writes
>> The "Lady Chatterley" and similar trials a generation ago failed because
>> there was no proof that such writing "depraved and corrupted those
>> reading it".
>
>It would be good if we could source material relating to these and cite
>case history in our responses to the consultation.
>
Have a look at
http://books.guardian.co.uk/extracts/story/0,6761,367917,00.html for a
start
--
^Thunder^
Graham Marsden, 04 Sep 2005 20:32:21
Lothario UK wrote:
> Paragraph 51 says, "The offence would be limited to explicit
> pornography material, that is material produced solely or primarily
> for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification."
>
> Material that is journalistic, academic, scientific or artistic in
> intent is specifically excluded.
>
> I presume that this would lead to a peculiar situation where someone
> could legally view images from a website whose material was drawn from
> real-life media and CCTV sources that depicted actual rapes and
> murders, but someone couldn't legally view material from a site where
> it was evident that the material had been acted, but that was
> presented for sexual gratification. Go figure.
That is about what the situation is at the moment.
The argument goes basically that it's ok to show violence/ rape/ murder
whatever *provided* the victim isn't enjoying it, because if they're
shown as enjoying it then some deranged/ sociopathic individual can use
it to justify to themselves the fact that "they're enjoying it, so it
must be ok, so I can do it".
Of course this is, frankly, a load of dingoes kidneys, because that
deranged/ sociopathic individual is *still* going to find a way of
justifying their actions to themselves no matter what, but try to
convince our Nanny State of that...!
Cheers,
Graham.
Graham Marsden, 04 Sep 2005 20:52:24
darkness^ wrote:
>>entire "participants are victims" idea premised on the
>>idea that demand for images creates supply, which
>>isn't proven;
>
> Are you really questioning the "supply and demand"
> model of business?
>
> I think that demand stimulates supply and that supply
> stimulates demand. I would say this is particularly
> true of fetishistic behaviour.
I can agree with the first statement, ie if someone wants something
there will almost certainly be someone out there who will supply it
(generally, but not always) if they can make a profit.
Supply stimulating demand *can* also occur, but not so often and not,
IMO, in the case of fetish style material, it's more a case of an
advertising campaign creating the latest "must have" craze. If I have a
fetish for X and I create a website for it, really it's only the other
people who also have an interest in X who will visit.
Even if I spam millions of people very few are likely to come to that
site unless they have some interest in X as well.
> Inevitably in a civilised society, the rights of one
> group must be balanced against the rights of another.
Of course. "My right to swing my fist ends at the tip of your nose".
> In the case of Bestiality, the right of the voyeur to
> consume the images is balanced against the right of
> the animal to not be abused.
Most of such material that I've come across of this type is of women and
animals and, as such, I can't exactly see how how the animal is being
"abused" since they are hardly being forced into something they don't
want to do.
Ok, I can see how you could make an argument the other way around, ie
men penetrating animals, but even then, despite jokes about Welsh
shepherds, any animal that didn't want to participate would most likley
make its displeasure known by fighting like mad to get away.
I'd also note that back in the 70's when the Danish reviewed all their
sex laws, they move bestiality from standard "sex" legislation to the
under the heading of "cruelty to animals", ie if what you were doing
wasn't cruel to the animal it was ok.
> it seems a simple matter of business logic that images are created
> to satisfy a consumer demand. By cutting off some of the consumer
> demand, the proposals could lead to fewer images being created. In
> Bestiality terms, that means less animal abuse.
Sorry, but the logic of this simply does not follow.
Consider for a moment child abuse images. These are generally a
by-product of abuse, rather than an end in themselves. AIUI much of this
material was (and, almost certainly, still is) distributed effectively
free of charge (via mailing lists, p2p, newsgroups etc) rather than for
profit.
I think that abusers would still be taking these pictures and abusing
children whether this distribution existed or not, and all that is
happening when it is distributed is someone saying "look what I've got/
done/ whatever" and showing off for their peers. Even if they weren't
doing this, the abuse would still happen.
