Myles Jackman: Der Ner Ner Ner Ner Ner Ner... BATMAN!

Top dude Myles Jackman is in the Guardian!

'Fisting was Jackman's next focus...'

Gay Porn: Porn IRL

Drugs: Ban Everything!

Even by the standards of modern legislation, the psychoactive substances bill is startlingly inane. It seems to ban any substance which can cause a mental or emotional reaction. As must be obvious, that's almost everything in the world. Did this taste remind you of your mother's cooking? It's a psychoactive substance. Did it bring you a moment of happiness? It's a psychoactive substance. The government is about to ban almost everything...

Ian Dunt on politics.co.uk on a spectacularly dumb piece of tabloid-friendly populist drivel.

Where will it leave, say, poppers?

It's so ill thought-out surely the legislation will collapse under the weight of its own contradictions?

What stupid idea will they come up with next?

Oh, mandatory age and ID Checks if you want to watch porn!

PS Vice clarifies that it's all based on a load of bollocks...

You know those legal highs that the government is about to ban en masse because they kill two people per week? They don't kill two people per week, or anything close.

Wednesday's Queen's speech, the first airing of a fully Tory parliamentary programme since 1996, included an unprecedented blanket ban on selling new psychoactive substances.

The announcement was met with various responses. Most importantly, a briefly-amusingVine of the Queen set to an Avicii 2011 Trance Energy lightshow drop. But alsowarnings that the ban turns centuries of British legal tradition on its head, and plenty ofTwitter users saying that the 97 deaths from legal highs in 2012 pales in comparison to the thousands of deaths linked to booze.

But for anyone with even a fleeting interest in the issue, the pertinent response should have been: Why is everyone in this story about banning legal highs talking about 97 deaths, when that figure is largely composed of drugs that were not legal at the time people died from taking them?

The dramatic "97 deaths" figure has travelled well, being quoted by the BBC, the Press Association and the Daily Mail, among others. While yesterday was bad news for the guys selling Bob Marley weed grinders and "Adihash" T-shirts, it was very good news for a right-wing think tank founded by Iain Duncan Smith called the Centre for Social Justice, or CSJ

The CSJ has a strong evangelical Christian bent and is extremely influential in the Tory party. They have been pushing for a blanket ban for a while, so for them yesterday's news was a major victory. The think tank's lead man on legal highs, Rupert Oldham-Reid,hailed the proposed law in an article for Conservative Home, quoting everyone's favourite figure for legal high deaths, or something close to it. "Most tragically, in the last Parliament, the number of deaths associated with 'legal highs' has gone from one per month to over two per week," he wrote. The influence of the CSJ was also seen in a BBC piece published earlier this week, which declared: "Research from the Centre for Social Justice showed that there were 97 recorded deaths from legal highs in the UK in 2012."

Except there obviously weren't...

NSA: We Have Come For Your Dick Pics

Does anybody actually care about NSA surveillance?

That was the primary question at hand when Last Week Tonight's John Oliver flew to Russia to meet with NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden. Snowden has been living in the country (after a stint in the Moscow airport) since Russian President Vladimir Putin granted him asylum in August 2013.

At first, Oliver takes a confrontational tone, asking, "How many of those documents have you actually read?" He also demanded that Snowden "own" any mistakes or problems that arise from the leaking of harmful classified intelligence.

"So the New York Times took a slide, didn't redact it properly, and in the end, it was possible for people to see that something was being used in Mosul on al-Qaida," says Oliver.

While Snowden admits "that is a problem," he never comes close to walking back his actions.

Things get lighter when Oliver suggests that Americans don't care about domestic surveillance. A montage of innocent bystanders grapple with who Snowden is, and several confuse him with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

The comedian then suggests that the answer to it all ... is dick pics.

While there is no official "Dick Pic Program," Snowden confirms that "[the government is] still collecting everybody's information, including your dick pics."

"When you send your junk through Gmail, that's stored on Google's servers," Snowden adds, saying that by that point, it's easily within reach of Uncle Sam.

