RE: if it isnt SSC, its not BDSM (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion



Message

IronBear -> RE: if it isnt SSC, its not BDSM (5/16/2008 5:36:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MastrVran

LadyEllen

The whole problem with your attempt is that the courts have little or nothing to do with reality. In America, our court system has a sort of failsafe, its the jury, they can completely disrgard a law they feel is wrong.

Most courts though, simply see if a "crime" has been commited by looking at what ever the list of activities are, that make up the crime. Did the following occure? And they go down the list. Check off what happened and voila, crime was commited.

1. Hit subject with an object intentionally. Check (Paddle was applied to backside)

2. Insertion of foreign object. Check (Dildo was inserted in vagina, Butt plug in anus)

Add in a few more checks and look...aggrivated sexual battery. The courts dont really care that the people involved liked it or orgasmed from it. If it fits their list for a crime then its a crime. You need juries to nullify such laws when missued. If that happens then the police stop getting warrents issued for no win cases and the DAs will not bother trying to prosecute them.

MV


MastrVan, the problem I have with your argument, is that you live in Fairburn, Georgia in the US of A. LadyEllen lives in Stourport-England. Surely old chap, you are not trying to say that the Laws. legal System and Policing of them is the same as yours world wide? What you say may be true for your location or even the majority of the USA (although I wouldn't like my chances in the Bible belt as both a Pagan and Kingstger). Generally speaking,m although I may be wrong, US folks tend to be more purotanical in mind sets than those in the old world. Same goes here in Australia too a goodly percentage are very straight laced. )I have a neighbour who is a fan of Judge Judy and honestly believes thre law as she dispences it is valid here too. He has been banned from taking anyone else to court on pain of jail if it proves fractious because he was suing every man and his dog for things like farting in a public place and disturbing his peace). Pesonally, I believe if enough people goit bums on seats and quills in hanmd and presented a good case for authorities including Law Makers, to educate them and thus perhaps more tollerence and even legalities could be effected. I applaude LadyEllen for her concept and efforts.

Iron Bear
Master of Bruin Cottage
(A Victorian Lifestyle poly home)

"I judge a Man by what I see him do and not by what others tell me he does." (Captain Sir Edward Pellew of the HMS Indefatigable to Midshipman Hornblower ~ C.S. Forrester)






ownedgirlie -> RE: if it isnt SSC, its not BDSM (5/16/2008 5:53:34 PM)

Hello IronBear,

First, I'd like to say it is really good to see you posting again.  I'm glad you're back. 

Also, I'm with you in applauding Lady Ellen in her efforts.  I do think it's good to (and hopefully not at the risk of confusing her or complicating things) share all sorts of ideas, arguments and "what ifs" here, in the event she is asked about them after presenting her information.  One of the worst things that can happen to someone trying to open up closed minds is  to encounter questions about things she may not have considered yet.  Better to equip her with "too much" information than not enough, and have her find herself stuttering over an unanticipated question, in my opinion.

I agree the US and UK are not under the same legal system, and sometimes depending on where one is in the same country, the laws can be vastly different.  But if people share the most extreme cases, and the "worst case scenarios" here, then perhaps she might have something to reference going forward. 

Just my own 2 cents...



GreedyTop -> RE: if it isnt SSC, its not BDSM (5/16/2008 6:26:19 PM)

Lady E... if you havent seen it yet, theres a thread over in the Media forum you may want to check out.. abotu a BDSM documentary..



slavegirljoy -> RE: if it isnt SSC, its not BDSM (5/16/2008 8:17:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Guilty1974

But uhm, I tought the CJB was already given Royal Assent. Isn't it a bit late to write a consultation paper?


Indeed it has - the purpose of this is to try to prevent everyday "ordinary" people involved in BDSM from being pursued on suspicion of possessing "violent porn" images (as defined by the Act).

Oh, so, this thread isn't about whether SSC is a required element of BD/SM or, about whether to be truly BD/SM, rather than an act of violence, the use of an SSC approach is required.
 
This thread is really about a new pornography law in the UK, that makes it illegal to be in possession of an "extreme pornographic image", where a person's life appears to be threatened, or where serious injury to a person's anus, breasts or genitals is likely (i guess serious injury to other body parts is allowed), or where sexual acts with animals or human corpses are shown (i think it's kind of hard to get consent from a corpse or an animal).
 
This new law, which hasn't taken effect yet, makes the possession of any of these types of images a crime and can result in a 3 year prison sentence, unless you can prove they're not pornographic.
 