Now replace "child" with "animal" and I think the logic still follows.
> I care passionately about animal welfare. I am a lot more interested
> in supporting a proposal that will lessen animal abuse than I am in
> protecting the voyeuristic rights of people who I despise beyond
> description.
In which case I suggest you contact your MP and campaign for stronger
laws to protect animals but which will *NOT* affect those into
consensual (if extreme) BDSM, rather than putting your support behind
this bill in what I think is an well intentioned but misguided belief
that it would actually do what you want.
Graham Marsden, 04 Sep 2005 20:57:51
dan brusca wrote:
> For me, it would be better to attack the proposals on the twin bases
> that material shouldn't be banned because it *might* have negative
> effects on those who view it, and that the government can't prohibit
> freedom of expression of a minority because a majority deems what is
> expressed to be objectionable. Freedom of expression isn't the sole
> preserve of a 'moral majority'.
I can agree with this.
As I said before, this material may be a symptom but it is not a cause
and to try to solve a problem by infringing the rights of a few in the
hope of protecting the majority simply risks criminalising those few
with no benefit to anybody.
SnowdropExplodes, 04 Sep 2005 22:02:29
--- dan brusca wrote:
> The consultation has nothing much at all to say
> about participants at
> all really. It's not about protecting people from
> being abused or harmed
> by appearing in extreme porn, it's supposedly about
> protecting people
> who may view that porn from harm, or being harmed by
> people who view it.
This is incorrect. Read paragraphs 28 and 34. here
it states explicitly that harm to the participants is
a key factor in the proposals.
Read also the section entitled "Evidence of Harm".
here the paper states categorically that, since there
is no proof, nor any convincing evidence, that porn
causes harm, that is absolutely not the basis of their
proposals.
Ta,
SnowdropExplodes
___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
darkness, 05 Sep 2005 01:51:55
Dear Graham,
> Supply stimulating demand *can* also occur, but not
> so often and not,
> IMO, in the case of fetish style material, it's more
> a case of an
> advertising campaign creating the latest "must have"
> craze.
This is the entire principal of marketing. A lot of
businesses dont know the difference between
advertising and marketing. Marketing is about creating
a market. It is a highly effective business technique.
Take a stroll around Sainsbury's after Delia has done
a new series. Suddenly a certain demographic just
*has* to have a particular baking dish and obscure
ingredients like glycerine become sold out up and down
the country as millions of Delia viewers are making
her new chocolate torte. Advertise glycerine and no
one will be interested. *Market* it via Delia and it's
a different story.
Within BDSM, I think we see a lot of fetishes being
defined by what other people have decided constitutes
a fetish. How many wool and cotton fetishists do you
see? Very few I think. All the porn involves leather
and latex, club dress codes expect mainly leather and
latex...so that's what we come to associate with our
pleasures and fetish is developed. It isn't hard to
create fetish in a person. Simply link their sexual
behaviour to the intended object of fetish.
It's almost worth trying to prove this effect. Let's
think up a surreal fetish, build a website, cynically
market the fetish through sexual imagery and the
various tools of marketing....and see if we can create
a market for a new fetish. I reckon we would find
success - and it wouldnt just be the people who had
the fetish already.
> Even if I spam millions of people very few are
> likely to come to that
> site unless they have some interest in X as well.
I disagree. People can be inspired by new ideas. They
can hit your site by accident, curiosity or
misdirection. Some, a minority (but marketing normally
deals with small percentages and large volumes - so a
2% result is considered good), will stay a while and
maybe return.
> Of course. "My right to swing my fist ends at the
> tip of your nose".
LOL - good line...:)
> Most of such material that I've come across of this
> type is of women and
> animals
MOST?!?!??!?! How much have you come across? I
hesitate to make what I would consider a serious
accusation, but your statement and following views
worry me.