Does that mean Americans should think twice before sending them? Absolutely not, says Snowden, who then offers perhaps the memorable defense of dick pics ever.

"You shouldn't change your behavior because a government agency somewhere is doing the wrong thing," he tells Oliver. "If you sacrifice our values because we're afraid, we don't care about those values very much."

So watch out — a #DickPicsForFreedom hashtag may be coming to a Twitter feed near you.

Joking aside, Oliver and Snowden continue to provoke important conversations about how much the government should know about us. As the U.S Patriot Act comes up for repeal, and more and more Americans are consistently shown to be against excessive government surveillance, it's something we should all be thinking about.

Mic.

Non US-based people can watch the interview here.

PS Online porn could be the next big privacy scandal.

Porn Panic: Addicted To Nonsense

At the beginning of the week, an unsettling headline swept across news sites. A tenth of the UK's 12 to 13-year-olds are, apparently, ADDICTED to porn. The BBC led the charge, rehashing a press release sent out by the NSPCC, which is launching a campaign with Childline – Fight Against Porn Zombies (FAPZ) – to highlight the effects of too much exposure to porn.

Other news outlets followed suit and each story stuck to the same format: scary headline about children unable to stop watching porn, a couple more stats and a quote from Esther Rantzen. No one was questioning the findings themselves.

The aims of the NSPCC campaign are admirable: children are undoubtedly seeing more porn than ever before, and considering the dire state of sex-ed in British schools it's clearly a good thing that the charity is doing what it can to address the issue. But the idea of porn "addiction" is highly contested among academics and medics, so why did so many children put their guilty hands up?

Such inflammatory findings, when published by a respected national charity, would usually be accompanied by a full report of the study. Not in this case. All the NSPCC would offer was an extended press release with some more quotes from concerned parties.

It turns out the study was conducted by a "creative market research" group called OnePoll. "Generate content and news angles with a OnePoll PR survey, and secure exposure for your brand," reads the company's blurb. "Our PR survey team can help draft questions, find news angles, design infographics, write and distribute your story."

The company is super popular on MoneySavingExpert.com, where users are encouraged to sign up and make a few quid. Here's what that website says: "Mega-popular for its speedy surveys, OnePoll runs polls for the press, meaning fun questions about celebs and your love life."

So the company behind these stats about porn addiction are known for their quick and easy surveys and promise to generate headline-grabbing stats. An unusual choice, perhaps, for such a sensitive subject...

Frankie Mullen, Vice

'If a statistic seems wrong or unbelievable, it probably is...' - Someone's Law (forgotten whose).

Edit:It's Twyman's law.

And as the author points out,anyone who says people can get 'addicted to porn' is an idiot (slight paraphrase).

Update: But don't let that stop you...

'A shocking ten per cent of 12 and 13-year-olds believe they are already addicted to watching porn' etc etc.

PS More on bad data churnalism and dodgy polls.

Naked Men: Most Viewed

Daily Telegraph.

Only a very, very, very straight man - the writer is a former editor of Loaded - could make such a hilariously clueless and naive statement.

The fact that this is currently the most viewed story on the Telegraph online suggests there is quite a lot of demand and desire for this.

There are endless websites dedicated to running pictures of Famous Males in various states of undress.

(Though a quick peek at their comments sections shows they are far more popular with gay men, than straight women).

It takes literally seconds to find some celebrity shlong on the internet.

Let's see how I do - gimme five...

Oops!

Update: Queerty give their top 10 leaked male celeb nuddy pix.

Gay Porn: Straight Women

Porn for women has always had women’s sexuality - or perceived lack of it - as the punchline.

What turns women on, we are told, is men doing the ironing. Men taking the bins out. Men emptying the dishwasher. Maybe while shirtless.

Hilarious.

The truth is far more interesting. Because, while 'lesbian porn' has long done a roaring trade among straight men, it seems a growing number of women are turning to man-on-man action to get them going. Indeed, there's an entire subculture of women who believe that, in the words of one online viewer, “there's nothing better than watching two handsome guys f******.” *

In a world where straight women from Judy Garland to the fictional Bridget Jones are painted as the gays' best friend, it's a little surprising...