So, you are trying to make a case that having an SSC approach to BD/SM makes it a nonviolent, non-extreme activity and, therefor, should be exempt from the new law.  Is that right?
 
It seems to me that just showing that BD/SM has a Safe, Sane, and Consensual element wouldn't necessarily make images of BD/SM allowable under this new law, since the law doesn't say anything about images of acts that are performed consensually being okay. Plus, how would anyone prove that the BD/SM acts shown in their photos were conducted with an SSC element?
 
In my opinion, instead of trying to make BD/SM look nonviolent and non-extreme (which, even with an SSC approach, is still subject to a wide degree of opinion), it might be more useful to work toward having the law overturned or amended, which others are already doing.
 
Informed Consent (http://www.informedconsent.co.uk/weblogs/Degenerate/191259/), has information about demonstrations that took place recently at the British Library and Parliament Square, which included two women who "staged a pink-fluffy-handcuffing and 'strangulation' on the Parliament railings, as their interpretation of the kind of things the government's definition of 'extreme' might include."
 
There is also an online petition, at (http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/extreme-images/?showall=1), which states: "We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Withdraw section 6 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill, 2007."
Submitted by Sean Goldthorpe - Deadline to sign up by: 09 July 2008 - Signatures: 839

Even some lawmakers are wanting to have the law changed.


Lawmakers from the ruling Labour Party and Conservative opposition sought to water down the bill by allowing images made of consenting adults or actors, though none wanted to derail the government's plan to move the legislation to the upper chamber of Parliament tonight.

``Everybody is opposed to violent acts that are real violent acts, but when it is simply for sexual purposes such as bondage, it shouldn't be a criminal offense,'' Harry Cohen, a Labour member of Parliament who wants the bill amended, said in an interview in London. ``The definition of what will be an offense is far too wide. People won't know what the threshold is.'' http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601102&sid=a4mE5kgtdnw0&refer=uk


For those who are interested, here is an excerpt of the bill:
 
House of Commons Session 2006 - 07
Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill
 
Part 6
Criminal law
Pornography etc.

64   Possession of extreme pornographic images
 
(1) It is an offence for a person to be in possession of an extreme pornographic image.
(2) An "extreme pornographic image" is an image which is both—
    (a) pornographic, and
    (b) an extreme image.
(3) An image is "pornographic" if it appears to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal.

(6) An "extreme image" is an image of any of the following—
    (a) an act which threatens or appears to threaten a person’s life,
    (b) 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,
    (c) an act which involves or appears to involve sexual interference with a human corpse,
    (d) a person performing or appearing to perform an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal,
where (in each case) any such act, person or animal depicted in the image is or appears to be real.
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200607/cmbills/130/07130.43-46.html#j400
 
Edited to add:  As a personal sidenote, i believe that pretty much anything can be taken to an extreme.  In most activities, you can find mild to severe forms and everything in between.  And, determining what is extreme is up to each person.  There are things that i experience that could be described as "extreme" by some and considered to be rather mild by others.  It's very subjective.  Just my own opinion.

joy
Owned servant of Master David



hizgeorgiapeach -> RE: if it isnt SSC, its not BDSM (5/16/2008 10:15:06 PM)

She's Baaaaaackkkkkkkkk....... good to see that a few familiar names/faces are still out and about in the forums, and expressing themselves as well as ever they did.  (Been too long since we talked, Pad!)
 
While I have been a long time adherant to and proponent of SSC - these days I find that I've grown to much prefer the acronym RACK for my activities. 
 
None of us can guarentee 100% safety when taking part in BDSM activities - and the more extreme those activities become, the greater the opportunity for an inherant lack of safety.  (Since I tend to play on the rather extreme side when I get to play, safety is about as "guarenteed" as if I were doing a combination of parachuting and snowboarding - lotta fun, extremely high risk.)  Sanity is... relative.  How sane can one truely be considered when they not only enjoy - but Ask for - someone else to tie them down and then beat the living dogsnot out of them?  According to the vast majority of society, not very damn sane at all.  (I never Claimed to be Normal, damnit - or completely sane - I'm simply insane in manners that can be easily hidden from the rest of society on Most occassions!)  The only thing remaining is Consensuality - which is either there or it ain't, no middle ground, no inbetween, no ifs or buts.  I use RACK now because I AM aware of the risks I'm taking when I play, the play is very definately defined as Kink, and those I play with are always aware prior to starting what the Exact boundries are for any given session so there's no question about what I have and haven't consented to.  (And they're aware of the probably violent consequences should they go beyond the bounds of what I've specifically consented to!)
 
