Extreme Porn Consultation...

My first comments are about the process of consultation. The outreach and publicity for it were poor.

No social, support, educational or campaigning groups for BDSM asked to contribute and these are clearly stakeholders. (BDSM: Bondage and Domination, Domination and Submission, Sadism and Masochism – a catch all term covering a wide variety of kinks performed with risk-aware consent.)

The press release and Home Office website were uncoordinated. I heard about the consultation on the radio and yet I couldn't find it on the Home Office website. I contacted the Home Office by email about this on 30th August and haven't had so much as an acknowledgement by 30th November. Friends found me a copy later but they say this disappeared off the website too due to some technical problems. It seems obvious to me that if you want to consult with people you need to give them access to the consultation document.

The language used throughout the consultation document is biased and the questions are leading. I expect a consultation to ask for views in an unbiased way. There is much highly emotive and irrelevant stuff included. Child pornography is mentioned repeatedly even though the consultation is about material by and for adults. This is a common tactic used by repressive regimes attempting to censor the Internet. I expected better from the British Civil service.

When considering any new law, the first question must be, “is it needed?”

My answer to this is a clear no. Is there any harm to others or infringement on their rights from viewing the material in question? You already admit in the consultation that there is no reliable evidence of this.

(Since you have already accepted this point I don't feel the need to strongly support it but I will say my research agrees. There had been suggestions, particularly within feminist thought, that pornography directly leads to violence. Groups such as Feminists Against Censorship and others have examined the evidence and disproved that assertion. Government, the Civil Service & statutory agencies and academics interested in preventing and understanding sexual offences have also looked into this carefully and found that there isn't a causal link. Other countries across the world suggest similar conclusions, Japan for example. There may be some correlation between those who commit violence and those who watch it but there isn't causation.

There is also a strong correlation with religious texts and we don't suggest banning them or reducing criminal responsibility because an offender read the bible or watched a religious film.)

Is there harm to the viewer? Again, there is no evidence that says so. British law is already inconsistent when it comes to protecting someone from his or her self. I can drive a car, skydive or get into a boxing ring yet some people assert watching a fantasy film would be more harmful. We need a good risk analysis of actual probabilities of harm and consequences of those risks to inform public debate in this area.

While we are still examining if a law is needed, the next question is, “Is there already law in this area?” Yes, there is. Violence and coercion in or without sexual context is criminal here and throughout world. There are criminal sanctions and social support in cases where consent is uninformed or invalidated through age or mental incapacity. New law would add nothing to already serious assault charges.

What would be the effects of a new law? A challenge to the civil liberties that underpin much of our law for a start. There is more specific harm – in the wake of current opinion polls showing widespread disregard of a woman's right to say no to sex and blaming her for rape I am stunned to see your suggestion of ignoring consent, disempowering actors and undermining the concept of consent. If we put rape and willing sex between adults in same category of illegality this sends out dangerous messages to society. By all means examine consent carefully for coercion or duress – I support that - but ignoring "actual consent" is very worrying.

Already overstretched police resources would be wasted enforcing laws against crimes with no victims.

Some actions that could be good acting or real abuse look the same on film – whether a kiss or a whipping. How do we tell them apart? A transparent, regulated industry safeguards against dangerous or exploitative working conditions. If all images showing some acts are illegal, regardless of working practices, the industry will move underground and be less accountable much more dangerous for all concerned.

The power to censor is a dangerous thing. Who wields that power and how? In the past, censorship was often used by establishment against the avant garde, alternative and progressive movements such those by homosexuals or women. How do we guard against censors making decisions based on their own ignorance of some sexualities or practices or worse unconscious psychological biases and outright prejudice and hate? How do we avoid a chilling effect on human expression from perceived legal threat?

Pornography has been with humans throughout recorded history, often reflecting societies mores and at best providing harmless pleasure, inspiring the imagination and providing education and validation for the full range of consensual human sexuality. This doesn't mean it is all good. I would argue against the imagery used in much mainstream media portraying sex and relationships. I'd rather it not be produced or consumed but I don't advocate banning any of it. I want an educated and critical audience freely debating the quality and ethics of the art, not censors and the under-the- counter distribution that goes with such repression, hiding in the shadows where anything goes in silence.

Great works of literature and popular classics from Shakespeare to Agatha Christie play upon fictional violence, most mainstream films show problem solving limited to the barrel of a gun and real life violence fills every news broadcast. Sex seems to be a special case inspiring strong emotions.

Emotions are important so let's look at them sensitively but fully – and without losing all semblance of logical thought. Some of the impetus for this consultation comes from a murder and I don't want to discount the suffering when someone much loved is killed. I don't believe any of the suggestions in this consultation will stop such tragic crimes and I find it particularly stupid to divert resources and determination away from preventing actual harm and supporting the abused by finding scapegoats in fantasy. Someone in pain and mourning I can see acting by lashing out at images similar to ones connected with an awful crime. The rest of us should be able to sit with those emotions too but keep thinking rationally and make decisions that will form a more effective long term memorial to the killed and harmed by focussing on actual risks and harm, not just imagery some people find distasteful.

Unless we propose introducing thought-crime into British law, we must keep a clear distinction between fantasy and reality. My behaviour is quite rightly constrained by whether I would harm another or myself. My thoughts and fancies are not the same as what I do. I've always had kinky thoughts. Growing up I picked up a reasonable moral framework and clearly understand the difference between whatever turns me on and acceptable behaviour with others. I was lucky to have access to an easily found BDSM community on the Internet as I became an adult. I learned that there were others with similar drives and that through good self-knowledge and negotiation skills, consenting adults could play sensually and sexually with strong emotions and sensations, role play and the like and have fulfilling, empowering and mutually trusting and caring relationships. Some of the best ethical thinking around power, consent, community and relationships can be found in BDSM communities.

