Thread

Extreme BDSM positive responses

Paul Tavener, 05 Nov 2005 00:18:05

Is anyone here prepared to say that they actually enjoy any of the more extreme images of torture that the Government are planning on criminalising?

The reason I ask is because it would be unfortunate if the Government were able to say after the consultation had ended that "not one of the respondents to the consultation actually admitted to liking the images we want criminalised". It just sounds so one sided and if everyone is trying to protect the rights of others it might have less effect than if a few individuals would try to protect their own rights.

> Is anyone here prepared to say that they actually enjoy any of the more
> extreme images of torture that the Government are planning on
> criminalising?
>
> The reason I ask is because it would be unfortunate if the Government were
> able to say after the consultation had ended that "not one of the
> respondents to the consultation actually admitted to liking the images we
> want criminalised". It just sounds so one sided and if everyone is trying
> to protect the rights of others it might have less effect than if a few
> individuals would try to protect their own rights.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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%3D3034
>
>

Graham Marsden, 05 Nov 2005 01:24:54

admin@ofwatch.org.uk wrote:

> Is anyone here prepared to say that they actually enjoy any of the
> more extreme images of torture that the Government are planning on
> criminalising?
>
> The reason I ask is because it would be unfortunate if the Government
> were able to say after the consultation had ended that "not one of
> the respondents to the consultation actually admitted to liking the
> images we want criminalised".

The thing is, not many people *would* say so, either because they're
concerned about how they would appear to others (admitting they're a
pervert who likes extreme porn) or because, if these proposals became
law, it would effectively paint a big target on them!

In my response to the consultation I said:

"I run a business making adult leather goods ("bondage gear"), selling
my products to consenting adults. As such, working in the "Sex Business"
I have had more than a little contact with adult material, including
some which this consultation could consider "extreme". Despite this,
however, or, perhaps more likely, because of it, I have not felt
inclined to commit acts of non-consensual (sexual) violence, nor would I
ever, yet, were this material to simply be found in my possession, under
these proposals I could be jailed even though I have done no wrong.

"I have little doubt that many of my thousands of customers have also
had contact with such material, however I have absolutely no reason to
think that any of them would commit such acts either, yet, they, too,
could suffer imprisonment simply for looking at something someone else
doesn't like."

Which I think is pretty close to what you're suggesting.

Cheers,
Graham.

DAury, 05 Nov 2005 11:09:08

> Is anyone here prepared to say that they actually enjoy any of the
> more extreme images of torture that the Government are planning on
> criminalising?

Ah, but that's the problem, how would you know?

In the case of the main focus of this proposal, sexual violence
(playacting included), the definitions of the images in the consultation
document are so vague that you can't be sure what they are.

So unless you have a piccy of "female victims who are tied to some
kind of apparatus or restrained in other ways and stabbed with
knives, hooks and other implements", you would be guessing. Take
out the stabbing bit and you've got simple bondage, so 38% of UK
adults would have to put their hands up there.

People with extensive collections of photos of absolutely genuine war
atrocities, murder, mutillation, bondage, stabbing, meathooks - the
whole nine yards, can sleep safe in their beds however, as there is
no sexual context in their material.

Keith

Paul Tavener, 05 Nov 2005 13:58:14

How would I know what the most extreme picures are? Well it shouldn't be that difficult to imagine given what's written in the consultation document.

What I'm asking is this - is anyone prepared to admit to liking the most extreme images? If they are well and good if not then the Government will be able to say they recieved no responses from people who enjoyed looking only from people who support the rights of others.

