Justine Rhett's Sex Talk

First, they came for the perverts

2007-11-15T13:54:00.000Z

Credit where credit's due.

I haven't written anything here for some time because of work commitments. But finally, I've spotted a story that's just made me determined to create the time.

It appears that Robert Stewart, a 51-year-old Scot, has been convicted of having sex with his bike. Yes, that's right. He was frotting away with the aforementioned vehicle in the privacy of his hostel room, when two cleaners knocked on his door. Presumably he didn't hear them, because he didn't answer. So they went and collected the master key – yes, his door was locked – and entered, only to find him having fun with the, er, bike.

They were so appalled – well, wouldn't you be – that they told the manager. Who was so appalled that he told the police. Who were so appalled that they arrested Mr Stewart and charged him. The Director of Public Prosecutions was so appalled that he was sent to court, where the judge and jury were so appalled that they convicted him and sentenced him to probation and signing on the Sex Offenders' Register.

Were it not so serious, it would be hilarious.

His room was locked. A bike is an inanimate object – just like a dildo or a butt plug. There is no law against shagging a bike. He was interrupted.

The Sex Offenders' Register is for keeping tabs on child abusers and rapists in order to protect the public from them – not someone who is interrupted when they're having a wank with a bike in the privacy of their locked room.

And what does this case say about privacy? If the cleaners interrupted him while he was having a more traditional wank, would he have been prosecuted then? If this was a hotel and two guests, on waking, decided to have sex and were so engaged with their fucking that they didn't hear the maid knocking, and she let herself in and saw them 'at it', what happens then? Do they get prosecuted and popped on the register if she's shocked?

Apart from simply being a stupid, stupid over-reaction to a situation, at a time when the UK is the CCTV capital of the world – in urban environments, you can expect to be photographed around 300 times a day (you'd expect us to have no crime) – at a time when the UK government is pushing ID cards and there is talk of a universal DNA database, this makes a statement that the law does not respect your privacy. You have no right to privacy. It's bleedin' Orwellian.

And all this at a time when the government continues to insist that consent means nothing, since you can be prosecuted for being spanked or spanking someone consensually (even though you can consent to getting in a boxing ring and hitting someone and being hit yourself).

What's really being perverted here? Justice?

If you can’t beat it – censor it

2006-11-19T12:51:00.000Z

In case you’re not familiar with the story of Roy and Silo, these are two male penguins, living in New York zoo, as a couple. For some years, keepers had wondered why they hadn’t produced any chicks, but it took a vetinary check to confirm that they were both male.

And, after unsuccessfully trying to hatch a small rock, they were given a fertilised egg to look after, subsequently raising a baby penguin called Tango.

Now it seems that someone thought that this was a charming story and they sat down to write a little cartoon book about it, aimed at young children. Could anyone possibly be offended by such a tale of avian love?

Well, true to form, some parents in the Mid West have been complaining about the presence of the book in school libraries. There have been calls for it to be removed or put into ‘mature’ sections or for it not to be able to borrowed without a letter of consent from a parent.

These people must be really, really scared.

Presumably, the idea that homosexuality can occur in the animal kingdom, outside of humanity, is terrifying for people who view it as unnatural and against God.

Mind, this is the country that is going to play host to the world’s first Creationist museum – did you know that dinosaurs and man lived side-by-side? Scientists can’t tell how old bones are, you know, so they’re just inventing stuff when they say the world is older than 6,000 years. So there.

Perhaps we should simply be relieved that those objecting to the tale of penguins haven’t actually resorted to burning copies of the book. Presumably that’s just necessary for Harry Potter’s adventures.

All about Eve

2006-10-21T15:00:00.000+01:00

What is it with religion and sex?

Fear, perhaps? Fear in particular, of women...

All the 'big three', monotheistic, Abrahimic religions have misogynistic aspects; many of their leaders continue to preach anti-women and anti-sex messages to the faithful, as well as using political clout to attempt to influence the lives of non-believers as well.

Yet puritanism is growing, particularly in Islam. Where puritanism grows, people find ways for outlets, as an article in Der Spiegel shows. But as the writers illustrate, puritanism also produces results other than frustration.

The common thread is women and female sexuality. It needs to be repressed. Women are to blame for 'The Fall' – Eve tempted Adam with the apple (knowledge). You want to keep men obedient and faithful? Then keep them ignorant. And you know, it's not a man's fault if he can't resist the temptations of a woman – so she wears a veil or a burka to stop the man being tempted.

Not that such an idea is unique to Islam; after all, it's not that many years ago that, if a female rape victim was prepared to press chanrges and go to court, she'd be treated as the criminal – her sexual history (if any) would be scrutinised and blamed; the question of what she was wearing would be analysed to see if she provoked the assault.

Christianity, of course, likes its women to be a bit like the Madonna – although a dose of the whore helps, if only for the sake of maintaining (and increasing) the numbers of the faithful. Ideas of monogamy and marriage and anti-abortion and anti-contraception (some of these varying across the Chritsian sects) help to avoid the faithful woman's inner whore escaping too much.

To (slightly) paraphrase Bertrand Russell: "religion... has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world."

Or, as the Spiegel article points out, it's downright immature and unhealthy.

Blair's Catholic mafia outed at last

2006-10-15T12:53:00.000+01:00

Well, it seems that Ruth Kelly has finally shown her true colours.

Who cares about her position as equalities minister, her spiked garter must have been getting particularly tight of late, as she’s now put the brake on further anti-discrimination legislation being implemented.

It appears that Kelly (plus her deputy, the religious Meg Munn, and her boss, the religious Tony Blair) want to allow discrimination – as long as it’s by religious groups, against gays, lesbians and bisexuals.

