay raised an interesting point of contract law in his exchange, stating that:

Well, there is always likely to be a contract. It may or may not be written but there is, as any first year law student will tell you, a contract. This exchange from experienced, porn business savvy players says much about their own understanding of the porn world and the apparent operations of one - respected -porn studio. It left me curious as to how widespread this experience was, and the level of legal consciousness (and ethics) in the industry. I'd welcome any thoughts in the comments section.

Curiously, all seems to have been forgotten on Twitter as JP and Sam get on with their lives, suggesting this was a flash of anger and ultimately accepted with an air of acceptance.

A Snip of Captain Jack

I'm rather late to the joining the Captain Jack outrage party but here goes (or rather, here doesn't go)...

As some of you may know, last night saw the screening of Torchwood: Miracle Day in the UK. This is the fourth series and marks a move to the US as the previously BBC production, becomes a collaborative product of the BBC and US network Starz (better known for sexy romp Spartacus: Blood and Sand).

Maria Boyd of Georgia State University, has previously considered the scholarly issues of sexuality in Torchwood (I can't find a published paper) at a conference back in 2009. She considered reviews of the earlier series' and found them limiting, stating that: 'The hegemonic, heterosexist language used by TV critics covering Torchwood has framed the program in such a way that it limits audience’s ability to make meaning of the text themselves.'

The latest controversy surrounds the editing out of one scene from last nights episode - but only in the UK and on the BBC. The scene was *drum roll* a sex scene between central character Captain Jack and random barman 'Brad'. The cut scene was quickly available on the net and can be viewed here (it's pretty tame stuff but I don't want to take chances with the Google police by embedding it).

John Barrowman - the gay actor who plays Captain Jack - defended the decision of the BBC to edit the scene out of the shown episode.

“I do agree with the decision that was made. Some younger kids are going to watch Torchwood. If they’re sitting watching it with their parents, it might make it a little uncomfortable [and] the parents might click off. In order to stop that from happening, we’ve just taken a snippet off the end of it. You still get a good chunk of it.”

That statement echoed the official BBC line that: "Even though the show airs after the watershed, it has a lot of young fans who would have been shocked at the graphic nature of the sex."

Despite the online brouhaha surrounding the decision, it seems to me - after watching it -a fair enough decision. It cut down the straight sex as well as the gay sex - and whilst I think the world wouldn't cave in if a teen did watch a show, designed for adults, and shown after 9pm, the BBC decision is at least coherent.

More important, it seems to me, is how the rest of the show dealt with sexuality. Other than the camp air steward denying he was gay in the previous episode (which was a little grating), this was the first episode to take a more direct approach to Jack's sexuality in this series.

Preceding the sex scene Jack heads to a gay bar called 'Golden Gopher' (write your own jokes). This is a real bar in LA which you can check out here and is presumably now inundated with gay geek fans. Anyway, outside the bar, a small huddle is gathered in jeans and tops and to the side of the door, one guy on his own in an elaborate leather jacket. All appear young. As Jack enters he exchanges a brief but suggestive glance with leather jacket boy which is returned. It is incredibly brief but is actually one of the most convincing 'cruising' scenes I've seen on television. prior to crossing over to the bar, Jack had explained to fellow character, Gwen, that he is entering the Golden Gopher to satisfy his 'mortal needs'. We are left with the distinct impression that Jack is entering the bar with a keen appetite for sex and alcohol (or however you define 'mortal needs').

Once inside (as it were), Jack pats a hand naked male dancer on the chest and heads to the bar which is in an a dancey mixed sex, but male dominated venue. The barman we quickly learn is called 'Brad', surely a play on the archetypal American guy - as seen in the Rocky Horror Picture Show. It's a name that brings to mind Lichtenstein prints of a square jawed all American hero appearing suitably masterful.

We later move to a clothed Jack standing in bathroom (presumably Brad's) kissing the now totally naked Brad as Brad rips Jack's clothes off. Brad is displaying a bum that in those immortal words of Absolutely Fabulous' Patsy, looked so tight you could bounce him off the walls. At this point, a rather interesting verbal exchange occurs (now now, not like that).

"You have protection?" Jack asks.

"What for? Can't die now, don't need nothin in between" Brad replies.

