ISNetwork: Bondage and bigotry. The International Socialist Network has split - over a work of art. Paul Demarty is bemused

 

Dasha Zhukova sitting on the offending art work

A hundred years ago, the outbreak of the Great War caused a split in the social democratic movement - while initially most of the Second International’s sections supported their own states, with only two outliers (most famously the Bolsheviks) taking an anti-war line, by the end of the war the movement was cleaved in two. It is only a slight exaggeration to say that the whole bloody history of the short 20th century stems from the response of the workers’ movement to what was plainly an existential choice of indisputable importance.

Thinking Kink: The Politics of BDSM Fashion

"Most of what we do is done in t-shirts and jeans and involves a lot of giggling." Cliff Pervocracy

Trying on my first "proper" corset—steel-boned, torso-flattening, and with an appropriately high price tag—was a mixed bag. As my friend mercilessly yanked harder and harder on the lacing to achieve the four-inch reduction in my waist size that is apparently the aim, I couldn't help but reflect on how wonderfully feminine my figure looked, waist cinched in, boobs thrust up to somewhere near my chin, ass and hips splayed and firmly emphasized below. There was just one little problem: I couldn't breathe properly. Oh, or bend. Or even really sit down. As someone who likes to be physically flexible during playtime, I could see that this was an outfit for remaining stationary, and fantastic as it looked, that's not what I want from my clothes.

Rape porn Bill introduced to Parliament (England, Wales and NI)

On 5 February the government introduced a Bill to Parliament that will extend S63(7) CJIA 2008 to cover the possession of pornography that depicts rape. Unless the proposed legislation is dropped or amended it may have greater implications for the general public than the first four categories that were originally criminalised. This is because material that depicts rape can be difficult to define.

However, in 2010 the Scottish Parliament introduced its own possession offence legislation (S42 CJ&L(S)A 2010) which included a category that depicts rape. In the light of this, and recent demands from many feminist and religious groups, that material that depicts rape be made an offence to possess, the government has brought forward new legislation.

Many CAAN supporters will be appalled that there really does exist some material that features real rape being committed and this is occasionally shared by exceptionally nasty people. But the publication and sharing of such material is already a criminal offence. Many of us have no sympathy for those who possess extremely brutal and callous depictions of rape, even those where models have consented to appear as ‘victims’, but the current legislation is sloppy, it is poorly drafted and will impact upon relatively soft bondage and domination themed material.

The legislation will also include anything that involves penetration with any object. So, if you were to possess an image of a submissive man, gagged, in bondage, with a butt plug being inserted, how could you prove that this was not rape? It could well be the case that the lucky man involved is having the best day of his life, but his facial expression might be interpreted by police as pain and the gag as proof that there was no consent to the act.

Nearly a third of the UK population (British Sexual Fantasy Research Project: 2007), fantasise about types of forced sex, often involving bondage, gags and invariably a dark dungeon. There is a huge amount of porn that caters for this demand, but anything without a BBFC certificate will be very dangerous to view/possess.

CAAN is doing everything we can to secure a sensible amendment to the legislation to protect those into bondage, submission and/or domination.  Working with the 4 other campaigns (Backlash, Campaign Against Censorship, Sex & Censorship and the Sexual Freedom Coalition) we have warned MPs and peers of the dangers of this legislation, explaining the potential for thousands of harmless people to have their lives destroyed. The government has pointed to the experience in Scotland and notes that it is believed there has only been one conviction for possession of material that depicts rape. However the government also predicted that S63(7) CJIA 2008 would only result in “a handful of convictions” but the reality was very different, with over 1,000 people charged with offences per annum. In the year 2012/13 1,348 people were charged under S63(7) for possession of the first four categories of extreme porn. By criminalising possession of “rape” material, a category which will include some sexually explicit bondage and entirely consensual material, a category that will include material in which millions of people have an interest, it is likely that prosecutions will soar.

Let there be no doubt that we are in engaged in war on two fronts. The state is determined to seize control over the internet and is equally determined to marginalise the lives of those who are into even the mildest forms of BDSM. Evidence is also mounting that police investigations and prosecutions are disproportionately being directed at the LGBT community. As a consequence we fear that the new legislation poses a serious threat to minority groups and have adopted the stance that if anything depicts a real rape, where there is no consent, that cannot be tolerated; but anything that is consensual should not be criminalised. Finding a watertight definition or dividing line between the various different categories of material that exist is impossible and so we oppose the creation of this new category.

Please write to your MP and explain why this is an exceptionally dangerous piece of legislation. Please also write to members of the House of Lords. This step is also important because we believe it is more likely that this part of the legislation will be scrutinised in the Lords than in the Commons.

Here is a link to the draft Bill (The Criminal Justice and Courts Bill): -

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2013-2014/0169/cbill_2013-20140169_en_3.htm

Campaigning against extreme and unjust laws

Under the present government, a growing number of laws have been passed that criminalise ordinary people for their sexual choices.  The best known example of this is the extreme porn ban which since 26th January 2009 affects England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

But the Government has also been instrumental in:

• criminalising the possession of images depicting perfectly legal sexual activity;
• putting in place a “Committee of Public Safety” whose job it will be to vet nearly half the workforce – and remove them from their jobs if they possess any porn that is “sexual and violent in nature”
• proposing to make it a criminal offence for an adult to pay for sex.

