All characters involved in the following story are over eighteen. Please note that this is a work of fiction set in the near future, is not based on any real persons or TV shows, and certainly not intended to excuse acts of non-consensual sex under any circumstances. Do not read on if you are likely to be offended by explicit material, black humour or bad puns! Do let me know of any mistakes or suggestions.
This story was checked by Volunteer Editor Robertreams
(from News Nightly, 11th October:)
On TV screens over the past year, a surprising new ratings hit has emerged. "Total Career Wipeout" is a live broadcast quiz show with a difference. Every Saturday night, under-performing undergraduates are given the opportunity to redeem themselves by showing off their knowledge in a winner-takes-all contest. Four failing female university students compete in each bout, and there's a rich reward for the winner, who is readmitted on their chosen course, with her tuition fees paid off in full!
But for the losers, as the title suggests, humiliation beckons. At the start of each bout, students are paired up with a male counterpart whose job it is to administer penalties whenever a girl comes up with a wrong answer. To begin with, these forfeits involve losing items of clothing. But in the latter stages, the punishments become ever more severe, culminating in the most clueless contestant being served up naked to her allotted partner for a full-blown sex session!
Naturally, the show has to comply with broadcasting regulations, so all "below the belt" action is tastefully concealed behind screens. But although viewers only get to see the ladies from the waist up, their expressions say it all as the game hots up and both points and pants are dropped!
Though the show finally cleared the censors early last year, it still sparks huge controversy. Over the past eighteen months, the UK media regulator has received a record number of viewer complaints concerning "TCW" (as it's known to its fans), with some accusing it of being "...the most outrageously indecent program ever seen on television".
Hoping to address this criticism, the production company's press officer, Ms Nina Letverson, spoke to our reporter last week:
"I'd ask people to remember that whenever we see original programming that pushes the boundaries, it always meets resistance from some sectors of the audience. In part, I think this arises from confusion: what is the TCW show actually about? Well, first and foremost it's meant to entertain, but of course there's a lot more to it than that. In this age of austerity we really appreciate what a struggle it is for students to fund their university education and, through this program, we hope to contribute some small measure of help. That's how the show was originally conceived, and it still gives me huge personal satisfaction knowing we've set so many young women on the path to an exciting new future.
"When we first appealed for contestants, we really didn't know what the response would be. As it turned out we were deluged with thousands of applicants to sift through. I have to confess, for the pilot show, we did pick out the most "camera-friendly" candidates at auditions. Unsurprisingly that drew some cynical comments from the critics! But it's totally untrue that we only ever choose the prettiest students; what you witness on screen is simply their natural beauty and personality coming out.
"Of course, there'd be no show at all without the men to partner the girls! We'd expected that finding them would be the hard part, but luckily we came across a great source of helpful, co-operative chaps who couldn't wait to get stuck in. Let's be honest, the public should be thanking those guys for injecting some life into the dreary Saturday night TV schedules - and the girls too, of course!"
However, a rather different view is taken by Tammy Shobuern, media affairs student and spokeswoman for the protest group "Studies Not Studs". From the outset, Tammy has angrily condemned the TCW show, branding it "a cynical ploy, working to a hidden agenda". And this young lady should know what she's talking about, because she was a contestant on the very first show, back in spring last year! Interviewed by our reporter yesterday, Tammy explained her change of heart towards the program:
(Tammy): "What your readers should bear in mind is the socio-political background here. This government is desperate to halt the falling birth-rate, and the resulting national population decline. Basically the "Total Career Wipeout" show is just an exercise in social engineering, aimed at raising the rate of conception among young women. The whole thing is very cleverly contrived: by focussing on the lucky winners and celebrating their achievement, they divert attention from the fate of the losers, who suddenly find themselves consigned to pregnancy and motherhood. Although these girls eventually settle down happily with their new families, the way their education and career prospects are effectively trashed for the foreseeable future is totally unacceptable. But the authorities know they can get away with this kind of thing because, frankly, lazy students never inspire much sympathy; the public just love to see us humiliated!"
(NN): "But surely this is an independent business venture, nothing to do with government policy?"
(Tammy): "Check it out - the C.E.O. of the show's production company and the Deputy Minister for Fertility are first cousins! As I said, the relentless decline in the birth-rate has got these people worried, and they'll try anything to curb it, even though their own education policies are largely to blame for that downward trend in the first place."
