In a knot over BDSM

In a recent Guardian column, film reviewer Joe Queenan turned his gaze on The Notorious Bettie Page, a movie about the 1950s model who posed in soft bondage pictures, clad in leather corsets and six-inch patent-leather heels, and holding a whip.

At one point, he commented: "With her winning smile, Page apotheosised an era when fetishism was stylish and witty, and even a tad goofy, when it wasn't all about humiliation, penetration, suspension and asphyxiation. You know: back when fetishism had class."

Well slap my botty with a stick of wet celery and call me a pervert: when did "fetishism" become "all about" such things? When did the bulk of the kink community suddenly start playing dangerous asphyxiation games?

Does Mr Q live on a different planet where his faux nostalgia has some basis in reality?

BDSM is "about" a vast arena of things. But this is typical of how people who haven’t a clue like to characterise it. Does it matter? In one sense, no. On the other hand, with people still being prosecuted and risking prosecution for consensual activities between adults, it's important to tackle ignorance.

When the jury in the Spanner case were told that one of the defendants had had a nail hammered through his penis, they believed what they were told. Since they weren't allowed to see the incriminating video, they didn't know that what actually happened was that one of the men removed a piercing from his genitals before a nail was inserted in the hole and then gently tacked to a table.

Quite a creative form of bondage, actually. And most certainly not the same as having a nail smashed through one's prick.

Unfortunately, even after the 2003 Sexual Offences Act, the legislation makes it an offence to administer or consent to have administered any mark that lasts more than a moment or so. In other words, strictly speaking, a lovebite is an offence.

So you can consent to be beaten up in a boxing ring, but you can't consent to have your ass caned if it leaves marks. (Damn! That's part of the fun.)

The Spanner Trust and others continue to campaign against such paternalistic laws. But articles that dismiss many thousands of people in such a blasé manner don't do anyone any favours in terms of working towards a grown-up and tolerant society.

Joe dear, you don't know what you're talking about. Or else you're going to all the wrong places.

Beware Blair's religious mafia

Are we on the verge of a new era of puritanism? A 21st-century Inquisition?

Because while some people get into a tizzy over whether the Islamic hordes will soon have us all living under Sharia law, another form of fundamentalism stalks the corridors of Westminster, interfering with our lives.

Everyone knows that the Tony Blair is a Christian. Of course the Prime Minister wouldn't answer Jeremy Paxman's pre-Election question about whether he prayed together with George W Bush, but his discomfort was obvious. And there are times when it seems religion is his only 'logical' motivation for backing all Dubya's 'crusades'.

But let's go beyond the PM. There's Ruth Kelly, a member of that extreme little sect of Roman Catholicism, Opus Dei, whose adherants love wearing spiked garter belts to remind themselves of their sinful natures.

Kelly is now Minister for Women and Equality, with responsibility for looking after implementation of legislation on sexuality equality. Which must be so trying for the poor soul, since her particular cult doesn't like gays and lesbians at all.

A few months ago, just after her appointment, Kelly refused to answer questions about her attitude to homosexuality; but she always avoided being around when there have been any votes on anything to do with the issue – Section 28, age of consent, Civil Partnerships Act etc.

Can she really be trusted to deliver on implementation of the equality Act? Would she have to wear longer spikes, for longer, if she did her job properly?

And so to Catholic Paul Coggins, the Minister with responsibility for the government's planned legislation On Possession of Extreme Pornography.

The Home Office team dealing with the consultation period on this has three "ardent Catholics" (according to the Spanner Trust) amongst its five-person team. Perhaps that's why it's such a crackpot plan, based more on a feeling that women (it's never men, you note) who are involved in producing "extreme" porn (which they can't define) can't have done so voluntarily and must be helped – and must be helped even if they are involved voluntarily.

Recognise something very Catholic about such a patronising and sexist attitude?

The consultation process was not carried out correctly (they so wanted to keep it all quiet) and the consultation document itself was a joke – not least because even they had to admit that, after decades of research, there is still not a shred of evidence that women and children suffer as a result of men looking at porn.

All of which suggests that this proposed legislation is being driven by something other than facts; that it is being driven by ideology.

Let's not forget Home Office minister Fiona Mactaggart, who described people going to prostitutes as no better than child abusers. Guess who is now dealing with prostitution? And, whilst we don't know any specifics about Mactaggart's personal faith, her rapid political rise saw her appointment, only a short while after entering Parliament, as the chair of one of Blair's pet committees discussing how 'faith groups' can do more in the community. So presumably she isn't anti-religious.

Last week, Pink News challenged Blair's heir apparent and a fellow believer, Gordon Brown, over why, like Kelly, he has never been in Parliament for any vote on gay-related issues, including the Civil Partnerships Act, Section 28, gay adoption, the equality legislation and the age of consent.

Brown's press secretary has challenged the Pink News article but, as of today, hasn't explained why the Chancellor didn't attend 14 votes.

And while we're on the subject, don't forget Blair's beloved City Academies, some funded by Christian fundamentalists such as Sir Peter Vardy. Not only are a number of these institutions already teaching creationism as comparable with evolution, but new curriculum changes mean that, as of this September, schools will be able to include discussion of creationism in science classes, alongside evolutionary science. Presumably they'll be able to discuss science in their mythology classes too?

Worry about Islamic fundamentalism all you will, but if you value your sexual and intellectual and cultural freedom, don't let such a fear blind you to the threat of the enemy within.

Having it both ways

Here's a thing: how do you define bisexual erotica?

There's a very entertaining collection available, called Unlimited Desires: An International Anthology of Bisexual Erotica, but it's sometimes difficult to see what makes it bisexual.

