Sunday, 15 April 2012
YOUR QUESTIONS: You state on formspring that you are not interested in gay sex 'at this point in your life' but on Adult Work you state that you 'never have done gay porn and never will' here you contradict yourself? It's referring to porn but the sentiment is the same?
I will never do gay porn. I don't enjoy watching gay porn. No problems at all with the act, I just don't find it visually stimulating. I like watching heterosexual sex and enjoy the dynamics it offers that homosexual sex does not. I have always said I will only do porn that I myself would watch. I find it hard to understand that you can't see a difference between what one is happy to do in a porn film and what one would rather indulge in in the privacy of their own home, if indeed they choose to. Indeed, I have plenty of 'gay' fans who frequently tell me they do not enjoy watching gay porn.
YOUR QUESTIONS: You don't identify as straight, Do you suffer prejudice of your family and straight porn actors? Remember straight actor Danny D did gay porn (Matt Hughes)
No, I don't suffer any prejudice really. I make my view on sexuality widely known. My family are totally cool and have always been. I've only had criticism from one numbskull porn 'actor': I don't let it or him bother me. Beyond that, I don't really know of the last time I received any attacks relating to my position on sexuality. People disagree with my view, but I rarely hear from numbskulls of that ilk.
I know Danny D, I know of him doing gay porn, beyond that I know nothing else. At the recent SHAFTAs, Ben Dover made a comment that I believe was directed either at Danny D or possibly myself about people doing gay porn. I was openly critical of Ben and the homophobic remark at the time and I will say it again: Ben Dover is a homophobic cunt.
While I may have a view on human sexuality that many disagree (both many 'homosexuals' and 'heterosexuals'), I always fight against homophobia where and when I can. Disagreeing with the labels we give ourselves does not mean that I cannot fight for the right for anyone to practice a life that they choose and not be judged badly for it.
I know Danny D, I know of him doing gay porn, beyond that I know nothing else. At the recent SHAFTAs, Ben Dover made a comment that I believe was directed either at Danny D or possibly myself about people doing gay porn. I was openly critical of Ben and the homophobic remark at the time and I will say it again: Ben Dover is a homophobic cunt.
While I may have a view on human sexuality that many disagree (both many 'homosexuals' and 'heterosexuals'), I always fight against homophobia where and when I can. Disagreeing with the labels we give ourselves does not mean that I cannot fight for the right for anyone to practice a life that they choose and not be judged badly for it.
YOUR QUESTIONS: So if someone's a vegetarian, should it be stated they have vegetarian preferences? No it's a collective name for people who like to live their life in a certain way.
There are a couple of very practical reasons as to why someone who chooses not to eat meat needs to notify others of this position and therefore chooses to adopt this label:
i) In order that those who are involved in the culinary preparation in catering for these individuals do not furnish them with something which they cannot consume.
ii) The rejection of meat is often not simply a preference but for moral reasons i.e they are against the killing of animals or because they believe that human beings are not designed to be carnivores (an argument I have heard before, although not entirely convinced by). Homosexuality is not usually a rejection of the opposite sex as such, particularly along moral or political lines. It is simply a preference towards the same.
Sure, there are some very militant vegetarians who use it as means of identifying exactly who they are and allowing 'vegetarianism' to be the defining factor in their life.
Many vegetarians use the term in order to notify others only in the event that they are asked or in relation to their dietary requirements.
There are very few, if any, reasons why someone who practices a homosexual lifestyle, ever needs to declare that they ARE to anyone. I understand the desire by some, and some of the historical reasons as to the pressure to do so and, in some cases even the necessity, to find an identity that accepts them. This is often also the same for some within the vegetarian fraternity, finding solace in those who think and practice the same. But the matter of sexual preference is really only relevant to those with whom you practice these sexual or romantic activities. Even then, the need to say 'I AM GAY' seems redundant. If you are doing 'it' (whether that be sex or another level of intimacy) with someone, it should become obvious unless lines of communication have become completely blurred. You see someone (which in this case will most likely be within an environment of people of a similar preference, although in no way does it have to be), you fall for each other, you take it to whatever level you are both comfortable with and do what you both enjoy. At what point does the enjoyment of acts of a homosexual nature ever have to be your defining identity?
If people are using the term "I am gay" loosely, simply for ease of conversation, for speed and to make their intentions at that time pretty clear, it carries few repercussions on the rest of us and on society at large.
