S&M saucepots want the Queen muffled

[mawilson 2,133]

A diverse group of sexual adventurers and civil libertarians has joined in condemnation

of that part of tomorrow's Queen's speech expected to propose banning "extreme porn",

because the internet has made it too readily available for some people's tastes.

The British government proposes a new offence of possessing extreme pornography

under a Criminal Justice Bill. It is proposed that people found possessing porn of a violent

nature should be imprisoned for up to three years.

Backlash, a group of campaigners against the legislation, said today the law discriminated

against consenting adults and offended Human Rights legislation.

Those organisations that are, according to the legislation, dirty perverts because they

oppose the new law include Feminists Against Censorship, the Libertarian Alliance,

SM Dykes, the Society for Individual Freedom, and the Spanner Trust.

Most organisations that responded to a Home Office consultation on the matter, however,

wrote in support of the proposed law, while most individuals who responded were opposed

to it, said the Home Office in its response (pdf) to the consultation in August. That is not

surprising for legislation that, it is argued, favours collective morality over individual liberties.

The Home Office also noted that those opposing the legislation said it would deny what

would otherwise be dangerous men an outlet for their fantasies.

The law does not propose to ban the act of consensual sexual violence, only the

possession of a depiction of it. It will require a jury to determine that something was

produced only for the purpose of sexual arousal, that it featured bestiality, necrophilia,

or acts of violence that would be life threatening or result in a disabling injury, and that

it had to be realistic.

In other words British people will be able to watch depictions of violence against women,

but not sexual violence against men. So the law would allow a film that featured a woman

being hit in the face while having sex, or one man pumping another up the backside while

a pack of dogs gnashed at their ankles, as long as the actors were not shown to be

maimed beyond repair. And bad special effects might be all that was required for a film

maker to avoid prosecution.

"Now, you might not be into this sort of thing, but the question is, should the State get

involved in the private lives of consenting adults who are?" said Backlash.

Much of the debate cantered around the question of whether violently sexual pornography

fuelled sadistic sex crimes. Without scientific evidence to back their claims that it one did

lead to the other, the argument in defence was either anecdotal (policeman saying they

suspected pornography led to crime) or moral.

The first of these ideas, according to Backlash's website, was refuted by evidence that

there was a lower rate of sexual crime in Japan and Denmark where such pornography

was readily available.

The moral position taken in support of the legislation was that violent pornography is

simply not wanted in British society because it "creates a cultural context which devalues

women’s humanity and dignity". Opponents say such pornography readily portrays

women in positions of power over men who grovel in depraved subservience. Extreme

depictions of such scenarios are no more depraved than graphic horror or war films.

The accusation of hypocrisy is also slung at supporters of the law, most of whom

protested on religious grounds, according to the Home Office. The argument of hypocrisy

becomes easier every time something happens like last week's outing of Ted Haggard,

the superstar American evangelical leader, who admitted to "sexual immorality" and

buying drugs after being hounded over his earlier denials that he had been getting

high and having sex with a rent boy on regular occasions for the last three years.

His position of power among the faithful will no doubt gurantee his salvation.

Thousands more people than usual are expected to tune into the Queen's speech

tomorrow in the hope of hearing the old dear say the words "extreme porn". Players

of Queen porn bingo (not to be confused with Queen porn players who also like to

play bingo) will have their fingers crossed in case she says words such as "necrophilia"

and "bestiality", which would win them bonus points.

What do we think about this? We're not supposed to take sides, so we're sitting on the

fence - and boy, does it feel good.

Source

[Welshcookie 17]

hehe...the Queen...porn....hehe....

yeh it's kinda late and I'm tired....

[almaty 19]

hehe...the Queen...porn....hehe....

yeh it's kinda late and I'm tired....

he wrote the queen's #######...... oh sorry, muffled..i am such a chopf##k

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The sort of people who derive pleasure out of beastiality and rape fantasy porn really do have a screw loose.

[#@!!* 0]

The Queen, porn, and ####### are three things that do not belong in a sentance together