Author wrote:
> > Is anyone here prepared to say that they actually enjoy any of the
> > more extreme images of torture that the Government are planning on
> > criminalising?
> Ah, but that's the problem, how would you know?
> In the case of the main focus of this proposal, sexual violence
> (playacting included), the definitions of the images in the consultation
> document are so vague that you can't be sure what they are.
> So unless you have a piccy of "female victims who are tied to some
> kind of apparatus or restrained in other ways and stabbed with
> knives, hooks and other implements", you would be guessing. Take
> out the stabbing bit and you've got simple bondage, so 38% of UK
> adults would have to put their hands up there.
> People with extensive collections of photos of absolutely genuine war
> atrocities, murder, mutillation, bondage, stabbing, meathooks - the
> whole nine yards, can sleep safe in their beds however, as there is
> no sexual context in their material.
> Keith

backdooruk, 05 Nov 2005 14:13:42

Paul Tavener wrote:
> Is anyone here prepared to say that they actually enjoy any of the more extreme images of torture that the Government are planning on criminalizing?

I would. From my original reading of the consultation document I'd guess that at least 10% of the images I have on my computer and a significant number of videos would be covered by this law. With the much wider catchment clarification list Id say it cover more than 50% and a lot of the videos I have.

I didn't mention this in my response to the consultation document simply because I wanted to make my response on an academic level: However I'm certainly prepared to make any addition response based on my personal tastes.

- Chris

MsDemmie, 05 Nov 2005 14:27:31

Author wrote:
> Paul Tavener wrote:
> > Is anyone here prepared to say that they actually enjoy any of the more extreme images of torture that the Government are planning on criminalizing?

I would - I suspect my facsicnation with needles and suspension / would land me the wrong side of the new proposals in the strictest form - and I am sure that the CD of an extensive private historical collection of torture through the ages would as well.

I suspect most of my images will fall into the broader classification.

Kind regards
MsDemmie

rosalee, 05 Nov 2005 14:46:25

I would be. Actually a lot of the imagery I've found exciting has been from mainstream films and these would be excluded, though, as I understand it, any stills from the same films if found on my computer could get me into trouble. There are also other images, that they would almost certainly consider extreme, that I've enjoyed looking at.

I think it may be particularly important for women to admit to wanting to look at some of the things likely to be outlawed, as the paper appears in part to be proposing it's for our own good. (I don't think for one minute that that is their real intention, of course, and if it were, how horribly patronising.)

Ginny

----- Original Message -----

: admin@ofwatch.org.uk, 05 Nov 2005 14:46:25

Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2005 1:58 PM
Subject: Re: [backlash] Extreme BDSM positive responses

How would I know what the most extreme picures are? Well it shouldn't be that difficult to imagine given what's written in the consultation document.

What I'm asking is this - is anyone prepared to admit to liking the most extreme images? If they are well and good if not then the Government will be able to say they recieved no responses from people who enjoyed looking only from people who support the rights of others.

Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)

Paul Tavener, 05 Nov 2005 22:04:30

Well done Ginny. I think you are right that women could have a disproportionate effect on this campaign. The opposition is relying to some extent on traditional sexist stereotypes that nice ladies need protecting from brutish men and Gogins is the knight in shinning armour in chief.

I think a response such as you suggest would fly right in the face of there arguements and have maximum impact. They will find it as easy to swallow as a bucket of hot sand. A few more along similar lines followed up by several hundred others would make a fine mess of their proposals. Go for it.

Author wrote:
> I would be. Actually a lot of the imagery I've found exciting has been from mainstream films and these would be excluded, though, as I understand it, any stills from the same films if found on my computer could get me into trouble. There are also other images, that they would almost certainly consider extreme, that I've enjoyed looking at.
> I think it may be particularly important for women to admit to wanting to look at some of the things likely to be outlawed, as the paper appears in part to be proposing it's for our own good. (I don't think for one minute that that is their real intention, of course, and if it were, how horribly patronising.)
> Ginny
> ----- Original Message -----

om: admin@ofwatch.org.uk, 05 Nov 2005 22:04:30

> Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2005 1:58 PM
> Subject: Re: [backlash] Extreme BDSM positive responses
> How would I know what the most extreme picures are? Well it shouldn't be that difficult to imagine given what's written in the consultation document.
> What I'm asking is this - is anyone prepared to admit to liking the most extreme images? If they are well and good if not then the Government will be able to say they recieved no responses from people who enjoyed looking only from people who support the rights of others.

