So anyway, Sam drops me an e-mail asking me to look at this and to comment about it. So I look. And then I look at this, this and this. And then I started whining softly at the keyboard, thinking; "Fucking hell. This is an absolute minefield". So I look at this instead to calm myself down a bit. Because, when you're at all Sexperty, you can cover your arse on a lot of things by saying; "Oh well, as long as it's between consenting adults, it's alright as long as it's not illegal". And then the politicians pop up and start trying to move the goalposts. And as we all know, politicians are not exactly the most reliable people on matters like this.I mean, how can we even begin to talk about the legislation of extreme porn? As someone who likes women in both the 'Ooh, I'd like to kiss her' sense of the word and the friendship sense, there's a shitload of moral dilemmas to encounter even when you're watching, quote, 'normal' porn, let alone anything else. A mate asking me if I wanted to come round with a few cans to watch some women being tied up and slapped about wouldn't be my idea of a fun evening, but to tar everyone who enjoys watching that sort of thing with the same brush is as stupid as claiming that everyone who plays Grand Theft Auto is going to nick cars and shoot folk.
Because here's the thing; sex and politics should not mix at all. And I mean, at all. I could have an argument in the pub with someone from the polar opposite of my political viewpoint, and - providing they're not a thick twat or an out-and-out bigot - we could grope our way towards some kind of an understanding of each other's viewpoint. It wouldn't change my beliefs as such, but I'm capable of thinking "Hm, well, I sort of see their point. Never thought of it that way".
Change the subject to what we do with our own and other people's genitals, however, and most people's minds are set firm at best and vehemently immovable objects at worst. "Ugh! How the fuck can you like that? You dirty bastard!" "How dare you inflict your morals on me, you inhibited, strait-laced twat!"
For example; I've never once felt the urge to leave a big red hand-print on a woman's arse, and I wouldn't be massively up for seeing it, seeing as I've been brought up to believe that hitting a woman is the last refuge of a shitbag. So what does a woman who actually enjoys that sort of thing (and possibly even makes use of summat like this) think of me? I'm inhibited? I'm patronising? I've got the nerve to tell her what she should be doing with her own bits?
(and this cuts both ways; I was at a party one time and was told by a very forward lady that I looked as if I needed to be tied down and punished in a nearby bedroom right now. When I said that, erm, I was actually halfway through having a conversation with the host's sister and I was allergic to pain in any case, she chose to rip into me for being a small-minded bigoted closet-case Mary Whitehouse-wannabe cunt. Not the kind of thing you need to deal with when you're trying to chat someone up, really)
I haven't got time to go into this further today (I will return to it, though, promise - I have a great story about WH Smiths and distended labia), but, right now, I'm more interested in what your lot have to say...
22 comments:
Absolutely bloody disgusting is what I call it. I have one of the Backlash banners on my site. The state should stay out of people's bedrooms. As long as there's consent all is well and good.
I don't really go in for the extreme stuff anyway, but it's sickening to think that harmless people who get their harmless kinks out of looking at consenting adults doing their thing.
So one bloke who looked at this stuff was a nutter? It doesn't mean everyone will be. This law is just so ill thought-out, so reactionary and so wrong-headed.
Apologies, by the way. If I weren't in the middle of exams right now I'd be more coherent, honest.
*doing their thing will get punished.
I knew you'd be first on this, blacksilk. Good luck with your exams.
I actually believe that no one can be considered "normal".
People just choose to express their differentness or craziness in different ways.
I don't see the point in many laws... But this one is pretty ridiculous (and really, I could care less since it's doesn't affect me directly, still it's pissing me off a bit).
Partly joking, I want to go back to the days when we had knights hired to protect us from invaders.
It's not just women who are submissive, not just men who are dominant, and not just violence that's kink.
I was at a party one time and was told by a very forward lady that I looked as if I needed to be tied down and punished in a nearby bedroom right now.
Also, wtf? It's people like her who help give the rest of us perverts a bad name.
(Other than the obvious, of course.)
So, say, Graham Coutts gets up, puts on his slippers, has some Shreddies, listens to Radio 4, reads the Daily Mail, takes his dog for a walk, views some violent porn, drives somewhere in his car, then commits murder.
Why are we not banning slippers, Shreddies, Radio 4, the Daily Mail, dogs, cars, or whatever else he had any contact with in his life?
I demand we check his computer's history, find every website he ever visited, and ban them all, because they helped create a murderer. Because as long as you're thinking of the children, it's ok to be narrow-minded fascist twat.
How do I feel? Bloody worried. Even high-powered lawyers can't agree on what images would be completely legal and what would get you five years in prison. Currently, "just delete anything even vaguely BDSMey" appears to be the safest move.
"Feeling horny and wanting a wank" is not exactly an ideal state in which to evaluate the likely legal status of a piece of porn, but if this stuff actually becomes active, it's where all vaguely kinky 'netsurfers will be at.
Also, it rather blows that a lot of the stuff that's either right on the line or well over it is made by Kink.com, one of the few really ethical porn producers out there.
Sure, I'm also very angry, and will probably get more so. But right now, particularly as a guy who's into BDSM mostly as a dom, I'm just worried.
Dear Mr (what's in a name... not into kink, really?), no, you're not patronising towards maso-women. You just don't feel the same, but obviously you do not judge. And as long as you do not inflict your morals on anyone else, thinking differently is a good thing!
(getting smacked on the ass is excessively hot though, but that's just me...)
What lilithgirl said (except that ass-smacking isn't my personal thing). Your Kink Is Not My Kink But Your Kink Is OK, and all that. I really don't get how knowing what you like, and what you don't like, could make someone call you inhibited or patronising.
Now I'm not saying "Go ahead with the law! Ban it! Ban it!" I'm just merely offering an oposing opinion. Although I'm possibly stating the obvious...
Surely this law is just a half-hearted attempt to appear to be doing something? I doubt that many arrests will be made of those into BDSM, but it might just aid in nailing those sick fucks that do take things too far. And you can't argue that they're not out there... there is such a thing as 'too far'!
Too right, "as long as there's consent it's all well and good".
Dare I even post this?
No offence to Anonymous, but, let's say that arrests will be made, and more than just a few, do you really think they'll profile people to see who's who: either the psychotic sadist or the innocent bystander? Because personally, I doubt they'll get Doctor Spencer Reed for that, what with him being a fictional character and all. You don't usually get to profile unsubs untill it's too late for their victims.
My point: if arrests are made, they will most likely be random and more often than not they won't get their guy with this alone.
And all this aside, it's a twisted world we live in, and kink has little to do with this.
I guess the problem boils down to: what's too far, and who and how do we decide? For some, even the mention of BDSM or any part is too far, and in the other, we have a real risk of someone getting badly hurt, even actually dying.
(What I'm not saying here is that real damage is desirable by the folks into P&P. But there are people who have NO IDEA what they are doing, either as dom or sub, and can get themselves into real trouble.)
Anyway, what we are discussing is where and how to draw the line. Our society does not allow unfettered freedom: you can't kill yourself, for example, or someone else just cause they asked you to. Can you ask someone to beat you up (with or without sexual intention) If so, how hard? Broken arm? Whip marks? Do we say, "Fine, do as you please among consenting adults." when there exists the possibility of sick people doing permanent damage and then pleading, "I thought we had an agreement?"
I'm all for YKINMKBYKIOK; I have friends who are into things I'd just as soon not know about. But I want them to be responsible in their pleasure.
Now, about that lady: her response to you was designed to see if you are/were a closet sub. If you had been, you would have gone all weak in the knees and followed her to the bedroom. In other words, it was a form of a pick-up line. HTH.
John
If I am not mistaken, the average week of television shows have plenty of violence and murder contained in them, as do the many movies you might want to watch on the weekend. But this type of violence is ok I guess, just as long as it is not sexually related and no one is naked.
We live in a very sick world these days and porn has little to do with it's real problems.
Sex, religion, and politics make for a deadly cocktail, and all three are topics that you can't actually talk about without offending someone.
The problem I have is that it will not be illegal to make BDSM porn but might (once they have tested the definitions in court) be illegal to view it.
I would like to liken it to banning alcohol on London Transport. There are already laws in place for dealing with those that are drunk and disorderly and violent etc but apparently people who wanted to partake in an entirely legal activity must be prevented from doing so in case they take it to the extreme. This is unlikely to solve anything. People will still be drunk on the tube; they will just drink before they get on. I suppose it might stop idiots from leaving half drunk cans of fosters on the seat mind.
Sorry got a bit distracted but really I'm trying to say that laws exist to ban the behaviours that the politicians think might result in a small minority of cases even though the causal link is not really proved.
Let me get this straight - if you fancy a little bit of consensual asphyxiation in your own home with someone - "by all means, go ahead" say the government. "BUT MY GOD, DON'T LOOK AT PICTURES OF OTHER PEOPLE DOING IT!"
Stupid stupid stupid.
"I knew you'd be first on this, blacksilk. Good luck with your exams."
Oh dear, am I really that predictable? And thanks.
To quote yourselves:
First off, I cannot overstate the influence of Porn on modern-day male sexuality. I could visit all your houses, put a brick through your window, climb in, and spray-paint ‘THE INFLUENCE OF PORN ON MODERN-DAY MALE SEXUALITY IS DEAD, DEAD, DEAD IMPORTANT’ in red on your living-room wall, and I would still be understating the case.
Well, this is it, anonymous. But it's not important enough to make a sane person kill someone else.
Another point; the horrible irony of situations like this is that when you rise up in an anti-censorship fervour, you invariably get pushed by the other side into defending sites called 'Rape Action'. Which makes me feel a bit like Sinead O'Connor sticking up for NWA.
Hmm...this is bringing up a lot of strong, instantly-provoked opinions either way. I hold neither position because I don't know. My objection to the polarisation is that each is opinion, not really informed and backed by thorough-going evidence. Neither you or I know what response such viewing can engender in others, or in what measure, other than that based on personal experience, and there is a very large spectrum of ability to discriminate been fantasy and reality, and for a variety of reasons, in the human species. Some people are more challenged than others in this respect; others will believe that something is normal because they want to. Listen to paedophiles arguing that they are just subjected to the same institutional bigotry that gay people were in previous generations.
Hmmm.....
It's my belief that porn, of any description, has very little to do with people killing other people. People who commit these kind of crimes would do so with or without the influence of porn and I fear that it comes down to issues much deeper which often start in childhood. The money and time spent creating and policing these new laws would be much better spent recognising and helping children and adults whos social and mental health issues mean that they are at risk of becoming potential killers rather than arresting and condemning normal people.
Post a Comment