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

goddessloviatar · Post by **goddessloviatar** » 07 Mar 2007, 01:21

Hi all, I'm a newbie here but I've read the posts on this thread and whilst I abhor the attitudes of our governments I don't actually think we are under too much threat - I routinely go fetish clubbing, and after twenty years of being "in the closet" about my interests I have come out so to speak and I have found much to my amazement that nobody thinks of me any differently. I think the general public has become quite understanding of the kink side of life - how many adverts can we recall where the ad agency has used kink symbolism etc. to sell their product?
In the UK there was an online petition to campaign against these atrocious new laws - laws I firmly beleive the UK government was only interested in for the "positive" media aspects.
I beleive we need to get out there some more and stand up for our way of life - If we do not defend our freedoms, who will?
I realise now, having only recently discovered this enlightened forum, that many of us are uncomfortable with public admissions of what we do, many of the people I consider my friends now know that I have an affection for catsuits, rubber and bondage but whilst I am reasonably happy to talk to them about that side I would never consider telling them about my selfbondage.
But as part of the wider kink community I think we should perhaps take the most palatable of our interests and go a bit more public with them, so that "joe public" might get a better insight into our harmless nature.
My local paper published an article last year regarding the closure of a local fetish club, including a good many quotes from "concerned residents". The tone portrayed in the article was of vulgar seedy types making a nuisance of themselves - i was understandably incensed at this so I wrote back to the paper saying for heaven's sake the world is full of terrorists blowing us up and religious zealots who beleive we should go straight to hell - the world has much more pressing concerns than what I wear on a night out!
To my surprise my letter was published quite prominently!
Democracy is rule by us - unless we make our voice heard we will be swamped by populist dross.
The Uk legislation came about (I beleive) as a knee-jerk reaction to the murder of one person - the man convicted had some asphyxiation sites on his pc.
Whilst I abhor any murder it does make me think of some comparisons - given how many road deaths there are in the UK in any given year has the government proposed to ban cars? Can you imagine it? "The accused had several issues of top gear magazine in his possesion so he was clearly driving irresponsibly!"
As a minority we are perceived by the uneducated masses as an easy target, and ripe for ill advised campaigns by the tabloid media.
None of this has affected me, I am fortunate to live in an open minded part of the world - I still surf sites with ladies tied up and I don't expect the boys in blue to come knocking on my door any time soon.
Be well!

curious_sb · Post by **curious_sb** » 07 Mar 2007, 01:25

Thanks for showing your support and for your insights, goddessloviatar, it means a lot to me.

puppydogbytes · Post by **puppydogbytes** » 11 Jul 2007, 04:14

You can see the text of the proposed bill here:

Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill

It actually refers to "an act which results in or appears to result (or be likely to result) in serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals"

Also there is a campaign against and information about the new law here:

Backlash

Slightly different but not entirely unrelated - the UK Government prosecuting people indulging in (as opposed to looking at images of) consensual SM

The Spanner Case and The Spanner Trust

jake · Post by **jake** » 11 Jul 2007, 23:52

By the looks of the spanner case, that was some pretty sick stuff they were doing. I am tempted to agree with the court's decision... just as it is illegal to be involved in assisted suicide, torture such as branding seems a bit extreme to be legal even with consent... they may not realise at the time the damage they are doing to themselves.

Grinser · Post by **Grinser** » 12 Jul 2007, 00:23

On the other hand...what do you define as serious/lasting damage?
I mean, some people like brandings or scarrings...
Maybe a tattoo on someone`s chest or a nipple piercing is also a violation of this law...or abortion...sounds quite like serious damage to female genitals... I don`t like where this is going.
In my opinion, the law has to stay out of everything that is consensual, at least people are free to do to theirselves as they whish (is that grammatically right Oo).

puppydogbytes · Post by **puppydogbytes** » 13 Jul 2007, 17:58

I really think that the government should just stay out of peoples private lives, if consenting adults want to do something behind closed doors then that's it - end of story.

It might not be something you or I would like to do but that's just not the point - why should someone who's always had fantasies about a brand not be able to have one?

I agree with Grinser - what next tattoos? it's the thin end of the wedge, leave us alone

And OK if it's something that might kill you you're probably of unsound mind and then there are mental health laws....

puppydogbytes · Post by **puppydogbytes** » 13 Jul 2007, 18:05

If fact I'm so pissed off with the way the UK government are taking over our lives that I've just packed my handy carrier and moved to Bangkok.....