Daily Telegraph.

No idea if this actually 'a thing' or not. Probably not.

* Fisting?

Porn: Ask The Experts

The Times.

Independent Voices: Keep Your Shirt On

A quite ridiculous article by Howard Jacobson that could perhaps only have appeared in the hysterically prudish and puritanical and anti-sex Independent Voices.

It's so barking and tenuous an 'argument' it's hard to summarise, but essentially he manages to go from the Satanic sight of Zac Efron being briefly shirtless at last week's MTV Movie Awards, straight into - I kid you not - the Cyril Smith child abuse cover-up, and then onto sexism in the UK and - with a certain inevitability - Page 3.

An actual thing The Sun did briefly in the 80s.

To be clear: I am not using the sexualisation of Zac Efron’s body to discredit those who complain about the sexualisation of women’s. On the contrary, I consider the one to be the mirror image of the other. The Page 3 girl pinned on a workshop door degrades all parties to its being there: the inanely objectified girl and those who inanely ogle her. And we should not discount the coarsening effects of inanity itself. To trivialise is also to dishonour. Dumb also degrades. Similarly degraded and inane, anyway, are the girls who shout “phwoar” the minute a boy, a man, a Chippendale, a birthday stripper, undoes a button...

Howard surely missed a trick though by not drawing a wobbly line to the silent epidemic of sexual assault on the gay scene Patrick Strudwick warned us about in The Independent last week. 

Or claimed internet porn has turned us into a nation of bum-sniffing feral dogs.

Or said all sex workers are slaves in service to patriarchy.

Regular sententious Indy Voices clichés both.

What a load of utter erotophobic cock.

And as with so much of the bourgeois lemon-sucking joyless journalism on Independent Voices, next time why not save everyone's time and write just two words; 'Sex? Boo!'

BAN THIS FILTH!!! DOWN WITH FUGLYISM!

Thought For The Day: Jerry Barnett, Sex & Censorship

When the formidable anti-filth campaigner Mary Whitehouse died in 2001, she arguably left behind a country that was far more relaxed in its sexuality than at any previous time in history. It seemed that her crusade for ‘traditional’ (i.e. repressive) moral values had failed. But the morality movement regrouped and reinvented itself for the new millennium. It abandoned the outdated language of Christian puritanical outrage and instead presented itself as a form of feminism, protecting the rights of women who - they claimed - were victims of the sex industries.

Jerry Barnett - founder of Sex & Censorship writes for Independent Voices.

A rare counter voice to the new puritans and sex police usually found on Independent Voices.  

Obviously, in the name of balance they've printed alongside it an article, Stop Porn Culture, about how watching porn makes you go blind or something.

Image from Ben Thompson's mirth-inducing Ban This Filth!: A Warning From History.

Porn Block: Wank!

2014 will see the roll-out of Cameron’s Internet Filter.

Billed as blocking porn, the policy is already being used to restrict access to LGBT health and lifestyle material, child protection websites and other forms of political expression. 

This was predictable because there is no settled definition of what constitutes pornography. So it is inevitable that the material selected for ‘filtering’ is simply anything perceived to be politically sensitive or deviant. 

The move is typical of authoritarian regimes that want the power to shut down opposition and alternative voices at a moment’s notice. 

There is no underlying justification for the policy as there is no good evidence that access to sexually explicit material is harmful to individuals or society.

Laurie Penny has an important round-up in the Guardian. She notes that while governments are keen restrict information access for the general public, they claim unlimited powers to spy on the public‘s viewing habits.

Backlash.

Backlash is an umbrella organisation providing academic, legal and campaigning resources defending freedom of sexual expression. We support the rights of adults to participate in all consensual sexual activities and to watch, read and create any fictional interpretation of such in any media...

