SICK BRITAIN

Public masturbation used to be associated with sad old men wearing dirty raincoats. Now it is no longer seen as a sordid exhibition, but rather as an exercise in raising awareness about safe sex. So hold on to your hats - the public masturbation exhibition is coming to London on 5 August! We are all invited to `come for good causes' by the organisers of Europe's very first `Masturbate-a-Thon' event.

Masturbation is about to be rebranded as the ultimate expression of responsible sexual behaviour. Get rid of your dirty raincoat: exhibitionism has been given a clean bill of health by sexologists, sex educationalists and the media. With great fanfare, this weekend's public display of narcissism - ostensibly performed to raise money for charity - will be promoted as an act of civic virtue. Willing masturbators will gather at a converted photographic studio in Clerkenwell, London, on Saturday, to pleasure themselves for the cameras and a charitable cause. Predictably, Channel 4, whose commitment to the highest standard of public service broadcasting is well known, has enthusiastically embraced this opportunity to transmit yet another of its `brave', `pioneering', `agenda-setting' and `taboo-breaking' reality shows: it will be filming and televising the Masturbate-a-Thon. Since Channel 4 has courageously invested its reputation in this venture, it is guaranteed to be conducted in the best possible taste. Which is why, according to the organisers, `fully clothed people will not be allowed into rooms set aside for masturbation'.

The organisers of this spectacle claim the objective is to encourage people to `explore safe sex' and `talk about masturbation and lift the taboos that still surround the subject by coming to a public place and coming in a public place'. I have always suspected that sexologists love to talk `dirty' - that is why they attach such significance to `vagina monologues' and talking about wanking. They claim that openly discussing masturbation is an important part of an overall enlightened sexual etiquette. According to a leaflet produced by the Family Planning Association, Masturbation - Support Notes, talking about it `encourages safe and non-judgmental environments in which people can explore their sexuality'.

This weekend's event should provide suitably wholesome entertainment, if the literature promoting it is anything to go by. The Masturbate-a-Thon crew clearly enjoys a laugh, never missing an opportunity to crack a crude double entendre and continually using the word `come' in different, apparently witty ways. `Who can come?' ask the organisers, before pointedly imploring: `So come on.don't be shy.' Why? Because `you can come for good causes'. This is playground humour, and it sounds forced and more than a little vulgar. The organisers of this initiative have turned otherwise unexceptional words - exhilaration, pleasure, relaxation, liberation - into salacious and crude terms.

But there are rules. The event sponsors, who clearly buy in to today's health-obsessed ideology, forbid participants from doing drugs, drinking alcohol or smoking. Though you can bring your own toys, you are asked not to `share them or to offer them to anyone else after you', since `this constitutes a clear risk to others'. And no cheating! There will be monitors on hand - sort of - to clock the duration of your contribution and count your orgasms. With a hint of self-parody, participants are warned that `monitors shall carry a clipboard to keep notes on time and consistency of self-pleasuring'.

And while taking pleasure in yourself, you are obliged to take pleasure in diversity, too. Apparently anyone demonstrating `prejudice, disrespect and intolerance of other people' will be asked to leave straight after the critical moment has been reached. This is clearly an inclusive event fully committed to the ethos of diversity. You'll be pleased to know that `people of both genders and sexual orientations' will masturbate in this inclusive performance.

Masturbation and the new moralism

Pornographers frequently flatter themselves by labelling their work as `erotic art'. Now, with the Masturbate-a-Thon, narcissistic voyeurism is represented as an exercise in public service; a low-life show for Peeping Toms masquerades as a public health initiative. The Masturbate-a-Thon aims to `raise awareness of, and dispel the shame and taboos that persist around, this most commonplace, natural and safe form of sexual activity'. Are we supposed to believe that the public is totally unfamiliar with the practice of masturbation?

The idea that talking about masturbation is a powerful taboo is a self-serving myth peddled by solo-sex crusaders who never resist the temptation to discuss their obsession. As any school child will confirm, masturbation is hardly a taboo topic. There is a veritable industry devoted to praising its virtues and `raising awareness' about it. In case you're desperate for information, you can consult Martha Cornag's The Big Book of Masturbation, which addresses `the myths and questions that have plagued society for centuries', according to its publisher. Cornag also respects diversity and `presents masturbation from a variety of perspectives'. If you are feeling a tiny bit unsure about the experience, then flick through Edward L Rowan's The Joy of Self-Pleasuring: Why Feel Guilty About Feeling Good? Then there is Walter O Bocking's Masturbation As a Means of Achieving Sexual Health or Betty Dodson's Sex for One: The Joy of Self-Loving, both of which claim to do a bit of taboo-busting.

