NEW UK Law against "Sexual Torture" Pictures .....

Cindy123 · Post by **Cindy123** » 08 Nov 2006, 18:27

I think everything we do is classed as sexual torment and stimulation, not torture. I wish big brother would stay out of our faces.
Cindy

curious_sb · Post by **curious_sb** » 08 Nov 2006, 19:48

haha big "bother", yes that sums it up.

Not sure whether that was a typo, but it was bloody good.

monkey · Post by **monkey** » 30 Nov 2006, 00:02

I often go to a fetish market with my gf and they had a talk on this subject begining with some "living art" or in other words to hot lasses been put into what this new law is about i.e life threating or appear to be life threating situations or yadiyada..
now there was a group of people in a pannel who are working with the goverment to try to avoid this affecting our coummunity and are fighting the way it is written untill this orgonisation are staisfied. one point that one of the orgonisers raised was that if your home is raided imagine the tabloids you can see the headlines already 'perverts raided grusome pictures found'
now onto why the law change was brought in
a girl was killed ayear or to ago by some raving looney, and when tthe police raided his home they found on his computer the rape sites an all of that when the mother found out during the trial she decided to start a campaign so that no other parent would have top go through the same thing. so you might be able to see why it has been brought in to stop the nutters in this country.
but in an article i read in a wonderful publication called Bizzare there exsits a law that dates back to bare knuckle boxing where being in that situation not only was the bloke you paid to fight liable to for assult if you tried to get him off by admiting you willingly let that happen to you, you could go down with the bloke, and the judges will still use that today in court if images of you and your willing spouse were found in your property in bdsm situations.
however i do wonder if said judges would prosecute there own dommes if they ended up in front of them

jake · Post by **jake** » 30 Nov 2006, 09:29

monkey wrote: a girl was killed ayear or to ago by some raving looney, and when tthe police raided his home they found on his computer the rape sites an all of that when the mother found out during the trial she decided to start a campaign so that no other parent would have top go through the same thing. so you might be able to see why it has been brought in to stop the nutters in this country.

UGH, not another one of these stupid mothers, I mean I can see her being very upset about her child, I completely understand that, but she has once again made the missing link between the rape/torture sites, and the actual rape.

Who is to say that it was the sites at all that made him act this way? Isn't it more likely that his watching of these sites actually satisfied him for a time, and he would have actually gone out and raped a child sooner if these sites did not exist?

This is the same argument people have about video games - that violent video games cause people to go out and kill their school friends. THis one boy goes crazy and shoots some of his school friends, they link it to the vioent games on his PC, but forget to mention that the boys he shot had the same games, and they hasn't gone crazy.

It's like saying "since all squares are shapes, all shapes are squares.

misQui · Post by **misQui** » 30 Nov 2006, 19:48

I was studying psychology a couple of years ago and was not particularly amazed to find that there is, in fact, no valid evidence whatsoever that there is a link between media violence and real-life violence. Oddly enough, it's always the media that infer the connection.

ladyphoenix · Post by **ladyphoenix** » 04 Mar 2007, 03:45

I think we are quite safe here.

With regards to rape, I think the main difference is Permission. To put it simply, a man can have sex with his wife, however if at anytime she says stop and he doesn`t then it becomes rape.
The same applies in any sex situation.

In many cases bondage does not involve sex.

With hogtie.com and many other similar sites the model involved has a little intro saying her names, age, stats and why she is there etc. I would assume this constitutes permission.

Another point is that a criminal charge involves someone pressing charges. If I was genuinely raped but refused to press charges then the parist would get away with it scot free. If a model pressed charges then one of the first questions that would be asked is "why were you there". it would be very hard to build a case around "Because I volunteered to have pictures taken of me while tied up".

I don`t think there is a huge amount to worry about, I think the government os trying to crack down on peados and creators of snuff films.

SusanSub · Post by **SusanSub** » 05 Mar 2007, 08:01

What exactly is the new law in the UK?

One of the links in the first message in this thread is broken. The second link contains the statement:

The new law would outlaw any material that featured violence that was, or appeared to be, life-threatening or likely to result in serious and disabling injury.

It seems that this would outlaw a lot of what is shown on TV. Maybe a good thing.