> and, as such, I can't exactly see how how
> the animal is being
> "abused" since they are hardly being forced into
> something they don't
> want to do.
That's right up there with "She was begging for it
your honour!" as an argument. Animals do have sexual
behaviour that it is possible to stimulate and
engage....just as children do. That doesn't make it
right to do so.
I wouldn't recommend using your "they are hardly being
forced" argument when dealing with the public.
Graham, with some of the views you are expressing, you
will align BDSMers with pedaphiles, bestialists and
rapists in the public eye.
Make no mistake, if we get as far as engaging the
government in debate on this issue, the debate will
not be a reasoned and intelligent examination of the
issues. The public will not read the proposal. I doubt
many journalists will either. It will be a brief PR
battle, fought in the media, which we will lose
entirely if we dont find some way to engage public
sympathy.
Even public sympathy is unlikely to do us much good. I
refer you to the RIP bill and the invasion of Iraq.
With the RIP bill, a lot of people didn't think it a
great idea to give the government access to all their
internet activities and data. Yet it went through,
using Gary Glitter and September 11th as suspiciously
convenient smoke screens.
The invasion of Iraq - huge public marches, massive
resistance to the notion in opinion polls - yet the
government just did what suited them, with little
regard for the will of the people.
If they want to put this bill through, they will. It
is consistant with RIP and child porn legislation and
they probably want a full set of legal tools to give
them the control over the internet that Mr Blair vowed
he would achieve some time ago.
I don't think BDSMers will have success getting the
entire proposal dropped - nor do I personally believe
they should try. They might be able to protect the
acts of consenting human adults though...which I
thought was the general concept behind our lifestyle?
Regards
darkness^
___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Tanos, 05 Sep 2005 02:38:38
darkness^ wrote:
> Within BDSM, I think we see a lot of fetishes being
> defined by what other people have decided constitutes
> a fetish. How many wool and cotton fetishists do you
> see? Very few I think.
Enough to have their own paysites. For example,
www.sweaterbabes.com
> All the porn involves leather and latex,
See above.
> club dress codes expect mainly leather and latex...
Club dress codes have nothing to do with fetish. Try
going to a strict dress code club saying you have a
woolly sweater fetish. Club dress codes, like almost
all dress codes, are about filtering out "the wrong
kind of people" and making certain kinds of people
feel unwelcome.
> so that's what we come to associate with our
> pleasures and fetish is developed. It isn't hard to
> create fetish in a person. Simply link their sexual
> behaviour to the intended object of fetish.
Except that happens before adulthood with most people's
fetishes.
If what you're saying is true, where did all the
fetishists come from before fetish magazines were
widely available?
Consider the rubber mackintosh fetishists, for
instance, who mostly grew up in an age where lots of
women wore rubber macs in the rain. But now that
rubber macs are rare, there are far fewer twenty-
something rubber mac enthusiasts.
I think the evidence is pretty strong that fetishes
are something that people pick up from associations
in the vanilla environment (which now includes Cat
Woman etc, but also attractive women in sweaters or
underwear in Kay's catalogue that adolescents can
easily get hold of) rather than from what any kind
of fetish industry _decides_ is a fetish.
So the government proposals are right in saying
that available images influence people's sexuality,
but that's what fantasies they get turned on by,
rather than whether they go out and start strangling
people.
Regards,
Tanos
Graham Marsden, 05 Sep 2005 02:58:00
darkness^ wrote:
>>Supply stimulating demand *can* also occur, but not
>>so often and not, IMO, in the case of fetish style
>>material, it's more a case of an advertising campaign
>>creating the latest "must have" craze.
>
> This is the entire principal of marketing. A lot of
> businesses dont know the difference between
> advertising and marketing. Marketing is about creating
> a market.
Yes, but nobody's "marketing" anything in the context of the material in
this discussion, are they?