Jack pulls back his head whilst still gripping Brad's arm and appearing joined at the groin. He conveys doubt and desire through his own physical positioning.

"That's not how it works anymore. Lifetime of regret just got even longer" Jack states.

"Fine. You're calling the shots" Brad responds and with that that Jack says "Yes, yes I am" and as he grips Brad now by the shoulders, Brad disappears down Jack and out of camera shot, presumably to inspect the quality of floor tile grout work or alternatively to give Jack a blow job. This being Britain and the BBC, we are left to our imaginations (which in my case is a dangerous thing and presumably for those delicate children presumed to be watching doesn't include fellatio).

Later we see Brad snoozing on the bed (very nice sheets) and Jack, with his groin strategically covered by a sheet is on the phone to his female best friend (or Fag Hag as Gwen should now be known).

The cut scene appears to have been taken between these two moments and we are left to wonder how Jack and Brad made it to the bed from the bathroom and how they managed to while away the time until Jack could get a sneaky phone-call in. I once had an ex who insisted on post coital phone calls to a fag hag whilst he had, well, a fag. It drove me nuts but he was half Italian and had abs that you could play like a washboard. It was a long time ago. Anyhow, I digress...

The scene is far more interesting than depicting 'gay sex' - although that is important - for it also displays attitudes to condoms. Non-viewers should know that Jack is mortal - now the only person in the world in that state. So, the scene tells us that if given a choice, freed of consequence, gay men choose to fuck without condoms - a key argument of barebackers. It tells us that condomless fucking - bareback sex - is the more 'natural', 'true' expression of desire. Yet, Jack, the sensible character talks of a "lifetime of regret", presumably not aimed at himself but the other character? What is this pain, these problems he is suggesting?

In so many ways the scene encapsulates the current debate around HIV/AIDS and condom usage. On the one hand we have 'true' desire, and on the other, the voice of 'reason'. Yet, if there are no consequences, if you don't die, would we not all engage in bareback sex? If Miracle Day was a reality, would Mates and Durex become companies servicing an entirely straight 'breeding' market? It seems so.

Moreover, the current HIV treatments do remove the spectre of death and in doing so, provide for their own 'Miracle Day', in contrast to the earlier era of death. Yet with the removal of that threat, what does that do to our behaviour? In Torchwood, we have a new cult, the Soulless. In the treatment age we have the self-styled cult Treasure Island Media. The parallels are striking and thought provoking.

Striking too is the presence of law, with the US Supreme Court positioned in the background desperately seeking to respond to a changed society. In Torchwood, it is grappling with a criminal justice system with the death penalty but no death. In our world, post 'Miracle Day', it is attempting to respond to bareback through regulation and HIV transmission increasingly with criminalistion; both represent unsure grasping of straws in an air of desperation and consternation.

In addition to these earlier scenes, we have a follow when Jack meets up (with a hangover) with the rest of his Torchwood 'crew'. Rex, who in the opening episode was seriously injured with a stake through his chest is taking some painkillers, and Jack asks for some. Rex responds with: "You weren't impaled". Jack replies "You should have seen the other guy. Ooo that face. Rex doesn't like his jokes too gay."

Here we have another layer - addressing homophobia, and presenting Jack as a confident, witty and proudly gay character. This - and innuendo as humour - ads a British and pro-gay feel to the episode which is far more important than a brief bed romp. Moreover, the episode offered far more than a censored sex scene. It addressed issues of homonormativity, law, assimilation, and authentic desire.

Who needs the snipped scene?

Castro Nude In

As if the excitement of Up Your Alley wasn't enough for folks in San Francisco this weekend, there is also an organised 'Nude In'. A local nudist group asks: Just how many naked people can fit in the CASTRO COMMONS PLAZA? How long can we hang out before the COPS show up? What will you say if someone challenges your right to be NAKED?

They aim to find out this Saturday at noon at the Castro Commons Plaza. The group has a Facebook page here and a blog page here. At the time of writing, the FB apge has 30 people attending, and asks people to 'make a statement for body freedom and acceptance, come get buck naked in public with us! Remember your camera, forget your inhibitions.'

It's an interesting injection of radicalism to the weekend. It will certainly be interesting to see how the incident is responded to. If you attend, please post in the comments any news/feedback on the event.

