Occupational Sex and Safety

This is not
about farmers

Over the last two months, MediaDawg spent a ridiculous extensive reasonable minimal amount of time online, looking for sex, ahem, searching for and discussing controversial, sex-related news stories.

Now we’re in luck, it seems, as the motherlode of all sexually-oriented stories has arrived. It has sex, it has Hollywood, it has celebrities (well, sort of) and it has a deadly disease that’s had more coverage in the media than Lara Bingle and Master Chef combined. 


That’s right, it’s about porn!


The dirty movie industry has shocked the world with revelations of two of the pornstars performers – Darren James and Lara Roxx - contracting the HIV virus. This may seem surprising, considering the industry has 1,200 employees fornicating (often unprotected) in front of a camera, but the last reported HIV case was in 1999. Now, filming has stopped as these actors are nervously awaiting their test results.


bbc.co.uk reports the industry is “in disarray”, doctors trying to establish how many others have ‘performed’ with James and Roxx and could have contracted the deadly virus. The BBC feature has a lot of news value – it’s sexy, thrilling, controversial AND educational, revealing some recent developments in the porn industry and explaining why pornstars don’t use condoms. The story works because it shows that even an industry where people hump each other has its own risks.

"Deeply concerned"
- adult film star
Jenna Jameson

Medical News Today provides an interesting look at the story, concentrating on the HIV factor and maintaining an aura of professionalism. Curiously, the author does not readily believe the percentage of condom-using performers is only 19%, choosing the adjective ‘apparently’ before providing the statistic.


Meanwhile, adult film heavyweight Jenna Jameson has actively criticised unsafe sex in dirty movies. In fact, she saw this disaster coming! The LA Now story reports that Jameson’s comments were quickly praised by AIDS activists and talks about the possibility of ‘Patient Zero’ spreading the infection. It’s rare to see such two diverse persons coming to agreement on the issue!


Related coverage on Celebrities with Diseases also concentrates on Jameson, interestingly choosing to display wikicommons images, perhaps for lack of actual photos? The LA Now story also fails, using a 2004 (!) photo of Jenna at the book signing.

Lastly, a very extensive blog entry on Big Think with an equally extensive title provides interesting comments about the OHS side of porn.

Greed and Justice Make Bad Bedfellows

While the widely discussed first saint from the Great Southern Land doesn’t quite align to MediaDawg’s content, now is a good moment to return to Australia’s biggest sexual harassment scandal and court case and gaze upon through a few sets of eyes.

Winner?

It seems that not only sexual harassment doesn’t pay, neither does an over-the-top harassment lawsuit. While Mark McInnes lost his job and reputation, Kristy Fraser-Kirk‘s $37m greed did not go down very well, the parties settling for an apparent $850k.

The Australian/news.com.au story marks the efforts of both parties as a “failure”, the $37m claim “absurdly high” and “wrecking” to Fraser-Kirk’s career. It seems fair given that even people that have been through serious, life-limiting accidents get severely less payout.

Loser?

On the other hand, partner publication Herald Sun’s story rings with F-K’s triumph, as she “emerged smiling” following the proceedings. The accompanying photos tell a much different story to the first one, with one side clearly the victor.

Elsewhere, the Daily Telegraph laughs at Fraser-Kirk as, given the low payout, she reversed her previous decision to donate the ‘winnings’ to charity. The story has a collaged photo of confounded McInnes and a stupidly-smiling F-K, suggesting the case has deservedly become a media circus, especially given her questionable ‘stress-relief’ holidays.

???

Rival smh.com.au provides a less accusive look, with a commentary video that explains why the money will not be donated (a matter of awarding much lower ‘general damages’ instead of ‘punitive damages’) and that perhaps the case was blown out of proportion by F-K’s lawyers and the media.

Blame Canada: the criminal isn’t the only target

Continuing his self-imposed electronic journey across the American continent, MediaDawg decided to visit USA’s better half to see what controversies have made the headlines.

The man unfit for society and the system that failed to stop him.

Last week, a media storm has erupted in Nova Scotia over the long-delayed extradition and sentencing of multiple child molester Ernest Fenwick MacIntosh, who would have committed most of the crimes in the 70s.

As with most similar cases that make national news, the criticism concerns the small volume of proven charges – 2 – against a total of 36 laid three years ago, one victim alleged to have been molested “about 100 times”.

At the moment this gets him four years, reduced to two for time already served. Almost 40 YEARS after committing the crimes.

The outrage grows further with the revelation that between 1995 and 2007, MacIntosh had his passport renewed twice, “despite a Canada-wide warrant for his arrest”, to allow him to work in India.

But as frustrating and morally horrifying the story is, the reason why it is shared here is because unlike Australian articles of the same kind, this CBC piece is a bit different – simple, yet thorough; provoking, yet sensible and not sensationalist at all.  

Despite the graphic warning on the front, it relies far less on the abuse details and more on the court cases and the failure of the RCPM (Royal Canadian Mounted Police).

One of the highlighted quotes from the text – “this can never happen in Canada again” by human rights group Beyond Borders – compliments the article’s tone perfectly.

But despite the article focusing on the actions of a child molester, the feature has the Mounties shoulder a lot of the blame.

Forgive them, for they don't know what they're doing?

WWJD?

Keeping with last week’s notion, MediaDawg has been searching for controversial stories around the world and landed on Denver, USA’s KDVR-TV (now known as FOX31). 


So what kind of news stories have been revolting the republican Midwest?

Recently, the city of Loveland, Colorado (population 2000) has been playing host to an exhibition portraying Jesus Christ well outside the usual. 


Interestingly titled “The Misadventures of Romantic Cannibals” by Enrique Chaagoya, the series of 12 lithographs pictures a wide array of curious sexual acts, in one of them the Saviour receiving oral sex (viewer discretion and questionable artistic taste is advised!).

The resulting outrage manifested in many ways, from protesters outside the Loveland museum, to angry 9/11 blogs desperately trying to find a Muslim scapegoat. Most stories were short and subjective, save this one from 9news.com (equivalent of our ninemsn) that provided some background and much needed objectivity.


This is certainly a hot topic if you live in that part of the US or if you are a dedicated Christian, or both. It brings me back to the Bill Henson debate and the reasons behind controversial art. But when this kind of artwork gets people to question its purpose and artistic value vs. good taste, is it really actually achieving what it set out to do or has it gone too far to cause a stir?

Upskirt, downskirt

I thought for this entry it’s about time I step out of the Aussie mediascape and look for something similar in another country, like UK for instance. Luckily, guardian.co.uk has plenty of social stories that fit perfectly within the confines of this blog.

Sexist, feminist or educational???

It seems that miniskirts are turning heads again, this time parents and teachers  suddenly realising the long-established tradition of plaid skirt uniforms is sexually suggestive and promotes “inappropriate thoughts among boys”.

School authorities are frantic to introduce skirts of standard length that don’t get in the way of education, or replace them with pants. The notion of “sexually suggestive clothing encourages rape” immediately comes to mind.

Before discussing the entire discourse of feminism and how the dress/skirt projects women as the weaker, subjected sex, Gaby Hinsliff cools it down. In her commentary piece, she points out that schoolgirls have always shortened their skirts when they wanted to be noticed and that boys’ thoughts are, well, pretty much always inappropriate (Yours Truly will confirm this).

It seems rather ironic that school authorities are realising this now.

Having said that, both stories work extremely well in the online environment because a) they concern parents and their precious children, b) they provoke discussion about gender and society; c) schoolgirl uniforms are so hot.

I wonder how the nation of Japan will react to this?