> Within BDSM, I think we see a lot of fetishes being
> defined by what other people have decided constitutes
> a fetish. How many wool and cotton fetishists do you
> see? Very few I think.
Interestingly enough, in older "fetish style" magazines I've seen a fair
bit about wool fetishm, but then it just vanishes.
> All the porn involves leather and latex, club dress codes expect
> mainly leather and latex...so that's what we come to associate
> with our pleasures and fetish is developed.
Sorry, but I don't see that this follows and I don't agree that you can
"create" a fetish in someone who doesn't have some sort of inclination
to that already.
>>Even if I spam millions of people very few are likely to come to that
>>site unless they have some interest in X as well.
>
> I disagree. People can be inspired by new ideas. They
> can hit your site by accident, curiosity or misdirection.
Yes, ok, you can get them to the site by hook or by crook, but virtually
all of then apart from a tiny minority, will immediately leave again.
> Some, a minority (but marketing normally deals with small
> percentages and large volumes - so a 2% result is considered
> good), will stay a while and maybe return.
I think a 2% result would be considered exceptional! Advertising often
works on figures of 0.5% or less.
In this case, however, I think it would be more like 0.05% at best and
probably much less than that.
>>Of course. "My right to swing my fist ends at the tip of your nose".
>
> LOL - good line...:)
I forgot to look up the source before, apparently it's from a US Judge,
Oliver Wendell Holmes.
>>Most of such material that I've come across of this
>>type is of women and animals
>
> MOST?!?!??!?! How much have you come across? I
> hesitate to make what I would consider a serious
> accusation,
Darkness, before you even *CONSIDER* *considering* making any "serious
accusations" I suggest you think *VERY* carefully about what you are doing.
Even though this technically an open group, I would consider that for
anyone to even suggest or imply that they might reveal details of what
is said in here outside of the group to be a very serious mistake.
As to the subject, I get a lot of porn through a site called GUBA
(Gigantic Usenet Binary Archive) which, even though they try to keep
"unacceptable" material out of it, eg bestiality, child porn etc,
because it is simply archiving what is on Usenet, they rely on
subscribers pointing out when there is a problem.
Consequently this material *does* appear occasionally and, naturally,
whilst reporting it, you can't help but look at it.
> I wouldn't recommend using your "they are hardly being
> forced" argument when dealing with the public.
I had not planned on doing so. This discussion is primarily about the
portrayal of "violent pornography", not the reasoning or justifications
that may be used for bestiality etc.
> Graham, with some of the views you are expressing, you
> will align BDSMers with pedaphiles, bestialists and
> rapists in the public eye.
I think you'll find the tabloid media will do that perfectly well
without any help from me or anyone else.
> Even public sympathy is unlikely to do us much good. I
> refer you to the RIP bill and the invasion of Iraq.
> With the RIP bill, a lot of people didn't think it a
> great idea to give the government access to all their
> internet activities and data. Yet it went through,
> using Gary Glitter and September 11th as suspiciously
> convenient smoke screens.
Might I comment that using expressions such as "suspiciously convenient
smoke screens" is liable to cause the public to align anyone making such
remarks along with crackpots and conspiracy theorists.
> If they want to put this bill through, they will. It
> is consistant with RIP and child porn legislation and
> they probably want a full set of legal tools to give
> them the control over the internet that Mr Blair vowed
> he would achieve some time ago.
This may well be the case. It doesn't mean we shouldn't fight, nor that
we should approve of some parts because they fit in with a single issue
that we may personally consider important.
> I don't think BDSMers will have success getting the
> entire proposal dropped - nor do I personally believe
> they should try. They might be able to protect the
> acts of consenting human adults though...which I
> thought was the general concept behind our lifestyle?
Darkness, you have issues regarding animal welfare. Fine, that's your
right and I believe they are laudable, however this bill will *NOT*
protect animals, it will *NOT* prevent them being abused and we should
*NOT* allow our views on the whole of it to be swayed by one small part
that fits in with a personal crusade.
