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?

"You are a criminal!", extraordinary errata says

Annoying administrativia and bureaucratic blunders count amongst some of the most evil things invented by mankind save perhaps the really malcontent acts like war, murder and rape.

But being falsely accused of such acts by a simple clerical error can certainly lead to outrage.

The local paper story describes how a 64 year-old man fought against the System that accused him of the terrible crime; effectively preventing him from seeing his own grandchild because he supposedly fathered her with his own daughter.

It turned out the man’s surname and initial were the same of a currently jailed criminal. Naturally, the System refused to allow the incarcerated subject to see the innocent little girl.

The story works because the reader shares the frustration of the grandfather, who unsuccessfully contacted four different officials before The Australian came to his aid (thus restoring our faith in the Fourth Estate!)

He also spent a large amount of money on a DNA test and one can imagine his chances of seeking compensation through the legal system are slim.

You are a rapist, Sir!

The follow-up article in The Australian was short and sufficient; it captured the outrage of the grandfather and presented the story in the light of the Communities minister’s lukewarm apology.

But I question the choice to include rape-themed stories in the ‘related coverage’ section next to the article. It looks like the falsely-accused man’s name will go down in the online media memory as a despicable rapist.

Suck on that maggots!

Hear me roar!

Stephanie Rice may be out of the Commonwealth Games, but her big nose found its way into the spotlight to deliver another winner for the Herald Sun.

The resulting outrage was well deserved – sportspeople and other public figures in general would do best to avoid tweeting tweets that could be interpreted as offensive to certain social groups, let alone the ‘F’ word.

And gay sports stars, particularly singularities like Ian Roberts, have absolutely every right to fight back.

Having removed the comment with least required apology Rice sends a clear message that she doesn’t give [another 'F' word].

The question is, could Steph’s seemingly careless demeanour be more than a premature verbal ejaculation aimed at minorities?

One could argue that the darling swimmer simply projects a hegemonic image of a woman on top of her game, who enjoys watching Australia win at footy and every so often engages in healthy heterosexual activities with her fellows, unlike our former son. 

Aussie hero, pays her taxes

Why would Davenport un-sponsor this Aussie icon now?

Edit: Bad Jaguar, bad!

Drunken Sex High

So you’ve finished your last HSC exam and need to blow off some steam. You’ve had your graduation dinner and perhaps even a function at the pub instead of the alcohol-dry, police-monitored formal.  Perhaps some teachers decided you’re mature enough to share a drink with them. Perhaps one of those teachers is young, attractive and can’t hold those drinks.

Are tales of teacher/student sex the ultimate online news stories because they appeal to almost every man’s school fantasy (not to mention they are scandalous, forbidden, deal with gender and power relations, etc.)?

Or are they just so easy to write, requiring almost no framing – find out what happened, interview the school, the police and some horny teenagers and presto! Then come back later to hear the court verdict.

The above story is basically a recount of a very exciting evening for one lucky fellow and a rather embarrassing one for the woman. It reads like a story, like any good story of young lust. But the peculiar thing is that because the teacher was rather wasted and confused, she is portrayed as a victim despite the typical zero-tolerance stance towards teacher/student sexual encounters.

I drank all those while writing this post

I must say I find the decision of the disciplinary panel surprising.  Rather than putting the teacher away for sex with a minor in her care, admitting that, in a moment of weakness, the pair had “consensual sex”, shows a lot of guts. It may not have been rape, but what kind of message does it send out to the community?

What’s more, the supplied photo is of 50+ bottles of booze and not of anything related to the story! What an easy journo piece!

Has there ever been a male teacher that got off the hook so easily? Probably not, at least not in high school. Male teachers can apparently get in trouble just by saying things. Perhaps making “obscene comments” about women goes a bit too far, but what exactly is wrong with inviting year 10 students to ask “anything they wanted to know about sex”? Anyone who taught 16 year old boys would know it’s all they want to hear about and satisfying their curiosity via a teacher beats other methods (go to Google and type in “can you get”).

It seems the Victorian Institute of Teaching is quite forgiving to its female teachers – last year a teacher was given back her certificate after an incident in 2005, in which the then-23 year old hooked up with an 18 year old student. But in the space of four years the pair got engaged and bought a house. Even the student’s parent was pleased. What a happy ending.

The accompanying photo makes it all better.

Hi, I'm a sex offender!

The stages of a juicy sexual harassment scandal

In this post I would like to revisit our fascination with sexual harassment in the media in the wake of the recent David Jones scandal.

Sexual harassment is a morally wrong act in which one dominant party (usually a male manager) employs dominance, bullying and bad touch on the subjected party (usually a young, attractive and ambitious woman). Often the subject is too embarrassed to come forward and justice does not always prevail.

But when it does come to light, it sure is enjoyable to read with its sex, money and celebrities (or people more famous than you!).

It tastes like what?!

One Daily Telegraph story starts off setting the scene and the significance of the $37m claim. Then come the juicy details:

-a mouth-watering dessert that tastes” like a f*ck in the mouth”,

-touching of lingerie,

-invitation for sex in a luxurious setting,

-“kissing on the neck”,

-something in the front pocket.

Then, after a phase of moral outrage and satisfying one’s curiosity, there is plenty of time for others to make confrontational comments like those of designer Alannah Hill, who offered herself to McInnes.

Another story (from AdelaideNow) follows a similar pattern of sexy news, putting the negative aspects of the incident aside. Hell, with Hill’s description of McInnes as a desirable hunk, doesn’t that (partially) restore his credibility and trivialise the wrongdoing that he has committed?

Then comes the designer’s apology and a laugh on the radio – the story focus shifts back to entertainment.

The ending of the story suggests that in the world of David Jones, even sexual harassment must give way to the Spring/Summer launch and the latest goss on Miranda Kerr.

Bill Henson may not be a paedophile, but sure acts like it

What?!

Last week, the Herald Sun published this story of controversial photographer Bill Henson rising yet again to defend his infamous photographs of nude children.

Readers will remember the outrage over a set of photographs two years ago that catapulted Henson into the public spotlight. It questioned where to draw the line between art and pornography and whether employing children for such means was fine as long as the outcome was not in the interest of self-gratification.

What is interesting about this particular story, however, is that the author carefully paints Henson’s media image into that of a possible paedophile, not unlike the hum around Michael Jackson, making the reader wonder what kind of a person Henson is.

Wouldn’t it be peachy if Henson was indeed pursuing his passion for self-gratification? In other words, if Henson was revealed to be a paedophiliac, wouldn’t all who accused him experience a self-satisfying feeling of ‘I told you so’ righteousness?

The media is like a poacher, setting a snare that does not guarantee a catch but the temptation is too big to pass up.

The story also made an interesting selection of Henson’s quotes to keep the reader guessing:

The comment that “children consent to all kinds of significant things” is perhaps not unlike those of convicted child molesters who claim that their act was done by consent.

Furthermore, Henson’s argument that children posing nude for artistic photography has no “documented results of physical or psychological damage” and "to say that children can't consent to a thing like that is sheer nonsense" lacks credibility and is rudely dismissive of his critics.

The supplied video has Henson admit that controversial art exists to challenge social norms and that art does not play by the rules – “that’s not how imagination works”. The story thus permits Henson to bend certain rules to allow him to survive this confrontation and set him up for the next. 

here boy!

Woof woof!