UPDATE: Late on Saturday, organisers posted the following on their FB page:

'Many thanks to all of our naked pals for joining us in the plaza this afternoon! We counted a total of 21 different naked men during the Noon-to-3pm timeframe. We really appreciate your support and we are pleased you spent your Saturday afternoon naked with us!'

So...not a huge turnout but enough to grab the attention of passers by?

Blog Changes

You may have noticed that I've finally got around to the blog changes I planned on making this summer.

I've tried to simplify the overall look of the blog, making it more attractive and easy to use. The links section is now a series of 'sections' that I have tried to organise along themes. You'll notice that there are now a lot more links than previously (and all broken links have been removed!). I've also (after much debate over a number of years) opted to include a NSFW/explicit set of links. Given the increasingly diverse readership of this blog, and student feedback it seemed it a sensible change.

I believe these links offer an important educational and social context to the issues that this blog considers and are clearly labelled as NSFW/explicit, allowing readers to make an informed choice. Most links also have additional warning pages. I hope you agree this seems an appropriate step but all feedback is appreciated. I certainly won't be 'requiring' students to look at these links but their feedback was that they were looking at these pages anyway when I mentioned material (eg Treasure Island Media) in workshops and so this just makes everyone's life a little easier. It also brings to an end the self-censorship that always left me uncomfortable.

It's quite possible (likely!) that I've missed off some resources I should have included - perhaps your brilliant blog or website. If so, let me know.

I've also added a clear copyright license following a couple of queries and Pink Sixty news is bigger and clearer than it has ever been. I think the daily videos are a really useful resource and I hope it will now be viewed more often.

The blog remains a work in progress and any thoughts, feedback etc are always appreciated either as comments on posts, tweets or direct emails to me.

Up Your Alley and a Bit of Kok

You can search the blog archive for various previous posts about the Dore Alley Fair in San Francisco. As a re-cap, this is the smaller relative of the Folsom Street Fair event, pitched at the leather and 'kink' community and is arguably seen more as a 'community' event than a tourist event. It now goes by the brilliant name 'Up Your Alley'. This is the sort of name that presents the double-entendre minded with questions such as: "where you heading?" "Up Your Alley", "What you doing today?", "I'm spending all day at Up Your Alley". I could go on, but you get the gist.

Anyhow, the event is once again worthy of comment before it has

even taken place thanks to the ongoing ban on those tireless renegade pirates of porn, Treasure Island Media (TIM). The event is scheduled for this Sunday, July 31st and takes place in San Francisco's South of Market Area (SOMA). For those whove' never visited, it's on odd mixture of bars, sex joints, wholesale clothing outlets, apartments and mechanics.

The Fair is free to enter (an important aspect that divides Pride events) but with a suggested donation (dollars not semen - but it's admittedly unclear).

The event has traditionally been seen as more of a 'raunchy', 'semi-naked', un-inhibited sleazy sex -fest but the organisers seem increasingly to be pulling back from that (raising questions about the purpose and direction of the event).

The site for this years event includes an amusing section on 'lewd conduct':

'Folsom Street Events encourages all fairgoers to express behavior that is safe and within the law. We encourage everyone to take personal responsibility for providing a positive communal environment for the adult alternative lifestyle community. Lewd acts will be disrupted by our security volunteers who reinforce this message for anyone found on the fairgrounds to be in violation of our policy.

'At the suggestion of SFPD, we have implemented a more aggressive graduated policy for violators of the lewdness policy.

'Step 1: Verbal warning
Inform the fairgoer that the behavior is not allowed and that they will face ejection from the fair on the next occurance.

'Step 2: Reminder
Fairgoer will be reminded of the first warning and given a personal escort off the fair grounds with notification to gate volunteers not to allow re-entry. Warn the fairgoer that on the next violation of this policy we will escalate to SFPD.

'Step 3: Turn over to SFPD
SFPD will be called to assist and requested to cite the fairgoer who has violated the lewdness policy.

Lewd behavior in second and third story windows on the fairgrounds will be referred directly to SFPD for intervention.'

I'm immediately struck by the lack of definition given to lewd conduct. Presumably the wearing of jocks is allowed - it has been previously - but I would have thought that walking around in nothing but a jock further up the road in the department store, Bloomingdales, might be regarded as 'lewd' by SFPD no? So, I guess it's down to context and the opinion of organisers - so that's clear then.