There are all-female stories and all-male stories, but few that play with scenarios involving two women and a man or two men and a woman, for instance. These could offer an obvious opportunity for bisexual activity, but aren't the others just lesbian or gay stories?

The question lies with authorship; if it's a collection by disparate authors, then it's hard to see where the bisexuality lies. If it's a collection by one author – female, say – with all-women stories, women-male stories and stories that include larger, mixed groups, then it would seem fair to describe that as 'bisexual'.

Maybe this sense of ambiguity is behind the lack of understand of bisexuality? Perhaps the fact that some people fancy members of both sexes is behind the belief of some that bisexuality is synonymous with promiscuity? After all, if you like both, you must be shagging both – or else you'd simply be homosexual or heterosexual, wouldn't you?

Well, something like that.

Whilst it's clear that homophobia still exists – with appalling consequences for those who suffer as a result – there is a general social acceptance of homosexuality; if last year's Civil Partnerships Act did if nothing else, it nailed the colours of tolerance to the mast of government.

But bisexuality still confuses people. There seems to be a deep belief that you're either one thing or the other – a very two-dimensional way of looking at life.

And gays and lesbians can be as anti-bisexuals as heterosexuals – 'you just haven't made up your mind yet' – although the advent and growth of the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) movement has seen real steps forward.

With a nod to John Lennon, imagine a time when nobody will remotely care about sexuality, who you're shagging (or not), how many you're shagging or how.

We can dream.

Kinky cuts

Since the Millennium provided the initial nostalgic excuse, you don't seem to have been able to escape list programmes on the TV and lists in every publication imaginable.

So, in a spirit of conformity – and in celebration of today's rising of Parliament and the official start of The Silly Season…

A BDSM Top 10

Venus in Furs, The Velvet Underground

Pain is so Close to Pleasure, Queen

Bed of Nails, Alice Cooper

Hurt, The Nine Inch Nails

I Don’t Mind the Thorns (If You’re the Rose), Lee Greenwood

Torture Chamber, Edan

Love is a Gentle Whip, Mooney Suzuki

Golden Handcuffs, The Vectors

Human Bondage Den, Adam and the Ants

The Divine Art of Torture, Necrophagia

Congratulations

... to Chris Smith and his partner of 18 years, Dorian Jabri, who had a civil partnership ceremony at Islington Town Hall on Friday.

The couple made the announcement on Saturday night at a party that had been billed as Lord Smith of Finsbury's 55th birthday bash.

The ex-Cabinet Minister was the first openly gay MP – he came out in 1984 – and he now becomes the first peer to have a civil partnership.

Lord Smith was heavily involved in bringing about the Civil Partnerships Act that made their union possible.

Christians and fascists make common cause

After the authorities in the Latvian capital of Riga caved in to homophobic groups by cancelling Saturday's Pride march, demonstrators still found something to get offended by – and show just how offensive they can be.

A service at the city's Anglican church saw those attending pelted with tomatoes, eggs and excrement as they left the Pride-themed service.

The Baltic Times reports that police arrested 14 people and one faces criminal charges.

Later in the day, about 300 anti-gay demonstrators, including fascists and some Christian groups, gathered outside of a hotel later to protest against a Pride gathering inside, which organisers had staged instead of the parade.

Meanwhile, the planned World Pride march in Jerusalem on 10 August has been denied a permit by police there, who say that they haven't the manpower to ensure the safety of participants in the current climate.

Oh well; at least the war means that there's enough little children getting their heads blown apart to warm the hearts of the blood-lusting religious leaders who'd threatened violence over the parade.

Organisers of World Pride said that a new date for the parade would be set once a ceasefire in the region has been achieved.

But not everything is gloomy; in the Baltic republic of Slovenia, the government has legalised same-sex unions. Some strange limits have been placed on the ceremonies that couples can have – no friends or relatives can attend the ceremony, just the couple and a local registration official.

Slovenian lesbian and gay groups have described the law change as insufficient, but stated that it's a move in the right direction.

Earlier this month, the Czech Republic became the first former Warsaw Pact country to allow same-sex marriages.

Of mobiles, crochet and porn a plenty

According to a survey by Carphone Warehouse, 80% of British adults are so addicted to their mobiles that they can't even turn them off during sex.

The majority of the 16,500 adults quizzed claimed that they couldn’t even get through a day without their phone.

The Mirror quoted social anthropologist Kate Fox as saying: "They have restored our sense of community and provided a highly effective antidote to the pressures and alienation of modern life."

No dear. If you can't even switch it off when you're having a shag, your mind isn't even fully on your partner – not good – or you're using it as a sex toy. Mind you, that suggests some really appropriate places to stick the damned things.

Meanwhile, in Poland, grandmothers have turned their crocheting skills to a new challenge – g-strings. And they're such a success that the delicate undies are now being sold worldwide on the web.

When their doilies and table clothes went out of fashion, women in the tiny Polish mountain village of Koniakow turned their crocheting skills to making lingerie.

It turns out that people don't just want g-strings in the traditional white crochet, but in black and red too. Radical chic, eh?

But there always has to be one. Head of the local Society for Folk Art, Helena Kamieniarz, is not happy, and says: "What is being done to our old traditions is a disgrace. The art of crochet is not intended for making such garments."

It's difficult not to laugh at such prudish luddism. The whole enterprise brings a new meaning to the idea of net trade.

And if you're interested, you can buy them at www.koniakow.com for around £17 each.

The lucky people of Geraardsbergen, near Brussels, Belgium, had a field day recently, when a planned open air erotic festival – Imagination 69 – failed to attract many visitors.

