The Hypocrisy of Pornography

Originally Posted on www.huffingtonpost.co.uk

For a long time now I've been thinking about the porn debate that I constantly see in the news. Whenever the debate about the negative aspects of porn rears its ugly head the public is always told about the negative effects it can have on women, such as the way it can squash the reality of feminine beauty or portray women as objects designed for one thing. On the other hand we are also told about the negative effects it can have on straight men, such as a rewiring of the brain or contributing to psychological problems.

Anti-porn activist Gail Dines has even discussed how pornography tells a false story about men and women, which ultimately lies about what it means to be male and female.

Now everyone has their own stance on pornography and with access to the Internet and cable channels, whether we like it or not porn looks as though it is here to stay for quite some time.

The reason why it has crept back into the foreground of my mind is due to a little programme on BBC Three called Unsafe Sex in the City. The programme, which is a new take on the fly on the wall documentary series that we've all become accustomed to over the last decade or two, is based in a sexual health clinic in Manchester where we are able to hear and sometimes see what many people have been up to on a night out, and believe me sometimes it isn't pleasant.

During the second episode of the show two young gay men were featured, who as well as having vey active sex lives, worked as porn stars. This got me thinking about the hypocrisy of the porn industry, especially in the world of gay porn.

As the two young men were to feature in a bareback porn movie (bareback being the act of having sex without a condom), they were sent to have full sexual health screenings. Now as many will know porn stars have to be sent for sexual health tests regularly to ensure that a breakout of something doesn't occur, and the man shooting the film explained this during the programme.

However the main reason they appeared to be getting tested was due to the nature of the film they were to shoot, which is where we get into the hypocrisy of it all. As they were to be filming a porno movie where no protection was being used then surely this is the promotion of unsafe sex?

Since the outbreak of HIV during the 1980s the general public, especially the gay community, have been made aware that unprotected sex could lead to the contraction of the HIV virus. As gay men are seemingly at a higher risk, then surely shooting a film featuring two young and vulnerable looking gay men without protection can't be doing anyone any good.

I may be wrong but in the same way it is perceived that women may think they have to act and perform a certain way during sex because of porn, then surely the same principal can be applied to naïve or impressionable gay men, which in this case could prove dangerous. Along with this the constant normalising and sometimes glamorising of unprotected sex may also be undoing much of the good work by various charities; who are trying to get people to wrap it up and prevent the spreading of this virus.

But It looks as though whilst the porn industry is acting as though they care by sending their stars for check ups they are merely doing it to cover their own backs in case anything happens to one of their performers. But when it comes to the everyday person in the street who goes out on a weekend looking for a good time, it appears they don't actually care that much as they continue to turn out pornography such as this to the masses.

Inexperienced and Overqualified: A Catch 22 for Graduates

Originally posted on www.huffingtonpost.co.uk

After a regular visit to the job centre where I had to convince the person sat behind the desk that I had been looking for work on a daily basis, it got me thinking about why I was still in this predicament.

Six months after losing my job I still go to my fortnightly appointment and explain the fact that employers are still not employing me. The woman who deals with my claim told me I looked a bit fed up and maybe this was coming across at interviews. The comment annoyed me slightly as I'm not a stupid person, despite what some may say given the predicaments I've gotten myself into in the past, I'm educated to degree level and work extremely hard to try and get where I won't to be, yet I just seem to fall flat at the final hurdle.

It's not just me either; youth unemployment is extremely high these days given the current economic crisis. You only have to read BBC news and you will most likely find a story at some point during the week detailing these issues.

At the age of 22 I feel that a vast amount of people my age are caught in a catch 22 situation. That situation being; we are both under-experienced and overqualified.

From a young age we've been told we can be whatever we want to be whether it's a doctor, a teacher, a writer or even an Olympian. We have been told that education is the key. We were told to get our GCSE's and then when those were done we were told to get A-Levels, as GCSE's weren't quite good enough. Finally after a two-year slog to get those A-Levels completed we were told we needed to go to University to complete our education and secure ourselves a job.

However they never prepared us for the lack of job prospects when we left, or what to do if a situation like this should arise. I mean we can't blame our teachers for the economic crisis, but when you're told from around the age of seven that you can be whatever you want to be and this is how you do it, you never think of the negative outcomes of not quite reaching your goal.

So by this point after completing a degree you can safely say that you're qualified enough. But when it comes to applying for jobs you then have to compete against thousands of other applicants who were told the same thing as you, and some are lucky enough to get the job and others aren't.

As the clock ticks on more students finish University every year creating a new batch of competitors as you seemingly get left behind and re-join the queue at the job centre time and time again, as employers tell you; "you don't have enough experience."

Now a sensible thing to do whilst hunting for your dream job is to find something that will help you get by and live. Many go and work in bars or call centres or work as waiters, but this is where the overqualified situation raises its ugly head.