CAAN needs YOU!

If you’d like to know more about these Laws go to our Issues page. If you’d like to campaign against them go to our Campaigns page.

We’re creating many ways to join in so that everyone who wants to get involved can do so, either behind the scenes, or out and in public. All consenting adults are welcome in CAAN, we aim to include people of all orientations, social or cultural groupings and genders, and we can also provide our information in alternative formats on request.

Other BLOGS & Discussions of interest on this topic: 

The Campaign to Ban Rape Porn is Far Too Broadly Drawn

The Objectification of Women - It Goes Much Further Than Sexy Pictures

Rape Porn: Rapists by Proxy?

The Nanny State – legislating on health and morality

 

 The Nanny State – legislating on healthand morality By Merry Neal

“The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant… Over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.”

The above principle laid down by John Stuart Mill is a cornerstone of liberal political and jurisprudential thought. Mill argued that, provided you cause no harm to others, you should be free to do what you like with your own body and life. This is what the right to personal autonomy and self-determination means; and it is a right which is being steadily, and quietly, eroded. If liberty, as Mill said, consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else, then we are already not free – and if the current trend of legislating on public health and morals continues the residual liberty we do enjoy will be diminished.

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill – new criminal offences

Another year, and yet more criminal justice legislation. The Criminal Justice and Courts Bill 2013-14  is going through Parliament at the moment, and it will come as no surprise that it includes new criminal offences. Here’s a quick look at them:

 Criminal Justice and Courts Bill – new criminal offences

Research by jurors (s 44)

This adds a new s 20A-D to the Juries Act 1974. It comes off the back of the Law Commission Report on Juror Misconduct that was published on 9 December 2013 and effectively implements the recommendations, save that there is no exception for academic research which is a disappointment. The new offences mainly codify the common law on contempt of court as it relates to jurors. It allows them to be dealt with by the “usual” criminal courts rather than through proceedings for contempt, which is arguably a sensible way forward. In reality, there will not be that many cases that are prosecuted.

Criminalising kink: Camerons porn crusade

This article is the part of the Index on Censorship Young Writers / Artists Programme

By Jonathan Lindsell / 11 April, 2014

Protesters gathered outside a Stop Porn Culture conference in March 2014 organized by Gail Dines. Protesters included porn stars, filmmakers, artists, sex workers and supporters who believe in freedom of expression.

Protesters gathered outside a Stop Porn Culture conference in March 2014 organised by Gail Dines. Protesters included porn stars, filmmakers, artists, sex workers and supporters who believe in freedom of expression.

We Need Education on Porn, Not Censorship

Having discussed David Cameron's need to censor the internet with regards to 'porn', (My preveous article here)  it seems the debate is still strong and the subject is not going to be forgotten quickly.

Below are a few more articles on the subject (although I find Fiona Elvines viewpoint in the 3rd article "Should accessing 'rape pornography' be restricted by law? The guardian" quite uneducated and personally offensive )

Can you not see how the tighter restriction of pornography might be a good thing? DISCUSS

Simple answer NO. 

Why? Only 0.04% of the internet is above ground….That’s what search engines like Google have indexed or 'can see'. The rest is underground.

Question: What is “ illicit and illegal material”? A definition please MR Cameron?

Child porn is what the Government wanted to focus upon and ban. great… Mr Cameron. There are specialised units within the police which deal with this issue BECAUSE it is not something which can generally be found in the top ranking pages of (for E.g. Google) The internet you are trying to police is not the internet of the general public. It is underground, Secret and difficult to trace. It is a network of criminals, paedophiles and abusers – underground, hidden from the surface. It is the most disgusting of crimes.

Yet, Mr Cameron, you cut the budgets of the police teams whom serve under great stress, work their best to stop these disgusting groups, individuals, organisations. instead of putting the money where it is needed – to catch the gangs of distributers, producers, paedophile rings and the worst of society, you decide to spend a HUGE AMOUNT OF MONEY policing the 0.04% of the internet where these images are limited.

Let's look at the maths Mr Cameron. 0.04% of internet is ‘general public’ (and includes the porn adults watch. )so, let's say 80% of the population have access via search engines like Google to 0.04% of the internet. Now, that may leave 20% of the population being into kiddie porn who have access to (possibly) 99.96% of the internet – the side that sex crimes units, paedophile police units etc have to monitor……. AND you cut their budgets BUT wish to spend £££ on policing the 0.04%???

Below is an article which will make what I have written make a little bit more sense – and it was written in 2011.

Thursday 1 September 2011 11:13 pm

Benjamin CohenTechnology Editor

Today, I reported on the shocking contents of the ‘hidden internet’, accessed using services including Tor. This isn’t the internet we all know and love, this is an internet beyond the control of governments or regulators, with no standards of taste and decency. It’s a seperate, hidden internet, you can only access if you have special software and it’s one where it’s extremely hard to track people down.