I think we most certainly *should* aim at getting the entire proposal
dropped, lock, stock and barrel. Any other campaigning can and should be
done separately, not as a part of this main aim.
dan brusca, 05 Sep 2005 07:23:34
> This is incorrect. Read paragraphs 28 and 34. here
> it states explicitly that harm to the participants is
> a key factor in the proposals.
Point taken.
> Read also the section entitled "Evidence of Harm".
> here the paper states categorically that, since there
> is no proof, nor any convincing evidence, that porn
> causes harm, that is absolutely not the basis of their
> proposals.
Indeed, I've already accepted that the Evidence of Harm section provides
a good basis for attacking the proposals, but I don't agree that the
consulation document says it's not the basis of the proposals under
consideration. This is clear from paragraph 34.
The proposals seem to be based on a presupposition that extreme porn
causes harm to the viewer, despite the fact no such harm can be
demonstrated. Very much an achilles heel.
--
dan brusca
http://pandemos.net - Domina directory, fetish resource
http://pandemos2.net - femdom and fetish photo site
darkness, 05 Sep 2005 11:08:54
Dear Graham,
> Yes, but nobody's "marketing" anything in the
> context of the material in
> this discussion, are they?
The extreme websites are a tool for the marketing of
the material they present, in my opinion.
I don't
> agree that you can
> "create" a fetish in someone who doesn't have some
> sort of inclination
> to that already.
Then we must agree to differ in our opinion on that.
Suppose I accept what you say, doesn't that still
leave the extreme sites in the position of developing
existing inclinations?
As Tanos pointed out, people pick up fetish influences
from their environment. By removing extreme material
from that environment, do we not reduce the
probability of certain unacceptable fetishes
developing?
> Darkness, before you even *CONSIDER* *considering*
> making any "serious
> accusations" I suggest you think *VERY* carefully
> about what you are doing.
You misunderstand me. I will be more direct. You
commented on "most of the material" that you have seen
and went on to express opinions that suggest animals
wouldnt comply if they didnt want to. I question how
you are exposed to so much material of that nature.
> Even though this technically an open group, I would
> consider that for
> anyone to even suggest or imply that they might
> reveal details of what
> is said in here outside of the group to be a very
> serious mistake.
That was not my implication. And do not for a second
attempt to threaten me.
> As to the subject, I get a lot of porn through a
> site called GUBA
> (Gigantic Usenet Binary Archive) which, even though
> they try to keep
> "unacceptable" material out of it, eg bestiality,
> child porn etc,
> because it is simply archiving what is on Usenet,
> they rely on
> subscribers pointing out when there is a problem.
> Consequently this material *does* appear
> occasionally and, naturally,
> whilst reporting it, you can't help but look at it.
That is a pretty pathetic excuse, in my opinion. Do
they send you child porn too? Have you considered not
subscribing to a site where such material gets
distributed?
My "serious accusation" is that you don't seem to
value the welfare of animals enough to affect your
internet usage patterns. You may not find that a
serious accusation. I do.
> Might I comment that using expressions such as
> "suspiciously convenient
> smoke screens" is liable to cause the public to
> align anyone making such
> remarks along with crackpots and conspiracy
> theorists.
Obviously. I made that comment in the context of why
we will lose this campaign (if we try for too much).
That is hardly a good opening line to present to the
public is it?! I say it here because I think we need
to know what our chances of success with different
strategies are.
> This may well be the case. It doesn't mean we
> shouldn't fight,
That I agree with. Sometimes one has to be strategic
in ones battles however.
> nor that
> we should approve of some parts because they fit in
> with a single issue
> that we may personally consider important.
I think you misunderstand me. As I said, I think there
is a balance of liberties at stake - one that the
disempowered have hitherto been losing.
> Darkness, you have issues regarding animal welfare.
> Fine, that's your
> right and I believe they are laudable,
Thank you.