If however, someone says "I am gay", in the sense that "this is who I am, what I am, it defines me and everything about me, what I like, what I don't like, what I wear, what I say" then this is where the identification and ownership of the term becomes hi-jacked by a small minority who, through their actions, ostracise, segregate and comparmentalise homosexuality into an exclusive, almost members'-only club, This goes against natural human sexuality and thousands of years of sexual pliability and takes away the ownership of this side of all our potential sexualities, This is in my mind damaging to our general acceptance and understanding of the ACT of homosexuality as something that is perfectly natural, something we can (although we don't have to and may not want to) all explore without the need for it to be a defining factor in our lives, except for the fact that we are, simply, SEXUAL beings.
i) In order that those who are involved in the culinary preparation in catering for these individuals do not furnish them with something which they cannot consume.
ii) The rejection of meat is often not simply a preference but for moral reasons i.e they are against the killing of animals or because they believe that human beings are not designed to be carnivores (an argument I have heard before, although not entirely convinced by). Homosexuality is not usually a rejection of the opposite sex as such, particularly along moral or political lines. It is simply a preference towards the same.
Sure, there are some very militant vegetarians who use it as means of identifying exactly who they are and allowing 'vegetarianism' to be the defining factor in their life.
Many vegetarians use the term in order to notify others only in the event that they are asked or in relation to their dietary requirements.
There are very few, if any, reasons why someone who practices a homosexual lifestyle, ever needs to declare that they ARE to anyone. I understand the desire by some, and some of the historical reasons as to the pressure to do so and, in some cases even the necessity, to find an identity that accepts them. This is often also the same for some within the vegetarian fraternity, finding solace in those who think and practice the same. But the matter of sexual preference is really only relevant to those with whom you practice these sexual or romantic activities. Even then, the need to say 'I AM GAY' seems redundant. If you are doing 'it' (whether that be sex or another level of intimacy) with someone, it should become obvious unless lines of communication have become completely blurred. You see someone (which in this case will most likely be within an environment of people of a similar preference, although in no way does it have to be), you fall for each other, you take it to whatever level you are both comfortable with and do what you both enjoy. At what point does the enjoyment of acts of a homosexual nature ever have to be your defining identity?
If people are using the term "I am gay" loosely, simply for ease of conversation, for speed and to make their intentions at that time pretty clear, it carries few repercussions on the rest of us and on society at large.
If however, someone says "I am gay", in the sense that "this is who I am, what I am, it defines me and everything about me, what I like, what I don't like, what I wear, what I say" then this is where the identification and ownership of the term becomes hi-jacked by a small minority who, through their actions, ostracise, segregate and comparmentalise homosexuality into an exclusive, almost members'-only club, This goes against natural human sexuality and thousands of years of sexual pliability and takes away the ownership of this side of all our potential sexualities, This is in my mind damaging to our general acceptance and understanding of the ACT of homosexuality as something that is perfectly natural, something we can (although we don't have to and may not want to) all explore without the need for it to be a defining factor in our lives, except for the fact that we are, simply, SEXUAL beings.
YOUR QUESTIONS: You contradict yourself? If you said that whilst you have a preference to women you can never say you'd never do anything with a man because it's about the person not their sex but you state that you would categorically never do anything with a guy?
Not sure if you're trying to put words in my written mouth, have a bad memory or just haven't read properly what I have previously written. Please, please, please identify and re-quote where I have stated that "I would CATEGORICALLY NEVER do anything with a guy".
YOUR QUESTIONS: In regards to smoking/obese teachers; that's an atrocious example because teachers who smoke do not make money out of it, it's not their profession!? Yet if a teacher was the head of a tobacco comp and endorsed it the GTC may take a different view?
If you honestly believe that the reason I was dismissed and then reprimanded was because I received money for what I do, I think you will find that you are living in, what is commonly referred to as, 'Cloud Cuckoo Land'.
With respect, you were neither at my dismissal proceedings by the school or the GTC hearing. So, rather than hypothesising as to what the GTC may possibly have been considering, let me furnish you with a few facts: At no point at an time during either my dismissal or the GTC hearing was any reference to the receipt of money for my activity ever made. The GTC made absolutely no reference in either its preparation papers against me or in its prosecution during either of the two days of the trial. I quite expected that it might, but it did not.
So despite what you may think the GTC to have thought, a problem with the receipt of payment has never been raised, but simply a criticism of the activity itself: its impact on the school, its students and the extent to which a teacher can be a good example and 'role model' while doing this in their life outside of school. This is exactly why I bring up the entirely relevant examples of obesity and smoking (amongst others) as activities which receive little or no criticism from the authorities or many in society and yet both have proven links to thousands of deaths (what more negative an effect could there be than DEATH???) and yet pornography has no proven negative effects.