Censorship: No Sex Education Please, We're Filtered

www.nhs.uk

The #CensoredUK hashtag, spearheaded by the Sex and Censorship group [PornPanic], has been drawing attention to some of the unexpected sites that end up being blocked when internet providers buckle to government demands to censor "adult content".

Nine out of 10 homes will have porn filters on their computers by the end of January, after a Government deal with four big internet providers. Web giants TalkTalk, Virgin, Sky and BT, have all agreed to introduce network filters which can block inappropriate content from all the online devices within the home.

Across several mobile internet providers, however, harmless sex and relationships education sites are being blocked by their web filters. In my experience, the sexual health charity Brook, for example, has turned up on website checkers as being default blocked. But this is plainly not adult content, so why?

...I've said it many times before, and I'll keep saying it. Sexual health is not "adult content". Lumping important (and for many young people, the only) sexual health advice they will have access to in with porn is a mistake. I've always supported voluntary blocks installed by parents on a home by home basis, but phone and internet providers need to understand that doing this for everyone as a default is not their job. More to the point, politicians need to understand that making internet providers do so is not the Government's job.

There is also a concern for LGBT teens, some of whom will not have the support of their families and may have little access to safe, reliable information about sex and sexuality. What about them?

Dr Brooke Magnanti, Daily Telegraph.

Jane Fae writes on companies that are blocking gay websites.

• Sex & Censorship - On the UK Internet block-list.

Update: BBC Newsnight report on how the new ISP porn filters are not filtering some hardcore porn, but are blocking sites about sex education, domestic abuse and rape crisis helplines...

Upadte2: Gay Star News and Pink News realise this is happening after it's happened and they've been sent a press release about it saying it's happened to London Friend, saying they've been blocked by TalkTalk!

Jackpot: A Short Film By Adam Baran

JACKPOT: A Film By Adam Baran from Adam Baran on Vimeo.
Logline: It's 1994 and there's no Internet. So 14-year-old Jack Hoffman sets off on a quest to find and retrieve a stash of gay porn from across town before anyone finds out.

SPECIAL NOTE: If you like the film, PLEASE put something in the TIP JAR - $1, $5, or more. All the money raised will go towards developing the feature version of Jackpot.

TwinkTrial: Justice

A man whose life was ruined when he was charged with child sex offences after looking at legal gay pornography in a hotel room has accused the police and Crown Prosecution Service of a “homophobic witch-hunt” after his case was finally thrown out. The defendant endured a “two-year nightmare” after being arrested in front of his family, charged with 10 offences almost a year later and repeatedly bailed, before every charge was dropped. If convicted he would have faced jail and been forced to sign the sex offenders’ register. His father died while he was awaiting trial.

The CPS, which spent tens of thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money pursuing the case, offered no evidence in court – in effect conceding there was no case to answer. His lawyers say they gave the CPS conclusive documentary evidence three months ago that all models featured in the pornography were of legal age.

The Independent is not naming the man, a professional in his thirties, and has agreed not to disclose which court the hearing took place in, to protect his identity. He has never been in trouble with the law before.

The defendant’s nightmare began during a business trip in September 2011 when he viewed images on a website specialising in “twink” pornography. Twink is a well-known term in gay slang for young-looking men who are aged 18 or over.

When a female guest who stayed in the same room the following week saw the computer’s browsing history she complained to the hotel and staff called the police. Six months later, in March 2012, the man was arrested at his father’s home.

Speaking after the trial closed the man said: “While I feel utter relief and a sense of euphoria that the nightmare has ended, I am at the same time extremely angry: angry at the CPS, the police and, above all, angry that my father, who never doubted me and stood by me, never got to see this day. I’m angrier that that was the last year of his life and that I just couldn’t be the son during this time that I wanted to be to him.

“I can only conclude that the police officers and the CPS showed institutional homophobia throughout this case. I doubt I would have been treated the same way if heterosexual pornography was involved. Police... were obviously clueless about pornography – as were the CPS.”

The Independent.

