The Emotion of Sex (NSFW)

At what point does sex become, to use that most hated of cliches, making love? Where does one begin and the other end? Is it a question of time with that person? Is it a question of familiarity? Is it emotion? Is it something entirely different? There is a definitive and marked difference between fucking someone and having sex with someone. There's even a difference between that and making love. But, I'll bet if you think about it, you'd say that the method in which the physical act is carried out is completely different in each circumstance. So, therefore, by that logic, it's easy to say that sex and the definition of it is entirely physical.

Sex is, without a shadow of a doubt, the engine of life. If there are any Futurama fans reading this, they'll know about the episode where Fry downloads a Lucy Liu-bot and proceeds to have a completely hollow and empty relationship with her based purely on the physical. In an attempt to show the error of his ways, Fry's subjected to an educational film on the dangers of meaningless sex and how it is the ultimate downfall of humanity. In between laughing at this episode, it got me thinking.

If we, as individuals, simply wanted sex and nothing more, we could all go out right and do it. Provided we had the means and the opportunity. Take escort services. There's dozens of them across the nation, no doubt. For the right price, a man or woman could have utterly meaningless sex with a random stranger and that would sate the physical need for it. Or would it?

In many cases, people will often tell you that sex on its own is nothing. There has to be an emotional core to it. It can be for the right reasons or the wrong reasons. Vengeance, for one. Showing someone how much you miss them, for another. Many reasons. There is always an emotion linked to it. So to remove it is simply to not have sex. It's simply you and some other person engaging in what is essentially a physical act shared. It could be the exact same as shaking their hand. There is contact between two bodies, but nothing is added or gained.

There has to be knowledge of one another and knowledge of self. Consider what it would be like to engage in your wildest sexual fantasy. Remove the intended person. Insert another person who has absolutely nothing to do with the intended person. The thought, I'd wager, doesn't become half as pleasurable as it was initially. We connect sex with people. People we care about. When it is connected to people we don't care about, it is ultimately nothing and is very often a futile exercise.

I'll agree that some people do find pleasure in the physical act, alone. But deep down, if they were truly and completely honest with themselves, it may be a case of them telling themselves and everyone else that they enjoy it. We need the emotion in order for sex to be what we want it to be.

Three Out Of Four

Ernest Hemingway famously wrote that in order for a boy to become a man, he had to complete four tasks.

• Plant a tree.
• Father a son.
• Fight a bull.
• Write a book.

The analogies for each is simple enough. To plant a tree is to give back to the earth which sustains us all. To father a son is to continue your name and your legacy. To write a book is to ensure that the world knows you were here on this planet. To fight a bull means to face death or an adversary. It's not important whether you win or lose, but simply to face something greater than yourself head-on.

Today, bullfighting was banned in the province of Catalonia in Spain. It's a sport that has been practiced there for centuries and it's a part of their culture. Naturally, there were messy scenes when it was introduced. I just finished watching a debate on the topic between an environmentalist and a former bullfighter. It was in watching it that I realised something. Something I hadn't, at first, realised.

Up to this point, I would have been ardently on the side of the bull. It's absolutely cruel to send a bull into a ring and fight a man for sport. But then, it dawned on me. A bull could very easily kill a man. They are naturally aggressive. I don't have the exact facts on it, but I'm sure it is down a basic genetic makeup of them. They are prone to aggression. A friend of mine, as a child, was travelling through a field and came across a bull. From the very second he was spotted, the bull charged him. Yes, I'm aware that they are a territorial animal and they have a 'fight/flight' reflex. But theirs is purely fight.

It's then that I considered the following. There is a perfectly good chance that the bull will gore and kill the matador. The bull, let's face it, is not a sentient being with a capacity for reason. These bulls are treated with the utmost respect and are cared for with precision up to this point. They are put in the ring and it's between the man and the bull. The bull has a better-than-good chance of winning. That's the very essence of all sport. You and your opponent. The terms of battle being you are evenly matched or not.

Consider the next time you have a steak or a burger. There's a better-than-average chance that the meat you're eating comes from a bull. It had to be killed and sliced to get there. You're enjoying the meat as it rolls around in your mouth with all its juicy textures.

The bull in the ring was killed and sliced in a similar fashion. Yes, it was poked and speared up to this. But isn't that the same for the bull that's reared in a farm? It's poked, speared and jockeyed into position. If you've ever seen 'No Country For Old Men', you'll know that the device Javier Bardem uses is actually for killing bulls. As far as I have been able to gather, the bull is beaten into a holding pen and then gets the pellet put through his head and drops him straight away. He's then taken away to be processed. There's no getting around it. Bulls have to be killed in order to be eaten.

Therefore, I find it a little hypocritical for non-vegetarians to be criticising bull-fighting. The method in which that steak is arriving on your plate doesn't matter to you. You're simply enjoying it. Would it truly bother you to know that it had tried to kill a man? Probably not. We ignore these factors. We don't care. It's a bull. It's an animal. It's the food chain.

Jedward - A Debate

About a week or so ago, Jedward released their album, "Planet Jedward". It is an album of note-for-note covers of various pop songs from the last ten years. There is no new take on any of the songs chosen. Take, for example, their cover of Blink 182's "All The Small Things". It is exactly the same song - no difference in melody or tempo - from the original. In fact, the vocal track by Blink 182 could be removed and replaced by Jedward's. This leads me to ask the following question -

Why do it if you're not adding anything new to it?