The legislation would stop religious bodies refusing services to anyone on the grounds of sexuality so, for instance, a religious hotel wouldn’t be able to turn away gay clientele; but Blair’s Catholic mafia are not only worried about that sort of thing, but also that it might mean issues such as ‘faith schools’ (current woolly euphemism for religious schools) not being allowed to block gays and lesbians using their premises on the grounds of sexuality, if they receive public funding.

It’s been said before, but what was going on when Kelly was handed the equalities post? A member of crackpot fringe sub-sect Opus Dei, which (together with the mainstream Catholic church) has extremely negative views on homosexuality, how can she possibly be fully committed to promoting and implementing legislation that’s aimed at ending discrimination against gays, lesbians and bisexuals?

Nietzsche would be rolling in his grave – or perhaps this is inevitable if we’ve ‘killed God’? With the middle religious ground cleared by the advance of secularism, does this mean that the extremists can fill that void?

One thing’s certain – if we think that the only religious nutters are Muslims, then we ignore a serious danger within. Of course, the current trend of making Muslims in general scapegoats for a whole host of problems is the perfect smokescreen to push through an increasingly religious-influenced agenda.

Fundamentalists of any variety, religious or political, are dangerous.

Huge progress has been made in recent years on sexuality equality. Let’s not allow the loons to hold back further progress.

Blogging for Backlash

2006-10-09T20:52:00.000+01:00

Today is blogging for Backlash day.

The British government remains determined to push through its ridiculous and ill-concieved legislation, On possession of extreme pornography.

To be as brief as possible. The plan for this new came out of the case of Graham Coutts, who was convicted of the murder of Jane Longhurst. Coutts was apparently rather fond of 'violent' porn and this was blamed for his partner's death – apparently by strangulation. However, Coutts had a long history of breath play – witnesses in court testified to around 200 occasions on which he had safely indulged this interest – it certainly predated his viewing of 'violent' internet porn.

This last summer, senior judges suggested that the jury in the case should have been offered a manslaughter charge. In other words, they accepted the possibility that Coutt's defence – that it was a game that went wrong – was at least as possible as murder.

Last year, the government started its consultation process into the proposed new law, which would make it an offence to view porn for the first time. But the consultation was massively flawed. The initial document from the Home Office admitted that no evidence exists linking viewing any kind of porn with violence toward women and children, but still pushes forward, apparently in the name of 'protecting' women and children. Apparently, even if a woman consents to make an "extreme" porn movie, she needs protection.

There's nothing about men in the porn industry needing protection – which illustrates just how paternalistic this planned legislation is.

But there are many other problems. The Home Office hasn't defined what will constitute "extreme" porn. During the consultation, suggestions materialised that the Home Office may be considering basing its banned list on the list of subjects that the British Board of Film Classification deems too 'heavy' for 'R' rated films. This includes watersports and, of course, female ejaculation, since the BBFC doesn't believe that this exists and anything claiming to be female ejaculation must really be pissing.

Nobody has yet explained why watersports are so dreadful that scenes need censoring – but then logic has no place in any of this.

Of course, one of the other problems is what would happen if you accidentally opened or downloaded images that were banned, and the police came calling.

Then there's the privacy issue, which comes up because of the Human Rights Legislation.

Of course, it's all a good distraction from the almighty cock-up (so to speak) of Iraq.

Get informed, get involved and tell others.

A shameless act of self-promotion

2006-09-13T21:10:00.000+01:00

My first collection of short stories has just come out in its second edition. For anyone who can read German, it's 10 SM, bisexual stories.

It's available direct from the publisher or from Amazon in Germany.

The first edition had a few reviews on German SM sites – and was very well received.

I'm hoping to find an English-language publisher – so if anyone reading this knows one or is one, then please don't hesitate to get in touch.

The collection includes stories about female submissives and Dommes, in straight and all-women situations. In other words, it's the best of most possible worlds.

Having started life as a series of self-exploration exercises, responses from a few readers suggested they might be worth more than that. And when they were picked up by a German publisher, I was more than happy. Indeed, what a thought: exporting SM porn to Germany!

For anyone who takes the literary plunge and buys it – enjoy! I'm sure that you will.

Is this the world we created?

2006-09-05T11:12:00.000+01:00

"Find me somebody to love" – but not in Zanzibar if you're gay. And not if you want to celebrate what would have been the 60th birthday of the late, great Queen frontman Freddie Mercury.

Homosexuality was banned on the Tanzanian archipelago just two years ago (there's progress for you) and local Muslims attempted to get Saturday's beach party in Mercury's memory banned, since it would apparently have given local youngsters "the idea that homosexuals are accepted in Zanzibar," explained a spokesman for the association for Islamic Mobilisation and Propagation (Uamsho).

"We have a religious obligation to protect morals in society," he continued.

You see, this is what's such a piss-off about religions: the religious seem to think that they have some sort of monopoly on 'morals' and can define and enforce them for others. The phrase 'personal faith' means little to them, because they never happier than when they're making sure that they don't keep their faith personal.

Some people wanted to have a beach party to celebrate an artiste who died 15 years ago. So what? Are the religious so insecure in their beliefs that they need to fight absolutely anything that they don't like, even though it in no way materially threatens them (or, presumably, their god)?

Roll on the day when superstition finally dies out.

And happy birthday Freddie Mercury; you would have been 60 today – an entertainer for whom the word 'great' would not have been an exaggeration.

Will that be a kinky coffee, Sir?

2006-08-20T22:28:00.000+01:00

It seems like a good time to mention Coffee, Cake and Kink, "the only kinky cafe gallery in the UK".

Based in Covent Garden, London, it serves excellent coffee and cake – as one might wish – but also sells books and art, and stages exhibitions and events.