Instead of packing all the goodies back into boxes and cart everything away, many exhibitors simply dumped books, magazines and DVDs in the field. But it didn't take long for local people to spot them and dive in to salvage what they could.

And some of the sharper residents have even been selling the material on in their local pubs, while the field has been dubbed 'Pornotopia'.

The festival organisers might be surprised to know it now, but there really was a market in the area.

Good from bad

It's not often that you could even consider that some good might come out of HIV/Aids.

But that's just possible in India.

Despite a long history of homosexuality in the country, it's still a taboo subject.

As is clear in the Manusmriti, an ancient code of conduct for Hindus, homosexuality has long been considered a part of sexual practices, but has not always well accepted.

For instance, if a grown woman was found having a lesbian relationship with another girl, she could be ordered to have her head shaved immediately "or two of her fingers should be cut off, and she should be made to ride on a donkey."

Gay men got off easier. "Causing an injury to a priest, smelling wine or things that are not to be smelled, crookedness, and sexual union with a man" are traditionally said to cause loss of caste.

And "if a man has shed his semen in non-human females, in a man, in a menstruating woman, in something other than a vagina or in water, he should carry out the 'Painful Heating' vow."

This meant drinking a mixture of "cow's urine, cow dung, milk, yogurt, melted butter, water infused with sacrificial grass, and a fast of one night". Tasty.

In the Rig Veda – possibly the world's oldest religious text –sexual acts between women are presented as revelations of a feminine world where sexuality was based on pleasure and fertility. And in the Kama Sutra, homosexuality sex was permitted in some castes but not in others.

Yet despite these differing messages, homosexuality remains illegal – thanks to legislation enacted by British in the days of the Raj.

However, India's National Aids Control Organisation (NACO), the country's main body dealing with the disease, has called for homosexuality to be legalised. 

A Naco statement said that the law "can adversely contribute to pushing the infection underground and make risky sexual practices go unnoticed and unaddressed."

The organisation went on to explain that more than 8% of gay men in India were infected with HIV, compared to fewer than 1% in the rest of the population.

The Supreme Court has since sent the case back to the Delhi high court. 

Figures released by the UN in May estimated that around 5.7 million Indians were living with Aids by the end of 2005, more than any other country, including South Africa, which has 5.5m cases.

No major Indian political party has endorsed gay rights and the minor ones have choosen to either ignore the issue or characterise homosexuality as a form of Western 'decadence'.

Decriminalisation would not only bring about liberation, but would also help in tackling HIV/Aids, educationally, in terms of prevention and in terms of early diagnosis.

Hopefully, the Indian courts will see past such historically incorrect posturing to reach the only reasonable, sane and humane conclusion.

Skinniness is for puritans

The latest edition of Glamour (the poor woman's Elle) is full of photos from that magazine's recent awards night. They include shots of Teri Hatcher of Desperate Housewives fame, looking haggard and gaunt.

Elsewhere, the cover of a new news magazine aimed at women, First, showed a picture of Victoria Beckham and the claim that she's a dress size six.

This month, she was voted the best dressed and most iconic woman for women in a poll by More magazine, whilst, according to Wikipedia, another poll saw her selected as the second most desirable body in the world.

Now this isn't a 'get at Victoria/Teri' article – the problem is that they are not unique – but are concentration camp victims going to be the next pin-ups?

Is it any wonder that girls as young as seven are worrying about their bodies and as young as nine are dieting?

Not only is it unattractive, it's also unhealthy. A doctor, interviewed on a recent documentary about extreme thinness, said of Beckham that, if she carried on like this, she'd be dead by 55.

So where on earth did this obscene idea of beauty come from?

It brings to mind a piece of feminist theory that has often seemed to be on the fringes of feminism: that the ultra-skinny woman is a physical realisation of the desire of (male-dominated) society for women to waste as little space as possible.

But here's another thought: a few years ago, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Dr James Watson concluded that, assuming they were generally happy and confident, bigger women had better sex lives.

The reason was down to chemistry. Endorphins, those lovely hormones that are released during sex, are produced by body fat. Ergo, the more fat you have, the more endorphins you get.

Are sexually confident women such a threat to a male-dominated society? Does female sexuality have to be quashed?

Are extremely skinny women – who often appear androgynous and/or childlike – therefore less sexually threatening in a world where we (theoretically) have sex equality?

The mainstream media is full of sex, but this is essentially hetero male-oriented; generally, the idea of the available (to a man) woman is used to sell things, not the sexually confident and assertive woman. Indeed, when Sophie Dahl, at size 16, posed nude and in an assertive pose for a perfume advert, it caused such a row that the posters had to be withdrawn.

Some of the objections were also clearly from other women, possibly feeling threatened themselves by such imagery: possibly even feeling that respectable women don't 'do' sex – a hangover from the days of the asexual 'English Rose'.

But who else would such benefit from the idea that skinny=beautiful? The diet, beauty, fitness and fashion industries for a start.

Never mind 'keep 'em lean, keep 'em mean', it's a case of keeping them lean and keeping them vulnerable and under-confident and constantly guilty and fretting about their figures. And spending accordingly. And in the jungle frenzy that this creates, in the battle to look like a stick insect, women can be meanest of all to each other.

But putting all that aside, how sexy would it be to take a woman on a date to a restaurant and then watch her pick at a salad? That doesn't exactly scream out that she's going to a sensual sensation in other departments. Such reluctance to eat and to be seen to enjoy eating might fill your average, joyless puritan with a warm glow, but normal, healthy people shouldn't be scared of sensual pleasure.