Paul Tavener, 05 Nov 2005 22:09:30

Ms Demmie, another unplalatable truth for the Goggins of this world to contemplate hurrah!

Author wrote:
> Author wrote:
> > Paul Tavener wrote:
> > > Is anyone here prepared to say that they actually enjoy any of the more extreme images of torture that the Government are planning on criminalizing?
> I would - I suspect my facsicnation with needles and suspension / would land me the wrong side of the new proposals in the strictest form - and I am sure that the CD of an extensive private historical collection of torture through the ages would as well.
> I suspect most of my images will fall into the broader classification.
> Kind regards
> MsDemmie

Paul C. Dickie, 06 Nov 2005 09:00:18

In message <001f01c5e216$95f90510$9600a8c0@Laptop>, rosalee
wrote:
>I would be. Actually a lot of the imagery I've found exciting has been from
>mainstream films and these would be excluded, though, as I understand it, any
>stills from the same films if found on my computer could get me into trouble.
>There are also other images, that they would almost certainly consider extreme,
>that I've enjoyed looking at.

That's *exactly* the point I was making about "L'histoire d'O" about a
week or so back. The movie carries a 12 certificate in France, yet
images from that movie would be banned by the gormless Goggins.

--
< Paul >

Paul C. Dickie, 06 Nov 2005 09:05:40

In message <5711131.1131199092477.JavaMail.root@thallium.smartgroups.com
>, admin@ofwatch.org.uk wrote:
>How would I know what the most extreme picures are? Well it shouldn't be that
>difficult to imagine given what's written in the consultation document.
>
>What I'm asking is this - is anyone prepared to admit to liking the most extreme
>images? If they are well and good if not then the Government will be able to say
>they recieved no responses from people who enjoyed looking only from people who
>support the rights of others.

It's irrelevant.

Personally, I take no delight whatever in seeing someone allegedly
interfering with a corpse (and just how could one tell it was a corpse?)
or viewing images of a horse on girl-back, but I have the utmost disgust
for any authoritarian politician who mistakenly sees it as part of his
role to *control* what people may see or think.

Let this through and we'd be sleepwalking into a 1984 situation.

I notice that a minion at the Home Office seems to have denied that
coprophagia would be banned.

Is this so that Goggins may eat his own words?

--
< Paul >

Manniq, 06 Nov 2005 10:53:05

Hmmm...from the original list (new offence) my inclination would be to say none - although I guess I can't be 100% sure that a thumbnail did not slip through from somewhere. And of course, there is the infamous 'Rosalee's bum'. Ironic indeed, if that singular piece of anatomy were eventually responsible for sending large number of people to jail!

From the broader list, who knows. redcat and I like the ideas of enclosure, mummification, etc. We like vac beds. I guess that constitutes extreme bondage in which people can't show an ability to remove consent - so would probably be covered. The problem with the broad list is, well, it is so broad - and as many (including myself) have dommented already, there is the danger that the prosecution will say: you are into bdsm; therefore this image, which is otherwise permitted will be interpreted in a bdsm context.

Just to give an example. The recent BBC drame, Rome, included a scene in which an indivdual was flogged (well beyond the GBH standard). There was a realistic depiction of large numbers of cuts on his back.

Now, I could imagine that image downloading on to my pc if the BBC used it as publicity (and if not THAT scene, one can imagine hundreds of similar such scenes that might be used to publicise mainstream films).

The image could even download as I browse the TV listings. A year or two later, a trace of that image might be in cache somewhere. Now: if I hadn't watched the programme, I would have an image that breached the guidelines on my pc...have no idea where it came from ....and be totally off-balance because, of course, it doesn't come from a porn site.

However, I can well imagine a prosecutor drooling over that pic and saying that I had downloaded it deliberately BECAUSE of my bdsm interest.

Irony, of course, since my preferred porn medium is written.