> however this
> bill will *NOT*
> protect animals, it will *NOT* prevent them being
> abused
I obviously disagree, but we must agree to differ in
our opinions in this matter.
> and we should
> *NOT* allow our views on the whole of it to be
> swayed by one small part
> that fits in with a personal crusade.
That's fair enough. I have already said that I think I
should step out of this campaign because I seem to be
alone in my opinion that we should campaign for
exclusion of the acts of consenting human adults from
the targetted material...and everyone else wants a
total drop of the proposal.
> I think we most certainly *should* aim at getting
> the entire proposal
> dropped, lock, stock and barrel.
Go for it then. There is a possibility you will
succeed, in which case we will maintain the status quo
and the world will be no worse than it currently is.
If you fail, then I am happy to accept the result of
the full proposal going through. Personally I am not
into porn, so wont mourn the loss of even the
"reasonable and consenting" material. It would have
been nice to have protected that material for the sake
of principal though.
Regards
darkness^
___________________________________________________________
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com
Graham Marsden, 05 Sep 2005 11:56:42
darkness^ wrote:
>>Yes, but nobody's "marketing" anything in the context of the
>>material in this discussion, are they?
>
> The extreme websites are a tool for the marketing of
> the material they present, in my opinion.
There is a big difference between "making something available" and
actively "marketing" it.
>>I don't agree that you can "create" a fetish in someone who doesn't
>>have some sort of inclination to that already.
>
> Then we must agree to differ in our opinion on that.
Fair enough, however I suggest you read the extracts that Laurence
posted regarding prohibition et al which may do more to convince you to
change your opinion.
>>Darkness, before you even *CONSIDER* *considering*
>>making any "serious accusations" I suggest you think
>>*VERY* carefully about what you are doing.
>
> You misunderstand me. I will be more direct.
In which case I suggest you be "more direct" in the first place in
future since the apparent implications of what you said were disturbing.
> You commented on "most of the material" that you have seen
> and went on to express opinions that suggest animals
> wouldnt comply if they didnt want to. I question how
> you are exposed to so much material of that nature.
And I explained.
>>Even though this technically an open group, I would consider that for
>>anyone to even suggest or imply that they might reveal details of what
>>is said in here outside of the group to be a very serious mistake.
> That was not my implication. And do not for a second
> attempt to threaten me.
Me "threaten" you?
Curious, it seemed from my reading of your comments about "serious
accusations" that the threats were coming from the other direction.
>>As to the subject, I get a lot of porn through a site called GUBA
>>(Gigantic Usenet Binary Archive) which, even though they try to keep
>>"unacceptable" material out of it, eg bestiality, child porn etc,
>>because it is simply archiving what is on Usenet, they rely on
>>subscribers pointing out when there is a problem.
>>Consequently this material *does* appear occasionally and, naturally,
>>whilst reporting it, you can't help but look at it.
>
> That is a pretty pathetic excuse, in my opinion. Do
> they send you child porn too? Have you considered not
> subscribing to a site where such material gets
> distributed?
That is not an "excuse" and your opinion seems to be based on false
assumptions and lack of knowledge. They do not "send" me anything. I
suggest you pay a visit to http://www.guba.com where you can get a
better understanding of the site.
They simply archive usenet binary groups. It is most certainly not the
intention of that site to distribute unacceptable material, however
given the massive amount of material that is posted on these groups it
is impossible for them to filter or block everything unacceptable, hence
when I visit that site and view an archive of particular group, I may
find that "unacceptable" (and, of course, off topic) material has been
posted to that group, at which point I report it.
In this process, naturally, I have "viewed" this material (it would be
impossible to report it had I not!) but it is not as if I was actively
seeking it out, nor do I visit that site in the hope of finding images
of bestiality, child abuse or similar content and I do my part in
ensuring that if it is on there, it is removed forthwith.
None the less, however, it's not as if I can delete the memory of what I
have seen from my brain, hence I have formed an opinion based on what I
have, albeit inadvertantly, seen.