580 days to decide the whole thing was too ludicrous to proceed.
Impossible to summarise the stupidity, cruelty and outrageousness of this - so please read the article in full. 
Never understood how watching any porn can be a crime - nor why you can have sex with someone who's 16, but not look at a photo of them in the nuddy - but maybe that's just me...

The man was represented by Myles Jackman - Obscenity Lawyer - and his team.
An heroic figure, he has also successfully defended the GLA's Simon Walsh against charges of possessing "extreme pornography", and "Sleazy Michael" Peacock over distributing "obscene" DVDs.
ie It's not a crime to have a wank.
The latter case was ignored by the British gay news media.
Walsh got sympathetic coverage, one can assume the fact that he's a leading gay Tory was but coincidental.

Jackman writes about the most recent case here; “The CPS has at best showed an ignorance of gay culture and at worst showed itself to be institutionally homophobic.”

Thank you, Myles, and please pass on my apologies to your client for our country's crapitude.
What a load of wank!

Mail On Sunday: Vile Newspaper Glorifies Violent Pornography

WHSmith was last night accused of profiting from the sale of vile books glorifying violent pornography, rape, incest and bestiality.
The high street chain openly advertised titles with disturbingly graphic content on its website, right next to children’s literature.
Typing the word ‘daddy’ into the search box, for instance, brings up disturbing fictional accounts of bondage and sexual humiliation, as well as collections of bedtime stories for youngsters.
After The Mail on Sunday alerted WHSmith to the appalling content freely available on its website, executives took the unprecedented decision to take the whole site offline while the explicit ebooks were removed from sale.
‘We will tighten our processes to ensure that this error can never happen again and sincerely apologise to our customers for any offence caused,’ the company said in a statement...

Mail On Sunday.

The small print is that these came from third-party sellers online - and are not illegal.
But anyway, never trust anyone who wants to ban books. 

Little parlour game: Although it's far from being a scientific test, if you search for '50 Shades Of Grey' on Mail Online, it brings up over 500 results. 

There are slightly more for stories marked  'incest'. 

Bestiality only finds 166.

And as for "All grown up" - which the Mail Online often uses with sexy photos of girls close to the age of consent... blimey!

They are also rather keen on running detailed stories about older women who've had sex with schoolboys.

Though perhaps the Daily Mail are just giving their readers what they want?

PS Mail watchers will know they've been getting very angry about the "pornification" of pop recently.

And particularly the egregious influence of 'Miley Cyrus twerking'.

This quite exact search brings up 162 results in the last six months.

With disgusting pics!

Quite a good day for the new puritans in the Anti-Sex League,

it seems.

David Blunkett: Behold His Rivers Of Blood Speech

"I think we have a job in this country, in a civilised, free, open democracy, to protect ourselves from the most bestial activities and from dangers that would undermine a civilised nation."

Drawing a parallel with Germany before the rise of the Nazis, he suggested a loose moral climate had fed the paranoia and fear that had allowed Adolf Hitler to flourish.
"In the late 1920s and early 1930s, Berlin came as near as dammit to Sodom and Gomorrah. There was a disintegration of what you might call any kind of social order.
"People fed on that - they fed people's fears of it. They encouraged their paranoia. They developed hate about people who had differences, who were minorities.
"There always has had to be some balance, in terms of the freedom of what we want to do, for ourselves and the mutual respect and the duty we owe to each other in a collective society. I think getting it right is the strength of a democracy."

Rancid reactionary homophobe David Blunkett, speaking at a Labour Party Conference fringe meeting on the evils of online pornography.
So Mr Blunkett believes the brief blossoming of gay life in Weimar Berlin brought Hitler to power?
I hope all those bestial queers the Nazis sent to concentration camps realised they only had themselves to blame.
This is the sort of "Rome fell!" "The barbarians are at the gate!" rhetoric you expect from the rabid right.
And people flip their wig when Godfrey Bloom jokes about cleaning behind the fridge.
What an utter, utter cunt!