Regards,

M

Author wrote:
> Paul Tavener wrote:
> > Is anyone here prepared to say that they actually enjoy any of the more extreme images of torture that the Government are planning on criminalizing?
> I would. From my original reading of the consultation document I'd guess that at least 10% of the images I have on my computer and a significant number of videos would be covered by this law. With the much wider catchment clarification list Id say it cover more than 50% and a lot of the videos I have.
> I didn't mention this in my response to the consultation document simply because I wanted to make my response on an academic level: However I'm certainly prepared to make any addition response based on my personal tastes.
> - Chris

Manniq, 06 Nov 2005 11:06:05

Agreed, Rosalee. In fact, I would say that it gets weirder than you know. I post the link below because it has some research behind it - albeit of the very 'soft' variety.

http://www.deviantdesires.com/map/mapmain.html

The author has created a much larger map as well, that attempts to put a wider range of fetishes and activites into some sort of relationship with one another.

The difficulty it illustrates is that although some 'paraphilias' as scientist like to classify them are easily inclued in the abhorrent category...necrophilia for one... and violence is easily rlated to general societal taboos... other fetishes are very, very difficult to contain.

A foot fetishist, for instance, is going to have loads of catalogues of footware in his/her house. I know that on one occasion Customs and Excise had a serious debate as to whether to ban a magazine on foot fetishes, on the grounds that nothing in it was remotely obscene, but that, well, they rather disliked the idea of people getting off on such 'unnatural things'.

So with almost anything else. Balloon fetishes. Fur fetishes. Messy fetishes. I do wonder whether there m,ight not be a case run sometime where a proseccutor accuses someone of getting off on a depiction of bestiality...and the defense is that it is not the ANIMAL content of the pic that is sexually arousing, but the FURRY element.

And so on.

And not quite so far-fetched. If the eventual position is going to be that if you viewed a pic with 'sexual content' (and sexual content is defined at least in part by your sexual orientation) then there are going to be loads of arguments as to what, precisely, it is in a picture that turns someone on.

Regards,

M

Author wrote:
> I would be. Actually a lot of the imagery I've found exciting has been from mainstream films and these would be excluded, though, as I understand it, any stills from the same films if found on my computer could get me into trouble. There are also other images, that they would almost certainly consider extreme, that I've enjoyed looking at.
> I think it may be particularly important for women to admit to wanting to look at some of the things likely to be outlawed, as the paper appears in part to be proposing it's for our own good. (I don't think for one minute that that is their real intention, of course, and if it were, how horribly patronising.)
> Ginny
> ----- Original Message -----

om: admin@ofwatch.org.uk, 06 Nov 2005 11:06:05

Graham Marsden, 06 Nov 2005 14:05:12

Paul C. Dickie wrote:

>>What I'm asking is this - is anyone prepared to admit to liking the most extreme
>>images? [...]
>
> Personally, I take no delight whatever in seeing someone allegedly
> interfering with a corpse (and just how could one tell it was a corpse?)

I've spent a little while looking through the "alternative" images on
http://www.net-model.com/ especially "Goth" images.

Many of these feature young women covered in blood or apparently "dead"
with slit throats or wrists or "vampire" pictures, often shot in an
"erotic" style.

Now of course I know that they're simply posed photographs, but if
someone viewed them out of context they could make a subjective decision
that they come under the classification of "interference with a corpse".

> I have the utmost disgust for any authoritarian politician who
> mistakenly sees it as part of his role to *control* what people
> may see or think.

Absolutely.

Cheers,
Graham.

demolitionred, 06 Nov 2005 17:42:39

I think we have contacted vampire sites. I will check. I also know a fetish model who prefers to be photographed as if she were dead. I haven't contacted her before but will now.

demolitionred, 06 Nov 2005 17:52:05

I like rape, have a video collection of women being raped (widely available on the High Street) only cos I can't find any images of men being raped. (All staged of course). I had -- until this consultation was announced -- planned to start making films. I guess I would get turned on by most of the stuff on the list as long as the 'victim' looked distressed. submission (negotiated consent, pushed limits) is one of my kinks.