We then have the fabulous final sentence about 'second and third story windows'. What on earth? I'm genuinely confused as to what this means. Have they had reported complaints of human piss fountains spraying passers by from high-above? Men fucking with the absence of a safety harness on narrow window-ledges? I'm left with a vision of rather serious looking leathermen looking suitably funereal at windows above the event, possibly sporting a 'nothing lewd about me' badge or some such. Perhaps flag waving is permitted provided people don't jerk their hands too suggestively or vigorously. Madness.

Anyway, into this faintly potty organisational mix, we add bareback porn mongers, TIM. They have, it seems, been once again banned from the event. I think it was last year they held an event at the famously bareback sex club, Mack Folsom Prison to get around the ban. Mack is the seediest dive I've ever come across. On my visits there, they have seemed to blend a clientele that has either appeared fucked on drugs or being fucked (always bb) by other guys. It has achieved that rarest of things, it shocked me. Of course, it has an official 'safe sex' policy.

This year, they are not there (although such is the damn expected at Mack that they are urging regulars to sort their membership before Thursday), but instead are this year descending upon Kok Bar (that's subtle bar branding for you). It's not a venue I've visited but seems to brand itself as a 'cruisy' bar and means TIM can remain at the margins of the event - although I suspect it will once again gain many visitors.

In a blending of the 'old' and 'new', TIM's Brad McGuire, James Roscoe, Blue Bailey (I think he is a twink poz porn performer), and Blake Daniels (I understand is bf of Bailey) will be there. So if you want to ask Brad and James about their poz porn controversy, here's your chance. There may of course be other things you'd like to ask of a less intellectual nature.

So, what does a ban achieve? Well some people are talking about bareback, why it's controversial, and why TIM are banned. An airing of these issues is surely a good thing. Ironically, it's TIM that have prompted this discussion through their continued resistance to the ban rather than this being a conversation 'engineered' by organisers.

Moreover, this entrenched position makes it harder for the Fair to quietly allow back bareback porn companies as that would be seen as a very public climb down. We are therefore left with a Fair that censors the queer community at a time of supposedly celebrating it. Let's be clear, TIM might have the biggest stand there, but only guys curious, interested or already practising bareback are going to rock along. Banning them is a way of saying "we are failing", "safe sex is failing", and "current health policies and strategies are failing". Is the safe-sex argument really so weak that when shown guys fucking bareback, guys will discard their condoms in a flurry of new-found sexual 'recklessness'? The answer from all parties appears to be "yes". Don't we think that's a big deal? Don't we think that's something worthy of real passionate debate and response, rather than censorship?

We are left instead with another sanitised event, an event that in the face of failure chooses to present an illusion rather than the reality of lived sexual lives, and in doing so, further removes queer organisations from the people they supposedly represent. Nobody wins from this sort of strategy, but in the long-run, we're all losers.

HIV Transmission and the Law: The Return of the Reckless Bogeyman

Grim news as far as the response of English alw to HIV transmission is concerned. The UK press worked themselves into a particularly vibrant frenzy this morning with the news that Nkosinati Mabanda, 44, from Cannock, admitted inflicting grievous bodily harm by infecting the woman with HIV and has been sentenced to jail for four years. I can't hope to compete with the typically brilliant commentary and links provided by Edwin Bernard so let me instead, just point you to his blogpost.

The Long Legal Shadow of Section 28

I've just had another short webzine piece published entitled 'The Long Legal Shadow of Section 28'. I offer my reflections on the legacy of the mow repealed 'Section 28' in the wake of the recent Opera North controversy. There's a link with background on the main article for non-UK readers (and anyone else who doesn't know the ON background). Check it out here. Please feel free to comment on the post.

Champagne Celebrations US Style

Hurrah! Mucho excitement in the US this week with today seeing lines of people forming in New York to be among the first to marry. These new found rights inevitably bring to the fore those who've long wanted to be married, along with the political activists wanting to exercise their rights. The cynic in me think that it probably also includes a couple of excitable types who want to be on telly but that's a cynical old queen for you. Read more/see pics on The Advocate website here.

This week also saw the final hurdle to the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Hell removed as Obama signed the repeal certification -that the US armed forces were ready. Yes, America's gay men and women can join their straight counterparts in fighting illegal and counter-productive wars in far away lands. Champagne corks all round!