There are many legitimate uses of these sorts of  services, sometimes in repressive regimes. But in the UK, it seems the real purpose is to trade drugs, weapons, stolen personal data and most shockingly of all, sickening images of child abuse. The names of the files are in themselves enough to turn your stomach.

Today, we met with the head of the UK’s e-Crime unit to find-out how she is looking to tackle what she describes as a “cyber supermarket” for everything nasty.

Below is an article by technology producer Geoff White who undertook much of the research for my report.

There’s the internet most of us know and use; websites with friendly names which operate publicly, trade legitimately and are easily found using search engines.

But beyond this there is another internet.

The websites have deliberately obscure addresses and cannot be found by accident, and they are not indexed by any search engines. In order to access them a user must download special software – and when they access the sites, the technology means that they do so anonymously.

Some of the sites are nothing more than a hidden club for geeks. But when Channel 4 News accessed the “dark web”, sometimes known as the “hidden web”, we found a marketplace flooded with illegal goods and services.

Forged passports, stolen credit card details, and hardcore drugs are all openly offered for sale and – most worryingly – there are scores of sites offering images of child sexual abuse.

The head of the UK e-crime unit, Detective Superintendent Charlie McMurdie, told Channel 4 News the dark web was a major “enabler” of crime.

“These sites are the main place where cyber criminals trade data, trade hacking kits, tools, techniques. So it’s a real enabler that facilitates loads of other types of criminality.”

She said that many kinds of illegal goods are available.

“Firearms, drug-making paraphernalia, hacking kits, compromised data, any illegal commodity, that’s where they are going to trade,” she said.

“They’ll bury it in one of these underground cyber supermarkets.”

The underground sites are also a magnet for paedophiles operating online, with scores of sites offering images of child sexual abuse. One child protection expert told Channel 4 News he believes it is attracting the hard-core of paedophiles – including so-called “contact offenders”, who have access to children and are using that access to create material for distribution to others.

Former police child protection officer Mark Williams-Thomas said: “The material they are producing or sharing or discussing is absolutely horrific, so what we need to do is change the way we police.

“For a long time now we have policed the internet in a reactive way, which is how we police generally – in other words we wait for a phone call then we respond to it. What we need to do is become proactive, we need to start hitting the underworld, the sites that exist under the surface.

“And until we start doing that and changing the way we police we’re not going to make a significant difference.”

The software which is used to gain access to the sites disguises the computer’s IP address, meaning that police cannot track offenders. Police have previously relied on tracing payments, but now more and more the criminals have been using a global system of online credits called Bitcoins – which have the advantage of being anonymous.

Professor Peter Sommer, a cyber expert at the London School of Economics, told Channel 4 News: “These schemes are devised by geeks who are interested in the problem of anonymity, how you can pass on information or do deals anonymously, but they obviously get mostly used by criminals. So they are deliberately hidden.”

Bitcoins pass between computers rather than individuals. They are bought using “real world money” and can then be spent online. Bitcoins can also be exchanged back into real money.

According to their Twitter feed, the hacking group LulzSec accumulated a Bitcoin account worth several thousand US dollars.

The fact that Bitcoins are untraceable means the police can’t just follow the money. So cracking down on this version 2.0 of the black market could prove to be a headache.

But police are adamant that they have the situation under control.

Ms McMurdie told Channel 4 News: “We have proven a number of times in the past that they will be arrested, we will identify who they are, we have conducted prosecutions and brought these people to court.

“The technology which is often used by cyber criminals – that’s something that law enforcement have to exploit as well.”

- See more at: http://blogs.channel4.com/benjamin-cohen-on-technology/the-hidden-internet-shocked-me-but-how-can-it-be-controlled/2826#sthash.knKiovEH.dpuf

An election winner you are Mr Cameron... What a great idea... I am not alone in the struggle to understand what The Daily Mail and Mr Cameron might be aiming towards...

BY ZOE STAVRI – 26 JULY 2013

As a feminist, I am against rape, against the sexual abuse of children and wholeheartedly in favour of grinding the culture which allows these things to happen into dust.

That's why I'm against David Cameron's latest proposals for increased filtering of the internet, blocking search terms and banning porn depicting simulated rape.

Taken as a whole, the plans are technologically unworkable and politically dubious; with content-blocking possibly leading to decreased access to support for survivors of abuse, while allowing the state a frightening level of control over internet freedom.

An integral feature to nostalgia is the cultural memory of the porn fairy, the mythical beast who leaves top shelf magazines lying around for any young lad to peruse. Blocking content would do little to stop children from looking at porn.

However, little of this broader critique of David Cameron's proposals covers my reservations about banning 'rape porn'.

The general rationale of a ban is rooted in social psychology from the early 1960s: Albert Bandura's iconic 'Bobo Doll' experiments, where children watched an adult act aggressively towards a doll and then, when offered the opportunity to play with the doll, they repeated the behaviour they had seen modelled.

Therefore, it follows, if someone watches violent behaviour in porn, they will act in a more violent manner sexually. However, actual evidence of cultural harm caused by rape porn is very weak. Let us assume that porn does have the potential to teach those who see it about how they should and should not behave when it comes to sex.

