Long overdue

I'll be honest, the last time I willingly set foot in a library, the book I took out had a big ladybird on the front. So I'm pretty sure things have changed plenty since then.

For a start, libraries are a lot less busy than they used to be. Probably because reading isn't the popular pass-time it once was. The majority of people won't even pick up a book unless it's got Katie Price or one of the Loose Women on the dust jacket.

But one service libraries offer that keeps those swing doors flapping, is access to the internet. It's easy to forget that in this 3G world, many people don't even have dial-up. They also don't spend their time worrying that they're not getting the full download speed from their fiber-optic broadband.

When they need to set up a direct debit, order Christmas presents or catch up on You Tube footage of kittens falling asleep, they can head along to their local library, and for a small fee, enjoy all the wonders of Windows 98.

There is a catch though. Not all the things that people like to use the internet for are conducive to an open plan environment. For instance, it's tough to take matters into your own hands when you're three feet away from the woman who works in the dry cleaners, trying to pay her gas bill. Don't be judging - a recent study found that 25 per cent of all internet searches were for pornographic material.

If you're confident enough to go trawling for adult material in a public space, you might want to cross the Atlantic and get yourself a library card in Brooklyn. Because according to the protections of the First Amendment, New Yorkers are perfectly free to check out the latest bukkake compilations in the city's public libraries.

A report in the the New York Post explains "Under US law, all libraries that take federal funding only must install filters on publicly used computers to block content containing illegal obscenity and child pornography, and New York City officials say they comply to the letter."

Unsurprisingly, the self-appointed moral guardians aren't too happy about this, with Catholic League President Bill Donohue telling journalists "It's not like a Playboy centerfold anymore -- it's far worse." Likewise, some library-goers were turned off by the idea of people being able to access porn in public. One woman explained that she'd seen an elderly man watching footage of a threesome - he'd thoughtfully tried to block onlookers' views of the screen, "but I could still hear the voices" she said.

With government cutbacks threatening the future of our own library services, local authorities would do well to take a leaf out of Brooklyn's book. And as long as users remember to keep the noise down when they take something out, where's the harm?

Reality bites, sucks

Isn't it a shame that real life isn't more like porn? As a homeowner, I've had to call out all kinds of tradesmen, but the only tools any of them have ever whipped out is a socket wrench. Although a friend of mine did once have a bed delivered by a well-built van driver who offered to help break it in, but that's a story for another blog.

Anyway, the point is, pornography and mundane reality are like two divergent axes (see fig.1 below). The sexier the situation is, the less likely it is that a road tax application or a Tesco bag-for-life will be involved.

But all that's about to change, thanks to the Playboy channel, which has unveiled bold plans to create a pair of sexy new reality TV shows, with hijinks high on the agenda. Channel bigwigs presented their concepts to the Television Critics Association last week, in a move that shows God (like a porn casting director) loves a trier.

Aimed at loved-up couples, rather than onanistic singles with a 12-minute attention span, Swing will follow pairs of contestants as they visit a swinger compound - think Windsor Safari Park with more water-based lubricant. They'll "establish the ground rules" with the resident sex and relationship expert, explore the group, and meet with a therapist to discuss their feelings.

As Playboy TV Senior VP and GM Gary Rosenson explains, “No elimination stuff, no tribal councils, no craziness. Just really people hanging out, having fun, goofing off and eventually it gets hot because that’s what they’re there to do.” Well, that and the fact that this is going out on the Playboy channel after all.

The second show being prepped for the 2011 season is A Brooklyn Kind of Love, which follows the ins-and-outs-and-ins of coupledom in the New York borough. But unlike other relationship shows, this one will follow its subjects into the bedroom.

Speaking about the show's explicit action, co-producer Joe Gantz claims that “...a lot of reality shows and TV shows in general are about sex but they dance around sexuality in such a way that it’s all innuendo and there’s no authenticity.  So it was nice to be able to do a show where you didn’t have to worry about things being too real, too authentic.”