Seriously though, these developments do mark a significant transformation in the legal status of many lesbian, gay and bisexual lives. These are huge steps for a country that appears increasingly right-wing and Christian-phile. These are important rights, long fought-far and rightly won.

Jessy Karson and Be the Cure

Now here's a funny thing, Jessy Karson, who blogs here and tweets here has a new video out. The Montreal 'porn star' (who I freely confess turns me weak at the knees) started out as a twinky bottom and turned into a top (boo). The hung like a donkey performer is still listed on the website of bareback porn company, Treasure Island Media, as an 'exclusive model' having featured in a couple of their films (see here). He also still has a Facebook page with the company which you can view here.

All of which is fine and dandy except that his new film (which you can view below) is Jessy advising on hooking up online. The video is part of a series produced by 'Be the Cure', which sounds positively 'Gandian' in philosophy. The Iowa based group is an AIDS prevention group with the slogan; 'safe sex starts here'. For Karson it certainly does as that's not the message his bareback TIM fucking seemed to suggest (and boy did he fuck).

Karson's blog doesn't suggest any remaining TIM ties but this does seem something of a hypocritical position. Bareback porn performer turned safe-sex salesman with not even a public 'remorse' moment. Does this reflect a shift in position, or just saying a line for cash? More importantly, what does this say about the AIDS charity? Did they know who he was? Just what is going on here?

Smut Capital of America

Michael Stabile has written an interesting blog piece on 'a smut encyclopedia of San Francisco', which looks very cool and you can check it out here. It comes as Stabile prepares to present an in-progress documentary at the Yerba Buena Center for the Arts which chronicles San Francisco's reign as the center of porn production in the U.S. during the early 70s. In 1969, San Francisco became the first city in the U.S. to effectively legalize pornography, hugely boosting our reputation as a boomtown for sex, and eventually opening up the floodgates to the rest of the country.

You can watch a trailer below and if you're in San Francisco, check out the film on the 14th of July. Book tickets here. Yet again, I wished I lived in San Francisco or had the cash to commute at whim!

When Rights Collide

The media are still focused on the phone hacking stuff (possible economic disaster in Italy and Spain is pushed to the 'by the way' news slot), and so it's unlikely that an extraordinary story from the UK Equality and Human Rights Commission is going to get much of a look in. It should.

Yesterday, the Commission released a statement indicating (if it was given leave), that it would be bringing a legal action arguing that Judges have interpreted the law too narrowly in religion or belief discrimination claims, and it is now seeking to intervene in four cases at the European Court of Human Rights all involving religious discrimination in the workplace.

The Commission will propose the idea of ‘reasonable accommodations’ which they argue, will help employers and others manage how they allow people to manifest their religion or belief.

They even offer an example of a Jew asks not to have to work on a Saturday for religious reasons, his employer could accommodate this with minimum disruption simply by changing the rota. This would potentially be reasonable and would provide a good outcome for both employee and employer.

This has in turn led to Stonewall riding into battle. Stonewall Chief Executive Ben Summerskill said in a further press release:

"Stonewall is deeply disturbed at the EHRC’s statement announcing applications to intervene in European Court cases of claimed discrimination against Christians in the workplace. The case features two individuals, Lillian Ladele and Gary McFarlane, who have refused to provide public services to gay people.

The Commission should be crystal clear that if it seeks to defend the claimed right of any public servant to turn away any user of a public service, it will face strong opposition. Gay taxpayers currently contribute £40 billion a year to the cost of Britain’s public services and no lesbian and gay person should ever be deprived of access to them."

Quite right too, but it's worth remembering the function of the EHRC. In the words of the Commission, it has a 'statutory remit to promote and monitor human rights; and to protect, enforce and promote equality across the nine "protected" grounds - age, disability, gender, race, religion and belief, pregnancy and maternity, marriage and civil partnership, sexual orientation and gender reassignment.'

This has meant that the Commission has a barmy set-up of trying to represent a 'batch' of 'minority' interests which anyone who has ever sat on an equality group will tell you, doesn't work. Now we see those groups in conflict. This move by the Commission is all the more extraordinary for it apparently didn't consult with its own board - which would surely have flagged up these issues.

The most obvious difficulty that would arise from a successful move by the Commission is that those Christians who do not want to conduct a Civil Partnership - or down the line - a possible gay marriage - could decline on religious grounds. In parts of the country with a large Muslim or other orthodox religious population, it's not inconceivable that it might become difficult to have a civil partnership conducted at all. What about the cleaner in a large hotel who doesn't want to change the bedding in the bedroom of a gay couple - where the cleaner is one of many and someone else could do the room - a successful action by the Commission would arguably render such behaviour acceptable.

This case is about discrimination and ultimately the Commission is trying (and failing) to find a third-way between discriminating against the religious, and discriminating against homosexuals. I often tell students that understanding the law is about the application of values and ideas. There is no such thing as equality in this arena - there is instead the necessary choice of which side you back - a hatred of homosexuals or a hatred of religious freedom.

It is easy for me, as an agnostic gay man, to choose a side in that dispute. It is arguably impossible for any 'Equality' Commission and yet, remarkably, that is what they have done.

There is no middle ground in this debate. This is after all, a debate in which the law is cast as an instrument of values and who wins this battle will define legal attitudes to sexuality.

I Will Follow Him

Some of you will have noticed that I have a 'Follow Chris' tab at the top of this page with links to a range of social networking/media sharing sites that I'm on and which you can add me to. I've now given in to the latest thing and joined Google+ Check out the 'Follow Chris' tab for the link - just click the images for the corresponding site. I'm in need of people to add to circles...

While we're on the self-centred disciple like terminology of 'following', I thought I'd throw in some singing nuns...(no, I am not comparing myself to God but given all this following terminology you can see it's a slippery slope to threatening hell, damnation and demanding temples to worship me in...). Hurrah for randomness.

The Withering of Queer Space?

WBEZ, the Chicago based media company has a superb webpage with a radio recording, video footage, pictures and detailed analysis exploring the growing issue of violence in Boystown - the LGBT neighbourhood. Read it all here - a must for my law students (who will hopefully read this in the next academic search after searching the blog!).

It comes as the Manchester scene continues to wrestle with growing tensions with the influx of heterosexuals invading the village (excellent research by Moran and Skeggs et al on this). Liverpool seems in long-term debate over greater attempts by the council to promote a queer space as a destination (and with it the potential problems that Manchester faces). In the north -east Newcastle continues to struggle to grow and is all too grim despite the best efforts of some, and would be grateful to face the issues that Liverpool and Manchester face. Middlesbrough appears to have a small but successful queer community, if not the same clear 'village' whilst Sunderland is still no-where, although there continue to be sporadic efforts.

Back in the US, San Francisco's Castro has seen sky-high house prices continue to push out LGBT citizens in favour of richer heterosexuals and as locals there tell me the Castro is struggling economically - the closure of A Different Light bookstore earlier this year being one depressing example.

Together, they show that whilst the problems vary, queer spaces beyond Chicago are facing growing crises of identity and function. The socio-legal change of the last twenty years has brought with it new challenges to our cultural geography; changes that we need to recognise and respond to before it's too late.

Pink News and the NOTW Legal Entanglement

Media and legal eyes will be on the News of the World tomorrow as it closes after 168 years. The paper is going out with a fond recollection of all the great stories it has published in the past, but I wonder if it will include the gay celebrity rumour mongering it has engaged in? Pink News reminds readers this evening of a curious entanglement of the two publications a few years ago which Pink News entitles: 'How the News of the World threatened PinkNews after Ashley Cole expose.' Check it out here.

Fire Up the Orgasmatron!

The Guardian carries a wonderful feature piece today from Christopher Turner. It comes in advance of a book from Turner (to be published next month) exploring Wilhelm Reich and his orgone energy accumulator. A must read, check it out here.

The Sex Lives of Men

Monique Roffey, author of 'With the Kisses of his Mouth' has written an interesting little piece in the Guardian today. She ponders why it is that women like her are willing tow rite openly about their sex lives, but few men feel able to do the same. Read it in full here.

The Internet is cluttered with gay and bi men writing about their sex lives but these do not appear in 'commercial' texts so I wonder if this is actually a rather more complicated picture than Roffey suggests? Are straight men different in this regard? Thoughts?