As a little taster, this coming Wednesday sees a discussion group on 'The Inner Whore', from 7-8pm, £5 including coffee or tea.

"Who doesn’t enjoy vivid erotic day dreams?" asks the Coffee, Cake and Kink's website.

"Sexual fantasies are a universal occurrence: we all have an Inner Whore within trying to express itself. But how far do we go to fulfill our fantasies in real life? Alternative lifestyles, art and popular media reinvent personal fantasies, creating myths for our time.

"People of all sexualities are welcome to share their personal eroticism with us."

If you're in town, it's well worth a visit.

Revealing all for charity

2006-08-20T22:09:00.000+01:00

Well done to John Young, who beat nearly 200 other players to become the World Strip Poker champion at the weekend.

Besides his £10,000 winnings, bookies Paddy Power donated a further £10,000 to Cancer Research when he removed his final garments at the end of the competition.

Not that strip poker is a new concept, but where could bookies take this charitable idea next?

Well, it’s Rugby League's Challenge Cup Final at Twickenham next Saturday; perhaps Stan James, the bookkeeper that sponsors the sport on Sky TV, would care to offer monies if the winners strip off after getting the trophy?

After all, there are going to be some fine figures of manhood on display…

Secure in your libido

2006-08-16T20:55:00.000+01:00

It seems that researchers from Hamburg-Eppendorf University in Germany have discovered that women lose their libido when they're in a secure relationship.

Apparently, women are randy as anything early in a relationship, in order to cement the bond with the new partner, but there's no need later – unless they're looking at potential new mates.

Blokes, of course, get to be permanently libidinous, regardless of the state of their relationships.

Yet sex is apparently less important to middle-aged British women than to their Continental counterparts.

Has something changed since the latter survey? Has the rest of Europe caught us up (horrible thought)?

Whether it has or not, the result is that I'm wondering which category I'm in.

I'm in early 'middle age', am almost permanently hornier than hell (apart from two days in my cycle, which leave me feeling depressed and not like 'me'), yet I've been in a 'secure' relationship for about 17 years.

Are such surveys merely meant to confuse us and/or render us insecure?

Mind you, research earlier this year ‘discovered’ that the female libido is boosted by coffee.

I don't even drink that much.

Is there something 'wrong' with me? Am I not 'normal'?

It's been asked before, but just what do surveys and research like this achieve?

Someone's looking to make a fast buck out of all this, of course, as an Australian company has created a spray that will increase female libido.

It might have started out as a way of dealing with medically-related loss of libido, but that's how Viagra got going too.

Oh well – who'd want to be 'normal' anyway? ;-)

Nothing liberated about it

2006-08-14T22:49:00.000+01:00

Someone once suggested that the rule of law is based on consent – impossible laws won't be respected if the majority think they're stupid.

So the news that nearly a third of 16 to 24-year-olds lost their virginity below the age of consent comes as little surprise.

Limited research has been done on the relationship between age of consent and onset of sexual activity with a partner, but there have been suggestions that the higher the age of consent is set, the earlier young people will start sexually experimenting.

Or put another way, the UK has the highest age of consent in western Europe – 16 – and the highest rate of teenage pregnancy and single mothers.

The lowest age of consent is in the Netherlands (12 between peers and 14 generally). Guess what? The Dutch also have the lowest rate of teenage pregnancy and single motherhood in western Europe.

The US too suffers from high levels of teenage pregnancy, yet has high ages of consent in some states and a government that is committed to a failing policy of abstinence.

Some provisional research has suggested that young people in countries with a lower age of consent actually start experimenting with a partner much later. Perhaps it's to do with a high age of consent maintaining a sense of the 'forbidden' – and therefore the daring – surrounding sex.

But the behaviour of teens in the UK has nothing to do with genuine sexual liberation. It's a peculiar by-product of the commoditisation of sex without our culture, together with the left-overs of puritanism and Victorian prudery.

It's the case that certain 'newspapers' can print editorials bemoaning the rate of STDs in young people, but the rest of the paper is full of topless models, kiss 'n' tell revelations (one recent example actually saw a woman who 'kissed and told' gaining a TV role as a reward – what's the message there?) and salacious gossip and scandal. The hypocrisy is dazzling.

Children are increasingly sexualized by the teen magazine market – pre-pubescent girls worrying about boys, make-up and the like – while female pop performers, from Britney to TaTu, make money by aping sexualized images of schoolchildren for older men. In the latter's case, they even claimed that they were under age lesbians.

And another sign that liberation has nothing to do with what is going on is one of the other findings of the BBC Radio 1 poll: some 38% of young people do not always use a condom with a new partner, with drunkenness cited as one of the most common reasons.

Little wonder that STDs are rising fast too.

Sex education seems to remain patchy, despite all the promises of government. In many schools, it's still limited to the strictly biological.

And the chance of getting a debate about the age of consent and all the rest of these issues? Remote; not least because Tony Blair's government not only remains wedded to religious schools, but even to increasing their numbers.

Still, after changes to the national curriculum that come into effect this September, more children will be able to discuss Creationism in their science lessons, even if they can't be told how to put on a condom in any other class.

What a sense of priorities!

And how thoroughly depressing.

A rapist's charter?

2006-08-13T13:16:00.000+01:00

It's great to get messages from people who've read something here and felt moved to invest even more time by leaving a comment. So far, everyone's been positive – many thanks to you all – no Daily Mail readers and no Ann Coulter.

One lives in hope, but in the meantime, there's plenty of idiocy to laugh at.

With this in mind, thanks to Mike for dropping in here and commenting on the 'load of wankers' story. This led me to his own blog, Confessions of a Horny Old Guy, which in turn led to Single and celibate, which tells us that masturbation is A Bad Thing.