Sod the unsensual, unsexy calorie-counted, puritanical tyranny of dieting; bring on a plate of excellent seafood and aïoli, with seriously chilled white wine and a crème brûlée to follow.

And let the endorphins flow.

Homophobes of the world unite

Latvia's Gay Pride parade, which is due to take place in the capital of Riga tomorrow, has been banned.

The city council has refused a permit for the march on public order grounds, saying that they’ve received threats of serious, organised violence by homophobic religious, nationalist and fascist groups.

And councillors claimed that Riga Gay Pride is the "biggest security risk" since Latvia won its independence from the Soviet Union. Yeah. Right.

"We are shocked by the city council's decision, which we view as not only an unacceptable restriction of the freedom of assembly, but a major blow to democracy in the face of terrorist threats," said organiser Linda Freimane.

"We are preparing to challenge the decision in the Administrative Court today."

And in Zimbabwe, a raft of homophobic legislation has just come into force, expanding the scope of sodomy – previously described as only anal sexual intercourse between males – to include any act involving physical contact between males that would be "regarded by a reasonable person as an indecent act."

"A reasonable person", eh? That’s no way to talk about Robert Mugabe.

In Israel, Jewish and Muslim leaders have claimed that World Pride Jerusalem could trigger a series of riots even greater than those that greeted publication of the Danish cartoons of Mohammed last year.

Representatives of conservative Christian groups joined Muslim and Orthodox Jewish leaders in demanding that organisers of World Pride Jerusalem cancel planned events.

"We are faced with the prospect of six days of promiscuity and debauchery unparalleled in the Middle East," said American Rabbi Yehuda Levin, who has threatened bloodshed over the events – presumably because he's jealous that he isn't getting any of that lovely debauchery.

www.ynetnews.com is claiming that the main parade will be switched to Tel Aviv at the last minute as a result of Orthodox politicians uniting with Muslims, and the Chief Rabbi calling on the Pope. (The forum at the bottom of the linked report is full of delightful comments too)

Obviously they don’t have any more pressing concerns in the Middle East these days.

Isn’t it amazing how much reactionary scum floats to the surface when homophobia provides an opportunity?

Who gives a toss?

Good old Channel 4. If nothing else, the broadcaster's latest promised offering will wind up the Daily Mail.

The San Francisco-based Centre for Sex and Culture has run mass masturbation events in the US for the past five years as a way of raising money for safe sex projects and groups, and is now organising its first such event in the UK.

On 5 August, men and women have been invited to gather in a hall in Clerkenwell, central London, to take part in a sponsored "masturbate-a-thon".

Whilst doing their thing, they’ll be filmed by independent production company Zig Zag for a documentary, provisionally titled Wank-a-thon, which is expected to air on Channel 4 late this year.

Prizes will be on offer for those who clock up the most orgasms and those who can masturbate the longest. Organisers say that the current record is eight-and-a-half hours.

That's enough to make most people clench their thighs together and wince.

To qualify for the record, the Centre for Sex and Culture says that "at least 55 minutes of every hour shall be spent self-pleasuring by manual or sex toy stimulation", with a meagre five minutes to "replenish and renew".

How could anyone manage 55 minutes, non-stop, with a Jessica Rabbit, for fuck's sake?

But setting such thoughts aside, people train to run 26 miles so, given the task ahead, how will these sexual athletes prepare for their marathon? What sort of training regime should be employed? Will a morning and an evening session suffice? Or would you be better advised to nip into the office loo for a not-too-quick tug at lunchtime too? And would the boss be understanding if your orgasmic groans were heard by colleagues?

One thing’s for certain; keep the lube handy and apply liberally!

Another thing: will this be one of those rare times when people will be called ‘wankers’ and won’t object?

And how will the Daily Mail review the eventual screening of the documentary without using the words ‘wank’ or ‘masturbation’? As of yesterday, a search for the latter on the Wail’s website produced nothing more than a series of problem-page letters along the lines of: ‘My boyfriend masturbates. Does he love me?’

What a load of wankers!

Protecting women from themselves

The BBC is currently screening a short documentary series about "lefties", a nostalgic look back at the good old days of political activism. On Monday night, it was the turn of The Feminists.

Well, the loony fringes of feminism. As one woman even admitted of the 1980s, some of what went on was "fundamentalist" in nature, close to being like "a cult".

One of things that some of these brave souls 'fessed up to was the firebombing and vandalising of sex shops.

It's difficult to see what this achieved or even what they hoped to achieve. Indeed, if they'd actually really cared about their sisters, perhaps they could have spent some time working to make sure that all the equal-pay legislation that existed was actually put into practise.

But no. They preferred to tilt at windmills, à la Don Quixote.

Mind you, one can't help wondering if they'd have had such problems with the new breed of women-centred sex emporia, such as Sh!. And what about the new breed of female pornographers who are producing porn for women? Does this make them as militantly upset?

What a relief it is to know that such fanatic times are over.

Err, well not quite.

Because the sort of women who targeted sex shops have given up on that – and have now set their sights on, wait for it… other women. And they want to tell other women what sort of sexual lives they can and cannot live.

Top of the list of Bad Sex (if you're concerned about the rest of the sisterhood, that is) is kinky sex where the woman is submissive to a man. (They don’t seem to worry so much about submissive men with a Domme, or being a subbie woman to a dominant woman)

There's a human rights case going forward to Europe at present, where a man lost his job after some sanctimonious, interfering coward anonymously told his employers that he was into BDSM – with his wife and another woman.