Admittedly, authenticity isn't something that automatically springs to mind when you think of the Playboy channel, especially in its depiction of lesbianism. But 'Brooklyn' comes with real-life lesbians Bek Allen and Erin Williams; a genuine couple who agreed to go naked "with no hesitation".

And they're hoping to tackle some serious social issues, when they're not squirting aerosol cream somewhere unhygienic, with Williams stating “Our decision to do this show was primarily to show that gay couples go through the same stuff as straight couples go through and that we’re not all that different from anybody else.” Allen chipped in, adding that the show was “...a once in a lifetime opportunity to kind of be a spokesperson for homosexual couples..." Let's just hope these spokespeople manage to articulate a little more than "Oh, yeah, that's hot" and "Do me again".

According to Gantz, the shows are about more than titilation: “As we were interviewing couples, we felt that sexuality is a spectrum and I don’t want any hard distinctions. It’s a continuum and it’s a lot of overlapping... It’s on every aspect of their relationship but when it’s about the sex, it’s just right out there. You don’t have to worry about pulling it back for Playboy."

All this talk of 'overlapping', 'hard distinctions' and 'pulling it back for Playboy'. I'm turned on already and the shows haven't even aired yet.

His cup runneth over

With the exception of being spotted in Iceland, queuing to buy a Pot Noodle, I imagine there are few things more soul-chillingly embarrassing than being asked to "provide a sample" at a fertility clinic.

Childless couples are under enough pressure as it is, having tried unsuccessfully to reproduce the natural way. By the time you're standing in a crowded reception room as a harried nurse hands you a translucent cup and asks you to fill it, you'd be lucky if you could still spell your own name. Never mind having to shut yourself in an unwelcoming broom cupboard to knock one out, as the rest of the attending patients think to themselves "we know what you're doing..."

To help expedite the process, many NHS trusts provide specialist 'reading materials' - figuring that a little visual stimulus might make the onanism less onerous. But centre-right think tank 2012health is disgusted by this process, even getting Chief Executive Julia Manning to write a damning report about the practice.

As a well-known Tory advisor, we should hardly be surprised that Manning's paper makes repeated references to the cost to the tax-payer of this practice. Even though, as her own methodology reveals, the average annual cost per NHS trust was an astounding £21.32.

Rather than being horrified at the misappropriation of NHS funds, I'm more disgusted by what this means for the quality of pornography being offered. It's bad enough sitting in a dentist's waiting room, having to make do with a three-year old copy of Tatler, and a couple of dog-eared Beanos so old that they still show Dennis the Menace getting slippered. Now imagine a similar scenario, where you're being expected to bash out some baby gravy to a well-thumbed copy of Razzle that only opens on every other page.

Obviously, no-one's going to start burning effigies of Sir David Nicholson over the NHS spending twenty quid in the local papershop. So Manning makes the central premise of her paper the fact that pornography is the universal degrader - offending anyone who makes it, reads it, or wipes it down every time a patient leaves the room.

She argues "It’s also worth considering what the NHS, by supplying porn, is effectively suggesting to a man that rather than thinking about his partner, he should sexually objectify an unknown woman while producing a specimen." Since he's going to draw on fantasies anyway, where's the harm in lending a hand (figuratively speaking of course)?

Interestingly, one of the few media channels that picked up this story was the Daily Star, which used traditional tabloid language to describe the fact that "Hospital bosses were slammed for supplying porn." Rather helpfully, they chose to illustrate the story with some sample pornography, in an image almost twice the size of the text written for the article.

Even more dubious is the fact that the pornography reproduced for illustrative purposes is produced and marketed by Richard Desmond who, coincidentally, also owns the Daily Star. As media blog Tabloid Watch rightly points out, this is just another example of deceitful and misleading tabloid cross-promotion.

Hopefully someone's going to end up with egg on their face over this. Or something that looks a lot like it.