The UK press: Still awful.

So certain dark corners of the UK press published some articles about British people who had sex on holiday. Can you believe it? Yeah, me too.

You can almost imagine the kind of conversations that took place in the office of the rags that ran with the non-story:

Hack: Hey, Jimmy! Guess what?

Jimmy the intern: What’s that, sir?

Hack: British people go on holiday and sometimes have sex while they’re out there!

Jimmy the intern: Yes sir. Happens quite a lot I’d imagine. You seem surprised, sir.

Hack: Well, jealous mostly, son, but you’re missing the point!

Jimmy the intern: The point, sir?

Hack: This is a perfect opportunity for some good old fashioned slut shaming!

Jimmy the intern: Um, sir?

Hack: Well, take this one girl who apparently sucked off 20 or more men, all for one cocktail! Don’t you think it’s worth using up our front page in an attempt to ruin the rest of her life?

Jimmy the intern: It seems to me sir, that if she wants to do that, she has every right to. Could be, sir, that she did it for the experience, rather than the cocktail. The distressing thought also occurs that she considered agreeing to have 20 or more penises in her mouth at that time was preferable to being beaten and raped by 20 or more frustrated dude-bros later on, sir. An executive decision, if you will sir.

Hack: Jimmy lad, no bugger’s going to read a story about that shite. She should have gone with the rape option, at least then we might have had some sympathy for her. Although we’d probably still have made it her fault; shouldn’t be out drinking, wearing the wrong thing, that sort of thing.

Jimmy the intern: But sir! A man has a choice – to rape or not to rape! Regardless of what the woman wears or how she acts!

Hack: Quiet Jimmy! You can’t talk like that here. Before long, you’ll have people thinking we should teach boys not to rape rather than teaching girls how not to be raped. For shame Jimmy; who’s side are you on, anyway?

Jimmy the intern: Side, sir?

Hack: And then there was that other girl, the one who had a threesome on stage in a club! Allegedly. We even have a picture of her face! Her whole life is ruined, just for indulging in a sexual experience that isn’t really all that rare! Today is a great day to be an arsehole journalist, Jimmy!

Jimmy the intern: Hmm. Sir, clubs like that have been using live sex shows as a holiday season climax for quite some years. It really isn’t anything new. I feel like I have to ask sir. Why no judgement of the men involved in this? No photos of their faces? No childish attempt to ruin their lives?

Hack: Son, I’m beginning to wonder if your heart’s really in hack journalism.

Jimmy the intern: I’m beginning to wonder if you have a heart at all, sir.

Hack: No, we’re not going to judge the men. That would suggest the possibility that a man can be faced with a vagina and do anything other than fuck it.

Jimmy the intern: Oh, bravo sir! You’ve now managed to insult both genders. Well done, sir, well done indeed!

Hack: Jimmy, I get the distinct feeling you’re mocking me.

Jimmy the intern: Not at all sir. I’m so filled with disgust and disdain for the putrid festering sore that is your outlook on life that mocking you would suggest I think you capable of change. No sir, I only wish for your death, for the sooner you and anyone who shares your views are dead, the better it will be for all of us. Good day sir. Don’t expect me back tomorrow.

Hack: Hmm. He’s probably gay. At least I know our editor will love this stuff.

Dear Tabloids, please die in a fire. Yours, me.

Addendum (30th July 2014):

It turns out that the tabloid front pages that I scanned in my local newsagents may not have told the whole story. Shocker. It may be that the whole thing started when the woman involved in the multi-fellatio incident may have been promised a free holiday. Undertaking her task she then discovered ‘holiday’ was the name of a cocktail. This means that some of the imagined conversation above may have been even wider of the mark than it was originally. What that has done is kind of illustrate the point about tabloids even more strongly – if they’d have gone with that angle, then it would have been information worth reporting – anyone involved in that sort of distasteful trickery needs to be taken to task – if that stunt isn’t illegal, it damn well should be. But good old Mr Red Top decides to lay into the woman. And only the woman. How can these shitrags call themselves newspapers when they lie so much? I think I might stop even scanning the front pages.

What is so hard about not being a dick? In which I stick my oar in where it’s probably not wanted. Again.

Gender equality has been a bit of a hot button topic of late. The abortion rights debate continues to rage across the US, and thanks to the certifiable Nadine Dorries and Melanie Phillips, it's also gathering pace here in the UK. Certain politicians on both sides of the ocean have been attempting to categorise different types of rape into levels of seriousness, suggesting if you weren't kicked in the head several times as well, it's not proper rape. I'm pretty sure nobody wants to hear my opinions on any of this, but, well, it's my blog, so fuck it.