When it came to his hearing, the employer admitted that he hadn't done anything wrong. But that didn't stop the two miserable old harridans on the panel lambasting his wife and girlfriend (who'd turned up as witnesses for him) for their behaviour. He was subsequently sacked.

This isn't a unique attitude. It's one that even gets mentioned in the film Secretary. In a surreal sequence near the end, Maggie Gyllenhaal's character is showing her boss/Master how dedicated she is to him, but a vast number of people turn up to attempt to dissuade her. Two of the dungaree-wearing brigade lambast her for what she's doing to other women.

Does this mean that women who play the submissive role in a BDSM relationship with a man aren't capable of really choosing such a role? It's going to turn them into doormats in all walks of life? Such play is going to reinforce any negative attitudes in society to women? It's going to put paid to any chances of women actually getting equal pay and so forth?

Is this what they think?

What planet are these women on? Perhaps it's the same one where a few of the sisters suggested to a major trade union that they started a campaign to get shops to stop putting sanitary products anywhere near baby products – because it was upsetting for women who couldn't have a child.

What's the difference between these sorts of women and the religious nutters who'd love to stick us all in a chador? Both want to control women and their sexuality. But that women should think that it's somehow acceptable to tell other women how they should and shouldn't have sex is amazing, since it suggests that they either don't understand the nature of sexual liberation or don't approve of the reality.

They're the women who have stopped other women calling themselves feminists – because few sane people want to be associated with such extremists.

It would have been nice to suggest that they need a damned good whipping. But on second thoughts, perhaps they'd enjoy that.

Education, education, education

Browsing on the good old interwebbythingy as one does, it was intriguing to discover the different ideas people have about human erogenous zones.

A poll at mypleasure.com reached the conclusion that the genitals are the largest erogenous zone, whilst something calling itself www.planetdelights.com insisted that it was the skin. In fact, a whole raft of other sites, many of them presenting themselves as expert in the field, claimed this too.

It would be interesting to know, therefore, how they imagine anyone gets aroused from watching a porn movie or thinking about sex.

The brain is the biggest erogenous zone. If that's not interested, it doesn't matter how much you stroke the skin or nibble your partner's ear. Engage the mind and anything else becomes possible.

And a bloody good thing too, especially for all writers of erotica.

Is it the case that the internet is just inherently untrustworthy (apart from this blog, of course), or does this simply show how little most people still understand about sexuality and their own bodies?

A bit of both, probably, but with plenty of the latter.

It's not that long ago that an acquaintance sidled up to yours truly, having stoked up on Dutch courage, and asked whether the fact that he got an erection from having his nipples stroked by his wife meant that he was gay.

Imagine the results if one had felt particularly mischievous that evening!

And a couple of years ago, a survey amongst UK youngsters found that some of them really still do believe that you can't get pregnant the first time – if you do it on top of a telephone directory.

Quite apart from trying to imagine the position required – we clearly need more education! And we need it now!

If words are so powerful...

How important are words? 'Gay' apparently now means 'rubbish' and, according to the BBC Board of Governors, it doesn’t have a homophobic connotation when used on air by DJ Chris Moyles.

Most people know that 'gay' used to mean 'happy' and 'carefree', although what most people who remind you of this don't realise is that it had connotations to do with sex from the late 17th century on. At one time, a 'gay house' was a euphemism for a brothel and a 'gay woman' was a prostitute.

It could a whole new meaning to 'when I was young and gay'!

So does it matter if it changes again now?

'The pen is mightier than the sword' is a cliché for a reason. How much violence has been inspired at first by words?

And if you want to see how British society has attempted to control female sexuality over the centuries, then you only need to think of the number of censorious words available to describe a sexually active woman – 'tart', 'slapper', 'slut', 'whore', 'floozy' etc – and compare those with similar words and phrases for men – 'he's just sowing his wild oats', a 'lady's man', a 'womaniser', 'a gigalo', a 'Casanova'; 'cad' or 'rotter' are about as strong as it gets.

None of those words, hurtful as they might be when flung at a woman in this day and age, would be as damaging today as they might have been in the past, but they still serve to illustrate how language serves society as a way of reinforcing the cultural status quo.

So, is using 'gay' as a synonym of 'rubbish' homophobic. Yes. Can anything be done about it? Who knows? Should anything be done about it? Decide for yourself.

Perhaps now gay men will have to start reclaiming the word, as they have done with 'queers', as some lesbians have with 'dyke' and as some black men have attempted to do with 'nigger'.

Now in such a spirit of reclamation, where is that 'slut' badge hiding?

Don't let the nutters grind you down

After a week of threatened violence from religions' lunatic fringes, World Pride organisers are calling on people not to cancel their trips to Jerusalem for next month's week-long festival.

"Jerusalem is a very powerful international symbol," said Hagai El-Ad, executive director of Jerusalem Open House, which is planning the event.

"That symbol has been hijacked and is being abused by religious leaders that proclaim to have a monopoly over the interpretation of what Jerusalem is about.

"It's very cynical of them on the one hand to be inciting violence and on the other to be talking about Jerusalem's holiness."

Organisers have not yet secured a permit for the parade on 10 August. The police, who grant such permits, have questioned whether their forces can maintain public safety if there are violent protests.

It remains to be seen whether police are concerned enough about public safety that they’ve actually arrested any of the people seen handing out leaflets in Jerusalem earlier this week offering money to anyone who "kills a sodomite".

El-Ad went on to tell uk.gay.com that having a major LGBT event in Jerusalem is part of the process of "reclaiming" the concepts of tolerance and acceptance as religious values.