Anyone who knows me though would know this is as far from my reality as its possible to get.

I have a photo of myself dressed as a policewoman seemingly about to decapitate a woman who is apparent distress with a chainsaw. It was her idea and doesn't turn me on cos its just a happy memory of a fun day with my chums...am happy to ask whether these images would be illegal and why.

Paul Tavener, 06 Nov 2005 17:59:45

Graham, have you or do you intend to contact anyone at this site? Models, agencies or the administartors?

Author wrote:
> Paul C. Dickie wrote:
> >>What I'm asking is this - is anyone prepared to admit to liking the most extreme
> >>images? [...]
> >
> > Personally, I take no delight whatever in seeing someone allegedly
> > interfering with a corpse (and just how could one tell it was a corpse?)
> I've spent a little while looking through the "alternative" images on
> http://www.net-model.com/ especially "Goth" images.
> Many of these feature young women covered in blood or apparently "dead"
> with slit throats or wrists or "vampire" pictures, often shot in an
> "erotic" style.
> Now of course I know that they're simply posed photographs, but if
> someone viewed them out of context they could make a subjective decision
> that they come under the classification of "interference with a corpse".
> > I have the utmost disgust for any authoritarian politician who
> > mistakenly sees it as part of his role to *control* what people
> > may see or think.
> Absolutely.
> Cheers,
> Graham.

Graham Marsden, 06 Nov 2005 18:23:35

admin@ofwatch.org.uk wrote:

> Graham, have you or do you intend to contact anyone at this site?

Yes, I'm a member of the site and I've posted about Backlash in the
forums, indeed I've just given the thread another bump reminding people
that there's only a month left to respond.

Cheers,
Graham.

Paul Tavener, 06 Nov 2005 19:23:42

I'm glad to hear that we do have a number of women who are willing to be very out spoken on this issue. Please do mention this in your consultation response in some way I'm sure it will stick in their throats.

Author wrote:
> I like rape, have a video collection of women being raped (widely available on the High Street) only cos I can't find any images of men being raped. (All staged of course). I had -- until this consultation was announced -- planned to start making films. I guess I would get turned on by most of the stuff on the list as long as the 'victim' looked distressed. submission (negotiated consent, pushed limits) is one of my kinks.
> Anyone who knows me though would know this is as far from my reality as its possible to get.
> I have a photo of myself dressed as a policewoman seemingly about to decapitate a woman who is apparent distress with a chainsaw. It was her idea and doesn't turn me on cos its just a happy memory of a fun day with my chums...am happy to ask whether these images would be illegal and why.

SnowdropExplodes, 06 Nov 2005 19:41:14

--- demolitionred@yahoo.com wrote:

> I like rape, have a video collection of women being
> raped (widely available on the High Street) only cos
> I can't find any images of men being raped. (All
> staged of course). I had -- until this consultation
> was announced -- planned to start making films. I
> guess I would get turned on by most of the stuff on
> the list as long as the 'victim' looked distressed.
> submission (negotiated consent, pushed limits) is
> one of my kinks.

I have several downloads from a US-based site that
collects asphyxiation scenes from mainstream movies or
television series (incidentally, I sent an email to
the owner of the site explaining about the proposed
legislation in the UK, and to find out if he could
help, but I haven't heard back from him). Most of
these films or TV shows have been given
classifications by the BBFC for video release (and
some of these are 12 or 15, not just 18). Some of
the films on that site I have on VHS, but for some I
only have the downloaded clips.

Perhaps the question has to be raised - is this
legislation going to be a way to boost the video/DVD
sales for the films in question? Since I (or rather,
a person in general) could make a note of all the
films from which I have downloaded clips, remove the
clips from the hard drive (or ditch the drive and buy
a new one), and then go out and buy them, I would
still have the material that they wish to prohibit,
for the same purpose, but now they would not be able
to prosecute me for it without demonstrating a clear
contradiction in the law, namely that 12, 15 or 18
certificate videos are legal to sell but not to own,
or else that it truly is the introduction of thought
crime.

