The Sex(y) Boy and Treasure Island Media

The controversial TIM poster

If you consider yourself the most controversial bareback porn company in the world, how to stay in the news?  How do you remain 'controversial'?  In practical terms this arguably means being ever more outrageous, more shocking and more scandalous.  A remorseless engine of filth and depravity.  Yet, rather like Jaws: The Revenge, there comes a point when things just don't work anymore.  It's a sequel too far.

I'm not sure we're there with Treasure Island Media (TIM) yet - they are a loved brand which continues to operate in the counter-cultural space of bareback sex - but the pressure is undoubtedly there to keep being controversial.

Yet, any such pressure could be ephemeral or indeed, misguided.  As long as legislators and judges keep seeking to use law as a tool to limit, and potentially criminalise bareback sex, TIM will be able to claim the role as counter-cultural icons.  Given the widespread practising of bareback sex within same-sex encounters, they are also able to be 'popular' counter-cultural icons.  A double win.

Moreover, simply being there and being the celebrated stuff of masturbatory sessions across the globe is not, and has never been enough for TIM (NSFW).  I was therefore fascinated to see them seek to associate themselves with another taboo act in recent weeks.  The taboo of taboos.  The big daddy of controversy.  Yes, inter-generation sex.

Legally defined typically as paedophilia when involving children, inter-generational sex remains the social horror of our time.  To label someone as a paedophile is to pronounce them socially and potentially physically dead.  They are transformed into the ultimate evil within society.  Our understanding of paedophilia is increasingly nebulous, encompassing someone who accidentally downloads a paedophile image alongside another who rapes a child.  Whilst we can accept that someone might want to watch The Sopranos and not seek to become a mob boss, Weeds and become a (fairly useless) drug dealer with cute kids or Hung and seek to become a wooden (in every sense) male escort, or indeed, even if we aspire to any of these things, we won't actually do it; we can not contemplate even curiosity around the image of someone under 18 years old.  This is is despite English law finding is acceptable to sleep with someone aged above 16 (shag 'em, just don't take a picture).  It is indeed a curious socio-legal landscape.

The original Edelfelt painting

Yet, despite this, I've been struck by the way in which social media - notable Twitter most recently - has enabled those aged below 18 and indeed, below 16 to express their sexual desires, arrange hook-ups and document their sexual encounters.  Similarly, uncertainty and fears are sometimes expressed.  In short, human beings and their complex sexual awakenings are laid bare.

Into this fascinating cultural maelstrom enters TIM, apparently deliberately seeking to play with the issue of age.

At the start of the month, TIM uploaded a poster on their social media sites promoting a new film release entitled Return to Meat Rack (it's a sequel but hopefully better than Jaws IV).  It depicted two boys playing with boats on a lake or by the sea.  The young boys and the composition evokes innocence, a deliberate counter-point to the function of the poster - promoting a film about men fucking.  To date, the postings on Facebook have resulted in 76 comments from TIM followers and fans with a mix of reactions but many are negative, suggesting that TIM have gone 'too far'.

It's through these comments however that we learn (thanks to one culture vulture fan) that the picture is in fact from Albert Edelfelt and a quick Googling reveals the picture to be dated from around 1885, an oil on canvas production and entitled 'Boys playing on the beach' (Leikkiviä poikia rannalla).  Interestingly, there is a third boy in the original picture (see above) who is edited out of the TIM composition.

An earlier TIM poster depicting a 'child'

None of this is entirely new however. TIM previously published rejected posters from years gone by including one allegedly of a young (rather affluent looking) Paul Morris, aged 8 on a scooter (pictured right).  The slogan - which apparently deliberately evokes inter-generational behaviour - states 'A Better World One Boy at a Time'.  Boy is one of those words that can be taken to mean a male child but which is also used extensively - especially in 'gay' circles - to denote a young male - typically twinkish looking which is to say slim, smooth, well errr, boyish.  A twinkly boy is OK to lust after, whilst a real one isn't.

All of which are broad points I've made before but it is TIM utilising the idea of age and hidden desire as a marketing tool which is fascinating and new.