> My "serious accusation" is that you don't seem to
> value the welfare of animals enough to affect your
> internet usage patterns. You may not find that a
> serious accusation. I do.
I find that to be a completely erroneous accusation as I have explained
above.
>>nor that we should approve of some parts because they fit in
>>with a single issue that we may personally consider important.
>
> I think you misunderstand me. As I said, I think there
> is a balance of liberties at stake - one that the
> disempowered have hitherto been losing.
And I agree that imbalance should be rectified, however this legislation
is *not* the way to do it, since it is much more likely to result in an
even greater imbalance.
>>we should *NOT* allow our views on the whole of it to be
>>swayed by one small part that fits in with a personal crusade.
>
> That's fair enough. I have already said that I think I
> should step out of this campaign because I seem to be
> alone in my opinion that we should campaign for
> exclusion of the acts of consenting human adults from
> the targetted material...and everyone else wants a
> total drop of the proposal.
Yes, because, with all due respect, I don't think that we would have a
chance of achieving that specific "exclusion" on its own so the only way
to stop this legislation is by tearing it up by the roots.
>>I think we most certainly *should* aim at getting
>>the entire proposal dropped, lock, stock and barrel.
>
> Go for it then. There is a possibility you will
> succeed, in which case we will maintain the status quo
> and the world will be no worse than it currently is.
> If you fail, then I am happy to accept the result of
> the full proposal going through.
I'm sorry, but you're committing the same mistake as those who
formulated the questions in that "consultation", ie (hopefully
unwittingly) using the logical fallacy of the False Dilemma, offering
two options as if they are the *only* possibilities.
It is not a matter of "either we defeat it *or* it goes through in full
and unchanged", we may not be able to get the entire proposal dropped,
but that does not mean that we should not try to do so and, who knows,
maybe as a result of our actions we achieve the "exclusion" you want,
but if we only took that as our starting position, we would not have any
chance of blocking the entire bill.
> Personally I am not into porn, so wont mourn the loss of even the
> "reasonable and consenting" material. It would have been nice to
> have protected that material for the sake of principal though.
That sounds distressingly and disappointingly like "I'm alright, Jack".
I'm not personally into "violent porn", I've seen sites and images that
show apparently dead girls, plastic bag asphyxiation etc etc and they do
nothing for me, however *my* principles are against censorship of things
that involve consenting adults and, as such, I will fight this
legislation even though its primary target is nothing I am interested in.
Thunder, 05 Sep 2005 12:29:47
In message <431C24A3.6020606@affordable-leather.co.uk>, graham
writes
>darkness^ wrote:
[..]
Knowing both of you (and also darkness' love of animals) can we please
stop this line of argument please.
--
^Thunder^
darkness, 05 Sep 2005 13:02:16
I am happy to leave it there. It has become too
personal and all we are achieving is to annoy each
other at this stage I think!
d^
--- ^Thunder^ wrote:
> Knowing both of you (and also darkness' love of
> animals) can we please
> stop this line of argument please.
> --
> ^Thunder^
___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Thunder, 05 Sep 2005 13:29:32
In message <20050905120206.33249.qmail@web25504.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>,
darkness^ writes
>I am happy to leave it there. It has become too
>personal and all we are achieving is to annoy each
>other at this stage I think!
>
>d^
Good, I agree and from "another place" I know Graham can be tenacious in
his arguments (which Graham is NOT a criticism of you :))
--
^Thunder^
Manniq, 05 Sep 2005 14:21:28
Author wrote:
> In a message dated 04/09/2005 15:53:12 GMT Daylight Time,
> darkness_f28@yahoo.co.uk writes:
> I hadn't expected
> opinion to be so unanimously in favour of opposing the
> entire proposal.
