Archive for

July 2011

Give me sex over violence any day!

Sex and violence are two topics that tend to generate a lot of heat. It's understandable from a sociological perspective given they have been forces central to our evolution and are in many ways innate to us. They are also phenomena that most societies and governments have tried to control; for good and not-so-good reasons. Case in point are our censorship laws, part of which has recently been reviewed by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Reference Committee. The committee's focus included the sexualisation of children, and you certainly won't get an argument out of me about the excess sexualisation of children through advertising. The committee also focussed on sexual images available to adults, lamenting the fact that films with R18+ ratings which should generally only simulate sex, in fact sometimes show the real thing. Later, it goes on to say that real sex, currently permitted in X18+, should be completely banned. However, as Sydney Morning Herald journalist Tim Dick (pardon the pun :) stated in his recent article:

for the minority of adults who do want it (real sex), we not only say they cannot have it, but that it is a criminal offence to sell it in most of the country. X18+ is far from anything goes. No sexual violence, no fetish, nothing demeaning to anyone involved. It allows for consensual, run-of-the-mill sex, the activity which gave life to the vast majority of us....

The rule for violence in an R18+ film? ''Violence is permitted.'' Not sexual violence, but anything else goes. So sadistic, realistic, serial killing like that inWolf Creek is fine, but show real rumpy pumpy and we run for the hills.

Mr Dick puts in a nutshell what to me is totally crazy. Consensual see, available with the X18+ classification is currently illegal in most of the country - save Fyshwick and the Northern Territory. But why? Real consensual sex is how humans connect with their intimate, romantic partners - plus of course how humans tend to produce babies... and this should be banned from the adult eyes??? Meanwhile, violence of the most grotesque kind - with the exception of the sexual of course - is made accessible to any adult. That our esteemed Senate committee is happy to maintain this anachronism seems nuts. Have I missed something or are things really  very topsy-turvy?

I actually think that my thoughts are not that out of kilter from the average. When one of the polls published in the Saturday 2 July Sydney Morning Herald News Review asked "On stage and screen, is real sex or scenes of violence more concerning to you?", 68.2% of the 1460 respondents said Scenes of Violence were, while only 11.5% said Real Sex was - the remaining 16.6% saying neither. It seems to me that the censorship regime has a bit of a sexual obsession going on (maybe some prudish, Victorian hang-over), that seems to be blinding it to what are majority community concerns. In my mind, portrayals of violence should indeed by scrutinised, but adult Australians should not be restricted from accessing images of real, consensual, run-of-the-mill sex. This approach may engender a healthier outlook for our society overall, one which is sex-positive, while on the other hand questions the wide-spread messages of destructive violence. 

Posted by Michael 

Go Back To Where You Came From

Wow, I've had more discussions in the past week about refugees than I have had for many years. For those of you who don't know, this has been due to the documentary series recently broadcast on SBS Go Back To Where You Came From - it was fascinating, moving and very well made! You can read a lot more about it on the SBS website, but basically the documentary  showed 6 Australian with strident (mainly anti) refugee views, tracing the steps taken by real refugees who now live in Australia. The twist is that they do the journey in reverse, starting at the homes of where the refugees now live, going to the detention centres, then overseas to Malaysia where refugees wait before they journey to Australia, and finally to the home-regions, from where the refugees originate. 

If you missed seeing it a few weeks ago, you can watch it on the website - as I did. I highly recommend it because, without giving any detail away, you witness  a significant shift in the views of many of the participants, as they stand in the shoes of refugees, hear about the experiences that lead them to flee their home countries, and observe the trying conditions on their journey for asylum. 

I enjoyed watching the program so much for three main reasons. First, I learnt a lot more about the reality of the experiences of refugees. For example, when the participants go to the UN refugee camp in Kenya, it is clear that refugees there are not safe, as local people threaten the refugees with weapons for their food - leaving the refugees hungry and scared. Also, the experience of refugees waiting in intermediate countries, such as Malaysia, is anything but stable. Though they've managed to flee their home countries, they are usually not entitled to reside in Malaysia, and therefore cannot earn money, access healthcare, and their children are virtual prisoners within their over-crowded apartments. 

Second, I understood better the reasons why the participants in the program were hostile or unsympathetic to refugees, and what factors can open people's hearts and minds. Attitudes changed primarily after the participants heard the refugees describe their traumatic refugee journeys, as well as when the participants experienced the refugees' generosity, who despite having very little materially, opened up their hearts and homes. This openness and humanity touched many of the participants and ultimately lead them to express a more compassionate view of refugees. 

Third and finally, I enjoyed the program because despite the fact that the majority of the participants initially had such strident anti-refugee views, they were willing to place themselves in a situation in which they were exposed and educated to the realities of the refugee experience, demonstrating an admirable open-mindedness. It exemplifies how Australian society should approach the refugee issue, guided by the facts and realities of the refugee experience. It also makes plain the fact that despite the existence of the limited Refugee system available to those who can actually access it, the system is slow, unsafe and ultimately, inadequate for processing the millions of people seeking asylum. As Roderick stated (the Young Liberal Vice-president during the filming of the Go Back To Where You Came From  - the Response, that I attended the SBS studios for), Australia needs to increase the official number of refugees it accepts. If Australia and other countries who could afford to, accepted more refugees, along with better-resourcing and safer processing of refugee applications, there would be much reduced incentive for people seeking asylum to risk their lives taking unsafe journeys across oceans. This approach addressing the overall picture, rather than blaming the asylum-seekers with statement like 'Turn Back the Boats', is the way the Australian refugee debate should proceed. 

Posted by Michael