"Many people interpret Genesis 38:8-10, where it talks about Onan spilling his seed on the ground, as God's message against masturbation because what Onan did displeased the Lord," says blog author Petula Wright.

They might well do, but Margrave of the Marshes, the excellent autobiography of that excellent and sadly lamented DJ, John Peel, throws rather clearer light on the theology.

"It seems that Judah went in unto Shuah and she bore a son and called his name Er. Then Judah went in unto Shuah again and she bore him another son and called this one’s name Onan.

"A few years later, to cut a long story short, the Lord was displeased with Er, by now a married man, and smote him. And not content with this, He told Onan to go in unto Er's wife and lie with her. Onan, being a decent sort of chap by all accounts, thought this was a bit tough on the widow and, not to put too fine a point on it, spilled his seed upon the ground rather than in his brother's wife. For this refinement of feeling, he too was smitten. So Onan, whatever you may have believed hitherto, was, in fact, a thoroughly moral man and not the wanker everyone thinks he is."

Does this mean that our Pet believes that masturbation is more 'sinful' than rape? Or that rape is fine if God commands it? Or even that, on a different level, this story was anything about masturbation at all? Seems that it's not so much a question of 'thou shalt not wank', but 'thou shalt rape when I tell you to'.

Jesus didn't help matters, of course. Given that the Judeo-Christian God is supposed to be omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent, you'd have thought that He would be able to forsee just how obsessed his followers would be with sex, and would provide better and clearer teaching. But no, his hippy son had to preach the peace bit, but didn't get around to coining the phrase: 'though shalt make love but not war'.

Apparently Jesus had nothing to say about sex, beyond 'don't commit adultery', and certainly nothing to say about sexuality (unless those writing the gospels dismissed any such teachings as boring and not worth noting down).

But, just in case her readers are not impressed enough with the Biblical stuff to instantly forswear playing with their own naughty bits, our Pet has a second sting to her argument:

"Despite the rumors that men spread about it being harmful or some scientific basis arguing the necessity for sexual release, single individuals must turn to God when faced with temptation and stand on His word for support."

Okay; so all this stuff about research linking frequent ejaculation to reduced levels of prostate cancer is a lie? Lucifer’'s got himself a white lab coat and was leading the research?

Pet and her ilk have to ignore this sort of research, of course. What's the alternative? That God, despite being omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent, decided to create man in such a way that, if he forswore sex, he'd actually increase his chances of disease? If this is the case, what does that say about Pet's God?

Does Pet believe men should risk cancer? Does Pet believe that her God wants men to risk cancer? Does Pet think that all young men should get married as soon as legally possible (regardless of the educational, career and financial implications) so that they can get 'release' without masturbation and, therefore, reduce their chances of disease?

God didn't plan this very well, did He?

And for added measure solo sex has other health benefits too.

Personally, wanking sounds much the best option for dealing with PMT, instead of just putting up with it or popping pills. But then again, some of these Christians probably think that period pain was a deliberate punishment from God for leading poor Adam astray.

The price of being a woman who loves sex

2006-08-12T12:06:00.000+01:00

'Abby Lee' used to write a blog. It was all about her sex life, past, present and desired. What made it unusual was that she was an English woman who was randy as hell, sexually active and assertive – and intelligent. A winning combination, you might have thought.

Or a threatening one that needs to be condemned and derided?

Now she's been 'outed' by the Sunday Times as one Zoe Margolis. The paper went on to describe her sex life as "seedy" and her behaviour as "shameless". They'd obviously have preferred guilt.

The Daily Wail got in on the act too, with a couple of tittery/mock-shock stories that, in its online edition attracted the predictable readers' responses about Margolis's behaviour.

The world is, of course, obviously falling apart, as women degrade themselves in this fashion. Heaven help us all – Margolis talked about her masturbatory habits in her blog! Disgusting. A proper English rose wouldn't even know what that meant.

Ah, the joy of growing up and living in a society where there remains a cultural ideal of women as a form of Protestant-secular-middle-class madonna.

Like Margolis and her cyber alter-ego, a lot of us would rather be whores. It's considerably more fun.

But the episode is depressing. What's the betting on the rest of our home continent being bloody well relieved that there's a strip of water between them and the UK? That's when they're not laughing at us.

There is an issue over the 'outing'; what is the public-interest argument for doing it? Some of the public being interested doesn't count. Is there any other country in western Europe where women would be 'outed' simply for having a sex life? Mind you, this is the country that seemed to fall over in collective shock on discovering that a man of over 50 years of age (Sven Göran Eriksson) didn't spend all his spare time sitting by an open fire, smoking a pipe and watching EastEnders.

In a way, the reaction to Margolis is proof of her blog actually having an importance far beyond that of titilation.

The Guardian produced a decent interview, but journalist Zoe Williams illustrates the way in which women themselves have been taught to think when she comments that, although she wanted all women to be having as good time as the blogger, something made her suspect that the writer was male and not a female.

Arise, ye women from your slumber!

You don't have to be boring Daily Wail icons; some sort of sexless, size 10, no-cellulite (the Wail hates cellulite and loves to print pictures of women who have it), virginal (shagging for procreative purposes doesn't count) SuperMum, dedicated to hubby and kids, with a pristine house and exemplary clothing sense, who would no more put a cock in her mouth than she would a dog turd.

You can be a voracious, excited and exciting, experimental and happy woman who sucks pricks and eats pussy (whichever floats your boat), takes it up the arse, wanks for hours, watches porn, thinks about sex whenever she wants (guiltlessly), leches at blokes (and/or other women), enjoys being on top, likes being whipped or whipping, threesomes…

The orgasms are just so much better.