Grinser · Post by **Grinser** » 13 Jul 2007, 23:42

^^ That reminds me of a new law in Austria (I think, it was Austria at least, I wasn`t too sober when I was told the story) regarding piercings.
A Tattoo-artist I know told me about it. They are planning to set the minimum age for a piercing according to the time it takes the piercing to heal. That would mean, you could pierce someone`s genitals at, say, age 16 because those piercings heal quite quickly, but their ears only at age 18 because those tend to heal much slower.
Most stupid idea ever.

LoRee · Post by **LoRee** » 02 Sep 2007, 07:21

goddessloviatar wrote:

unless we make our voice heard we will be swamped by populist dross.

Unfortunately that "populist dross" in which you refer to is in fact a minority point of view meant to influence the majority into a resentful mindset. The ruling class in the US and Britain frequently use the "Bogeyman" doctrine to rule. This is where they use something like "Communism", "Terrorism", or "Sexual Deviants" to scare the populace. What ever it is, they make them afraid of it and convince them that they are the ONLY ones who can protect them from it, to insure their re-election & hold on power. If you don't vote for me/us, the Bogeyman will get you!

Grinser · Post by **Grinser** » 03 Sep 2007, 02:57

Oh boy, censorship (is this word even correct?) can be so stupid. I have been browsing a body modification site with plenty of really artistically done scarifications and piercings and amazing tattoos and just a minute ago I found out, the german equivalent to the FCC (the Bpjs) has banned this site and prohibited all linking to it, because of "displays of cruel violations of human bodys" or something. Now how stupid is that?

puppydogbytes · Post by **puppydogbytes** » 03 Sep 2007, 04:56

Where I live in Thailand the government is blocking access to approximately 45,000 websites - mostly porn sites and political sites, now that's censorship!

A few days ago we got YouTube back after a 5 month ban because someone had posted a video on the site that was insulting to the King of Thailand.

curious_sb · Post by **curious_sb** » 07 Oct 2007, 21:41

Wow, puppydogbytes, that puts a lot of things in perspective....

Mc_ntk · Post by **Mc_ntk** » 15 Dec 2007, 03:07

Actually as long as you dont cause permanent damage to the breast genitals or anus its ok. But that takes piercings into consideration. I dont like were this is going.

Grinser · Post by **Grinser** » 15 Dec 2007, 04:27

It`s essentially the same question as with abortion for example... how much can a person be allowed to decide about their own health/body. Where is the line between acceptable and pathological self-destruction. I say, let people do to themselves whatever they desire... if you like body piercing, why not? If getting hit with a cane gets your boat rocking, why not? If you don`t like your tits, get implants, why not? But then again, if you don`t like your life and decide to shoot yourself in the head, are people supposed to stop you? To eventually chain you up to ensure you won`t hurt yourself? Where is the line?
If you ask me, I am ok with all that, but there should be a way to ensure everybody will visit a shrink before they do something irreversable. If someone really wants to have plastic surgery, a sex change or a headshot it should at least be verified that they are not acting because of some delusion or depressions or whatever... if it`s really their free will, let them do it. Why force somebody to be unhappy just because he doesn`t fit the standards of a society dominated by complete morons?

The law that is referred to in the first place is not dealing with that sort of thing, I know, but if you think about it, this is just a philosophical consequence of the "against sexual torture" thing.

Mc_ntk · Post by **Mc_ntk** » 15 Dec 2007, 05:46

Grinser wrote:It`s essentially the same question as with abortion for example... how much can a person be allowed to decide about their own health/body. Where is the line between acceptable and pathological self-destruction. I say, let people do to themselves whatever they desire... if you like body piercing, why not? If getting hit with a cane gets your boat rocking, why not? If you don`t like your tits, get implants, why not? But then again, if you don`t like your life and decide to shoot yourself in the head, are people supposed to stop you? To eventually chain you up to ensure you won`t hurt yourself? Where is the line?
If you ask me, I am ok with all that, but there should be a way to ensure everybody will visit a shrink before they do something irreversable. If someone really wants to have plastic surgery, a sex change or a headshot it should at least be verified that they are not acting because of some delusion or depressions or whatever... if it`s really their free will, let them do it. Why force somebody to be unhappy just because he doesn`t fit the standards of a society dominated by complete morons?

The law that is referred to in the first place is not dealing with that sort of thing, I know, but if you think about it, this is just a philosophical consequence of the "against sexual torture" thing.

Then the government will want to control that. When the government gets involved nothing gets better.