Why are we not directing all of our energies into flooding the internet with better porn, which teaches people about consent?

  

Porn depicting simulated rape tends to fall under the umbrella of BDSM porn, which is better at showing the process of negotiating consent than 'vanilla' porn, reflecting a general trend within the BDSM community.

Within BDSM porn, there is often a short interview between the performers discussing what they would like to do and what they would not like to do and how they can signal that they want the scene to stop if needs be.

After the scene has finished, the performers talk about the scene in a debrief. Would it not be better if all porn contained this process of negotiation and boundary setting, showing its audience that this is something which ought to be an inherent part of sex?

Banning rape porn will not make it go away, but send it underground, where we are less able to observe the safety of the performers and actual abuse may well increase.

We need to see better sex and relationship education for people of all ages. The key difference between porn depicting simulated rape and images and film depicting a real rape is the consent of all parties involved.

Consent is, after all, the ultimate weapon in the fight against rape culture.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/news-analysis/why-i-dont-consent-to-david-camerons-web-censor-plan-29446979.html

According to the government, the users of the 0.04% of the internet will need to 'OPT-IN' to view pornography... REMEMBER DEAR R$EADERS, YOU MAY NEED TO OPT IN TO READ MY BLOG IN THE FUTURE!!

Below are some comments I discovered from Piston Heads (www.pistonheads.com)

robinessex

So, here we go again. Government knee jerk reaction after being harassed by the moral minority do gooders brigade. A repeat of 'Speed Kills, we're going to cure it by speed cameras, and then there won't be accidents any more, will there' scenario. Anyway, you soon won't be able to watch porn on your computer. (What's porn by the way?). Unless you tick a box to say, er, you, want to!!! So there, that's that 'problem' fixed. Prime Minister now off to solve the country's economic woes by Tuesday week. Climate change due to nasty humans burning stuff will be solved by Christmas. 

Einion Yrth

Yet another piece of populist knee-jerk crap which will be inconvenient for the majority and yet make sod all difference to those it's ostensibly aimed at. Why oh, why are we ruled over my technologically illiterate simpletons?Otherwise what a complete load of nonsense. No one in government seems to "get" what the internet is or is about. Is there anyone working there that's IT literate? They want to stop Google searches? Google is just a search engine, there are many others available and you could just write another, paedo-specific if you wish.This is the kind of state-interference that lead me to vote ABL (any but labour/libdim).  

IainT

They're trying to tackle two issues: 

1) Kids seeing porn

2) Mentally ill people seeing porn and committing sexual crimes. 

For #1 it's up to the parent to educate and control their children's access to the internet. There's worse stuff than porn out there and more dangers than accidentally stumbling across something dodgy while searching for bob the builder. An opt-in system might work or, better still, parents actually doing some parenting is the answer. 

For #2... Where to start... There is no evidence that interwebs pr0n has a causal link to sexual violence. None. With that starting position any action based on the faulty premise is likely to fail. In general: Who will bear the cost of the ISPs having to filter sites? It's won't be free and it will be passed on to the customer. Even those not wanting this impingement. What performance impact will this have?

 How will it work? Will non-UK content providers (e.g.. search engines) have to block this? What happens to links returned by google.com to the UK that contain banned sites? Will it fail when we click on the link?  Typically ill thought-through pandering action. I've been resisting the lure of UKIP up to now but the conservatives have just lost my vote. 

Teppic

Possible that those that choose to opt out may find themselves subject to extra surveillance. "Rape committed in the local area? Hmm... let's look at the list of local residents and see who opted out of the porn filter, and let's have them under suspicion..." 

 IainT

Apart from spending time and money on a non-issue? 

•             who will pay for it?

•             how will it be implemented?

•             what will be classified and blocked?

The "slippery-slope" and "thin end of the wedge" arguments are often used as a short-cut for faulty reasoning and there are a whole raft of sites that are already blocked in the UK through the list maintained by the IWF that all ISP enforce.

However, I can't see how future governments will not tighten their grip on the internet and what we access and track. If this is enacted I'll seriously consider alternative IP routing even if there is an inherent cost. Interestingly the top-rated BBC comments on the OP article are all very strongly anti this measure. 

Hoofey

It's good that Cameron is trying to tackle this serious issue now that the economy, the NHS, the housing crisis and education have been nailed. 

RobGT81

If you ask for your filter turned off, are you put on a list of bad guys and monitored? A list will exist somewhere. After all you must be a rapist in waiting if you have the filter off, otherwise why have the filter in the first place? 

 DanB7290

I wonder if this will affect the new Grand Theft Auto game? In previous incarnations, you could pick up a hooker, do business with her, then get out and fill her with an entire magazine from an Uzi. My parents never had a problem with me playing GTA, as long as I understood that it was a game and I wasn't to do anything like that in real life, and I've not grown up to be violent or a paedo.

So, confusion all round then....... There are too many variables, no real idea from the government as to what it would like to achieve, how to best achieve it and what are the definitions it will use to target 'offensive material?'