I wonder if it's possible for those pushing to curtail or even end abortion rights to really hate women as much as they appear to, or whether instead they haven't read enough to understand about foetus development and have been taken in by what the religious right preach about it. Are those wanting to force women to explain their miscarriages in court really taking into account how the person who just lost their unborn child must be feeling? Do those attempting to protect the imagined rights of the unborn not understand the difference between a developing foetus and a developed baby? The famous empty-craniumed pop fuck Justin Bieber illustrated how the point is missed when he was asked his opinion on abortion during a TV interview. "Isn't it like killing babies?" he asked, vacantly. No Justin, it's not. It's stopping cells dividing. It's terminating an unthinking lump of carbon and water. Once it gets past a certain point, say, 24 weeks, then yes, it's very much like killing babies. But then, that's why it becomes illegal at that point. Stick to singing and looking ten Justin. It's what you do best.

The argument is of course, about the potential life being ended. So, OK, say we consider the rights of the potential human. How low do we go? Do any and all abortions become illegal? Should it be illegal to wank into a sock? After all, the sperm cells are all potential humans. Does it become illegal to have a period, to lose the potential life that was the egg? It doesn't really work setting out to protect the rights and possible future lives of potential humans in a reasonable manner because any limit you choose to impose discriminates against less developed potential humans. Set a limit of 12 weeks. Why do you hate the 10 week-old future humans so much, murderer? The 24 week limit is simply more sensible, because that is what scientific research and experience tells us is the most likely period of development where the foetus becomes viable - more than simply potential. Obviously, it's not always easy to be objective when talking about life and potential life, so the arguments for lowering the limit are understandable. But when it comes to a point where people are in favour of forcing you to carry a pregnancy to term in cases of rape and incest it becomes indefensible. Welcome to the world of the Republicans. Not just on the fringe of the tea party either - I'm talking McCain and Palin here, as well as others. What is wrong with these people? Oh right, I forgot. They've been indoctrinated into a religious cult which tells them they should give birth to their brother's or rapist's offspring on account of it being their god's will. Fuck sake.

Then there's rape. Rape, according to certain politicians with a right wing bent, isn't real rape unless there's a beating into the bargain. Violent rape is worse than non-violent rape, they say. Putting aside for a moment that I doubt there is such a thing as non-violent rape, then yes, it is. Duh. Obviously, being raped and beaten is worse than being raped. Just like being mugged and beaten is worse than being mugged. What is doesn't do, and what I think some people suggest it does do, is lessen the severity of rape that doesn't come with a bonus kicking. The example these mothercunters often use is being attacked and raped by a stranger must be worse than your lover not being able to control himself during sex when asked to stop. Fuck right off. Having been in that very situation of being asked to stop (due to a sudden and nasty cramp, if you must know), I can categorically confirm that there is no 'losing control'. Disregarding a request to stop is a fully conscience decision and is rape. Rape is rape is rape. There is no distinction. Don't ever fucking stand for it.

The same people try other things to justify rape. Dressed like that, she had it coming. She went into his house with him when she was drunk, what did she think was going to happen? They must know what they're letting themselves in for, acting like that. Not so. Before we were married, my wife (then girlfriend) was out and a guy within her circle of friends asked if he could go back to hers for a coffee. She agreed. She was still living with her parents at the time and made him coffee in their kitchen. Not expecting actual coffee, he left before he was half way through the cup. It's one of the reasons why I adore her so much. Someone dressing or acting a certain way is not the same as them giving you automatic permission to fuck them. Let me put it another way. I could walk down a street, naked, stiffy on display for all to see. At least, I could for a little while before getting battered, arrested, or both. You are still not allowed to assume I want you to have sex with me. If I stop next to you, put my hands on my hips and smile, but I say directly to you that I don't want to have sex, then you cannot have sex with me. No really does mean no, in all circumstances, behaviour and outfits notwithstanding.

There's the falsely accused thing as well. The miserable conviction rate causes many rapes to go unreported, or even for a victim to drop the charges. The unbalanced focus on the punishment for doing this is ridiculous. The damage to a life, to a reputation, is irreversible, they say. You get stigmatised for the rest of your days. Well yes, I imagine being accused of rape, falsely or otherwise, would suck a great deal. BUT NOT AS MUCH AS BEING RAPED AND NOT BEING ABLE TO DO A DAMN THING ABOUT IT DOES. Sheesh. Perspective, please?

Anyway, that's enough of me spouting off about stuff that I know very little about. I'll make sure the next post is about nice things. Rainbows, maybe.