The idea that there is a special case for
consensual bdsm
>
>
> av8r0344@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> by alligning ourselves with the areas such as Necrophilia and
> > Bestiality that the law does specifically target, we risk losing
> > the important legal and moral gains that the community has won
> > over the years.
>
> We in the BDSM community are *not* "aligning ourselves" with these
> areas, we have been *lumped in* with them by these proposals.
>
> Whether this is through ignorance or malice, I don't know, but we cannot
> *not* fight these proposals because of that.
>
>
>
>> And perhaps most importantly, a key part of the govts case in the
> > proposed legislation is based on the fact that the images to be
> > banned would only be of acts which would already be illegal.
>>
>> The majority of BDSM clearly DOES NOT fall within this "illegal"
> > category.
>
> That isn't the relevant point. IF someone chooses to consensually
> participate in what *appears* to be "an illegal act" how can that be
> distinguished from a picture of an *actual* illegal act?
>
> As I've mentioned before, there's a whole area of "Goth" photography
> that involves "death" images, eg attractive girls covered with blood and
> apparently dead etc.
>
> Now personally it does nothing for me, but under the proposals, those
> pictures, even though posed by consenting models and being fantasy
> images, would most probably be made illegal and you could get three
> years in jail for just *looking* at them.
>
> That, to me, is simply nonsensical and not acceptable.
>
>> [> These people think that the image itself "is abuse". There
> > is no chance in hell that they are going to wake up smell the
> > coffee and say that images of consensual bdsm are cute and fluffy.]
>>
>> They dont have to. We already have the law, and public opinion (for
> > consensual SM, but NOT for bestiality, necro, etc), on our side.
>
> But the point is that we are being tarred with one *huge* brush that, as
> I said, lumps us in with what the Home Office considers "unacceptable"
> and it would be naiive to expect that we could get a nice neat
> demarcation line drawn between "us" and "them".
>
> We would get caught in the backlash(!!) along with a lot of other stuff,
> by a law that would, I don't doubt, be drafted *much* too widely and
> that is something that I won't stand for.
>
>> Furthermore the current edition of the House of Parliaments own
> > magazine has a full article from SM pride in it.
>>
>> http://uksmpride.org/files/HouseArticle.pdf
>>
>> There has never been a better time to push this agenda.
>>
>> And whilst I do agree with pursuing the Backlash 'free speech'
> > platform that is capable of bringing in a wider coalition of
> > groups, I really feel we would be very remiss, almost negligent
> > in fact, in not simultaneously pursuing the BDSM case.
>
> I have no objection to us "pursuing the BDSM case", however the
> arguments have currently been that we should *only* rely on the BDSM
> case as our main argument and "give in" on all the other parts in the
> (IMO vain) hope that this will somehow give us an advantage.
>
> Cheers,
> Graham.
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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%3D1509
>
>
consensualbdsm
> I have no objection to us "pursuing the BDSM case", however the
> arguments have currently been that we should *only* rely on the BDSM
> case as our main argument and "give in" on all the other parts in the
> (IMO vain) hope that this will somehow give us an advantage.
> Cheers,
> Graham.
Well, I have repeatedly stated that the Free Speech case is valid, and
should be pursued
with as wide a coalition as possible, and I am wholly supportive of that.
However, it is needlessly risky to put all the BDSM community's eggs in the
free speech
basket, and we should also seperately pursue the BDSM case on it's own
merits.
The BDSM case is just as strong as the free speech case. Why not try
both?}}
You're wrong. (Again). It's no good trying to ally yourself with some
fluffy BDSM
community that's all about heterosexual pair-bonds having cheese-and-wine
collaring
ceremonies in the suburbs and trying to draw lines about what is, and is
not, acceptable
BDSM/acceptable imagery. It won't do you or the 'respectable' perverts any
good, because
once the 'sickos' have been banned and driven underground, they'll come for
you next.
The whole case is about resisting a repressive government's attempts to
gain even more
control over people's lives. We need to argue on grounds that the
Government is hostile to
freedom, is decietful and corrupt, etc. That's going to win us far more
sympathy than
asking people who are not interested in or knowledgeable about sexual
diversity to pass
judgements on what is, or is not acceptable between consenting adults.
We already have laws against harming unconsenting parties by means of
physical assault,
restraint, etc. We do not need more laws based in moronic prejudice.
ZJK
--
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .