You would think that this was an easy one - the answer is when you don’t have it. But is that the case?
A new law - well part of a greater law is coming up for enactment in the UK Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill - that’s how you get contentious laws passed in the UK, add them to something that isn’t related. But that is by the by.
This law deals with what you can do in your own bedroom - or, indeed, look at or watch. If you are a person(s) who are into something a lot different than the recognised ‘normality’ in the act of sex - you can be prosecuted and sent to prison. Let me give you a definition:
An act which threatens or appears to threaten a person’s life
An act which results in or appears to result in serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals
What this law addresses is BDSM or sadomasochism. But is it up to a government to involve themselves in a persons sexuality? Especially if it is consensual?
Under the new rules, criminal responsibility shifts from the producer - who is responsible under the OPA - to the consumer.
But campaigners say the new law risks criminalising thousands of people who use violent pornographic images as part of consensual sexual relationships.
So the person who makes the videos or takes the images - is free to do what they like, but if you view them - you are criminalised.
People like Helen, who by day works in an office in the Midlands, and enjoys being sexually submissive and occasionally watching pornography, portrayed by actors, which could be banned under the new legislation.
She feels the new law is an over-reaction to the Longhurst case.“Mrs Longhurst sees this man having done this to her daughter and she wants something to blame and rather than blame this psychotic man she wants to change the law but she doesn’t really understand the situation,” says Helen.
Is this the State having too much power over what we can do - or watch, look at?
Speaking from her home in Berkshire, Mrs Longhurst acknowledges that libertarians see her as “a horrible killjoy”.
“I’m not. I do not approve of this stuff but there is room for all sorts of different people. But anything which is going to cause damage to other people needs to be stopped.”
To those who fear the legislation might criminalise people who use violent pornography as a harmless sex aid, she responds with a blunt “hard luck”.
Is it her right to say to the people who do use violent pornography as a sex aid ‘Hard luck”?
Let me know what you think.
All Images designed by Alison Rhodes (LastingExpressions)
15 responses so far ↓
steve // April 29, 2008 at 9:43 pm
Jesus, lots of chicks like to be choked during sex too.
I wish they would outlaw daddy issues. That would make life a lot more pleasant.
lunawolf // April 30, 2008 at 1:56 am
Oh hell, that is just too much. First of all, what people do in the bedroom is no one’s business, unless it truly is not consensual or it is with children.
Urgh, the guy that killed that women’s daughter was sick before he saw the porno.
It’s the same argument as with video games. One cannot conclude that it makes people violent or that only violent people watch it.
Way more ridiculous than the California ferret law, Will!
Will Rhodes // April 30, 2008 at 8:52 am
Couldn’t agree with you more, Luna.
steve // April 30, 2008 at 9:28 am
Everything luna? Some people get off by physical violence. Some people request that others kill them or cut off their genitals. It’s still consentual. Should we allow that?
What does truly consentual mean? Does being mentally ill negate consent? Given so many people are mentally ill, can you really rely on consent?
lunawolf // April 30, 2008 at 9:43 am
Well, that is kind of weird. I was under the impression that these were actors making the films.
If someone is mentally ill and they are found to be incompetent to make their own decisions, I think it would fall under the same principles of statutory rape. Even if a fifteen year old consents to sex with a nineteen year old, I am required by law to report it to the police because that person has been deemed by law to be unable to make their own decisions. A mentally ill person would
be put in a 72 hour involuntary hold if a mental health practitioner heard about their requests.
And god help whoever follows out a request for someone who wants to be killed or maimed!
So there are lines, but for the most part, my argument about privacy in the bedroom sits hard with me because I can’t stand how laws in the US allowed government into the bedrooms of gay people or couples of mixed race for the purposes of oppression.
lunawolf // April 30, 2008 at 9:45 am
And it still begs the question, if the film is made within the guidelines and legally purchased, why punish those that buy it?
steve // April 30, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Well, at least any such law would be sharia compliant.
“I can’t stand how laws in the US allowed government into the bedrooms of gay people or couples of mixed race for the purposes of oppression.”
Where do you think those laws originated? From the country that is passing this law that Will started the topic about!
Will Rhodes // April 30, 2008 at 5:32 pm
You’re blaming the UK for the insane laws of the US?
O.o
steve // April 30, 2008 at 6:49 pm
But it’s true though. The english introduced antimiscenegation laws and had laws against buggery for God knows how long.
Will Rhodes // April 30, 2008 at 6:52 pm
I think you will find that the influencing of laws in another’s country comes from your side of the pond, Steve.
Britain, by default exported many laws to many nations because she ran the world at one point.
From 1776 you can only take the blame for your own mistakes and cock-ups - they have nothing to do with the UK.
steve // April 30, 2008 at 10:12 pm
But Will, who began them? They were just continuing on your traditions that you introduced. Is a state that still uses common law burglary “insane”?
Will Rhodes // April 30, 2008 at 10:21 pm
Whether your country wished to follow the mother country is entirely up to your country.
It (your country) has changed the English language enough - why can’t you do the same with your laws?
OK - you have a basic grasp of the English language - change it - and then blame the UK for the changes?
I think not - your country makes its own laws, you, my friend, have to deal with them in that context.
lunawolf // April 30, 2008 at 11:48 pm
And regardless of where they came from, it took us longer to get rid of them. And we still won’t let two people that love each other enjoy the rights of marriage because of a stupid, two thousand year old book.
Bug Girl // May 1, 2008 at 11:06 am
How the HECK do a bunch of Club Penguin Blogs show up as possibly related???
Also, this is classic:
LOL!
Will Rhodes // May 1, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Bug Girl - I was wondering the same thing, but the WordPress crew must have the code wrong or summink.
Leave a Comment