«

»

A ban on “violent” porn?

BBC NEWS | UK | Ban on violent net porn planned

In the news this morning comes Government plans to make it illegal to posess pornography depicting "violence or pain". I’m all for the prohibition of material like bestiality and necrophilia, however I am seriously concerned that this impinges into the BD/SM world.

Within the UK, we have draconian laws regarding what may happen within the confines of a bedroom/playroom between two consenting adults. The main issue is how the law is phrased – you may not do anything if it results in marks or injuries which are more than "transient and trifling".

Therefore, a severe flogging that leaves bruises for a week may well be classed as an illegal assault. Mild CP that leaves a red arse for a few hours is unlikely to be considered as an assault. Bondage, mummification, watersports and shaving do not fall into these areas and are therefore considered "safe" activites.

I want to take a moment to point out that pain in general as well caning/whipping/flogging, needle play and the like don’t really float my boat, however there are many people who do enjoy them as part of a consensual relationship.

As an example, the Home Office discussion paper (available through the BBC, PDF format) mentions the following scene as something they want to put pay to:

5. It is not possible in a public
document like this to give a great deal of
graphic detail or description of the
material in question. However, we can say
that there are hundreds of internet sites
offering a wide range of material featuring
the torture of (mostly female) victims who
are tied to some kind of apparatus or
restrained in other ways and stabbed with
knives, hooks and other implements.

As well as:

...some material contains sexualised images of
women hanging by their necks from meat
hooks, some with plastic bags over their
heads.

"It is not possible in a public document like this to give a great deal of graphic detail" – perhaps not, but you’re going to have be graphic in the wording of your new law so as not to make such a mess as the current legislation regarding BD/SM.

I would humbly suggest that the current Victoriana of sexual offences should be reviewed before imposing "nanny state" (I hate that phrase, but it works here) legislation on a community that does no harm (except to each other ). How about this for a nice and easy starting point:

You can do what you want with whoever you want as long as it’s consenual.

Obviously children, animals and the dead aren’t covered , so I assume that pretty much drops us at the point we’re at now. Several hundered years of legislation condensed into one sentence. 

1 comment

  1. mutt

    In a stereotypical fashion this really is being pushed by the “won’t somebody think of the children” crowd. Much more targetted than the blatant sexual censorship of US code 18.2257 using the same excuse, but Britain sadly appears to be following America’s lead yet again.

Comments have been disabled.