Gay Mags: Cover Up

This story has been bubbling away all year, so it seems fitting it rears its stupid head again just as 2011 draws to a close.
The day when lads' mags and fag mags are only on sale covered-up to protect the kiddies from seeing Photoshopped pctures of people in swimwear seems to be moving ever closer.
As part of the Conservative's contribution to puritanical hysteria, sex panic and ultimately pointless token gestures the Telegraph reports that businesses are being asked to take a number of self-censoring measures, lest the government bring in some more stupid laws;

"In a letter to business leaders inviting them to meet the Prime Minister, Sarah Teather, the children’s minister, warned that companies must “demonstrate the real difference they are making for families”. She said: “The Prime Minister and I will expect to see concrete progress and for this to feel real and meaningful to parents and children.”

According to the Telegraph, Teather's letter mentions stopping peer-to-peer marketing campaigns (I agree with this, so it probably wasn't the best place to start...), ratings videos for music videos, a ban on (undefined) "sexualised images" on outdoor advertising; everywhere now, not just near schools - remember what Jello Biafra warned;
"Censorship is like that certain brand of potato chips. Nobody can stop
with just one."
UND!

"So-called “lads’ magazines” and newspapers with sexualised images on their covers must not be in easy view of children in shops. A code of practice already exists for newsagents and retailers. “However, application of the code is very patchy and there are many shops, including many well-known high street names where these magazines and newspapers are very clearly visible to children,” Miss Teather said. “There is no reason these magazines could not be sold bagged or shelved behind modesty boards provided by publishers and wholesalers and we expect to see a great deal of progress on this issue.'”

Oh dear. They'll be banning jokes about Jesus next...

Gay Magazines: Hot, New And Not Here!

Spotted at WH Smith in Leamington Spa by @twinkleboi [via Twitter].
This is what an anti-sex, pro-censorship group, The Front Page Campaign, have been working on since last year.
Don't say I didn't try and warn you...

Update: The initial, official response is that both magazines "were being regularly shoplifted"...

Parliamentary News: Tory MP Introduces Stupid Anti-Sex Bill

Yesterday Tory MP Nadine Dorries introduced a Ten Minute Rule Bill into parliament - the Sex Education (Required Content) Bill 2010-11

"A Bill to require schools to provide certain additional sex education to girls aged between 13 and 16; to provide that such education must include information and advice on the benefits of abstinence from sexual activity; and for connected purposes." [Hansard]

So far, so daft - so what?
It's a Private Member's Bill that doesn't stand a chance in hell of becoming law - these things are more of a way for MPs to get themselves in the papers to show they really, really care about something or other.
What's interesting - and worrying - is that when introducing her bill yesterday, Dorries' brought together several current moral panics. [Full debate here]
Not just teaching sexual abstinence to girls' (and only girls, oddly), but also "the sexualisation of young girls and the prevalence of pornography".
She quoted Joan Bakewell; "Why else sexualise the clothes of little girls, run TV channels full of naked wives, have sex magazines edging out the serious stuff?”
Dorries declared solemnly; "In fact, in some newsagents now there are more sex magazines available than any other kind of magazine."
The Labour MP Chris Bryant, (yes, the Gaydar one), replied rather brilliantly; "Well, stop going to those shops then."
She was not amused. Note how she didn't say "pornographic magazines", but "sex magazines" - presumably allying herself with the campaigns to get lads' mags and gay mags off the shelves.
She also omitted the warning from Joan Bakewell's article which contradicts her;
"Yet there is still resistance in some quarters to explicit sex education for cildren. No wonder young girls get mixed messages and grow up to make bad decisions. Sex as glamour – good. Sex as normal behaviour – dodgy."
Dorries but of course swiftly moved on to this month's hot topic; sexual content on TV pre-watershed.
"Our society is saturated in sex: a typical prime-time hour on TV contains 2.6 references to intercourse, 1.2 references to prostitution and rape, and 4.7 sexual innuendoes."
Bryant - who has done much research on sex education - went on to demolish "the daftest piece of legislation I have seen". [Read his reply in full here] concluding;
"Finally, the only thing that I would add is that, sadly, many youngsters get only 10 minutes of sex education in their whole lives. They do not get proper sex and relationship education; they spend less time on it than we have had to debate the issue today."
Hear hear!
The National Children’s Bureau’s sex education forum said in a statement; "There is strong evidence that young people who have sex education that starts early and covers a broad range of topics are less likely to have sex at a young age, have fewer partners and are more likely to use contraception or condoms.
"There is also extensive evidence that a ‘just say no’ or ‘abstinence only’ approach combined with no information (or incorrect information) about contraception is not effective."
Simon Blake, chief executive of sex education charity Brook, said; "Any debate that polarises views about sex and relationships education is unhelpful. It’s time to recognise that abstinence has been so discredited by the evidence that it’s hardly worthy of debate."
The bill just passed its first reading in a thinly attended House - its second reading won't be until early next year.
As before, it hasn't a snowball's chance in hell of passing, but sometimes private member's bills can snowball and be adopted and/or incorporated into actual government legislation.
Particularly if they chime in with current press prejudices and obsessions - and Nadine Dorries' speech namechecked at least three.
Be warned, it was bonkers backbench bigoted MPs reactionary mumblings in the 80s that led to Section 28.

• Quite awful piece of journalism in The Daily Mail on a small survey by a commercial website, BabyChild.org.uk, of parental attitudes to sex education.
Headline: "Sex education should not be taught in schools, say more than half of parents"
Their survey actually said: "Almost half (48 per cent) of those questioned said children should be at least 13 years old before it is appropriate to teach them about sex, the survey found."

Channel 4: Ban This Filth!

