The response of a 30 year old female professional
working in the field of sexual reproductive rights, with a degree in
criminology and active in the London BDSM scene
1. Do you
think the challenge posed by the Internet in this area requires the
law to be strengthened ?
Not at all. The laws currently in place to protect children and the
public from materials produced for and by paedophiles are adequate
for those and related crimes alone and should not be related to, nor
compared to, pornographic images featuring consenting adults
indulging in consensual and/or sadomasochistic sexual behaviour.
Parents, guardians and teachers of a position in loco parentis are
responsible for those in their charge and have the tools and
technology available necessary to protect their children from
accessing any material they see as unsuitable.
2. In the absence of conclusive research results as to its possible
negative effects, do you think that there is some pornographic
material which is so degrading, violent or aberrant that it should
not be tolerated ?
Materials featuring children, animals, necrophilia are already
banned and for good reason. There can not be consent in these
activities.
Proposing a possession offence to try to break the demand/supply
cycle and discourage interest in this material has not succeeded in
deterring paedophiles, necrophiles or those who have an interest in
bestiality in accessing or creating the materials they want -
activities that are already illegal. There has been no reduction in
any of these practices and no reduction in the number of individuals
arrested for these crimes.
There is (as is stated in the consultation document) no evidence to
suggest that access to violent consensual adult pornographic images
leads to criminal behaviour. In fact, during 1990, in Palm Beach
Florida County Jail, violence by male inmates actually declined when
violent films were shown as entertainment for the prisoners.
The comment by Cathy Jamieson and Paul Goggins on the consultation
paper stating that "We believe most people would find this material
abhorrent" is irrelevant to this consultation process. This is not
an issue of what they find "abhorrent" or acceptable forms of sexual
expression, the consultation is to discuss the potential and
possible reduction of harm through the possession or potential
illegality of possessing of extreme adult pornography.
3. Do you agree with the list of material set out (in paragraph 39)
?
I am unsure as to what this question refers to exactly. I agree that
actual scenes featuring -
(i) intercourse or oral sex with an animal
(ii) sexual interference with a human corpse
(iii) serious violence in a sexual context
(iv) serious sexual violence
should be restricted to the offence, but realistic depictions of
these acts is as stated - a "depiction". They are not "real".
Extreme adult pornography featuring "depictions" of these are just
that - "realistic depictions". To make an offence of such depictions
would mean that a great of the cinema accessible to adults in the
past would be viewed as illegal.
The character Sarah Tobias played by Jodie Foster in The Accused was
gang-raped. Jodie Foster won an Academy Award for this film which
expressed the essence of rape, in violence and abuse of power. If
this consultation lead to the criminalisation of such images and
those involved in the production of such images, the actors who
raped Jodie Foster would be guilty of assault or worse.
Many of the images and films with the BDSM community feature
depictions of violence, abuse of power and the like. Materials that
are produced between consenting adults for private enjoyment, or the
enjoyment and even education of others.
Simply dramatising serious sexual violence should not be a crime.
4. Do you believe there is any justification for being in possession
of such material ?
Categorically Yes.
Adults are allowed such freedoms within society as to select what
they do or do not wish to watch. If what they wish to view is
unacceptable to the majority, then it is a matter of preference.
5. Which option do you prefer ?
Option 4 (do nothing)
6. Why do you think this option is best ?
There is no evidence that proves that possession of such materials
causes or is likely to ever cause an increase in "real" sexual
violence, and I believe it causes a reduction in real sexually
violent behaviour.
7. Which penalty option do you prefer ?
I don't believe there should be a penalty for possession of these
materials.
© Copyleft backlash 2005-6
