Translate

Thursday, 31 January 2013

STUPID SEX


“I just don’t see any reason to be a feminist,” the young woman walking behind me declares to her male companion. “Not in today’s world”.
            She obviously hasn’t heard that the average salary gap between male and female graduates doing similar jobs increased to fifty per cent last year. She’s also obviously never clicked on one of those pop-up porn ads on the internet.
            The nineteenth- and twentieth-centuries were defined by the inability of our moral and ethical maturity to keep pace with our intellectual curiosity and technological innovation. In the nineteenth, machines and engineering were going to make everybody’s lives better; we promptly began sending children to work in factories and down coal mines, while we got a head-start on polluting our environment.
            Then came the twentieth. No sooner had Einstein, Heisenberg, Bohr, et al revealed the beauty of sub-atomic science, than we used their discoveries to create the most terrible weapons ever devised.
            Now we’re able to link the world’s computers – and therefore their users – in a grand, universal mind. Like all minds, beneath the surface of this one races a strong current of sex. Not, in itself, a bad thing – except that our universal mind appears to be a drooling, sexually retarded sociopath.
            Click on one of those ads – or, like the academic authors of The Porn Report, just Google “free porn” – and you’re immediately confronted by sites with names like “Eighteen and Abused”, and “College Girls Exploited”. Although we’re assured the girls are all over eighteen, most look considerably younger.
            Once upon a time, in order to see a young woman kneeling naked on a bathroom floor while a muscle-bound goon relaxes his grip on her throat just long enough to make her drink a dog-bowl full of her own urine, you had to actually be looking for it.
            It’s naive, I know, to expect much porn to depict real, loving, joyful sex. Fair enough but, far from love, most of this stuff seems to express hatred – worse, contempt – of women.
            Follow the links long enough, and you can end up somewhere called “ZooTube”. You might think this is a site devoted to amusing footage of our furry friends; you’d be wrong. It caters to men for whom the gagging, strangulation, hair-pulling, face-slapping, spitting and name-calling of “regular” porn is no longer degradation enough; men so jaded they can only be turned on by seeing women fucked by dogs, horses, and anything in between.
            I’m not strictly anti-porn. Done properly, it can be a source of fun for couples and release for singles. But a lot of porn used to have an edge of naïveté that’s been lost as it’s become more extreme; it’s crossed the line from sexy to ugly. Me, I love women – and it’s in no way a turn-on to see them treated so brutally.
            Internet porn is as much a sign of our moral retardation as the nuclear arms race was last century. It’s little wonder we can’t have a grown-up discussion about issues like gay marriage; it’s got less to do with religious belief than the fact that, when it comes to sex, at least half our species are morons.

Friday, 11 January 2013

RUSSELL BRAND'S DRUG CRUSADE


It finally happened. Tonight, for the first time, Russell Brand really made me laugh. Was it one of his eloquent, witty descriptions of his scrotum? His always hilarious hair? No, sadly it was his earnest documentary about drug and alcohol treatment.
            Russell, you see, is a convert. Having realised the admirable accomplishment of getting, and for a decade staying, clean, he now thinks that the way he did it – residential, abstinence-based rehab – is the only way; and (ironically for a guy not averse to taking the piss out of religious faith) he spruiks it with positively evangelical zeal.
            What could have been an informative and powerful documentary was marred by Brand’s puritanical insistence that only one road leads to sobriety. We were treated to the spectacle of his visit to a busy methadone clinic, where he talked over a softly-spoken addiction specialist. If you’ve ever heard a Christian debate a gay Buddhist you’ll know the tone of the discussion – “You’re a nice person, and I love you, despite the fact that everything you do and think is not only wrong but evil”; that sort of thing.
            The real irony is that his own documentary highlights the flaw in his thesis. We begin with his immediate motivation for making the program – the death of his friend, Amy Winehouse – and end on the story of a middle-aged addict who Russell tries to help into rehab (we learn over the end-credits that she checked herself out after only three weeks. Oh, well, it’s her, not the program).
            While lamenting that he wishes he’d been able to do more for her, Russell somehow misses a glaring fact: at the time of her final relapse, Winehouse had been clean for more than five weeks after completing a residential rehab program.
            And that’s the problem with abstinence-based treatment for heroin addiction – as opposed to alcoholism: it renders relapse more dangerous. While the methadone Brand demonises has its faults (that’s another discussion), it does have one prodigious benefit. If you’re on a maintenance dose, your first slip off the wagon is much less likely to kill you.
            None of this stops him sashaying into Parliament and preaching his gospel of abstinence before a committee on the drug problem – his testimony strewn with the phrase “We believe” (While we’re on it, I know Russell can afford a suit. I’ve even seen him wear one – if there’s a red carpet or a talk-show host nearby. Yet, when addressing his nation’s parliament on one of the few things he takes seriously, he appears in distressed jeans, singlet and Stetson, dripping with cheap jewellery. Go figure).
            He’s right about one thing, though. Once the beast’s on your back, it’s never really off again. When he showed a video of himself, back in the day, bent over a strip of foil smoking heroin, all I could think was: “Good god, what a waste of perfectly good smack; has he never heard of syringe-outfits?”
            Now, I don’t mean to imply that Brand’s preferred treatment never works. Some people are capable of facing and wrangling the demons that led them to addiction, over twelve weeks, whilst in the depths of withdrawal-psychosis. Others need the time afforded by methadone. In both cases, the majority of people who begin the program will fail and relapse.
And there’s the point. The aim of treatment is to keep the minority capable of reforming alive long enough to do it; and to minimise the harm done by the rest to society and themselves. There’s no one-size-fits-all answer. Abstinence is always the goal of drug rehabilitation, but to achieve it you have to survive. You do what works – anything.

                          http://tyrannyofglib.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/cap-says-lion-tamer-on-it.html