Quote Originally Posted by BBC News
Yet opponents have also seized on what they see as an anomaly in the new law, noted by Lord Wallace of Tankerness during last week's debate in the House of Lords.

"If no sexual offence is being committed it seems very odd indeed that there should be an offence for having an image of something which was not an offence," he said.
Exactly! That one shows how ill-adviced the build of this proposed new law really is. It's no business of the state if someone enjoys getting tied up, whipped and abused in a consensual way, so how could possessing pictures of just that be a general crime? And much of what they call "porn" is consensually produced - not all of it, but it's simply not legally useful to try to determine for every case of a film or photo (or even a manga comic!): was this done consensually or was there some sort of compulsion. This law is straight out of the prude, tidy fifties.


Only yesterday i read a review of a book on masculine roles, porn and violence in a tabloid here: in picking up on the analysis of the book, the reviewer used the name of the site fuckingmachines.com, that runs a banner on the top of this page, as an image of the degraded "slave woman matrix" which a bankrupt male role supposedly needs to feel at ease. In violent porn, the woman is a machine to be fucked, and this hunter/prey, mind/body pair of roles stretches far beyonfd the people who actually watch such films, period. That kind of glib interpreation politicizes all kinds of sex images and sex relations (fantasies and bedroom practices alike) and demands vanilla as the only politically correct and humanitarian thing. Yeah, right...