If a legal system is going to determine liability and such, then something I would Personally think they'd need to consider making both legal and binding are BDSM related personal contracts.  Contracts of Negotiation/Consent to Activities, where the specific activities to be engaged in are deliniated and spelled out.  It would be, at the very least, proof of consent should question arise as to whether it was present while the activities were going on.  (Which would, in the long run, help dispell much of the potential for after the fact or guilt induced withdrawl of consent.)  It would also place clear liability for non-consensuality on a top/sadist/whatever who ignored safewords/signals or who did anything outside the bounds of what was covered in that sort of consent form/contract.  Here in the States at least, last time I checked, such contracts/consent forms weren't worth the paper they were written on.  I still hold out hope (though likely in vain) that such will someday change and they'll be recognized by the courts as valid proof of consent.
 
 



BlackPhx -> RE: if it isnt SSC, its not BDSM (5/17/2008 7:47:33 AM)

LOL England sent all it's Puritanical s over here to the US remember (they are alive and well thank you [:(])? Australia I believe got the rebels and scofflaws (tongue in cheek). Still in all you are correct as are others, the Laws of the US do not reflect the Laws of the UK or other areas of the world. That does not mean that we might not have valid input as to how to present something.

SimplyMichael said that "To be a risk worth concerning ourselves with lets again say if it is 1/100 of 1 percent get arrested every TEN years." and he is correct the number of arrests tends to be low, however, when the person arrested is you that is small comfort indeed. We can take every precaution in the world, but if consent is withdrawn during or after the fact (and there are several instances in Alternate lifestyles in the News) not only can your residence change immediately, but permanently. There are certain things you cannot consent to according to law that will get your partner arrested including castration  (non medical, person involved can be charged with practicing without a license), Death ( no matter how much you want it, they are getting arrested for murder or manslaughter), for example. Accidents happen as well, and trappings of BDSM and Consent aside, they can and will charge you. Now is it as often as they charge people for DV or theft, malfeasance in office, etc. ? No. It doesn't change the fact however that people do get charged. At least here in the US. and Canada.

Dreamysnowlady reported that the police checked out a play party she was at in a previous month and left without disturbing the party and that is wonderful. It is also Canada.  Depending on where it is here (US), and what is going on when they stop by (releasing someone from elaborate bondage is not a quick thing), at the very least the party is going to be extremely disturbed as they question everyone to age and consent, and at the worst someone may well end up arrested. Again different parts of the country and different states and Cops have different attitudes towards what we do.  Remember they can always find something to charge you with under such situations if they really want to. Even if it is nothing more than public intoxication, and yes they will also in certain areas park just down the road and do DUI checks as people leave a house or bar. It might not stick but they can charge and the rest of your evening is disturbed to say the least.

Until the law is struck down in the UK , LadyEllens efforts are to be commended and should be encouraged everywhere, not just there. The better we educate people, hopefully the less misperceptions will affect us negatively. We have come a very long way through the years, but for every 3 steps forward there is at least 1 step backwards. It's nice to think that Big Brother isn't looking in our windows ready to justdge,, but he is, especially in election years for States Attorney's and Local Officials.

Bleh

poenkitten 




Daddyslilpookie -> RE: if it isnt SSC, its not BDSM (5/17/2008 9:51:45 AM)

In my opinion all BDSM should be safe SSC or it's abuse bottomline.



Aiden -> RE: if it isnt SSC, its not BDSM (5/17/2008 4:37:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mistoferin

quote:

ORIGINAL: ProlificNeeds

In all technicality BDSM just means Bondage, Domination, Sadism and Masochism, right? SSC isn't in there anywhere. BDSM is just a bunch of terms fitted together. How you practice those things defines if you are just kinky, or if you are a criminal. Even if it's not consentual, it's still BDSM.
If I don't wear a seatbelt, am I still driving a car? Sure, but I'm breaking the law while doing it.

I agree.

'If its not SSC its not BDSM' merely means that its not BDSM as sanctioned by proponents of SSC.  I too agree. 



lateralist1 -> RE: if it isnt SSC, its not BDSM (5/17/2008 5:05:56 PM)

I give up.
We can't even agree what BDSM stands for.
I've always thought it was Discipline not Domination.
Although I suppose they could be seen as similar.
I admire you efforts Lady Ellen but are they really going to make any difference?
Everyone has there own intepretation of what it's all about.
Why don't you just take them to a club?
I've always believed that if you want to know about something your better seeing it for yourself.



LadyEllen -> RE: if it isnt SSC, its not BDSM (5/18/2008 12:14:37 PM)

Thanks for everyone's contributions!