Below is an article from Paul Bernal's Blog:

10 questions about Cameron’s ‘new’ porn-blocking 

There’s been a bit of a media onslaught from David Cameron about his ‘war on porn’ over the weekend.

Some of the messages given out have been very welcome – but some are contradictory and others make very little sense when examined closely.

The latest pronouncement, as presented to/by the BBC, says

 “Online pornography to be blocked automatically, PM announces” 

The overall thrust seem to be that, as Cameron is going to put in a speech: “Every household in the UK is to have pornography blocked by their internet provider unless they choose to receive it.” 

So is this the ‘opt-in to porn’ idea that the government has been pushing for the last couple of years? The BBC page seems to suggest so. It suggests that all new customers to ISPs will have their ‘porn-filters’ turned on by default, so will have to actively choose to turn them off – and that ‘millions of existing computer users will be contacted by their internet providers and told they must decide whether to activate filters’. 

Some of this is welcome – the statement about making it a criminal offence to possess images depicting rape sounds a good idea on the face of it, for example, for such material is deeply offensive, though quite where it would leave anyone who owns a DVD of Jodie Foster being raped in The Accused doesn’t appear to be clear.

Indeed, that is the first of my ten questions for David Cameron. 

1     Who will decide what counts as ‘pornography’, and how? 

And not just pornography, but images depicting rape? Will this be done automatically, or will there be some kind of ‘porn board’ of people who will scour the internet for images and decide what is ‘OK’ and what isn’t? Automatic systems already exist to do this for child abuse images, and by most accounts they work reasonably well, but they haven’t eradicated the problem of child abuse images. Far from it. If it’s going to be a ‘human’ system – perhaps an extension of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP) – how are you planning to fund it, and do you have any idea how much this is going to cost? 

2     Do you understand and acknowledge the difference between pornography, child abuse images and images depicting rape?  

One of the greatest sources of confusion over the various messages given out over the weekend has been the mismatch between headlines, sound bites, and actual proposals (such as they exist) over what you’re actually talking about. Child abuse images are already illegal pretty much everywhere on the planet – and are hunted down and policed as such. As Google’s spokespeople say, Google already has a zero-tolerance policy for those images, and has done for a while. Images depicting rape are another category, and the idea of making it illegal to possess them would be a significant step – but what about ‘pornography’.

Currently, pornography is legal – but it comes in many forms, and is generally legal – and to many people have very little to do with either of the first two categories…. which brings me to the third question 3     Are you planning to make all pornography illegal? …because that seems to be the logical extension of the idea that the essential position should be that ‘pornography’ should be blocked as standard.

That, of course, brings up the first two questions again. Who’s going to make the decisions, and on what basis? Further to that, who’s going to ‘watch the watchmen’. The Internet Watch Foundation, that currently ‘police’ child abuse images, though an admirable body in many ways, are far from a model of transparency (see this excellent article by my colleague Emily Laidlaw). If a body is to have sweeping powers to control content is available – powers above and beyond those set out in law – that body needs to be accountable and their operations transparent. How are you planning to do that?  

4     What about Page 3? 

I assume you’re not considering banning this. If you want to be logically consistent – and, indeed, if you want to stop the ‘corrosion of childhood’ then doing something about Page 3 would seem to make much more sense. Given the new seriousness of your attitude, I assume you don’t subscribe to the view that Page 3 is just ‘harmless fun’…. but perhaps you do. Where is your line drawn? What would Mr Murdoch say? 

5     What else do you want to censor?

 …and I use the word ‘censor’ advisedly, because this is censorship, unless you confine it to material that is illegal. As I have said, child abuse images are already illegal, and the extension to images depicting rape is a welcome idea, so long as the definitions can be made to work (which may be very difficult).

Deciding to censor pornography is one step – but what next? Censoring material depicting violence? ‘Glorifying’ terrorism etc?  Anything linking to ‘illegal content’ like material in breach of copyright? It’s a very slippery slope towards censoring pretty much anything you don’t like, whether it be for political purposes or otherwise.

‘Function creep’ is a recognised phenomenon in this area, and one that’s very difficult to guard against. What you design and build for one purpose can easily end up being used for quite another, which brings me to another question… 

6     What happens when people ‘opt-in’? 

In particular, what kind of records will be kept? Will there be a ‘list’ of those people who have ‘opted-in to porn’? Actually, scratch that part of the question – because there will, automatically be a list of those people who have opted in.

That’s how the digital world works – perhaps not a single list, but a set of lists that can be complied into a complete list. The real question is what are you planning to do with that list. Will it be considered a list of people who are ‘untrustworthy’. Will the police have immediate access to it at all times? How will the list be kept secure? Will is become available to others? How about GCHQ? The NSA?

Have the opportunities for the misuse of such a list been considered? Function creep applies here as well – and it’s equally difficult to guard against! 

7     What was that letter to the ISPs about? 

You know, the letter that got leaked, asking the ISPs to keep doing what they were already doing, but allow you to say that this was a great new initiative? Are you really ‘at war’ with the ISPs? Or does the letter reveal that this initiative of yours is essentially a PR exercise, aimed at saying that you’re doing something when in reality you’re not?