It seems that Jedward are treated something between a novelty act and a children's favourite. They are, to use an acutely Irish expression, "harmless". This isn't the case, I think. How can they be considered as musicians? There is nothing original about what they do. They've stated on numerous occasions that they can't sing very well. In fact, they see it almost like a badge of honour. They are entertainers. That's something entirely different. An entertainer is someone who amuses you. A musician is someone who composes or performs music. Jedward have not done this. They have performed other people's music. Well, I say performed - they've replaced the original artist's vocals with their own.

Jedward are never going to win an Ivor Novello award. They will never be nominated for the Mercury Prize. They probably know that themselves. But the fact that their popularity and chart sales are taking from other musicians who are original, who are trying to do something different is where I get flummoxed. Now, I'll bet my next week's wages that this time two years from now, Jedward will most likely be playing in your local GAA bar. But who's to say that there aren't hundreds of acts like them coming down the line? When will the public draw the line and say enough?

Again, I reiterate that Jedward will never be taken seriously. And thus, their album shouldn't be taken seriously. My argument is that this shouldn't be the start of a trend. Say what you want about any of the other X-Factor people - they were, at the very least, original enough to put their own spin on certain songs. Or try their own. They may have all failed miserably. And that's a good thing. And Jedward, too, will fail miserably. But, the fact they're getting airplay / recognition / encouragement is what is truly frightening. Mediocrity is being encouraged. Originality is being discouraged. It's meant to be the other way around.

Music - Command? DANCE!

There may possibly be a party at ours. I love parties. I love DJing at parties. I got so worked up, I made this tune. Command? DANCE!

Video - Mike Relm Vs. Iron Man 2 Mix

Mike Relm's remix of the Iron Man 2 trailers blew my mind. I'm so happy that Jon Favreau picked up on it and gave him a 45-second spot on Adult Swim TV. The guy deserves a lot of praise for his work. Also, it really does sound cool!

New on the decks...

Well, I say decks, I mean KraMixer. 'Cos, you know, I can't spin vinyl for shit. So I've got KraMixer to do the heavy lifting. OK, never mind that. Party music tiem - GO!

N.E.R.D - 'Everyone Nose (All The Girls Standing In The Line)

Daft Punk - 'Short Circuit'

LCD Soundsystem - 'Drunk Girls'

Iron Man 2 - A Review

If you've read other reviews of 'Iron Man 2' and have come here looking for a different opinion, I'm afraid you're wrong. I was naturally skeptical about Empire's and even Culch.ie's review - they weren't able, I thought, to grasp the inner complexities or the textures that a good comic-book film should have. This latest craze of saying "Oh man, I love comic books" is prone to giving films with this heritage an unfair advantage or disadvantage. Reviewers seem to either overly berate or unduly praise a film because of it.

In this case, it didn't do it any favours and it didn't help its case. No pun intended. As a true and avid lover of the entire Marvel universe, I was sold on this from the get-go. I was going to see it, no matter what the reviews said. They are all, by the way, correct in their opinions. Without spoilering the shit out of you, I will say the following -

• Nick Fury has a somewhat big role in the film.
• There is a blink-and-you'll-miss-it piece of film from another Marvel property.
• The infamous Captain America shield makes an appearance. In a comedy scene. No, really.
• There is an after-credits sting. It's worth staying put for.

And that's all I'll say on that front. The film is glorious in its spectacle. There are tons of explosions, over-the-top choreography, zingy one-liners and Scarlett Johansson getting undressed. That alone had me forking over a tenner. Favreau goes out of his way to make sure that there are few dark areas in the film. Too often, the sequel is seen as the 'darker' film - meaning that the third has to be twee as fuck. Look at 'Return Of The Jedi' - it had Ewoks. While this didn't have Ewoks, it did have glitter. But that's half the charm of the Iron Man series. It's a suspension of disbelief, brainless entertainment - there's no hidden messages or even a deep and labyrinthine plot.

It does, however, suffer from crowbarring in too many elements into the plot. I get that Favreau and Theroux - who deserves most of the blame - have a duty to fit in pointers and references to the future Avengers film and so forth. It's frustrating - there are some scenes that are quite brilliant. Sam Rockwell's slimy greaseball character in Justin Hammer pretty much steals the show on the villain front. Mickey Rourke, who I personally hate, doesn't really get up to much. At least in the last one, Jeff Bridges made an effort to glower and roar at people. Here, Mickey looks half-bored and blubbers on in Russian for a few scenes before being offed by Iron Man & War Machine.

Despite all these faults, it's still good. The action scenes are brilliant and ScarJo and Gwyneth Paltrow are both engaging and Favreau's role is beefed up somewhat. What the film needed in order to make it better was a more finely-honed script. Theroux's not exactly a dab hand at this. I'm not saying somebody like Brian Helgeland was needed - but someone with a bit more experience. The overall story just feels like they were trying to fit in too many elements. A veteran screenwriter would have caught this and either excised the bullshit or make a bigger film. As such, Theroux simply puts everything in and doesn't allow you to connect to the story.

Then again, it's not that kind of film. It really is a case of all sizzle and no steak. But that's the charm of it. If you poke at it long enough, it will seem shit. You have to take it at face value for what it is - a big, dumbass summer film. And enjoy it for that.