Some old-fashioned critics of Saturday's voyeuristic event may view it as a sign of our unhealthy hedonistic culture. But the advocacy of masturbation today has little to do with a hedonistic desire to validate sexual pleasure. Rather, the solo-sex crusade can be profoundly puritanical and moralistic. The moral entrepreneurs who dreamt up Masturbate-a-Thon promote a dogma that regards passion itself as a disease. Old-fashioned moralists told people to `just say no' and left it at that. Their target was promiscuity, homosexuality and extramarital sex. Today's sex education establishment is far more prescriptive. It demands that we `say no' to all passionate relationships that carry risks and consequences. The new lobby of moralists are not just wary of sex but of all forms of passionate relations. Yes they talk about pleasure, but according to their ideology it must be an experience that is robbed of passionate emotions.

The two most highly stigmatised words in the lexicon of the sex education lobby are `risk' and `consequence'. They are not simply concerned with the risk of catching a sexually transmitted disease, but also with the risk of emotional pain that invariably accompanies relationships. Traditional moralists sought to discourage people from having pre-marital affairs; today's sex education lobby hopes to divest sex from passion. Why? Because when you have passionate sex, anything can happen. You might forget to take your pill; you might get too emotionally involved with your partner.

Marie Stopes International, one of the sponsors of Masturbate-a Thon, warns that `in our work all over the world, every day we see the consequences of fertile orgasms'. The denigration of the experience of a fertile orgasm expresses a profound sense of unease with human passion, particularly when it has life-creating consequences. Here, traditional prudishness is displaced by a far more lifeless dread of acting on spontaneous desire....

More here





BRITISH LIBEL LAW ATTACKS FREE SPEECH

By Mick Hume

The verdict is expected today in the Tommy Sheridan defamation trial, in which the MSP and former leader of the Scottish Socialist Party is suing the News of the World over allegations of extramarital sex, orgies and swinging parties. But the verdict on Britain's libel laws should have been clear long ago. They are the most atrocious, unjust pieces of legislation on our statute books -- a title won in the face of some stiff competition. Nobody in his right mind, or who is still mad enough to believe in freedom of speech, should surely ever sue under these laws. Indeed, a society that considers itself free should abolish them.

English libel law commits crimes against natural justice (Scotland's defamation laws are not much different). Forget the presumption of innocence; libel law presumes that the defendant has published lies and demands that he prove the contrary. The claimant has to prove nothing and can simply assert that his reputation has been damaged -- in Scotland the claimant must show some damage, not necessarily financial. The vast majority of cases brought to court end in the claimant' s favour. Most never get that far, because nervous publications settle beforehand, while the spectre of defamation law has a chilling effect on what gets published in the first place. No wonder "libel tourists" from Britney Spears to Russian businessmen sue foreign publications in UK courts.

And what of the winners? Last week Paul McKenna, the TV hypnotist, won a libel case against the Daily Mirror, which had described his PhD as "bogus" in a long-forgotten article. Mr McKenna said that the trial had made him "a laughing stock". The judge ruled in his favour, but concluded that it would have been fair comment to say that Mr McKenna had received his qualification from an "obscure, degrees-by-post establishment", and that " hypnotherapy was not a suitable subject for a PhD". What a triumph!

Mr Sheridan's defamation case has turned into a media circus of colourful accusations and denials, during which he has wept, sacked his lawyers, paraded his personal life and offered to parade his hirsute body before the world, admitted being "a source of ridicule" and effectively accused 18 witnesses of lying. It has certainly altered the staid reputation of the SSP. What impact suing has on Mr Sheridan's reputation remains to be seen.

A few years ago, I was sued for libel. The case left Living Marxism, the independent left-wing magazine that I edited, facing closure, and me facing a million-pound bill for costs and damages. I said on the steps of the Royal Courts of Justice that the only thing the trial had proved beyond reasonable doubt was that the libel laws were a menace to free speech and a disgrace to democracy. Then, libel law was considered a rich man's charter. Now, however, the rise of "no win, no fee" lawyers has "democratised" censorship and opened the doors of the defamation courts to others. Fashionable though it is to bash American tyranny, it is worth recalling that many of these high-profile cases would never come to trial there because the law makes it hard for public figures to sue. In 1997, a US court refused to enforce a judgment made in London, on the ground that UK libel law was "repugnant" to the principle of free speech. A good word, repugnant. And that was long before any discussion of Mr Sheridan's body hair.

Source