Conversely, have you been talking to the ISPs in any detail? Do you have their agreement over much of this? Or are you going to try to ‘strong-arm’ them into cooperating with you in a plan that they think won’t work and will cost a great deal of money, time and effort? For a plan like this to work you need to work closely with them, not fight against them. 

8     Are you going to get the ISPs to block Facebook? 

I have been wondering about this for a while – because Facebook regularly includes images and pages that would fit within your apparent definitions, particularly as regards violence against women, and Facebook show no signs of removing them. The most they’ve done is remove advertisements from these kinds of pages – so anyone who accesses Facebook will have access to this material. Will the default be for Facebook to be blocked? Or do you imagine you’re going to convince Facebook to change their policy? If you do, I fear you don’t understand the strength of the ‘First Amendment’ lobby in the US… which brings me to another question 

9     How do you think your plans will go down with US internet companies? 

All I’ve seen from Google have been some pretty stony-faced comments – but for your plan to work you need to be able to get US companies to comply. Few will do so easily and willingly, partly on principle (the First Amendment really matters to most Americans), partly because it will cost them money to do so, and partly because it will thoroughly piss-off many of their American customers. So how do you plan to get them to comply? I assume you do have a plan… 

10     Do you really think these plans will stop the ‘corrosion’ of childhood? 

That’s my biggest question. As I’ve blogged before, I suspect this whole thing misses the point. It perpetuates a myth that you can make the internet a ‘safe’ place, and absolves parents of the real responsibility they have for helping their kids to grow up as savvy, wary and discerning internet users. It creates a straw man – the corrosion of childhood, such as it exists, comes from a much broader societal problem than internet porn, and if you focus only on internet porn, you can miss all the rest. 

Plans like these, worthy though they may appear, do not, to me, seem likely to be in any way effective – the real ‘bad guys’ will find ways around them, the material will still exist, will keep being created, and we’ll pretend to have solved the problem – and at the same time put in a structure to allow censorship, create a deeply vulnerable database of ‘untrustworthy people’, and potentially alienate many of the most important companies on the internet.

I’m not convinced it’s a good idea. To say the least.

http://paulbernal.wordpress.com/2013/07/22/10-questions-about-camerons-new-porn-blocking/

Posted on July 22, 2013by paulbernal64

What say you? Is there room for a debate here? I have opened up the forum for discussion.....Come and join in here at http://mistressladyleyla.blogspot.co.uk/p/forum.html#/

Arguments that cannot be used to call #BDSM morally acceptable. WTF??

In a blog entry I recently discovered, written by a single Christian girl ( who claims to want to understand the" objective truth") I discovered an entry regarding BDSM, it's morality and acceptability.

Quick reminder that this is the 21st century.

I found this 'persons' viewpoint of BDSM offensive. Totally uninformed, erroneous, clueless, nescient, uneducated, ignorant, agnostical, naive, lacking in factual evidence...I could go on, but I think I'll spare her any more of my linguistic revilements, for now.

Below is the article to which I am referring to. 

I suggest reading it. 

I suggest commenting on it. 

I suggest informing the writer of her erroneous ways and here is the link to the article if you so wish to comment on her Blog.

Arguments that cannot be used to call BDSM morally acceptable

Is there anything good about BDSM?: Arguments that cannot be used to call BDSM morally acceptable

May 17, 2013 at 7:44 pm

I have previously argued that BDSM, (SEE BOTTOM OF THIS ARTICLE) whatever the participants want to say of it, is morally reprehensible.

 Here I will argue how my opposition could – and could not – defend their view if they disagree.

Arguments that cannot be used to call BDSM morally acceptable

1) “What you described is abuse, not BDSM:”

Here is a definition of domestic abuse:

“Any incident or pattern of incidents of controlling, coercive or threatening behaviour, violence or abuse between those aged 16 or over who are or have been intimate partners or family members. This can encompass, but is not limited to, the following types of abuse: psychological, physical, sexual, financial, emotional. Controlling behaviour is: a range of acts designed to make a person subordinate and/or dependent by isolating them from sources of support, exploiting their resources and capacities for personal gain, depriving them of the means needed for independence, resistance and escape and regulating their everyday behaviour. Coercive behaviour is: an act or a pattern of acts of assault, threats, humiliation and intimidation or other abuse that is used to harm, punish, or frighten their victim.”

BDSM often include “physical and other forms of violence”. (Participants in this sexual kink may not like the word violence, but per definition it fits.) It is no surprise that it does, because sadism is part of the name of BDSM, and thus a component that may or may not be part of such a relationship. It includes many types of “acts to make a partner subordinate”, it often include bondage which obviously “deprive”, for the time of bondage, “of the means for independence, resistance and escape”. Dominance often amounts to “regulating the sub’s everyday behaviour”. Much of BDSM include acts to “punish”, and many subs describe feeling fear (being “frightened”) during scenes.

Some warning signs of abusers include: Controlling behaviour, “playful” use of force in sex, verbal abuse; rigid sex roles (man above, woman lower); a sense of entitlement (many doms say they “deserve” the treatment the sub gives them); and hierarchical self-esteem (needing to be “better” than another to feel good about himself). Most of these warning signs of potential abuse are present in what I hear of almost every BDSM relationship.