> Well, I'm not sure I am, see my previous posts about picking out the key
> issues, which seem to be consensual SM and "no harm" - both of which, if we
> focuseed on them, would allow us to ally with people ranging from the out and out
> libertarian (Lothario) and the animal-welfare person (darkness) not to
> mention the vanilla civil rights person.
> I think the debate rather proves that we need to select a campaigning focus
> around which we can rally a braod swathe of opinion.
> Please dont leave us darkness, I don't think we have at all reached a
> position where your views are not campatible with our likely campaigning approach!
Fuschia,
I think you are right in saying that there are many possible campaigning focuses. I would place myself alongside Lothario and the civil liberties lobby. I also think people need to sink their differences for the time being.
Two points, I guess. First, although I will sink and work with, I do think that you may be strategically wrong to try and narrow the focus. This legislation does not appear in a vacuum, but is part of a trend begun by government some time back to bring certain principles into UK law. They succeeded initially by picking on a very unpopular group - although arguably they should have been stopped then.
Darkness, unwittingly, advances the government's case for them.
Second, my take on Darkness approach is similar to what I used to say when someone phoned up a colleague at work with some amazing special offer. Aforementioned colleague would approach me and ask if we should consider it...to which my reply was ususlly, if you didn't think you needed it before, why do you think you need it now?
This legislation is a wholly poisoned chalice - and the government would be pleased even to get part of it through (because they will be back with more later).
If Darkness - or anyone else feels the need for specific legislation to protect animals, they should decide WHAT legislation is needed and propose THAT, rather than throw their lot in with a very manipulative government.
Regards,
M
rosalee, 05 Sep 2005 14:53:41
I agree. Although it is the part of the document that relates to SM that really worries me, the apparent thinking behind the whole thing is bad and needs to be challenged. It's not about protecting anyone or anything. It's about trying to control what we can all think about, look at and do for our own good, by, as you say, a very manipulative government.
Ginny
----- Original Message -----
: manniq@hotmail.com, 05 Sep 2005 14:53:41
Sent: Monday, September 05, 2005 2:21 PM
Subject: Re: [backlash] RE: Bestiality, Consent
Author wrote:
> In a message dated 04/09/2005 15:53:12 GMT Daylight Time,
> darkness_f28@yahoo.co.uk writes:
> I hadn't expected
> opinion to be so unanimously in favour of opposing the
> entire proposal.
> Well, I'm not sure I am, see my previous posts about picking out the key
> issues, which seem to be consensual SM and "no harm" - both of which, if we
> focuseed on them, would allow us to ally with people ranging from the out and out
> libertarian (Lothario) and the animal-welfare person (darkness) not to
> mention the vanilla civil rights person.
> I think the debate rather proves that we need to select a campaigning focus
> around which we can rally a braod swathe of opinion.
> Please dont leave us darkness, I don't think we have at all reached a
> position where your views are not campatible with our likely campaigning approach!
Fuschia,
I think you are right in saying that there are many possible campaigning focuses. I would place myself alongside Lothario and the civil liberties lobby. I also think people need to sink their differences for the time being.
Two points, I guess. First, although I will sink and work with, I do think that you may be strategically wrong to try and narrow the focus. This legislation does not appear in a vacuum, but is part of a trend begun by government some time back to bring certain principles into UK law. They succeeded initially by picking on a very unpopular group - although arguably they should have been stopped then.
Darkness, unwittingly, advances the government's case for them.
Second, my take on Darkness approach is similar to what I used to say when someone phoned up a colleague at work with some amazing special offer. Aforementioned colleague would approach me and ask if we should consider it...to which my reply was ususlly, if you didn't think you needed it before, why do you think you need it now?
This legislation is a wholly poisoned chalice - and the government would be pleased even to get part of it through (because they will be back with more later).
If Darkness - or anyone else feels the need for specific legislation to protect animals, they should decide WHAT legislation is needed and propose THAT, rather than throw their lot in with a very manipulative government.
Regards,
M
--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
Report abuse http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D170
Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)