The sexual world is your oyster. You don't need to do these things (or anything else) if you don't want to, of course, but if you want to, then you can. You don't have to sit and fester in a frustrated, unfulfilled state.

And, come the revolution, the Daily Wail and all who sail in her will be first up against the wall.

Education, education, education

2006-08-11T08:16:00.000+01:00

It's depressing to report, in this Sexual Health Week, that not only do most people not realise that condoms come in different sizes, but some teenagers who actually try to use condoms mess it up because they don't really know how.

Research by Southampton University found that, of 1,400 teenagers between 16 and 18 surveyed across England, around half had had sex.

Of the 373 who had used a condom on the most recent occasion, 6% had put it on too late and 6% had removed it too early.

The researchers also asked just over 100 teenagers to keep a six-month diary of their sexual activity.

Of the 74 who said they had used a condom, 31% had put it on after penetration had already occurred, and 10% had taken a condom off too early on at least one occasion.

Of the 714 diary entries given to the researchers, a condom was not used during sex on 322 occasions.

The main reasons for not using a condom were intimacy, not liking how it felt, other contraception was being used and the couple just got "carried away".

Those using condoms did so to avoid pregnancy, to avoid "making a mess" and to make sex last longer, but very few cited the prevention of STDs.

Toni Belfield, of the Family Planning Association, said: "This research continues to reinforce the message that young people need good information and support to use condoms correctly and consistently.

"Good communication with a trusted adult is an essential part of this support.

"We would urge parents and carers to be open about sex and relationships with their children, so they can be a source of guidance for them."

The research also showed that boys who were able to talk openly to their mothers during their early teenage years were more likely to use condoms correctly.

That bears out earlier work that defined three groups of young people in terms of their sexual behaviour:

• young people who grow up in 'liberal' surroundings, with open attitudes about sex, tend to start experimenting later and, when they do, they are the group most likely to use safe sex/contraception;

• young people who grow up in surroundings with negative attitudes toward sex (this includes religious families), tend to start experimenting earlier and, when they do, are less likely to use safe sex/contraception;

• young people who grow up in environments where nobody cares or is interested will start experimenting earlier still and will be least likely to use safe sex/contraception.

So-called moral campaigners often babble about how sex education should be the responsibility of parents, in the home.

Lovely idea. In a perfect world. Which this isn't.

Whatever Pink Floyd may think, clearly more education is essential. And, if the state doesn't want to pick up the results of ill-informed or ignorant, naïve and vulnerable young people experimenting sexually without understanding what they're doing and the risks they're taking, in terms of pregnancy and STDs, then such education cannot be left to parents.

Dumb and dumber

2006-08-08T21:18:00.000+01:00

Good news! Fundamentalism is on a back foot in at least one part of the world.

The 16th Belfast Pride went off successfully last weekend, in spite of members of the Free Presbyterian Church turning their backs on the marchers.

But these protests have been dwindling, year on year, and the news that an Iposos-Mori survey has revealed that three-quarters of the Northern Irish population says they are tolerant of lesbians, gays and bisexuals, while 88% believe that there should be no discrimination against them, won't have cheered these cheerless evangelicals.

The poll was based on a face-to-face survey of 1,009 people, questioned at 47 different locations across Northern Ireland during February.

Perhaps the most interesting point to emerge was the difference in attitudes toward sexuality between Protestants and Catholics.

Eighty-three per cent of Catholics described themselves as "very accepting" of gays, lesbians and bisexuals, while the figure was 70% amongst Protestants, of whom 14% said that they were "not at all accepting" of the gay community.

This also suggests that, whilst die-hard evangelicals remain entrenched in their bigoted attitudes, the influence of the Pope (and therefore the Catholic church generally) is waning.

Hallelujah! So to speak.

Now, just to prevent over-excitement about diminishing religious idiocy, an anti-abortion group has chosen to show its true colours by condemning the Family Planning Association's Sexual Health Week (see yesterday's story).

The so-called Precious Life group has declared the FPA to be promoting a "safe sex hoax".

A spokeswoman for the group stated that safe sex was responsible for increases in levels of sexually transmitted diseases, and insisted that abstinence should be promoted in order to cut STDs.

Clearly this dangerously stupid example of the species hasn't heard that abstinence campaigns aren't working in the US, despite massive investment from her fellow nutter in the White House.

"Condoms do not protect against STDs," she asserted. Presumably she still believes the Vatican's lies.

(As a slight aside, the Pope now says that married couples where one partner has HIV/Aids can use condoms: will he therefore admit that the Vatican has previously lied about the effectiveness of condoms or does he actually believe that condoms do not stop HIV and is simply a sadistic and opportunistic git?)

However, back to our dotty woman: "Condoms, if used at all, are often used ineffectively", she added. Now, quite apart from the fact that she contradicted herself – how can they be anything other than ineffective if they don't protect against STDs? – that's why education is the answer, you silly, silly person.

But hey, there's nothing like ramming your head in the sand and singing Every Sperm is Sacred without realising that the Pythons were taking the almighty piss out of people exactly like you.

There are days when eugenics seem like a perfectly good idea.

Something for the weekend

2006-08-07T21:08:00.000+01:00

Welcome to Sexual Health Week 2006, the ninth year that the Family Planning Association (FPA) has organised this opportunity to highlight a particular aspect of sexual health.

This year's week-long campaign includes guidance for health professionals on talking to patients about condoms.

It might sound a bit basic, but apparently the biggest cause of condom failure is either splitting or slipping off. And the majority of people don't know that there are a range of sizes of condom available that could help to solve these problems.