>
> Anyone who knows me though would know this is as far
> from my reality as its possible to get.

And the same with me. Although I find breathplay to
be a huge turn-on in fantasy, I won't even dream of
trying it in real-life because I am so scared of
something going wrong and my partner being hurt.

Incidentally, what are people's opinions on my
quicksand peril and/or death fetish videos, and
whether they are likely to be covered? They got
through customs okay, so I'm guessing that they've no
problem with them, and although there's one or two
scenes where the victim is pushed or pulled into the
mire, there isn't any actual violence to speak of.

Maybe I should write to the consultation about those?
I just can't help but feel that if Goggins and Co.
knew of their existence, they'd want to ban them
too...

Ta,
SnowdropExplodes

___________________________________________________________
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday
snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com

zak, 06 Nov 2005 22:30:08

Original Message:
-----------------

admin@ofwatch.org.uk, 06 Nov 2005 22:30:08

Paul C. Dickie, 07 Nov 2005 02:34:18

In message <5624959.1131299520942.JavaMail.root@thallium.smartgroups.com
>, demolitionred@yahoo.com wrote:
>I have a photo of myself dressed as a policewoman seemingly about to
>decapitate a woman who is apparent distress with a chainsaw.

Is such normally part of the role of a policewoman?

>It was her idea and doesn't turn me on cos its just a happy memory of a
>fun day with my chums...am happy to ask whether these images would be
>illegal and why.

It would probably be illegal, as it might be seen to be in violation of
the EU directive on Health and Safety with respect to chainsaws.

--
< Paul >

Paul C. Dickie, 07 Nov 2005 02:36:18

In message <6707428.1131298927099.JavaMail.root@thallium.smartgroups.com
>, demolitionred@yahoo.com wrote:
>I think we have contacted vampire sites. I will check.

Are those meant mainly for suckers?

>I also know a fetish model who prefers to be photographed as if she
>were dead. I haven't contacted her before but will now.

Should we all hold hands?

--
< Paul >

backdooruk, 07 Nov 2005 08:47:29

Dem Red wrote:
> I like rape, have a video collection of women being raped (widely available on the High Street) only cos I can't find any images of men being raped.

An ex of mine had a video of scenes of women being raped in major movies she kept to get off on (exit to eden, The Accused, death wish etc.) all of which were videod off of the TV...

- Chris

demolitionred, 07 Nov 2005 09:30:13

Author wrote:
> In message <6707428.1131298927099.JavaMail.root@thallium.smartgroups.com
> >, demolitionred@yahoo.com wrote:
> >I think we have contacted vampire sites. I will check.
> Are those meant mainly for suckers?
> >I also know a fetish model who prefers to be photographed as if she
> >were dead. I haven't contacted her before but will now.
> Should we all hold hands?
> --
> < Paul >
ROFLMAO

Manniq, 07 Nov 2005 10:14:38

Author wrote:

> I have a photo of myself dressed as a policewoman seemingly about to decapitate a woman who is apparent distress with a chainsaw.

Hmmm...why is she in distress with a chainsaw? Has she put it somewhere she ought not to?

Regards,

M

No. I have it millimetres fro her throat in one pic. Others look like I am about to remove her breast...hence the distress. Although actually it was all faked because she trusts me and the saw was unplugged. I'm not sure that'll be a defence though.

*** This message has been edited by demolitionred on 07 Nov 2005 10:17:46 ***

Paul C. Dickie, 07 Nov 2005 14:22:49

In message <1685360.1131358472709.JavaMail.root@thallium.smartgroups.com
>, manniq@hotmail.com wrote:
>Author wrote:
>
>
>> I have a photo of myself dressed as a policewoman seemingly about to
>decapitate a woman who is apparent distress with a chainsaw.
>
>Hmmm...why is she in distress with a chainsaw? Has she put it somewhere she
>ought not to?

It's a machine and we all know women just aren't mechanically minded...

--
< Paul >