"Jerusalem is about diversity, Jerusalem is about inclusiveness, Jerusalem is about different communities getting along together, Jerusalem is about different communities respecting each other.

"These are the true teachings of the great religions of Islam, Christianity and Judaism," he continued.

Lovely ideas. But it's probably easier to believe in faries at the bottom of the garden than it is to believe that religious loons are suddenly going to develop an iota of common sense and tolerance. It's just not the nature of the beast.

And even the fanatics don't follow their own religions… well, religiously. Would you care to bet that Jews and Christians who just love to quote Leviticus over homosexuality won't conveniently forget a few other things in that Old Testament book? Like a woman ensuring that she's 'cleansed' after her period by taking two doves down to the local priest to sacrifice.

Is Jerusalem sinking betneath the weight of all those dove carcasses? The RSPB should be told.

"Happiness economics" and the joy of sex

Got a good bank balance but not much between-the-sheets action? If so, you're probably not as happy as someone with less cash and more carnal exploits.

Researchers into "happiness economics" (who comes up with these terms?) have concluded that more money doesn’t always get you more sex, while more sex is better for your personal happiness than more money.

After analysing data on self-reported levels of sexual activity (no risk of exaggeration there, then) and happiness of 16,000 people, Dartmouth College economist David Blanchflower and Andrew Oswald of the University of Warwick concluded that sex "enters so strongly [and] positively in happiness equations" that they estimate increasing intercourse from once a month to once a week is equivalent to the amount of happiness generated by getting an additional £27,177.30 in income for the average Brit.

"The evidence we see is that money brings some amounts of happiness, but not as much as what economists might have thought," says Blanchflower.

"We had to look to psychologists and realise that other things really matter."

So personal experience of life itself didn't give you any clues, then?

Despite popular opinion, the intrepid duo found that having more money doesn't mean that you get more sex; there's no difference between the frequency of sex and income level.

But they did decide that sex seems to have a greater effect on happiness levels in highly educated – and presumably wealthier – people than on those with lower educational achievements.

The pair also calculated that a lasting marriage equates to happiness generated by getting an extra £54,355.32 each year, while divorce produces a "happiness depletion" of £35,874.51 annually.

Which is all very interesting. But how is this research now going to be of use? Is Gordon Brown going to stand up in Parliament and announce that nurses aren't getting a pay rise next year, but if they start shagging more they'll be so much happier that they won't mind?

Who comes up with the ideas for what to research in the first place?

It's almost certainly not without its uses, but who suggested trying to find out if there was a correlation between the frequency of male ejaculation from puberty onward and the incidence of prostate cancer?

And who thought that it would be a good idea to see whether spunk had anti-depressant qualities? And why didn't they bother to tell us whether swallowing the stuff is as beneficial as taking it vaginally?

Should someone be hiding behind the water coolers of institutes and universities up and down the country and researching the researchers?

Never mind that – does anyone know how to get funding to examine the difference in psychological and physiological responses to whipping and being whipped?

'I'll kill anyone who insults my god'

Credit where it's due; it doesn't take fundamentalist nutters much longer to swing into action when their god is insulted than it does for Zinedine Zidane to defend his mother's reputation.

In case you'd missed it, leaders of the Big Three religions in Jerusalem have decided that it's A Bad Thing for World Pride to take place there next month.

Now when one of the poor, put-upon mites started talking of bloodshed, it was tempting to put it down to a bad ringlet day. But now we're starting to get some details.

According to news agency Agence France-Presse, one "radical" Jewish group has started handing out leaflets around Jerusalem, offering a 20,000-shekel (£2,659) reward to anyone who "kills a sodomist".

Talk about getting your tallit in a twist.

Not that this would be a new development. During a recent local Pride festival in Jerusalem, an ultra-Orthodox Jew stabbed one of the participants.

And if you imagine that some other voices might be trying to calm the mood with a more moderate tone, then think again. Rabbi Ovadia Yossef, the spiritual leader of the Orthodox Shas party and a member of Israel's coalition government, has called the planned parade an "insupportable abomination".

Two opposition religious parties, the United Torah Judaism and the National Union, put a Bill before the Knesset on Monday calling for World Pride to be banned.

During the debate, Israeli cabinet minister Yaacov Ederi, who holds the Jerusalem affairs portfolio, declared himself "personally against" the festival, but added that it would be up to police to decide whether to let it go ahead.

Some sanity prevailed and the Bill was defeated by 47 votes to 21, with 16 abstentions.

Part of the Pride events will include a "multifaith convocation", where gay and lesbian believers from across religious groups can come together.

Perhaps that's the core of the problem: the nutty brigade doesn't want 'their' god being contaminated by nasty people claiming that He/She/It doesn’t actually "hate fags".

A spokesman for the Israeli gay community has ruled out cancelling anything.

"There are no legal grounds for disrupting the events, and the recent religious opposition is a desperate attempt to undermine the confidence of our community," stated World Pride organiser Noa Sattah.

“With sound legal and public support, we stand united and state clearly: these attempts will fail. We are determined to exercise our basic rights by marching in Jerusalem on August 10th."

In the meantime, if anyone was contemplating starting a website called Fundamentalist nutter watch, they could do worse than begin work in this supposedly holy city.

Somebody think of the children!

Labour MP Claire Curtis-Thomas has launched an assault against the ready accessibility of lads' mags, demanding that children be protected from these "repulsive" publications by having them displayed only on the highest shop shelves possible.

The Private Members Bill (stop sniggering at the back) has no chance of becoming law because there isn't time, but Curtis-Thomas argues that these magazines contain "hardcore porn", numbers for "sex chatlines" and adverts for masseurs.