"We visited 75 supermarkets, newsagents and independent newsagent retailers to find out where shops were placing their lads’ mags. Magazines like Nuts, Zoo, Gay Times, Attitude and Bizarre; all of which featured nudity or semi nudity on the covers and inside.
"Incredibly, it was on the shelves low enough for toddlers to see.
"It’s just shocking to think what impact this could have on the emotional and mental well-being of our children.
"We want people to wake up and smell the coffee, to have a look around at what is happening – these children are going to be the future generation of parents."

The Daily Mirror provides a taster for what you'll hear argued on Channel 4 tonight [Edit: "Lads Mags" are in Part II on Wednesday] in Stop Pimping Our Kids.
(The same Channel 4 that showed The Joy Of Teen Sex in February, incidentally).
"It’s about the over sexualisation of children, which is a huge issue and a massive concern for parents and experts alike," writes presenter Anna Richardson.
"They worry how is it affecting the psyche of children and their attitude towards sex and relationships."
Anna Richardson would clearly prefer children to grow up with a sense of shame about their own bodies and about sex.
Other revelations made by Channel 4 include a shop selling "a T-shirt with Future Footballers wife stamped across it, for a three to four year old" and "boys are being told that they need to trim their pubic hair".
Fagburn has warned before about the Front Page Campaign trying to get gay mags hidden away or taken off the shelf in UK stores.
Creepy.

Schools: Great Lies Of Our Time 2

Last Sunday Fagburn wrote about a particularly odious story in The Sunday Times;
"It involves a monumental, acrobatic act of shittiness to look at a sensitive study about the difficulties of negotiating how to ask bullied schoolchildren if they'd been picked on because they were gay, and to write it up as a stupid story headlined; '11 Year-olds Asked: Are You Gay?'
"The title of the paper might have given even an idiot a clue about its real intention; 'Researching and Monitoring Adolescence and Sexual Orientation: Asking the Right Questions, at the Right Time'"
The Daily Express loved this sick twist on the truth and shamelessly, shamefully lifted it on Monday; 'FURY erupted yesterday at “sinister” plans to quiz 11-year-old children to see if they are straight, gay or bisexual'
On Wednesday Express columinist Ann Widdecombe waded in; 'HOMOSEXUAL QUIZ FOR 11-YEAR-OLDS'
"A REPORT for the loony Equality and Human Rights Commission recommends that children should be asked if they are homosexual from the age of 11 and that a record should be kept of any children “questioning” their sexuality..."
In today's Sunday Express, columnist Nick Ferrari is predictably frothing at the mouth; 'SEX SURVEY IS PERVERSE'
"...in the eyes of the Government it could soon be acceptable to ask every child as young as 11 if they are gay."
In fact the report recommended conducting more research into a difficult and understudied subject.
This is fucking scary - and reminded Fagburn of the sort of homophobic misreporting about schools and sexuality that helped usher in Section 28 in the 1980s.
Some clearly would prefer that gay kids continue being literally bullied to death.
You'd imagine the gay media would be up in arms about this.
But no - they just lifted and repeated the distortion.
'UK equality watchdog recommends that children as young as 11 could be quizzed on their sexuality' - James Park, Pink News.
The Pink Paper's Jonny Payne even foregrounded their story with a quote from a Tory MP lifted from The Daily Mail; 'Questioning of 11-year-olds on sexuality condemned by senior MP - A government-funded report that backs the prospect of children as young as 11 being questioned on their sexuality has been branded as “sinister and threatening” by a senior politician'
Did either the piss-poor Pink News or Pinkpaper.com ask School's Out or the EHRC or Stonewall if the story was accurate?
Of course not.
In the age of the internet they could have looked up what the report actually said in five seconds.
What is the point of the gay press if the people writing for it are not just literally incapable of noticing, questioning and challenging homophobic lies in the mainstream media, but cut-and-paste the exact same homophobic bollocks as the worst of the straight press and present it to their readers as news?
Is this the best we can do?

Gay Press: Look! They Think They're People!!

No names - and thus no links - but Fagburn always thinks it's ever so cute when certain "journalists" - who shall remain talentless - who never question anything most months, think they're fighting the power, sticking it to the man, and verily are the new IF Stone, because they've questioned the official line on homosexuality in Cameroon being spun by one of their government ministers.
Adorable!
Obviously, it would be a heresy to do what journalists are actually meant to do and try and check the veracity of everyones' account in this story.
Or, more specifically, of anyone's.

Gay Churnalism: Spot The Difference

See if you can spot the difference between this story about the Malawian couple splitting up by Reuters yesterday and this one by a Pink News "staff writer" today.
Then see if you can find what The Pink Paper has added to the press release from Peter Tatchell, 'Malawi couple split under homophobic pressure' (Under 'latest news' on Tatchell's website) for their news story.
The journalist credited with writing The Pink's story, James Sanders, has actually added one word.
Tatchell no longer refers to Chimbalanga and Monjeza as a "gay couple", Sanders still does.
Gay journalism - or rather gay "churnalism" - it sure beats working>...

Israel/Palestine: Come To Israel

One of the first things you see when you open the new Pride Life magazine is a full-page ad inviting "the gays" to visit Israel.
The photo shows some men frolicking in the Dead Sea.
It's "Play time"!
The British gay press often run travel features on Israel - almost always on "gay-friendly" Tel Aviv; don't mention the war, don't mention the occupation...
It feels as distasteful as being invited to visit Berlin in the '30s.
One journalist even boasted that he knew "nothing about Israel's politics," which you'd have thought would have spurred him to find something out about it.
Purely in the interests of balance, maybe the gay press could start running ads asking "the gays" to visit the Gaza Strip, illustrated with the dead bodies of a dozen or more peace activists floating in the Mediterranean sea.