They apparently believe - and I think they are right - that just as homosexuality, then bareback sex were desires which have had complex social and legal relationships, so too is inter-generational sex.  Put simply, they think that gay men probably quite like boys more than we'd care to admit.  Such is the history of claims that homosexuals were out to 'take your children' that once again a silence is imposed for social and political reasons within the gay community - and the point I accept at the start of this paragraph will be toxic for many.

Jackson Taylor

Yet, leaving that aside, there is the less radical, but perhaps no less controversial idea that children can be sexual beings.  This is the revelation that social media already offers to anyone willing to see it, and raising difficult social and legal questions about consent and contemporary domesticity.

Morris has a Flickr page (NSFW) where he uploads some wonderful images freely available to all those who pass through an age barrier.  What always makes these photos so engaging - at least for me - is the use of captioning.  This allow the viewer to be located in the moment and somehow lends greater power to the image.  Much as when we look at a photo we have taken or were present for, we add an inward dimension to the image - context and emotion  - so too, do these captions add something.  His latest model obsession  -and potentially hit - for the studio is a twenty year old man/boy called Jackson Taylor (pictured left).  Morris has uploaded several pictures of Jackson and he comments under one image: 'I said "I'm thinking of signing you on. What do you think?" He responded "If you get me fucked all the time, I'll sign the contract in blood." If you saw him at the next table in a restaurant you'd think he was the picture of innocence and naivete. But this boy is one of the most voracious sexual predators I've ever met. We signed the contract before he'd even put his clothes back on.'

In this and a number of other comments, Jackson is anchored as a sexual being of today. Seeing Jackson getting fucked in Manfuck Manifesto (see more here, possibly NSFW) viewers of TIM pornography are left in no doubt about that sexual status.  Yet, we also have Morris posting on his photos (under the Jackson image reproduced above) the following fascinating text: 'I asked "How old were you when you started fucking?" He said "I was four. I seduced the 12-year-old twins who lived next door." I responded "Precocious--if it's true." He looked at me like this and said "Believe it or not, but it's true." He's 19 and has an understanding of sex that's truly rare.'

So now Jackson is a sexual being since four, and moreover, a sexual predator since four.  There is no question that he is the abused, or the 'victim'.  Defining him as the predator, and Jackson using the term predator - to denote an encounter with older boys - locate him as the individual with power.

This photo on Morris' Flickr page was uploaded on February 12th but it wouldn't have been a total surprise to TIM fans who might have noticed this post (NSFW) on TIM's Island website (this evolved out of their blog) which appeared on February 8th.  It introduces us to Jackson and his story.  It states:

Born in rural Sicily a scant 19 years ago, JACKSON TAYLOR (born Giuseppe Bontade) began his career as a primo fuckisto at the tender age of four. “I knew what I wanted to do from very early on,” says Mr. TAYLOR. “Our neighbors in Sicily had a pair of twins—they were 12. They gave me my first experience, my prima apertura, my grand opening. The affair lasted nearly a year.” Forced to flee their native village by irate clergy and outraged villagers, Mr. TAYLOR’s family took their precocious son to America, land of the free and willing. “Once we reached the Land of Opportunity, it’s pretty much been a straight-up path to Treasure Island Media for me. Of course it’s been my lifelong dream.” When Mr. TAYLOR approached T.I.M., the welcome was warm. “I know genius when I fuck it,” quipped porn legend PAUL MORRIS. “This boy may be slight of stature, but his bunghole can take anything we give it.” When asked about future dreams, Mr. TAYLOR wrinkled his boyish nose, shrugged coquettishly and said, “I dunno… Donkeys and dogs, maybe! And I like cheerleading.” JACKSON seems to be on a mission to take every load in America. We’re not wasting any time helping him! Watch him getting plowed by Ethan Wolfe in his TIM premiere, MANFUCK MANIFESTO.

So, here we have the 12 year old twins again (yes, incest is subtly hinted at too) and then we move into a blurb that seems to have been written by someone who has spent too long watching bad daytime soaps.  It's hard not to raise an eyebrow or a chuckle at the 'forced to flee' section.  This does of course also serve to cast doubt over the whole story but true or otherwise, TIM are making use of it and as with so many things that TIM do, truth as a fixed permanent concept must be abandoned in favour of a postmodern framework.  In the final section of the Jackson blurb we move into the positioning of Jackson as boyish, with innocence deployed to denote youth.  A sex(y) boy clearly and, his media persona suggests, a slutty one at that.