Even if your argument about the receipt of payment was true, let me use a real example that you may appreciate and understand. One of my colleagues of the school I worked at also worked part-time in a pub. Obviously, they received payment for it. The school knew of it and had no issue with it. Alcohol is a legal drug in this land which can be purchased from pubs. This person was therefore supplying, to those who consented and are of a legal age, a legal drug. Some people question the morality of the consumption of drugs (both legal and illegal) and some religions oppose it. Even the parliamentary independent scientific committee deemed alcohol to be THE most dangerous drug, out of all legal and illegal drugs, based on both the impact to the individual and on society at large. As a porn performer, I helped in the production of a legal form of entertainment in this land, which is supplied to consenting adults of a legal age. Both of us were in receipt of payment for our services. Both of us carried out these activities outside of school. Neither of us promoted these activities within school time or to minors. Alcohol, however, is proven to be linked to the deaths of thousands of British citizens every year and to the admittance of thousands of young people to emergency departments every weekend as a result of binge drinking. These are direct proven links. Many hypothesise about the potential harm that pornography may have on its consumers. However, nothing is proven. Indeed, some even argue it can have positive effects. These are not proven either. Either way, it has no proven negative effects on anyone and is certainly not proven to be directly linked to anyone's death.
The GTC and the school I worked at clearly had zero issue with whether or not I was paid for the activity. It was with the activity itself and with the fact it had become public knowledge.
With respect, you were neither at my dismissal proceedings by the school or the GTC hearing. So, rather than hypothesising as to what the GTC may possibly have been considering, let me furnish you with a few facts: At no point at an time during either my dismissal or the GTC hearing was any reference to the receipt of money for my activity ever made. The GTC made absolutely no reference in either its preparation papers against me or in its prosecution during either of the two days of the trial. I quite expected that it might, but it did not.
So despite what you may think the GTC to have thought, a problem with the receipt of payment has never been raised, but simply a criticism of the activity itself: its impact on the school, its students and the extent to which a teacher can be a good example and 'role model' while doing this in their life outside of school. This is exactly why I bring up the entirely relevant examples of obesity and smoking (amongst others) as activities which receive little or no criticism from the authorities or many in society and yet both have proven links to thousands of deaths (what more negative an effect could there be than DEATH???) and yet pornography has no proven negative effects.
Even if your argument about the receipt of payment was true, let me use a real example that you may appreciate and understand. One of my colleagues of the school I worked at also worked part-time in a pub. Obviously, they received payment for it. The school knew of it and had no issue with it. Alcohol is a legal drug in this land which can be purchased from pubs. This person was therefore supplying, to those who consented and are of a legal age, a legal drug. Some people question the morality of the consumption of drugs (both legal and illegal) and some religions oppose it. Even the parliamentary independent scientific committee deemed alcohol to be THE most dangerous drug, out of all legal and illegal drugs, based on both the impact to the individual and on society at large. As a porn performer, I helped in the production of a legal form of entertainment in this land, which is supplied to consenting adults of a legal age. Both of us were in receipt of payment for our services. Both of us carried out these activities outside of school. Neither of us promoted these activities within school time or to minors. Alcohol, however, is proven to be linked to the deaths of thousands of British citizens every year and to the admittance of thousands of young people to emergency departments every weekend as a result of binge drinking. These are direct proven links. Many hypothesise about the potential harm that pornography may have on its consumers. However, nothing is proven. Indeed, some even argue it can have positive effects. These are not proven either. Either way, it has no proven negative effects on anyone and is certainly not proven to be directly linked to anyone's death.
The GTC and the school I worked at clearly had zero issue with whether or not I was paid for the activity. It was with the activity itself and with the fact it had become public knowledge.
YOUR QUESTIONS: Haha you're not answering my question. Are you interested in lady's or men.
I am answering your question, but your question is making a statement that I do not recognise. A sexuality is not an identity. A sexuality is based on something you do: i.e. who you fall in love with, who you have sex with. These are all verbs. I am human. Humans are sexual. Beyond that, we as individuals have preferences in what we do or don't do. I am not a sexuality and not defined by who I choose to have sex with or fall in love with. In this respect, I have already answered your question.
YOUR QUESTIONS: You oppose the classification of 'straight' and 'gay'. You answered one question saying you "practice straight sex, but are not straight". Are you in any form attracted to men, then?
Yes, I find can find some men physically attractive. I am not blind. i recognise beauty. I recognise things that are visually appealing to me. A beautiful man is a beautiful man. I can find that appealing and attractive. Do I want to have sex with him? No, at this stage in my life, I don't. Equally, I would never say never or rule anything out. I could fall madly in love with a human being who happens to be a man tomorrow. The logistics of the sex I would have to deal with. I might even enjoy it. But right now, I love having sex with women. I don't want a relationship with anyone. I see beauty in individuals not genders.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)