Now, quite apart from questioning whether the lady would actually have a clue what "hardcore porn" looked like, even if it jumped up and jangled a nice pair of nipple clamps in front of her face, she'd find adverts for chatlines, masseurs and sexual services in an awful lot of other, more 'innocent' publications – like local newspapers. And it's hard to believe that she actually wants to consign the Hackney Gazette to the top shelf.

And she seems to be forgetting that children will use anything to find out about sex - from looking up 'rude' words in the dictionary to examining the underwear sections of their mother's catalogue.

But instead of wasting Parliamentary time in rehashing the old Clare Short bugbear about page 3, perhaps Curtis-Thomas would be better occupied in trying to see the following removed from youthful reach:

• all publications that publish faddy, dangerous diets (this will include the Daily Mail);

• all publications that chastise women about their weight and looks, preying on their vulnerabilities over self-image, and thus helping to encourage children as young as nine to start dieting (this will include the Daily Mail);

• all sex-negative publications, which see anything outside heterosexual, monogamous marriage as the end of the world (this will include the Daily Mail);

• all publications that, despite being sex-negative and prudish, also hypocritically publish titillating articles under the guise of 'health' or 'science' interest (this will include the Daily Mail);

• all publications that have homophobic attitudes (this will include the Daily Mail);

• all religious publications that are sex-negative and homophobic (it might be pushing it a bit to say that this will include the Daily Mail).

And if she has a spare moment, perhaps Curtis-Thomas would also like to explore whether legislation on disability equality might not make it discriminatory to a disabled person if they can't reach the top shelf to get their copy of Loaded without having to ask the newsagent to get it for them.

'The iceberg's alive with the sound of music'

'Was I born this way or was it something in my childhood?' The nature-versus-nurture debate has been going on for years and shows no sign of abating, but the Science Museum in London promises a fascinating insight into the question next week, when it stages a discussion on some of the latest thinking at its Dana Centre bar and café in South Kensington.

The event will see Sven Bocklandt of the University of California talk about his continuing research into the 1990s theory that homosexual orientation could be genetically passed to men from their mothers via the x chromosome.

City University psychobiologist Dr Qazi Rahman, the author of Born Gay, will explain how attempts to find a sociological cause for homosexuality have little foundation, as well as why male sexuality tends to be polarised while female sexuality is more fluid.

They'll be joined by British academic, sociologist, social historian and gay activist Jeffrey Weeks, who will look at the other interpretations of sexuality.

But perhaps the real question is whether any of it matters.

It shouldn't. Nobody should care an iota about anyone else's sexuality, but that's not how the cookie crumbles, unfortunately.

And there's no shortage of repression and violence against people whose sexuality is 'different' to prove that.

Many people use justifications like 'it's not natural/normal' or that pass-the-sick-bag classic, 'God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve', to explain their homophobic views or acts. Then there are the crackpot beliefs that growing up without a father but with a domineering mother can turn a boy gay. Or that living with gay or lesbian parents would inevitably lead to children being gay or lesbian themselves.

So if research shows, for instance, that homosexuality is prevalent throughout nature, then it helps to strip away any 'legitimacy' that these objectors claim.

Indeed, we now know (because scientists finally bothered to enquire) that there are many species other than humans that display homosexual behaviour. Dolphins are just one example; males have been observed to screw another male's blow-hole. Kinky.

There's the delightful story of four gay storks at a zoo near Eindhoven in the Netherlands.

Ananova reports that staff at Overloon Zoo were unsure whether the gay and lesbian storks would still have the same natural urge to raise offspring.

But after giving one egg to a pair of gay males to sit on and another two eggs to a pair of lesbian storks, they say the storks took to parenthood straight away, so to speak.

And don't forget the penguins. First there were the gay penguins at New York Zoo. Then more were noticed elsewhere.

Bremerhaven Zoo in Germany found itself in trouble when it tried to break up two gay penguin couples – although it remains to be seen whether it gave up the plan because of protests or because the four female penguins that it brought in just didn't interest the males.

Even now, there's probably a rabid debate in penguin society about the possible consequences if interfering zoo staff place eggs with these perverts.

'I tell you Doris, it'll turn out for the bad, you mark my words.'

'But Hilda, didn't you hear? They've been tampering with nature already. That's what went wrong with Feathers McGraw.'

'Unnatural is what I call it. Unnatural.'

'Oh, I know. Sandal-wearing, liberal do-gooders!'

And, forced to grow up in this unnatural satire of a Spheniscidae family, imagine the tormented cries of junior as he stamps his little flipper on the ice and announces: 'I don't want to be an Emperor penguin – I want to be a queen!'

Of course there are advantages: being a gay penguin keeps down the cost of costume hire when you want to attend a karaoke screening of The Sound of Music dressed as a nun.

No, the question of someone's sexuality shouldn't bother anyone, but since it does, it's lovely having the ammunition to shoot down the myths that supposedly lend homophobes' arguments some validity – and reveal them for the bigots they really are.

• Tickets for the Science Museum event are free (contact 020 7942 4040), but the museum promises that a live webcast of the event will be available at www.danacentre.org.uk, from 7-9.30pm on Tuesday 18 July.

Just stick to the booze

Congratulations to Italy on being crowned world champions for the fourth time last night. And as football's Coupe du monde reached its climax, Berlin's prostitutes were probably cheering the Azzurri on and looking forward to theirs.

According to web news site www.ananova.com, the Italian fans have been the best punters.

When hosts Germany lost their semi-final to Italy, Haki Simsek, the owner of Artemis, Germany's largest brothel, said: "I know I shouldn't be happy, but it's the best result imaginable for business.