I myself had to deal with a situation like this a few weeks back when I attended an interview for a cleaning position. I've worked as cleaner before for two different companies, which were both on my CV. However the woman conducting the interview seemed more concerned with how overqualified I was than my previous experience, but as I said to a friend when you're poor and need money you'll do any job you can. Needless to say I didn't get the position.

It may have been because I was overqualified or not, and if it was I can understand where they are coming from as I may up and leave the job in six weeks time.

The simple fact is when you have friends, family, the job centre, the media and the government telling you to get off the sofa, stop watching Jeremy Kyle and go and get a job it can make you feel worthless because even though you are trying it's just not that easy and you're stuck in this catch 22 situation. As some people think you don't know enough to do one job and others think you know too much to do another. Sometimes there's just no winning but a lot of losing.

Review: Doctor Who - Colony in Space

Originally posted on www.moviemuser.co.uk

In a blast from the past John Pertwee stars as the third incarnation of the Doctor all the way from 1972, accompanied by Jo Grant in this adventure into space. Containing all six episodes from the 1970s serial, the Doctor is summoned from his exile on Earth and sent five centuries into the future to confront the Master, whom the time lords have discovered has located the dreaded doomsday weapon.


Upon their arrival the Doctor and Jo encounter a colony of humans who are under threat from the Interplanetary Mining Corporation, which is disputing the colonists’ claim to the planet where they have set up home. Their only hope lies with an adjudicator from Earth. The Doctor on the other hand pursues his mission of finding the Master and stopping him, whilst also combating the IMC, helping the colony and battling with killer robots, giant lizards and primitive tribesmen who aren’t quite what they seem.


This Doctor Who serial is definitely worth while watching. Although the graphics and the monsters don’t look as good as they do in the newer series (which is obvious considering this was made almost 40 year ago), the basic story is still there and any fan of the series old and new will understand what’s going on. It keeps you enthralled from the start when the Doctor ends up on this distant far away planet, right through to the obvious resolution that happens at end. We all know what the Doctor is about, don’t we?


In all fairness it does drag a bit in parts when you watch all the episodes back to back, and at times it does feel like there are two completely separate story lines going on. To be honest there is, but it all links up in the end when you discover what is happening, and I must say the writing for Doctor Who was just as good then as it is now – or should I have put that the other way round.


Overall Verdict: It is nice to see the old episodes of Doctor Who coming to DVD so that old fans can once again relive the memories of the Doctors past, and it’s brilliant for the fans of the new series to see where the Doctor began and what he was up to all those years ago. Even though they can’t expect much from the imagery in comparison to what it is now, the story is still there and it’s a fun watch for anyone.


Special Features:
Commentary
IMC Need You – Making of the story
From the cutting room floor
Photo Gallery
Radio Times Listing
Programme Subtitles
Coming soon trailer

What's Wrong With Gay Sex?

Originally posted on www.gailymail.co.uk

So yet again there are people complaining about the display of man-on-man sex on television. In the firing line this time, Doctor Who spin-off Torchwood.

It was announced recently that the BBC had received around 500 complaints in relation to a sex scene between the television show’s main character Captain Jack Harkness (played by openly gay actor John Barrowman) and another man.

A number of the complaints were saying that the scenes were unsuitable for children. Now the last time I checked, the show is broadcast after the 9pm watershed (which was introduced so children wouldn’t be exposed to scenes of a sexual nature), therefore allowing the display of such things as sex on screen. So the real question is why are these children watching the programme? Surely the parents should know what to expect and therefore prevent their children from watching – it’s as simple as that.

What is truly annoying about this whole situation is that during a previous episode of Torchwood there was a sex scene shown between one of the lead characters Rex and a woman – were there any complaints about that? As far as I am aware there were not. So why do people find it acceptable to allow their children access to straight sex on screen but as soon as it’s two men all hell breaks loose and it is deemed as ‘disgusting’ and ‘irrelevant’?

A number of people have deemed these scenes ‘pointless’ and as I mentioned earlier ‘irrelevant to the plot.’ But why is a gay sex scene between the lead character and a male love interest, who later goes on to become a key part in the storyline, irrelevant and a sex scene between a man and woman, which could have been left out in all fairness, be deemed acceptable? It makes absolutely no sense what so ever.

As a big fan of Torchwood I can understand why the sex scene was included in the show – it not only further develops the character of Jack, but also develops the plot line, but people don’t seem to see this as they are too blinded by the fact that two men have just kissed. Believe me it does happen. Which makes me wonder, if Jack were having sex with a woman, would there have been a commotion? Probably not as these fans have already proved they have no issue with two straight people having sex on screen.