TIM started 2011 with a determination to push HIV positive porn and that - to my surprise - didn't work out.  This year, they are not stating they re trying to push a new area of controversy but there can be little doubt that like the boys in the Edelfelt picture, they are dipping their toes in the water.  This is one to watch with implications well beyond the world of bareback porn.

The Porn Ban That Wasn't?

Curious times.  I blogged yesterday on briefed plans for new controls on access to pornography and other explicit material in British homes coupled with the launch of a new website - Parentport - through which parents could report their concerns about individual sites and obtain support.  The media reports were, I suggested, muddled.  Conflicted messaged about opt in or opt out and as the day advanced, there seemed a third option of opt in but only for news customers.  So I waited.  And I waited.  Eventually, the BBC updated their story in the evening - buried on the technology pages after it had started the morning headlining on the news and featuring prominently in many newspapers.

So where are we?  Well, Number 10 helpfully published a press release on the event.  It is headlined 'PM launched Parentport website' - so no mention of porn or the ISP's.  It states:  'The Prime Minister and Children’s Minister, Sarah Teather have hosted a summit at Downing Street on tackling the commercialisation and sexualisation of childhood. The Prime Minister was joined by parents and children to view the new Parentport website.'

Which all sounds rather lovely.  A Lib Dem minister plus the PrimeMinsiter had a few parents and children around to number 10 to take a look at a website.  Lovely, but it doesn't exactly set the heather alight does it?  What of the four ISP's trailed in the media stories, or the issue of opt in/opt out to website controls.  Buried mid way through the press release is the following line:

'The commitment from the top four Internet service providers (BT, Sky, TalkTalk and Virgin) that all customers will receive an active choice at the point of purchase over whether they want to block adult content on their home Internet or laptops.'

Ahhh, an 'active choice'.  Seemingly vague but it does indeed suggest that these companies will have a box on their website or a question during purchase offering parents the opportunity to request a block - although the press release still doesn't define what 'adult content' is.  Questions continue to abound.

One of the interesting revelations in this press release was the inclusion of Sarah Tether - this was not a Cameron only, Conservative proposal.  It was a coalition proposal.  So, what are the Department of Education saying about the event?  This is the department that Tether is based in and which has produced the same press release text as Number 10 except the headline has mysteriously changed.  They go with:  'Prime Minister welcomes progress on tackling commercialisation and sexualisation of childhood but says more must be done.'  So perhaps we start to get to the bottom of the muddle - two departments involved in an event both attempting to say the same thing but spinning the story in a different way.  Then we add into the mix the Mothers Union who seem to have a more prominent say in the BBC report - and who - given their inclusion - were obviously briefed before the event and may well have also been briefing the media on how their understood the proposals.

So, we have a set of measures by some members of the Internet industry that still seem incredibly ill-thought out, badly conceived and unlikely to achieve the misplaced aims that the British Government seems to want to achieve.  Yet, I am less concerned than I was this time yesterday morning as the changes are perhaps more stupid than scary.

The Sexualisation of Youth

The publication of the Bailey Report on the so-called sexualisation of children coincided with me being out of the country, and swamped with work. I may be back in the UK, but I'm still swamped. Let me therefore point you in the direction of an excellent discussion of the issues with the wonderful Petra Boynton - check out her blog here - It's full of all the links you could possibly want. Charlie Brooker has added his ever caustic and wise voice to the debate in today's Guardian; check out that piece here.

Child Sexuality and the Limits of Consent

I came across this story the other week, and I've been mulling it over since, debating whether to post a link, and if I did, what comment, if any, to add.

The story refers to a case before the Brisbane Supreme Court, in which it was revealed that a 12-year-old boy - posing as an 18-year-old homosexual man - actively pursued and engaged in sexual encounters with a man he met via an Internet dating service. He'd used a 'mainstream' dating service called Oasis Active to set up the site.

The court was told that over the space of three months, the boy would sneak out his family home, in Brisbane's east, late at night and slip down the street to a nearby golf course to meet his online liaison who was at that time a 30-year-old lifesaving fundraiser.