"The Italians love coming here, they are great customers and we are all so happy they are in the final."

Artemis worker Svetlana noted: "It's been a total flop. The fans are all celebrating with beer instead of sex."

But for her colleague Marlene, the Italian fans had saved the day. "After a win they are in a great mood and love celebrating with us, and after a bad game they need comforting."

There'll have been plenty of celebrating after last night – although whether disgraced French star Zinedine Zidane needed comforting or some strict discipline is open to debate.

But imagine if you will, what would happen in similar circumstances in the UK.

Given that Home Office minister Fiona Mactaggart declared a policy of "zero tolerance" toward prostitution last year, likening it to "a form of child abuse" on the grounds that "most women who are prostitutes started being prostitutes at the age of 13 or 14", she would presumably launch a crusade to 'rescue' Marlene and Svetlana, whilst prosecuting Simsek and all the customers.

"Frankly," Mactaggart told a Guardian interviewer, "I do not buy the view that it is the oldest profession and we have to live with it."

She had already made it clear that, amongst other punishments, kerbcrawlers themselves can have their driving licences revoked.

But this is no one-sided attack. In April, Hansard reported Home Office minister Hazel Blears refusing to rule out the possibility of ASBOs (Anti-Social Behaviour Orders) being used against working women.

Now, to be fair to the government, it has suggested that it might legalise brothels. Well, "brothel" in the loosest sense of the word, meaning a flat or house where two women work. No more, of course, because that would become like... errr, a brothel.

Let's get this straight, then. No 'brothels' for more than two women. No working the streets. No 'tolerance zones'. Euphemistically-named 'massage parlours' to be targeted.

That leaves the…

Correct. Under ground. And then, when the government has driven the sex industry there, it can presumably claim that it's achieved what nobody else in history has, by getting rid of prostitution altogether. That'll be a bit like getting rid of Saddam, right?

How this is going to make the sex industry safer for women (male prostitutes never get mentioned, so presumably their safety isn't a matter of concern), never mind the punters, is anybody's guess.

According to statistics from the United Nations, for the years 1998-2000, the UK is in 13th spot on a global list of reported rapes per capita, with the highest level anywhere in western Europe at 0.142172 rapes per 1,000 people. Germany, with its legal brothels, is at 24 with 0.0909731 per 1,000 people. At 46, with 0.0402045 per 1,000 people, is Italy, whose football fans are such great customers, but who, in Mactaggart's world, are practically child abusers and, presumably, have no respect for women.

And to add to the picture, at 22 in the chart lies the Netherlands, that modern-day Sodom and Gomorrah, with 0.100445 rapes per 1,000 people.

Are puritanical attitudes toward sex and the sex industry a contributory factor in the high level of rape? Is it a coincidence that countries with more liberal attitudes are lower down the list?

If the government really wants to protect women, they'd do better to legalise and licence the sex industry, instead of pandering to the 'moral' minority and the shrill voices of the Daily Mail and the Express. But don't hold your breath.

So, unless British puritanism takes a Zidane-like butt to the midriff in the meantime, Italian sporting connoisseurs attending the 2012 Olympics will have to restrict their celebrations to the traditional English hobbies of boozing and brawling.

Unity in the Middle East?

What attributes do you think of when you contemplate religion? Love, peace and understanding? Nice idea. And if the Big Bloke in the Sky was handing out free doses of the stuff, then you'd think that religious leaders in the Middle East would be rushing to the head of the queue to claim their handouts, wouldn't you?

Ah, but there's no need. Because some of the region's religious bigwigs have been putting on one great big display of unity in the past week or so. And what unites them where other things have failed? That's right - a bunch of queers.

The people at World Pride are planning to hold this year's celebration in Jerusalem next month, and that's quite enough to get Christians, Jews and Muslims up in collective arms.

Fifty prominent religious figures have already visited the Interior Committee of Israel's parliament, the Knesset, to campaign against the celebrations. They claimed that "never before has the Holy Land seen such a union of religious leaders." And now they're trying to get the backing of the Pope, whose predecessor got more than a bit antsy when World Pride was held in Rome in 2000.

New York rabbi Yehuda Levin, a representative of the Rabbinical Alliance of America, insisted that "we are outraged and disgusted over this event. There are millions of people who, with their bodies, souls and money, will stand against this... I will be here afterwards to remind you and to say, 'I warned you and you did nothing'."

And Knesset United Arab List MP Ibrahim Sarsur joined in by saying that, "if gays will dare approach the Temple Mount during the parade, they will do so over our dead bodies".

"Over our dead bodies"?

What is it that scares these people so much? Surely not the sartorial elegance that'll be on display? The hairdos and make-up? Perhaps that's what Rabbi Levin means when he mentions money – the Rabbinical Alliance of America is going to offer all the demonstrators free makeovers if they promise not to mince around the ancient city?

Nah... somehow that doesn't seem likely.

So what is it that so upsets them? Oh yes: one man putting his you-know-what into another man's you-know-where. (Have you noticed that they never seem to waste much hot air getting so upset about the lezzies?)

You could be excused for thinking that peace, love and understanding in the Middle East is a teensy weensy bit more important than who shags whom and how.

And as for the American rabbi, he needs a little lesson in history; starting with the history of the pink triangle.

One or two voices have dared to ask if World Pride is being responsible organising the event in such a volatile area. The reaction of some of these supposedly peace-loving men is the perfect illustration of why they're right to take it there.

But then again; who ever needed love, peace and understanding when hate is apparently such holy fun?