Rebekah Brooks and Fitness to Lead

The phone hacking story is gathering momentum and events will no doubt have moved on in the brief time I sit and write this post. What's curious from the point of view of this blog is the way that Rebekah Brooks has sought to defend herself today. She's been silent (thus far) on the airwaves but did release a written statement which you can read in full here.

About three-quarters of the way through her statement, she seeks to define her tenure at News of the World in the following terms:

'I hope that you all realise it is inconceivable that I knew or worse, sanctioned these appalling allegations.

I am proud of the many successful newspaper campaigns at the Sun and the News of the World under my editorship.

In particular, the 10-year fight for Sarah's Law is especially personal to me.

The battle for better protection of children from paedophiles and better rights for the families and the victims of these crimes defined my editorships.'

I heard this with disbelief. During the period that Wade refers to, News of the World shamelessly fuelled a moral panic around paedophilia and inter-generational sex in the name of profits. Together with other tabloid papers (notably fellow Murdoch paper, The Sun - and which she also went on to edit) it sought to dominate the media with endless scare-mongering. It has been widely accepted to have linked to one incident in which vigilantes attacked the home of a hospital paediatrician after apparently confusing her professional title with the word 'paedophile'. Remind yourself of that story here.

That moral panic has continued to frame the debate around paedophilia, limiting policy development and hampering intellectual and academic exploration of the complex issues in this area. Few academics are brave to talk about this issue, and fewer still are willing to challenge accepted wisdom in the field thanks to campaigns such as the one run by Brooks and the News of the World. Such was the extreme nature of these fear feeding frenzies that Brass Eye satirised the media's treatment of this issue in 2001 - see that here.

That doesn't sound like something I'd want to highlight as my finest hour, or to define me as the sort of person I am. In fact, it seems to suggest someone who would exploit vulnerable people for their own profitable cause. Whether that applies explicitly to Brooks is for others to decide but her defence today, I would suggest, raises fresh questions about the ethics of media leaders.

What is clear however, is that it is a shameless mischaracterisation of history to now define that period of journalism as anything other than the shameless fuelling of a moral panic for commercial gain.

Appeal: Calling Manchester Folks

Don't panic, this isn't one of those "just £2 a month" adverts as I peer into the camera with puppy eyes. Well, not quite anyway. Regular readers will know I run an annual field trip to Manchester as part of my final year LLB Law and Sexuality module. It's going to be 7/8th November this year and I'm looking for some friendly Manchester organisations and individuals who'll talk to us about anything and everything related to sexuality (it needn't be overtly 'legal') as I'm interested in the wider sociological context that the law operates within. It will be around 20/25 people inclusive of myself and a colleague. I'd love to get us into a sauna one year but such are the extensive opening hours these days that it doesn't seem practical (more girls than boys in the cohort and can't be walking around while men are mid fellatio - the university isn't terribly keen on that featuring as an organised aspect of field trips for some reason).

Anyway, if you know of anyone who'd be interested in helping us out/talking some more or you are that person, please get in touch: chris.ashford@sunderland.ac.uk or on Twitter: @lawandsexuality

I'll no doubt throw some help requests out nearer the time but I thought I'd get one in early!

Sex in the Community

I recently heard rather a lot of disquiet about rising prices at San Francisco's (porn) sex shops. This relates to the price of using 'buddy booths' or video booths'. The small rooms showing porn, sometimes with gloryholes, sometimes filthy, occasionally the effective day-centre of some homeless guy and occasionally the scene of orgasmic delight. Such is the external vision of SF, that some might assume there would be some community orgasm programme, but in a very American fashion, there is a private sector option. Treasure Island Media (TIM) is currently offering the first of a new series of community 'coupons'. TIM have stated that: 'as part of our commitment to supporting our local and global sex culture, we have arranged special deal with business around the country. We will be introducing one new T.I.M. deal per week.'

You can download/print the first voucher here. It's for Folsom Gulch, one of the SF venues with apparently a recent price increase. There's no website for them but they can be found at 947 Folsom St. The venue has previously been used for TIMs 'Suck Dick, Save the World' event last year (linked to their DVD series of the same name)(pictured right) and has also featured as the scene for a bareback film. Bareback sex is also reported to take place there. Of course, the voucher scheme provides 'value added' from the porn company - you don't have to buy anything to download the voucher - and also could increase footfall at Folsom Gulch. Win win no? Of course, there is then the question of the men who will want to go there - Folsom Gulch can hardly complain if a traditionally more oral based venue becomes increasingly the scene of fucking - and bareback fucks at that. As such, it could present a commercial challenge to Mack Folsom prison - a sex club - which is an established bareback venue (although its website obviously emphasises safe sex).