The purpose of gathering them was to come up with an as concise as possible account of why those enforcing this law should not go chasing the likes of us, by demonstrating that we're really not the people theyre after. This thread has proven invaluable in forming this background information, by which to then in the second stage to discuss the interpretation and application of the law.

The problem for the authorities (aside those working for them who are on the inside of all this) is that it would be very easy indeed for them to misinterpret and misunderstand what is forbidden and what is not, by the legislation; for example, an image of a severe caning is not an offence - but to your average copper, it might be seen as a "severe injury" to the anus, and hence a proscribed image. It is no consolation whatever to later be released without charge, when the whole neighbourhood has seen you carted off in a police car, and your PC taken for examination - especially when one considers the reputation that would produce, and especially when social services were informed.

Yes, we have to work to get the legislation modified or even thrown out - but in the meantime doing what we can to make sure it is not misunderstood and misapplied is what we must do alongside that.

Of interest may be, that when I raised this matter in the Independent Advisory Group meeting earlier this month - quite a few LGBT people had no idea about this legislation - and some said that BDSMers needed to be locked up; now if that is the level of knowledge and understanding in what is supposedly an open minded group, imagine the results when police officers get hold of all this.

E



Politesub53 -> RE: if it isnt SSC, its not BDSM (5/18/2008 3:07:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

Prolific - this is the fine line I have to walk with this one; almost everything done consensually within BDSM is breaking the law in one way or another, regardless of how safe or sane (or not) it is.

But what we want to avoid is having the police just come round up those of us who have made our tastes public (here, for instance).

E


Firstly, thank you for undertaking this task. Knowing what images one can or cant look at certainly is an issue.

As far as i am aware, the new law in the UK doesnt allow the police to come round anytime. They have to have proof, or at least well founded reasoning,  that you have been viewing violent porn. Surely to suggest all thats needed is to belong to Collarme is scaremongering ?



thetammyjo -> RE: if it isnt SSC, its not BDSM (5/18/2008 4:14:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: lateralist1

I give up.
We can't even agree what BDSM stands for.
I've always thought it was Discipline not Domination.



I was taught it was both.

B = bondage
D = discipline or domination
S = submission or sadism
M = masochism

So if you see BD = bondage & discipline
or SM = sadomasochism
or DS = domination/submissive



LadyEllen -> RE: if it isnt SSC, its not BDSM (5/19/2008 3:39:57 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
As far as i am aware, the new law in the UK doesnt allow the police to come round anytime. They have to have proof, or at least well founded reasoning,  that you have been viewing violent porn. Surely to suggest all thats needed is to belong to Collarme is scaremongering ?


I'd rather take the line PS53, that the first thing most coppers will do is to look at sites likes this, for the easy collar. Its perhaps a worse case scenario - but as I mentioned in another post, when one finds within an LGBT advisory group that several members believe we're violent, dangerous, sexual predators - I dont fancy that the police in general will be any more enlightened.

Couple that with a miisunderstanding of the legislation, and hey presto - youre carted away along with your PC - and there is only one other sort of offender to whom that happens, in connection with porn images. Cue the total destruction of your life.

E



Politesub53 -> RE: if it isnt SSC, its not BDSM (5/19/2008 3:51:10 AM)

Sorry i seemed snippy Lady E. My point was that belonging to a site like this isnt against the law, and personally i dont think they will check membership of this, and start raiding houses. More likely they will do a deal with the ISP and credit card companies and keep an eye on membership of certain porn sites.

That said, the West Midland serious crime squad have always bent the rules to suit themselves. There is another thread on the off topic forum about police and the illegal taking of peoples photos, people are not told they have a right to refuse this.



LadyEllen -> RE: if it isnt SSC, its not BDSM (5/19/2008 5:08:47 AM)

I didnt take it as snippy PS53?

No, membership here is not an offence. Dependent on sponsors' ads though, we might all be deemed (by an officer unfamiliar with BDSM and misinterpreting what is forbidden) as suspects, because some of those images are undoubtedly extreme in his mind. Not knowing the context and not understanding the difference between allowed and prohibited, it could easily become the case that we're all raided.

Like you, I would hope that common sense would prevail to prevent unnecessary, wasteful and ruinous investigations; but we saw how RIPA is being interpreted and applied - I simply dont trust the police to know better, unless theyre told.

We should also bear in mind, that those charged with enforcing this law will be the same teams who enforce the laws about certain other pornographic images, and have access to some very effective investigative techniques.

E



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 5 [6]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125