As such, BDSM and abuse are not mutually exclusive.

I can imagine a relationship with no bondage ( no “depriving of the means needed for independence, resistance and escape”); with discipline or punishments that cannot be called “violent” at all and does not amount to “control” by the dom because the sub has to ask to get it; no dominance that controls the behavior of a partner – but the partner in “submission”  by wanting to generally please and be loyal without there being control; no sadism (violence) or masochism (taking of violence to fulfill needs). But will such a relationship, deprived of anything that counts as abuse, still be a BDSM relationship?

2) Sub: “But I do not see it as abuse”:

Many abuse victims do not know they are being abused. Their communities or the abusers tell them that it is not abuse, that they should be thankful for what they have, etc. To quote one abused woman:

Sometimes it takes time away from “normal” to see that it is indeed not normal after all. After 3 months of separation from my husband, I have new insight as to what normal is. When you are in a mentally or emotionally abusive marriage, sometimes you don’t know that your normal is not normal after all.

3) “It is consensual”:

Consent is not enough to make something right. Many employees, for example, choose to keep their jobs even though the boss is a bully, thereby consenting to be treated the way the boss treats them. Treating your workers badly is still not morally right. (And many child molesters get the child to “consent”- but the consent do not count as the child is too young.)

However, I agree that doing something to another without consent would normally be immoral. Consent is probably part of the utter minimum of decent behavior under most circumstances. If BDSM is consensual it avoids one type of very immoral behavior, but so does “we don’t rob money during scenes.”

But even with such a small yardstick, BDSM is ambigious. BDSM acts may exploit and worsen the kind of personality flaw that makes someone consent to things that is not good for him or her.

4) “But my relationship is not like that”:

This blog post is not about your relationship. It is about BDSM. For example, one sub could say:

He is very concerned when I have a backache … he likes to cane me during scenes.”

Concern during backaches is not BDSM (Bondage, Discipline, Domination/ Submission, or Sadism/ Masochism). Caning during scenes, however, is one of the many things that counts as a BDSM practice.

If there are BDSM aspects to your relationship that are morally positive, you are welcome to describe those, so I can add to my understanding. But mentioning the non-BDSM aspects of your relationship to defend BDSM is like saying “He is opposed to stealing TVs and hi-fis” to defend someone who steals computers.

What is more, I have never spoken to a BDSM participant who – if (s)he gives any evidence to study the truth of his claims by – actually speak the truth about their relationships. They will say things like “we have a mutually respectful relationship” – and when I go to their blogs, one of the most recent entries has him calling her a [semen receptacle], and her crying bitterly because she wants to be loved, not a mere [semen receptacle] – and she really believes this is his actual view of her, that she is nothing more to him. If your partner sees you as an object, you are not in a mutually respectful relationship.

Or they will testify things like: “he will never hurt a fly” with the next sentence “he likes to induce pain on me, but I like it” and somewhat further in the conversation “I get punishment beatings which I do not like, and they hurt more than what I like.” If he induces pain, he hurts you. If there are pain in your relationship that you do not like, it is not wholly true that you like the pain he brings into your relationship.

5) “But I like it/ crave it”:

1) Desiring something does not make it good. For example, selling heroin is not morally good, even though addicts crave it. It is not morally good, because it destroys the one who gives in to the craving.

2) It is often not true that the sub enjoys BDSM – for example, a punishment to discipline the sub will probably be enjoyed by either only the dominant, or neither of them. Many subs speak of experiencing negative emotions like fear during scenes, and actually likes the feeling of relief from getting out of these negative situations afterwards. None of them actually enjoy pain or will, for example, butt their head against walls for fun.

3) Subs often “want” the opposite of what they want: They actually want kindness, tenderness and reassuring words of encouragement and praise like everyone else, but they feel they will be in a better position to enjoy having these needs met if they start with rough treatment and negative messages. The rough treatment – degradation, insults, etc., is what they “want” but the opposite of what they really want. A man who gives them the bad treatment could certainly make them unhappier. They take that risk, in the hope that a scene, where they live themselves into the bad, will end with the good. When the dom is not good at providing the good part, he can say he did only things the sub “allowed” and even “craved.” But he did not give her what she really enjoys, and he probably did harm her psychologically.

One dom testify that every sub he ever met was conflicted over her wants, with a part of her that finds her BDSM desires deviant. Which make sense, really: Obviously in any sane person, there will be a part that dislike these things. Between those two conflicting and opposite desires of the sub, the dom chooses to give the deviant one. I suggest that this says a lot about the character of the dominant partner.

6) “I don’t feel like this is something bad”:

I will quote CS. Lewis on this:

When a man is getting better he understands more and more clearly the evil that is still left in him. When a man is getting worse, he understands his own badness less and less. A moderately bad man knows he is not very good: a thoroughly bad man thinks he is all right. This is common sense, really. You understand sleep when you are awake, not while you are sleeping. You can see mistakes in arithmetic when your mind is working properly: while you are making them you cannot see them. You can understand the nature of drunkenness when you are sober, not when you are drunk. Good people know about both bad and evil: bad people do not know about either.