Yet perhaps this shouldn't come as a great surprise, given the state of sexual education and sexual health awareness in the UK.

Earlier, this year, a poll of UK adults, conducted by MORI for the National Aids Trust, revealed that, despite increases in HIV infections, people are less aware of how the virus is transmitted than they were five years ago.

There was a drop in the number of people who knew that HIV can be passed on by two men having sex without a condom.

The number of people who knew that HIV could be passed on through heterosexual sex without a condom dropped by 12%.

And some people still believe that HIV can be passed on by spitting (7%), kissing (4%) or toilet seats (2%), while 8% of people had no idea at all how HIV was transmitted (up from 2% in 2000).

"We were shocked to discover that, while HIV is increasing in the UK, people know less about the risks than they did five years ago, and continue to practice unsafe sex," said National Aids Trust chief executive Deborah Jack.

The poll also found that, in London, where HIV rates are highest, knowledge of transmission routes was lower than anywhere else in the country – only 69% knew that HIV could be passed on through sex without a condom between two men.

And 15% of people who have had a new sexual partner in the last two years would rarely or never use a condom with that new partner.

It's a fair bet that similar levels of knowledge apply to sexually transmitted diseases other than HIV.

But levels of ignorance are not restricted to STDs. Another survey a couple of years ago showed that some young people still believe that you can't get pregnant the first time you have sex – at least not if you 'do it' on top of a telephone directory.

The government has promised much in the way of sex education and health but has reneged.

Schools can still decide what bits of the sex education curriculum they want to teach and which they don't. This is particularly the case in religious schools – despite the evidence of the failure to stop STDs of the US 'abstinence' schemes that George W Bush has been spending millions of taxpayers' dollars on.

And the UK government is also failing on sexual health provision.

Although Chancellor Gordon Brown cut VAT on condoms earlier this year – brownie points (so to speak) for that – Londoners have been given a slap in the face with the news that the city's HIV clinics have been told that they will be given no more money to pay for treatments and care in the current financial year, beyond 4% to cover inflation. This is despite patient numbers being projected to rise by 11% next year.

Why? Because the government is so wedded to the privatisation of the health service, and slapping artificial time limits and budgets on service providers.

In the spring, NHS bosses sliced 3% off the budget of every primary care trust in Greater London in order to pay for the debts of some.  Research by the BBC found that Kensington and Chelsea Primary Care Trust is £20m in the red and Hillingdon PCT £25m.

Yet the two largest HIV clinics in London owe nothing: the Royal Free Hospital has broken even, while the Chelsea and Westminster Hospital has £1.2m in the bank.

So PCTs that have worked hard to make savings, like these, could lose jobs. Health unions reacted furiously, accusing the Department of Health of "blind panic" that would only save about £4m of the £7m needed to fund new treatments.

Haemophilia services were also told to make cutbacks.

Finally, back to French letters. If you're one of those people who complains about condoms feeling like wearing a welly in the bath, German businessman Oliver Gothe may have the answer.

The founder of Cologne-based company Lebenslust (Lust for Life) has invented a system for making tailor-made condoms.

A machine measures the customer's penis and uses the resulting 3D computer image to make customised johnnies.

And Gothe claims: "These condoms will fit so well you will hardly notice you are wearing one. We can make them wafer thin or fist thick, and 'engrave' them with your signature around the base."

The service will cost approximately £600 for what Lebenslust calls a "large" number, but now you’ll be able to combine safe sex with luxury – the Prada of wellies.

Carry on cruising

2006-08-06T21:08:00.000+01:00

Do women cruise? In a recent Guardian article, Jaq Bayles suggested that, whilst lesbians haven't historically done so, now a "new generation of women are having erotic adventures".

It's all apparently to do with what Erica Jong described as the "zipless fuck" – no-strings sex.

But it's unfortunate that Bayles limits her thoughts to lesbians, because bisexual women have been at it for years.

Okay, it might not actually be wandering around Hampstead Heath waiting to grab a stranger and shag them silly behind a bush, but there are places in the UK, and London in particular, where it's possible for a woman to safely go and enjoy 'recreational sex' with other women or with men.

There is more than one reason for this lack of recognition.

There's a certain kudos in gay cruising – that it's part of the culture, it's liberating and different from 'straight' sexual behaviour – and that seems to be seeping into any discussion about lesbian cruising.

On the other hand, some lesbians are still reluctant to recognise bisexual women – and 'sleeping with the enemy' doesn't really count as 'cruising', just as being a cheap slag and a sell-out.

Not forgetting the whole 'cuddles-and-camomile-tea' view of lesbianism that some women seem to have – as if it doesn't actually involved sweaty sex with bodily fluids.

And then there are the hetero women who seem to think that women cannot have such sexually liberated lives.

A few years ago, I was at a social event, chatting with another woman about Catherine Millet's memoir, The Sexual Life of Catherine M. My acquaintance, who rather enjoyed being able to say that she'd read the book in the original French, noted that she'd have loved to be able to explore sex as Millet had, but went on to insist that women simply could not play around in such a way. She never did explain why.

Well, plenty of 'straight' and bisexual women 'cruise'. For women, there are, of course, even more safety issues than there might be for gay men, so you won't find many of them in old cemetaries or in the park, but in saunas or clubs or at parties.

Some people might refer to it as 'swinging', but it's all much of a muchness.

And these women do what they do in spite of the attitudes of a society that still sees such things as 'bad'.

Perhaps lesbians are just starting to catch up.

Good luck to World Pride

2006-08-05T12:21:00.000+01:00

Best wishes to participants in World Pride in Jerusalem, which starts today.

With the Middle East in a state of war, there are people who would suggest that it would have been more responsible to cancel the event altogether. The planned Pride march has been prevented after police said that current security demands mean that they couldn't offer protection to marchers.