It will be interesting to see what venues/deals TIM now goes for. It will also be interested if this will have any impact on the SF commercial sex scene. Ant recent visitors care to share their experiences of any impact?

Links: Help Wanted!

Before the start of the next academic year, I aim to tidy up my links. Some are broke and there's now that many that it would help to organise them into categories. I'd really welcome any suggestions for new links that I should include on the blog. I've also long debated having a not safe for work (NSFW) list of links too. What do you think? There are sites that can be interesting/useful but which also display explicit material so it seems sensible to me provided they are clearly labelled as NSFW.

Seeing as the only people likely to be reading this are the loyal few, can I also remind you of my offer/request for 'guest posts' that I can pop up over the summer while I'm busy with other projects? You may have noticed a fantastic Mark Simpson interview piece by Quiet Riot Girl. Check it out here.

All offers/link suggestions to chris.ashford@sunderland.ac.uk

Thanks!

Cradle Snatching and the Kiwi Swimmer

Curious story in The Times today (apologies, it's behind the paywall) about the New Zealand swimmer Justin Wright. Justin is 17 and in a relationship with his girlfriend, and fellow swimmer, the 24-year-old Rhi Jeffrey, much to the disgust of Wright's parents. The Times reports:

'Mr and Mrs Wright were reportedly not happy about the pair’s relationship because of the age difference, and sent e-mails to club members demanding the club coach intervene. The correspondence became so abusive that David Wright hired a lawyer to put a stop to them.
The Wrights later withdrew their consent for Justin to compete at Swimming New Zealand events, destroying his chances of qualifying for the Swimming World Cup in November and potentially thwarting his Olympic ambitions.

'In what is believed to be a legal first in New Zealand, Justin — who turns 18 in three months — this week won court permission to be a member of Swimming New Zealand against his parents’ wishes.

'The high school student said he was “annoyed” his parents had tried to prevent him from competing, and now the court had ruled in his favour he planned to try and qualify for World Cup events in Asia.

'Justin, who has moved out of the family home and now lives with Ms Jeffrey, said he was not sure if he could mend his relationship with his parents but he would not give up his girlfriend.

“I couldn’t believe they had done that,” he said. “But now that we have been through the court and I can swim I am pretty happy.”'

I find myself wondering whether the same relaxed tone with flow through the article if the genders had been reversed, or (shock horror) we were talking about a same-sex couple (especially a male one). What do you think?

The story is also reported in The Metro.

Growing Opera North Outrage

I first learnt of this story via outraged tweets last night. The Guardian reports that Opera North's plans for the opera, Beached was cancelled. According to the Guardian, the writer and playwright Lee Hall, who wrote the libretto, said he was asked by Opera North to remove explicit references to the sexuality of one character. He refused.

The demand to cut the references came from the primary school, which had nearly 300 children involved. The school felt it was age-inappropriate for a production involving children aged from four to 11.

The story goes on to state that: 'the central problem is a scene – which does not involve any children – when the main character is confronted by a group of lads. He reveals: "Of course I'm queer/That's why I left here/So if you infer/That I prefer/A lad to a lass/ And I'm working class/ I'd have to concur."'

The unwillingness of the local authority to enter into discussions is depressing and I suspect as this story gathers momentum, they will suddenly become more communicative (if they haven't already).

The story will serve to remind many of the days that Section 28 did so much to limit the arts for fear of 'promoting' homosexuality. It is unsurprising that Hall and many readers will therefore find this set of developments seems to hark back to an earlier age of state-enshrined homophobia. Section 28 has gone, and with it should have gone the fear and homophobia that characterised many schools and local authorities in dealing with the subject of sexuality.

I hope that the project goes ahead, and another school(s) come forward with more informed and open approach to education.

Ricky Martin

The guardian carries an interesting article today with the singer Ricky Martin. A gay celebrity isn't that surprising, but a gay celebrity who is latino is. Read the full interview here.