I hear you have finally banned fox hunting in the UK. I hope you ban fishing with hooks next, that sport is incredibly cruel to fish. And to worms.

My own opinion is any consensual act ought to be allowed provided that no one else is hurt. So consensual bondage and self bondage would be OK, provided they are done safely. Hmm, maybe an addition to the school curriculum is needed!

I think animals ought to have rights too. Fox hunting would be OK if the foxes agreed to be hunted. Hey don't laugh, the hitchhikers guide has that animal that wants to be eaten, and with genetic engineering who knows what will happen in the future.

OK, now you can laugh, but maybe it's better to think. I think I will go and tie myself up so I can't mess up any more discussion threads.

jake · Post by **jake** » 05 Mar 2007, 09:38

Hehe. Maybe also we should ask the race horses if they are okay about being whipped to speed them up.

The more politically correct and "nanny state" this country becomes, the more I lose faith in it.

SusanSub · Post by **SusanSub** » 05 Mar 2007, 14:28

I'm free!!!

I was thinking that the law would get churches into trouble, at least those that display crucifixes. They clearly violate one of the ten commandments anyway.

And I suppose art galleries and museums would have to be purged.

Hey, its beginning to seem like the good old days of totalitarianism.

I think I better tie myself up again.

jake · Post by **jake** » 05 Mar 2007, 17:49

Those old WW2 documentaries clearly incite mass murderers to kill people. And Crimewatch encourages paedophiles and rapists.

ladyphoenix · Post by **ladyphoenix** » 05 Mar 2007, 20:25

My favourite book of all time is George Orwells 1984 (Ok, its my second after Animal Farm). I used to laugh at how rediculous it all sounded. However in only the last 10 years I have seen so many similarities. I now believe the only thing George Orwell got wrong was the date (He was a tad early, but not by too much).

curious_sb · Post by **curious_sb** » 06 Mar 2007, 00:40

monkey wrote:....but in an article i read in a wonderful publication called Bizzare there exsits a law that dates back to bare knuckle boxing where being in that situation not only was the bloke you paid to fight liable to for assult if you tried to get him off by admiting you willingly let that happen to you, you could go down with the bloke, and the judges will still use that today in court if images of you and your willing spouse were found in your property in bdsm situations.
however i do wonder if said judges would prosecute there own dommes if they ended up in front of them

THe uk legislation is just screwed up, I mean, goddamit we should do what we want in our own homes. So long as it is consensual, Joe Law should keep his beaky face out of it.

curious_sb · Post by **curious_sb** » 06 Mar 2007, 00:47

SusanSub wrote:What exactly is the new law in the UK?

One of the links in the first message in this thread is broken. The second link contains the statement:

The new law would outlaw any material that featured violence that was, or appeared to be, life-threatening or likely to result in serious and disabling injury.

It seems that this would outlaw a lot of what is shown on TV. Maybe a good thing.

I hear you have finally banned fox hunting in the UK. I hope you ban fishing with hooks next, that sport is incredibly cruel to fish. And to worms.

My own opinion is any consensual act ought to be allowed provided that no one else is hurt. So consensual bondage and self bondage would be OK, provided they are done safely. Hmm, maybe an addition to the school curriculum is needed!

I think animals ought to have rights too. Fox hunting would be OK if the foxes agreed to be hunted. Hey don't laugh, the hitchhikers guide has that animal that wants to be eaten, and with genetic engineering who knows what will happen in the future.

OK, now you can laugh, but maybe it's better to think. I think I will go and tie myself up so I can't mess up any more discussion threads.

The link was to a news thread, it appears that it has now been removed. Shucks...

My own opinion is any consensual act ought to be allowed provided that no one else is hurt. So consensual bondage and self bondage would be OK, provided they are done safely.

My thoughts exactly.

jake · Post by **jake** » 06 Mar 2007, 17:16

But what do people think aobut the sites like hogtied which as pretty "hardcore"?

curious_sb · Post by **curious_sb** » 07 Mar 2007, 01:09

xatm092 wrote:But what do people think aobut the sites like hogtied which as pretty "hardcore"?

I like hogtied, but I dont think it "depicts sexual voilence and torture" as this law implies.