Perhaps you do not regard something as morally bad, because your soul has become used to the badness in BDSM. If you disagree, show me what positive moral values is encouraged by BDSM.

7) But this is safe and sane!:

Safe is free from the possibility of getting harmed or hurt. If you want me to believe that BDSM is safe, you have to convince me that bondage, discipline, domination/ submission, and sadism/ masochism does no damage or pain of any kind to the self image, the body, the interpersonal relationships, the mind, or the acknowledgement of real moral values, of the submissive, or the dominant, or the reader of BDSM blogs and websites.

If you want to tell me it is sane, you have to convince me that there is nothing insane about wanting bondage instead of freedom, domination instead of you and others each getting their will, or pain (I don’t just mean physical pain, but also the mental pain of being degraded and treated as less than) -in yourself or your partner – instead wanting a healthy, non-hurting, autonomous body. mind and heart.

And sane things could still be unethical. I can think of several reasons why a sane man would want to rob a bank, but that does not make bank robbery morally right.

————–

So please: If you think you have evidence to suggest BDSM is morally better that I give credit for on this blog, please give it. Bring up some actual moral standard, for example kindness or justice, and explain how BDSM, or some aspect of it, is kind or just or whatever moral standard you admitted.

_____________________________________________________

Why BDSM should not be seen as acceptable by mainstream culture

November 10, 2012 at 5:46 am 

When can you call yourself a good person? The usual secular answer goes something like this:

I don’t hurt anyone. I do not want to hurt anyone. So I am a good person.

I previously argued that this approach to moral goodness is less than adequate, but that is not today’s topic. Point is, someone who does not want to hurt others – physically, emotionally, economically, etc. is regarded, by almost any set of values including the purely secular, as superior to those who want to hurt others. And that simple baseline idea of morality: “Do not hurt others” is a fairly good start for a moral conscience. Per extention, hurting others on purpose is the baseline standard of moral evil.

Where does that put people who like sadistic or masochistic acts? (Warning: Violent sexual graphics in link.)

Are people who condone this as moral as those who oppose this?

A sadist hurts people. A masochist finds sadistic behavior – hurting others – acceptable, something (s)he encourages and defends in a partner. This hurting could be physical pain, or it could be humiliation , insults and degradation.

The BDSM community may say that their standard of morality is “safe, sane and consensual.” In my opinion, that is automatically a lower standard than not hurting people:

>    To safely hurt people – in other words, hurting them emotionally and physically, but not to such an extent that their life or health is in danger – is a lower moral standard than not hurting them. It is also nonsensical. Part of the definition of “safe” is “free from hurt” and “protected from being hurt”. As such, anything or anyone that causes hurt is, per definition, unsafe.

>    To sanely hurt people – hurting them while staying in control of your emotions, while doing nothing that the BDSM community will regard as crazy, is a lower standard than not wanting to hurt people. It is also a contradiction in terms. Mental health professionals regards both sexual sadism and sexual masochism as mental disorders.*

>    To hurt consensual people is a lower standard of morality than not hurting people. A similar example will be selling cocaine only to consensual buyers – of course, that is morally worse than not selling cocaine at all. But the similarities goes further: Drug sellers not only want to sell to consensual people, but they do what they can to enslave their customers further, so they can sell more drugs and make more money. Likewise, sadists encourage their consensual submissives to consent to worse pain and worse humiliation than before. And both drug sellers and the BDSM community push their product because they want to enslave new customers.

Anyone who is involved in BDSM (I am not speaking about the ropes and blindfolds part here, but pain and humiliation) have rejected the simplest basic human value of “it is wrong to hurt people.” Can you reject this value, and still be a good and trustworthy member of society, safe for those around you to be with? I do not think so. I believe this will spill over into the other human interactions of the BDSM participant.

I do not expect to make any BDSM participant en ex-participant with this post. I want to tell “vanilla” (non-BDSM) people to not regard these people as normal people who just have different sexual needs. This is not in the same class as, say, a fetish for high heels or even a preference for your own gender. This is a direct rejection of the most basic value of how to treat humans. To the degree you start to  find sadism/ masochism in pornography and literature acceptable, you reject the most basic moral standard that is written on normal human hearts. To the degree you watch that kind of pornography, you encourage and even fund cruelty.

(Edit, added about 12 hours after this post first appearing: I should have asked this before, but please do not link to BDSM/DD web sites or blogs in the comments, including the place where you optionally fill in your blog name after your name and e-mail address. Thank you)

——————

Note*

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders regards both sexual masochism and sexual sadism as mental disorders. Because of, among others, pressure from the BDSM community, consensual masochism or sadism is only regarded as a mental disorder nowadays if it causes “clinically significant distress or impairment in important areas of functioning.” It appears humiliation and degradation is prone to cause significant distress for the person subjected to it, and I expressed the opinion that letting go of the “hurting people is wrong” standard will dause impairment in social functioning.

Even when all sadism and masochism was considered mental disorders, BDSM people already called “sane” one of their values.