The boy indicated that when he met males online - including Powell who went by the nickname "Johnny" - he would inform them he was 13-years-old, a year older than he actually was.

Recovered Internet chats found on Powell's laptop computer reveal he discussed having a weekend "sleepover" with the boy, a possible "threesome" with "another "guy".

They also included a request from the child that "this time your going to (expletive deleted) me."

During another online chat Powell asked the boy why he was at home on his computer during a school day.

"When the child responded that he was pretending to be sick and was home alone all day, he (Powell) suggested: 'Maybe I should come over'," the schedule says.

"When the child advised that another guy was coming over they discussed a possible threesome."

Read the full story here. I've tried in vane to find other reports or any court transcripts/judgment but if anyone does have such links, please post them as a comment.

So, here's a few thoughts/questions:

• Would our reaction be the same if rather than being 30, the convicted male had been 18? If so, why?
• Had the boy not revealed he was 13 subsequently (which was also a lie), and insisted he was 18 all along, would we react the same way?
• Had the boy posted a picture on his profile in which he appeared older than he was, would we take that into account in reaching a moral (as distinct from legal) view?

The killer question, can a 12 year old consent? Legally, no he can not. We can not make a judgment on these small exerts in a news story, but all the quotes from the child suggest a boy who is sexually aware, knows exactly what he doing, and is so determined to have homosexual sex with a male that he will lie to achieve that goal. In certain circumstances, the law accepts a child can consent. Has this child reached that level of consciousness?

Even if he has reached that level, is that outweighed by the obligation of an adult to refuse that boy's request? Yet, is that refusal based on the assumption of a harm being inflicted upon the boy? Should we simply encourage the boy to find a sexual act with someone nearer his age if sexual experimentation is what he's determined upon? If so, is it the age difference rather than a 12 year old having sex per se that concerns us? Ahh yes, age difference. If it is age difference, then it's not about consent at all, it's about something else. So, what exactly is and should be the guiding influence for law and the state in such cases.

I don't have the answers, just a whole bunch of questions.

Event: Girls, Sexuality and Sexualisation: Beyond Sensationalism and Spectacle

Readers may be interested in the following event:

Girls, Sexuality and Sexualisation: Beyond Sensationalism and Spectacle

Date: 30th June 2011

Venue: Cardiff University (School of Social Sciences, Glamorgan Building, Committee Rooms 1&2)


PROGRAMME

10.00-10.15 Registration

10.15 – 1030 Introduction and welcome

(Meg Barker, Ros Gill, Emma Renold and Jessica Ringrose)

10.30-11.30 Theorising and researching teen-girls’ sexual cultures in an era of sexualisation: beyond the moral panic

(Dr. Emma Renold, School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University and Dr. Jessica Ringrose, Institute of Education, University of London)

11.30-12.30 Sexualisation, Splitting and Innocence as Reparation

(Danielle Egan, Professor and Coordinator of Gender and Sexuality Studies

St. Lawrence University, New York)

12.30-1.30 LUNCH

1.30-2.30 “Don't do what I did”: parental sex education, memories and 'sexualisation'

(Laura Harvey, Department of Psychology, Open University)

2.30-3.30 “Studying sexual desire and expectations in girls and young women: Methodological dilemmas and opportunities.”

(Dr. Sara McClleland, Psychology & Women's Studies, University of Michigan)

3.30-3.45 Refreshments

3.45 – 4.45 Definitions, discourses and dilemmas: policy and academic engagement with the sexualisation of culture

(Dr. Maddy Coy, Child and Women Abuse Studies Unit, London Metropolitan University)

4.45 – 5.30 Discussion

(Discussant: Professor Valerie Walkerdine, School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University)


Participation details:

Places are limited for this event and need to be booked in advance. Please contact socsi-events@cf.ac.uk for further information.

To find out more about this seminar series see: http://www.kcl.ac.uk/schools/humanities/depts/cci/events/sexualisation.html

For details of the forthcoming 2011 international 2 day conference, Complicating Debates About the 'Sexualisation of Culture' see:

http://www.ioe.ac.uk/research/50360.html

The Politics of Sexualisation

Really great piece from Jane Fae in the Freedom in a Puritan Age webzine. Check it out here.