That in itself explains why other events must go ahead. Protection wouldn't just have been a symbol in Jerusalem. Bigots and religious thugs have threatened marchers. Police have apparently done nothing to stop Orthodox fundamentalists from handing out leaflets offering a 'reward' of 20,000 Israeli shekels to anyone who "kills a sodomite". Earlier this year, a rabbi stabbed a marcher during Jerusalem's own Pride. And an American rabbi had promised "bloodshed" if the march had gone ahead.

What an irony, that a group who suffered in the Holocaust should behave this way to another group who suffered under the Nazis.

Elsewhere in the region, it's only just over a year since Iranian mullahs trumped up charges against two young gay men so that they could hang them – effectively for being gay.

There's tyranny in the Middle East. And these religious lunatics are at the heart of it. People need to be reminded just how far their bigotry extends – and that the LGBT community has to suffer their hate crimes.

• And briefly, good luck to Brighton Pride too, which has had a disruptive build-up after accusations of heavy-handedness by police over drugs.

Hopefully, it'll be an unmitigated success for everyone.

A load of wankers

2006-08-05T12:20:00.000+01:00

Good luck – and enjoy yourselves – to all those participating in the Masturbate-A-Thon in Clerkenwell, London, today.

What could be better? They'll have fun, raise money for Marie Stopes and the Terence Higgins Trust – and leave the Daily Wail in a state of deep indignation.

The event originally started in the US in 1994, as a response to the forced resignation of surgeon-general Joycelyn Elders, after she suggested teaching masturbation as part of school sex education programmes and was, predictably, slated by religious and conservative groups.

There have been rumours that today's event will be the focus of protests. Some people really do need to get a life. And a good wank probably wouldn't go amiss either.

Sex in the Bible belt

2006-08-04T22:31:00.000+01:00

Sometimes it's too easy. But hey, who ever said that you should ignore the easy things in life?

With this in mind, this blog is delighted to bring you Dr Shay.org, the website of an American sex therapist.

What's newsworthy about that, you ask. Well as Dr Shay says in her introduction to the site, it's "a website that is committed to promoting healthy, Godly female sexuality and intimacy".

"Godly female sexuality". Difficult to stop sniggering, isn't it?

The site includes testimonies from people that Dr Shay has helped. One woman tells how she was "too tired for sex". The advice that she was given appears sound enough, until you get to things like seratonin being described as "God's natural antidepressant". Oh, and prayer apparently helped too.

There's a chapter on "Gender differences regarding sex"; pity the good doctor doesn't understand the difference between sex and gender.

Anyway, she explains that "The Sexual Response Cycle is very different for men and women.

"Frequency of thinking about sex: men = once every hour to once a day; women = once to 3 times a week".

What? Where the hell did she conjure that one from? And does that mean that I am unique in thinking about sex a great deal more than once a day?

And then: "Men and women differ in what they want from sex.

"Women—want physical and emotional closeness, time together, affirmation, romance, talking."

Oh give over! How about women who want a damned good balling? Or isn't that in God's plan?

And get this problem letter: "I felt so good when my husband and I first met and that first two years was wonderful! But those 'good feelings' have worn off and while I still love him I want that 'feeling' back."

Solution? "In the first chapter of my book, For Women Only; God's Design for Female Sexuality and Intimacy, I describe a brain chemical called PEA. We believe this chemical is God's 'bonding' chemical, but it only lasts about 2-3 years and sometimes less. It's the cause of those 'ooey gooey' feelings. However, endorphins take the place of PEA and a calmer more secure feeling takes place."

In which case, if PEA is "God's 'bonding' chemical" (someone pass the sick bag, please), then God didn't do a very intelligent job, did he/she/it, if he/she/it actually intended people to be monogamous. If God did actually design the PEA so that it would only last for a limited time, then God either didn't intend people to be monogamous or God is a sadistic bastard.

And then there's the stuff written by Dr Shay and her hubby about pornography.

Amongst other things, porn "addicts" need "godly Christian counselors trained to do this difficult work, which involves insightful therapy that includes the spouse in the recovery process."

And let's not forget "common male sexual dysfunction", which is covered in an essay by Dr Robert Roop, Dr Shay's other half, who peppers his contribution with Bible quotes and notes that, "since God has promised that all things will work together for our good, even sexual dysfunction can help us to grow and mature".

No, it’s clear I’m on my way to hell. And reading this sort of bunkum, thank goodness. I bet the devil has all the best orgies.

The stupid things people say

2006-08-03T11:56:00.000+01:00

According to the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), some newspapers, environmental groups and the government have been a tad irresponsible in their rather apocalyptic coverage of climate change issues.

So much so that the institute has accused them of producing "climate porn".

Now 'food porn' is an easy phrase to understand and entirely appropriate when it applies to the sort of gloriously illustrated recipe books that leave one of your orifices very wet and make you want to blow the chef (after eating the dish concerned, of course).

But "climate porn"? Pur-lease.

Does anyone actually get a stiffy from reading about how we're damaging the planet?

The gist of the IPPR's idea is that people buy newspapers and respond to statements that are sensationalistic; that people enjoy being a little frightened or shocked. Fair enough, but that doesn't mean it's 'porn' of any variety.

Are these people so sad that they've never actually seen porn? Are they so sad that they don’'t know what porn is? Or are they so sad that they think that porn is bad and nasty and scary and is a good label for anything else that's bad and nasty and scary and which we all need protecting from?

Porn is great. It's entertainment and it helps to develop the vocabulary of our fantasy lives. It's escapism. It's a release. It's a way to explore ideas and fantasies. Most of all, it's a turn-on.

