When a German court refused to deport a gay Iranian man seeking asylum to the Czech Republic for fear he’d have to undergo invasive testing, it was revealed that in some cases those seeking to escape from homosexual persecution by entering the Bohemian country in question have been, as the BBC reported, ‘hooked into a machine that monitors bloodflow to the penis and then shown straight porn‘ to test their stated sexual orientation.
The reactions of those strapped into the apparatus are then monitored by what have been referred to somewhat vaguely as experts (an archetypal erotic character, of course)… But doesn’t this sound suspiciously like a scene out of a particularly kinky Central European homo erotic S&M porno movie, and wouldn’t that kind of thing effect the test’s accuracy?
In any case, those who get hard get the boot (and not the studded leather one) even though Europe’s Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) stated: “it is dubious whether [the test] reaches sufficiently clear conclusions.” Talk about popping under pressure. ..
Called ‘phallometric testing,’ the practice is probably no more absurd or degrading than most submissions to bureaucratic authority (and these days there seem so many the TSA is most obvious and hardly needs mentioning). How hard you have to get before you’re considered a liar by the panel of experts hasn’t been addressed, but would be well worth asking.
The European LGBT web journal Pink News wrote of the way the Czechs higher-ups are defending their decision, stating: In principle, asylum seekers cannot be forced to undergo the test and must give written consent and be fully briefed about the technique. However, those who refuse the test may be assumed to be lying and may fear that their application will be rejected outright if they refuse. Which is the doublespeak way of stating that there isn’t really an option.
And though the Czech interior ministry further argued that the heavily criticized testing has been used in fewer than 10 cases, one may still wonder why it was at all acceptable to subject supposedly gay refuges to straight pornography when, I suggest, it would no doubt have been considered both degrading and a grave violation of one’s privacy to do exactly the opposite to refugees defending their straightness… this after strapping their cock into some kind of hardness probing machine (with written permission or not).
Rather than a question simply of testing sexual orientation isn’t this instead an example of continued persecution of asylum seekers by those charged with protecting them?