It is a function of appropriate education that I could watch a superhero film as a child, however realistic the stunts, and understand that I couldn't jump off a roof and fly. Likewise, an informed, competent adult will understand the difference between a video showing a pretend violent act played by actors and an actual assault.

I'd like to see everyone on reaching maturity understand the range and diversity of human sexuality and have good self-knowledge and communication skills so they can make informed choices and accept that other adults may find different sexual activities or partners preferable.

The consultation mentions four areas in particular:

i) Intercourse or oral sex with an animal. I'm fully in favour of reducing cruelty to animals. This would include sexual activity against their consent but this seems a tiny problem compared to the massive unnecessary suffering caused by killing them and eating them or using them for fashionable clothes. Also, the actual cruelty to the animal should be the focus of regulation, not images of that cruelty which don't themselves cause any harm. Animals are unlikely to be embarrassed by videos of them being circulated.

ii) Sexual interference with a human corpse. A dead person can hardly be harmed further so I presume this relates to the feelings of living people who loved the deceased or the possibility of people being killed for sexual use. Murder is already illegal and I don't see how adding a more minor crime would make people less likely to do it or help prosecute them. I'm not sure how to deal with the sensitive issue of surviving people being distressed by their deceased loved one being used sexually and so won't comment further on it.

iii) serious violence in a sexual context; and

iv) serious sexual violence

We need to consider what controlled risks a competent and informed adult may choose to accept – whether rock climbing or taking part in a bondage video. British law is inconsistent in this area as has been looked at in the Law Commission's report on consent and the criminal law for example. We also need to consider the difference between fantasy and reality. Again this consultation includes fantasy images where no actual violence is even alleged to have occurred and putting people in prison for looking at them. The language used conflates someone being beaten up by an abusive partner and choosing and enjoying sex play that involves playing with force and power. It also conflates someone actually being physically damaged and fantasy material where actors create a story or scene which looks realistic and similar but where no harm actually takes place.

If the law understands a difference between partners making love and rape, the difference being free and informed consent to perhaps the same physical act, then that should extend to all forms of consensual human sexuality. If we are not to shut down every movie theatre and video shop and burn most of the books in our libraries the law must understand the difference between actual harm and fictional depictions of it. These distinctions must be applied to the Internet as well as all other media.

This consultation has been unworthy of the name, with little regard to outreach or its availability and biased and irrelevantly emotive language throughout. The laws proposed in this consultation are unnecessary. There is no clear evidence that pornography causes direct harm to the makers, consumers or others in society. Existing laws already cover abusive acts. The proposed laws would cause harm by eroding the idea of consent, mixing up fact and fiction, pushing pornography into an unregulated underground and diverting resources from preventing and healing actual abuses.

In answer to your questions: 1.Do you think the challenge posed by the Internet in this area requires the law to be strengthened?

Absolutely not. Existing legislation, while needing reform to remove moralistic prejudice, already covers actual abuse. There is no reasonable evidence that images on the Internet, produced by and for informed and freely consenting adults, cause any harm. Censorship would be directly harmful and against basic human rights relating to free expression.

2.In the absence if 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?

No. Any actual violence or coercion taking place in the making can be combated by existing laws. If there is no evidence of harm, then it is none of the law's business. Human sexuality is diverse and offence is often perceived most by the ignorant. If people dislike certain forms of pornographic expression they are at liberty to avoid it or argue vigorously against it as they wish. Using force including legal sanctions to censor free expression is unethical and in a way violent.

3.Do you agree with the list of material set out (in paragraph 39)?

i)Actual animal cruelty should be proscribed but images of it are not the same as the actual abuse and need not be criminalised. Food and fashion industries cause far more widespread and massive unnecessary suffering to animals and should be reformed preferentially to laws about pictures on the Internet.

ii)A dead person cannot be physically harmed further and images do them no harm. Existing laws are already strong on incitement, assisting and actual murder and don't need strengthening. Grieving people should be handled sensitively and so I'm unsure of a legal response to images in this case.

iii) and iv) These are highly misleading categories. Actual violence and sexual assault are already illegal. Proposed laws must strengthen the difference between consenting adult activities which should be entirely legal and non-consensual assault which should remain proscribed. Proposed laws must also differentiate between real actual harm and fantasy material by and for informed and freely consenting adults where no actual harm or abuse occurs.

4.Do you believe there is any justification for being in possession of such material?

Since there is no conclusive evidence that possession of such material causes harm, I consider it a basic civil liberty and human right that no justification is necessary for its possession. Provided no harm is alleged, what gives people enjoyment in private is none of the government's business.

5.Which option do you prefer?

Option four – do nothing. I would go further and call for reform of related laws to remove all restrictions on free expression between informed and freely consenting adults where there is no reliable evidence of harm.

6.Why do you think this option is best?

There is no need for new legislation in this area and the proposed legislation would do no good and cause harm as detailed above.

7.Which penalty option would you prefer?

People should not be sent to prison or fined for possession of any material where there is no evidence of harm from that material. There is no reliable evidence of harm from sexual material produced by and for informed and freely consenting adults so it should be absolutely legal. If abuse does take place, the major focus of prosecution must be on the actual abuse rather than images of it. The issue of children is irrelevant to the terms of this consultation which deals with adults only.