(NN): "That's quite a contentious argument: aren't there many factors behind the falling birth rate? Isn't it just that more women are choosing career over family these days?"
(Tammy): "Absolutely - and it can all be traced back to the mounting cost of higher education. Ever since the banks stopped issuing student loans, finding £10,000 a year for tuition fees has become a Herculean task for Britain's undergraduates. There's only one way that most full-time students can get their hands on that kind of money: every evening, thousands of sophisticated, respectable young women are finishing off their assignments and heading downtown to flaunt their bodies at strip joints or lap-dancing clubs. Of course, it's much easier for the ladies to get this kind of work, hence the gender imbalance on campus with women now comprising four-fifths of all undergraduates. And it's reckoned over eighty percent of those find employment in so-called "gentlemen's clubs", often working seven nights a week just to keep up with their course fees. No wonder we hear about students falling asleep during lectures!
"Most ironically, this limitless supply of willing girls has depressed the very wage rates that attracted them to the business in the first place. To make up the shortfall, they're now having to work even harder, spreading their legs ever wider in the quest for punters' tips! After enduring three years of that, is it surprising that most women opt for professional careers over having babies? We believe they've earned their right to choose."
(NN): "And, by the same token, surely they can choose whether to go on this TV show or not?"
(Tammy): "Look, you have to appreciate the level of desperation that would make somebody audition for a show like this. The new "constant assessment" rules at university are so draconian that it only takes a few bad test scores for a student to be suspended - at which point she becomes legally liable for the full course fees. Just at that moment, a letter lands on her mat offering her the chance to re-enrol on her course, have her fees paid off in full and magically solve all her financial problems - all in exchange for simply appearing on some gameshow! Still recovering from the shock of being suspended, you can understand how some students might see this as their only option."
(NN): "Some would seem a bit of an understatement; every Thursday, hundreds of new hopefuls can be seen waiting outside the studios for auditions. They all seem like sensible, intelligent young women - surely they know what they're doing?"
(Tammy): "The trouble is, the internet is so full of rumours, nobody knows what to believe. While one forum is denouncing it as a front for an escort agency, saying the losing girls are actually hookers, somewhere else somebody's claiming the whole show's a fraud and the sex is all simulated! When I auditioned for the show last year, I seriously believed that all I needed to do was sit in that "bondage chair" thing and answer a few questions - at worst, I thought I might lose my top and have to perform my best fake orgasm! It was only when the manacles clicked shut that I realised the truth, and by then it was too late. Thankfully I came through my experience unscathed; but many aren't so fortunate."
(NN): "And yet, people are queuing up to play - surely they must know nudity is involved, if they've ever seen an episode of the show?"
(Tammy): "Well, yes but... look, these are just ordinary girls with hopes and dreams like everybody else. Just because many of them work in establishments where they shake their bits for men's entertainment doesn't make them sluts. But don't you think that having to do that kind of work, night after night, might have left their judgement a little distorted? Besides which, most of them believe they'll answer all the questions easily without doing any forfeits. And under normal circumstances, they would - they're all highly educated young women. But as any quiz show contestant will tell you, it's totally different when those lights come on and the floor manager shouts "we're live!" In that moment, your mind goes blank - especially with an added distraction pointing right between your legs!"
(NN): "The show's supporters (and there are many) point to programs like "The Weakest Link", claiming the losers' humiliation on TCW is no worse than that show's infamous "walk of shame". Shouldn't we keep a sense of humour about things? The primary aim of the show is to entertain, after all?"
(Tammy): "If it's all about entertainment, then why don't the male volunteers wear condoms? When challenged on this point, the program makers insist that the intercourse needs to be "as authentic as possible, to maintain a real sense of drama"; apparently this also extends to giving the girls blood tests to check they're not on the pill. Unsurprisingly, every week up to half-a-dozen girls are sent home with an unwanted reminder of their illicit liaisons. And what happens when they try to track down the fathers of the babies they're carrying? It turns out all these men are failed asylum seekers who've just been deported! I've spoken to scores of tearful students who've spent months trying to trace their absconded partners, some even flying out to Africa or Asia and wandering the slums and shanties, brandishing photos of their wayward lovers. But with just a name and country of origin to go on, it's hopeless. Nobody has ever explained how these men are chosen, or why they're always deported so quickly after the show. All we have are rumours that they're being medically screened, apparently looking for individuals with high sperm counts - sounds like somebody's trying to guarantee lots of fruitful unions!"