To describe something as "climate porn" is as crass and as lazy as people who use the word 'fascist' to describe anyone whose views they don't like.

Mind you, given that the IPPR labels the Independent as being particularly guilty of sensationalism in reporting global warming, perhaps all they're really hoping that, if the government gets its way, anyone caught with a copy of the Indy will be chargeable under any forthcoming legislation On Possession of Extreme Climate Pornography.

Married to the system

2006-08-02T15:04:00.000+01:00

In 2003, Celia Kitzinger and Sue Wilkinson were married in Canada, but found that, after the Civil Partnerships Act came into force in the UK last December, their relationship had been classified as a civil partnership here.

Earlier this week, the university professors failed in a High Court bid to have their marriage recognised as such in this country.

Now, quite apart from the issues about whether or not this is 'fair', why on earth would gay or lesbian couples want to get married?

Civil partnerships are understandable, conferring, as they do, the same legal rights as marriage; rights that lesbian and gay couples have not previously had access to.

But marriage itself – disregarding the principle of the thing – what else does that confer? It is hailed as sacred by religions, so why would you want to adhere to an institution that is so admired by something that has a rabidly homophobic history and remains, in large parts, rabidly homophobic?

A gay friend, having struggled for some time with the idea of bisexuality, eventually reached the conclusion that 'straight' was really those people in heterosexual, monogamous marriages. Swingers (gay, straight and bi), the kinky and festishistically inclined, trannies – none of these people were 'straight'.

It's an interesting definition.

Marriage is an institution, created by state and church in the days before DNA tests, to ensure the passage of title, property and wealth to the legitimate heirs.

Human beings are not naturally monogamous animals, but marriage is an artifice that attempts to make them so, whether they're happy with that or not.

It's no coincidence that Mary Whitehouse didn't start her 'decency' campaign because of a flash of naked flesh on her telly, but because she disagreed with someone else's opinion of marriage.

It was Dr Alex Comfort, the author of The Joy of Sex, in a late-night interview on BBC2's This Nation Tomorrow in 1963, who dared to suggest that the institution of marriage was propped up only by adultery, and that chastity was no more a virtue than malnutrition.

Whitehouse was galvanised into action. So much for a democratic right to voice an opinion, then.

Marriage is about control and restriction and playing society's 'game' by society's 'rules'.

So why would gay and lesbian couples wish to buy into such an institution?

Come to that, why would anyone want to buy into such an institution?

And who really wants to be 'straight'?

The God Squad are at it again

2006-08-01T15:40:00.000+01:00

Friedrich Nietzsche was right; we have killed God.

But in so doing, the middle religious ground, which was formerly occupied by the majority of people, has been vacated and is now being filled by extremists who would, formerly, have languished on the fringes.

Last month, the Gay Police Association placed an advert in the Independent newspaper during EuroPride, showing a Bible next to a pool of blood and describing the 74% increase in homophobic hate incidents recorded by the association, where religion was the sole or primary motive behind the assault.

Now it's emerged that Scotland Yard is apparently considering whether the advert "constitutes a faith crime" after complaints, which are believed to have come from anti-gay Christian groups.

The prime suspect is Christian Voice, which last week released a statement celebrating the fact that the GPA was to be investigated. Christian Voice's director is homophobic bigot Stephen Green, who seems to think that others shouldn't say nasty things about Christianity, but that he can make whatever vile comments he wants to about homosexuals.

It's a "faith crime" to hate bigots and extremist nutters? Well, that pretty well means that any decent human beings will be guilty, then.

What is it with some religious people? In recent weeks, we've seen threats of violence and offers of financial rewards from Jewish leaders and groups against participants in the (now cancelled) World Pride in Jerusalem.

We’ve seen the anniversary of the state murder of two young Iranian men for being gay – on the grounds that homosexuality is not very Islamic (although the Iranian mullahs had to trump up charges of rape to make sure that they could get away with the murders).

Nobody's telling them they can’t have their beliefs – but they seem to be confused over having a belief and ramming their medieval ideas down other peoples' throats and into their lives.

So Nietzsche might have been right. But bloody hell… can't we just find an island somewhere and stick all these nutters on it and let them fight it out between themselves?

Just imagine: 'My God's bigger than your God'.

'No, mine's bigger than yours'.

'Mine's stricter than yours'.

'Mine hates fags'.

'Mine hates fags and women.'

They can have the biggest pissing contest in history. Give them a load of weapons and let them all kill each other off in the name of whatever god they choose.

And let the rest of the world get on with attempting to build tolerant and civilised societies.

In a knot over BDSM

2006-07-31T16:45:00.000+01:00

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

2006-07-30T12:14:00.000+01:00

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

2006-07-27T13:37:00.000+01:00

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

2006-07-26T09:02:00.000+01:00

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

2006-07-26T00:07:00.000+01:00

... 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

2006-07-25T20:35:00.000+01:00

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

2006-07-24T12:54:00.000+01:00

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

2006-07-23T10:17:00.000+01:00

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

2006-07-22T11:41:00.000+01:00

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

2006-07-21T11:42:00.000+01:00

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?

2006-07-20T10:32:00.000+01:00

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

2006-07-19T11:33:00.000+01:00

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

2006-07-17T12:41:00.000+01:00

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...

2006-07-16T12:15:00.000+01:00

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

2006-07-15T11:21:00.000+01:00

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

2006-07-14T11:31:00.000+01:00

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'

2006-07-13T10:51:00.000+01:00

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!

2006-07-12T09:15:00.000+01:00

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'

2006-07-11T11:14:00.000+01:00

'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

2006-07-10T11:36:00.000+01:00

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?

2006-07-09T16:41:00.000+01:00

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?