PS Note Blunkett is using the same "This is exactly how Hitler started!" anti-reasoning beloved of the "Boycott Russia!" bozos, and is coming out with the sort of anti-gay crap that, if a Russian politician said it, they'd use to "prove" Russia is fast becoming a fascist state...

Sex Panic: Won't Somebody Please Think Of The Children?!

Societies appear to be subject, every now and then, to periods of moral panic. A condition, episode, person or a group of persons emerges to become defined as a threat to societal values and interests; its nature is presented in a stylized and stereotypical fashion by the mass media; the moral barricades are manned by editors, bishops, politicians and other right-thinking people; socially accredited experts pronounce their diagnoses and solutions; ways of coping are evolved or (more often) resorted to; the condition then disappears, submerges or deteriorates and becomes more visible. Sometimes the object of the panics is quite novel and at other times it is something which has been in existence long enough, but suddenly appears in the limelight. Sometimes the panic passes over and is forgotten, except in folklore and collective memory; at other times it has more serious and long-lasting repercussions and might produce such changes as those in legal and social policy or even in the way the society conceives itself...

Folk Devils & Moral Panics, Stanley Cohen (1972).

Ban the internet! Ban electricity! Ban children! Ban Page 3! Ban lads' mags! Ban the body! Ban sex! Ban twerking! Ban wanking! Ban fun! Ban fag packets! Ban cheap booze! Ban legal highs! Ban video games! Ban ask.fm! Ban Twitter! Ban travellers! Ban benefits! Ban squatting! Ban gay! Ban the niqab! Ban the BBC! Ban Stoli! Ban Sochi! Ban Russia! Ban rational thought! Ban brains! Ban the bum! BAN THE BAN!
Brass Eye Paedophilia special, Channel 4, 2001 - a satire on media-driven hysteria and moral panics.
You gotta laugh to keep from crying...

Update: More Pornballs - Compulsive users of porn show the same signs of addiction in their brain as those hooked on booze or drugs, according to researchers The Daily Mail.

• Sex & Censorship conference organised by @PornPanic, London, Monday September 23rd.

Censorship: Ban This Filth!

The UK's main supermarkets could be exposed to legal challenges from employees and customers if they refuse to remove magazines and newspapers with naked [sic] women on their covers, a group of lawyers have claimed.
In a letter published in the Guardian, 14 equalities lawyers say supermarkets and other retailers are vulnerable to legal challenges under sexual discrimination law.
Experts from six legal sets, including Matrix Chambers, where members include Cherie Booth QC, wife of the former prime minister Tony Blair, say that displaying publications "in workplaces, and/or requiring staff to handle them in the course of their jobs may amount to sex discrimination and sexual harassment contrary to the Equality Act 2010"...

The Guardian. 

The people behind this ludicrous campaign also want gay magazines, like those purveyors of absolute filth and wreckers of civilisation, Attitude and GT, covered up or taken off the shelf, of course.
The human body is not obscene.
Sex is not bad.
"Pornography" is not evil.
You don't make the world a better place by banning everything you don't like.

• Feminists Against Censorship.

PS Putting "gay lifestyle" mags on the top shelf only serves stigma and shame.
If you see one there, why not move it?

Pornography Trial: Extreme

'Today the Crown Prosecution Service will attempt to persuade a jury that images of fisting should be classified as “extreme pornography” with the risk to the defendant of three years in custody, inclusion on the sex offenders' register and damage to his personal and professional standing.
All for a type of image which is commonly viewed, of an activity which is itself is legal to perform and is even discussed in the book Fifty Shades of Grey.
Nonetheless the defendant, Simon Walsh, has been charged with being in possession of extreme pornographic images under section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008: so the Prosecution must prove that the act of fisting is “likely to result in serious injury to a person’s anus”...'

More from Myles Jackman@ObscenityLawyer, who is representing Simon Walsh, on his blog.
Earlier this year Myles Jackman successfully represented Michael Peacock in a landmark trial that saw a jury find Peacock not guilty of a charge of obscenity for distributing gay SM DVDS.
I believe the coverage of this in the gay news media was zero.
Now that's obscene.

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."