If S&M Is Going Mainstream, Why Are Lawmakers Banning It?

If S&M Is Going Mainstream, Why Are Lawmakers Banning It?

 

That's in England.
I think it's not so much S&M but female dominance considering that two of the things that were banned were facesitting and female squirting.
The response was pretty awesome actually.

What did a mass face-sitting outside Parliament look like? - UK - News - The Independent

 

How exactly can one ban female squirting? If a chick's a squirter, then a squirter she is. The only way to stop it is to mandate that everyone else be very bad in bed. And what on earth would induce a ban on facesitting? Will there be an accompanying ban on teabagging, or would that be unheard-of in England?

 

Yeah, I'm pretty sure they didn't think the bill through very well.
They just made a list of things they thought were icky.
Of course, the law isn't against those things but showing them on film or in live shows.

 

Christ, what a bunch of wankers.

 

Forget S&M.

It is still illegal to sell sex toys in Alabama, parts of Texas and some other southern cities.

But one woman in Georgia is going federal to fight the local ordinance ban.

 

we cant buy or own sex toys, or pot, what the fuck is the world coming to?

 

Now, when you can get your sex toys and your pot at the same store...then we'll really be in business!

 

sign me up

 

Squirting is "banned" because there's a belief (which i think true) that most "squirting" videos are actually "pissing".

Face sitting is banned under the rules that ban portrayal of any non consent or degradation.

 

So?

 

Somehow I question their zeal about false advertising.

See this just won't work. Because I highly doubt that they also ban teabagging, facials, bukkake, dogging, etc., all of which could be construed as degrading if one has a mind to be puritanical, or could be degrading if the woman involved is not consenting. But if we presume that anything on wide-distribution video is probably not non-consensual, which we generally do, then "degrading" is in the eye of the beholder. It's not something objectively measurable.

It's questionable and unilateral labeling of things like this that make me all the more convinced that we need to stop trying to hold on to the criminalization of "vices." As long as everyone involved is a consenting adult, the government's business should be done. If people don't like a certain thing, they can feel free not to buy it, support it, etc. Because trying to use words like "degrading" is almost always too insubstantial to actually hold legal or maybe even ethical weight: is something actually degrading if the people involved in it don't feel degraded or degrading? Can something that one consents to be truly degrading? What about something that one enjoys?

No...not going to work.

 

Damn, that's so freaking funny! Thanks for this, redravin!

 

I'm not defending it, just explaining the justification.

UK law has long banned acts on stage or in pornographic video that represent a health risk if copied, and scat, watersports, extreme corporal punishment, breath play (including smothering and face sitting) are all apparently justified this way.

In the same way, simulating non consentual situations or hinting that the models might look under age is banned, in order to prevent the percieved risk that viewers will decide to emulate rape, kidnapping, or paedophilia.

We also ban bestiality, on the grounds that consent requires all participants to agree, plus the animal cruelty angle.

The loophole is that all of this only applies to films made or sold in the UK, so if you want to see someone choke and hate fuck their "daughter" before pissing in their mouth and having a horse fuck them in the ass, find a foreign streaming website.

And maybe reexamine whether you're actually a very nice person...

 

"It is impossible to obtain a conviction for sodomy from an English jury. Half of them don't believe that it can physically be done, and the other half are doing it."--Winston Churchill

 

I tend to think it's dangerous business when we start making too many presumptions about legally given consent, and trying to second-guess the psychology of the consenter.

Many things, IMO, should be legal, and yet aren't necessarily good ideas for everyone, or things guaranteed to benefit every person in every situation. To my mind, rather than criminalizing vices, maybe we should improve public health care to the point where quality psychotherapy and social work is available to anyone and everyone who might need/want them, in whatever degree they may need/want them, for as long as they may need/want them. Maybe we should try to improve education and make it truly free or at least affordable, give better and more job training, improve social services, and thus have fewer impoverished people who feel desperate to get money by any means necessary.

How is suicide a vice?

But in any case, while I don't support legalizing universal at-will assisted suicide (in other words, making it legal for you to ask me to kill you just because you don't feel like living any longer, or because you feel depressed, or because you think it will be a kick, or because you think death is the only way to ascend to commune with Xenu or whatnot), I do support legalizing at-will assisted suicide for people who are terminally ill, or suffering incurable chronic conditions that cause physical or mental suffering (Alzheimer's, ALS, Parkinson's, CP, etc.).

Again, I'm not sure what this has to do with vice. I tend to be very skeptical of the idea of "degradation that degrades society," especially when it has to do with sexuality and other things we tend to lump in with "vices."

I think it's a little different where hate speech is concerned, though in principle I do believe hate speech to be covered by the First Amendment. But hate speech is very seldom used consensually. I have heard of some people who have incorporated it into their fantasies of sexual masochism, but I think that's both comparatively rare and likely to be very different that hate speech spontaneously used in real-life situations. From what I've heard from the Native Americans I've talked with about phenomena like sports team names, they are mostly annoyed by such names, but feel that they have bigger problems to deal with than insensitive sports team names. And for myself, while I don't know that I feel passionate enough about sports team names to make a major cause of them, I can certainly understand that such names are offensive, and I can also understand that there may be those Native Americans who don't care, and those for whom it's annoying but not enough to be worth their time and energy, and those who care a lot. I mean, if there were a baseball team called the Cleveland Kikes, or a football team called the Washington Jewboys, I would find that offensive. Would I find it offensive enough to make it a cause, even in the face of everything else in the world that's going wrong and needs fixing? I don't know. I also don't know how I would feel about them if Jews were not successful and usually middle-class Americans, but instead mostly lived dirt-poor on Federal reservations. It's hard to say.

But in any case, I think it has little to do with sexuality and the government trying to moralize through legislation.

 

@levite this is relevant...

BBC News - Tottenham and West Ham fans warned about 'yid' chants