The BBC has come forward and defended its actions for showing the scene, explaining to the narrow-minded fans that allow their children to watch TV after 9pm, that the show was on after the watershed, so therefore such scenes should be expected. The BBC has also stated that it aims to depict sexual relationships in an honest, realistic way, which they have done, and good on them for defending their actions. However they did edit down a sex scene earlier on in the series as they deemed it too explicit for UK audiences, which I find absolutely ridiculous considering the scene was aired in full on American television, and we all know their rules on what can and can’t be be seen on TV compared to over here. So if it’s good enough for America, why isn’t it good enough for the UK?

This is only the latest example in an ongoing apparent attack on gays on screen. Recently there was a huge debate in the media about there being too many gay characters in UK soaps, so obviously Eastenders and Coronation Street were in the firing line then. But now it looks as though some UK television viewers are just out to attack everything gay on TV, I mean 12 years ago Queer as Folk aired in the UK and was shocking but I honestly thought audiences had come a long way since then and now accepted gay people, but apparently not.

The perceived acceptance of us gays by some in society is a case of “I don’t care if they are gay, but I just don’t want to see it.” Well this is what I gather from the attack on television anyway. But guess what, gay people do exist and we deserve just as much exposure in the society we live in as straights. I mean if someone complained about a black person on television there would be uproar, but it seems that it’s still ‘open season’ where gay people are concerned.

It looks as though we still have a long way to go before people accept us on television, but I’m giving a big thumbs-up to both Torchwood and the BBC for sticking to their guns and defending something that deserves a place on TV and in society.

Rory Bremner's Career History

Originally posted on www.the-experts.co.uk

Born in Edinburgh in 1961 Rory Bremner was educated at Clifton Hall school and wellington College, before studying Moder Languages at King’s College London.

The first step on his long career came when he released the song “N-N-Nineteen Not Out” in 1985 as The Commentators. The song was a parody of Paul Hardcastle’s number one single  “19.” Although pretty much-unknown Bremner’s single became a hit in the UK spending seven weeks in the charts and peaking at number 13.

After his musical success Bremner later began his career in comedy when he contributed to television shows Spitting Image and Week Ending during the mid 1980s, and by 1987 he had been given his own BBC Two show called Now – Something Else. After his venture with the BBC, Bremner then moved over to Channel 4 where he cemented his trademark satirical comedy in the television show Rory Bremner, Who Else?

As the 1990s began Bremmer had a semi-regular cameo role on the Channel 4 improvisation television series Whose Line Is It Anyway?

Towards the end of the 90s Bremner enjoyed his biggest success when he joined forces with John Bird and John Fortune to host; Bremner, Bird and Fortune, which went on to win numerous awards and is still running today. This is where Bremmer’s trademark impersonation of Tony Blair was born.

He has since lent his comedic talents to television shows like Mock The Week, when he became a team captain in 2005.

Bremner has since ventured out in to a number of different mediums such as radio, where he has performed on Sunday AM, once again impersonating politicians, and presented his own BBC Radio 4 series, titled, Rory Bremner’s International Satirists.

He has also presented his own BBC Four documentary based around the history of the Scouts helping the British Army called Rory Bremner and the Fighting Scouts.

Most recently in his career Bremner embarked on a 20 date Election Battlebus Tour, which was done in conjunction with the 2010 general election, and was his first tour in five years. He has also translated two operas and Bertolt Brecht play into English.

We Remember: Beautiful People

Originally posted on www.differentscene.com

Another week another amazing British television series that concentrates on the LGBT community.

This week I am looking at Beautiful People a BBC television series based on the memoirs of Simon Doonan about growing up as gay teen in 1960s Reading. The television series has made a few alterations, the main one being changing the setting to 1997 along with a few name changes.

The show ran for two series between 2008 and 2009 and concentrates on Simon Doonan a young effeminate boy growing up in an eccentric family in 1990s Reading. The series takes parts in the present day before going back to the past and concentrating on a number of hilarious incidents that happened to the shows protagonist throughout his life, such as how he broke his nose and how he got the scar on his head.

Where as the first series concentrates mainly on the hilarity of these incidents allowing you to warm to the Simon and his best friend, the equally as effeminate Kylie (Kyle), as they aspire to leave Reading and head for the bright lights of London, where they can be with ‘the beautiful people.’

As the second series begins we are still treated to same odd ball circumstances that Simon faces throughout his life, but we also see the shows star begin to come to terms with the fact that he is in fact gay and doesn’t necessarily fit in with the rest of the boys at school.

Throw in some brilliant performances that come in the from of Simon’s mother Debbie Doonan and the remainder of the cast (because to be fair they are all brilliant), along with a very interesting tale about a Posh Spice doll, and you instantly get a piece of comedy gold along with a touching story of ones boys acceptance of himself, and his persistence to find somewhere he fits in.

The show is a must for any one who had a hard time fitting in when they were younger and aspire to make the most of their life. After all the real Simon Doonan went on to become the creative ambassador at New York clothing store Barneys.

As the theme tune says, (sung by the brilliant Dan Gillespie-Sells) “Dreams are foolish but don’t let them go” and that is exactly what he did.