"I need the profound emotional release that comes from, just for an evening, having no responsibilities at all. I need the deep, kittenish satisfaction that comes from offering myself to my lover, doing what I'm told and being found pleasing. I need the emotional simplicity that arises from being given very simple goals. Don't move. Trust me. Endure this."
At least she does it only in her spare time with consenting partners. Labour voters want that for life from the state, & inflict it on the rest of the population!
Still isn't my cup of tea though. Am far more "conventional". But I don't view it as my place to stop people engaging in this sort of doing with each other...
"What will the government do next? Make it illegal to rape a blow-up doll"
Didn't some chap get prosecuted for having sex with his bicycle a few months ago?
Thank you for an interesting post.
This is another in a long line of stupid and unnecessary laws that criminalise people who are not criminals (presumeably including me after following your links). As you, rightly, point out we already have laws to deal with non-consensual sexual or violent acts.
I do have one question - the balloon thing - how does that work?
What is happening in your country? Once a proud bastion of freedom and liberty, it's now becoming a place only for the polite and proper. Is it the political correctness movement? I just don't understand it. The stiff upper lip has been replaced with shriveled balls.
Anonymous said…
Very brave, well reasoned, great writing - and fills me with despair for the cause of personal freedom.
As long as there are people like you speaking out then all is not lost. Thank you.
Anonymous said…
I completely respect your right to live your life the way you want. But what does it say about your "fans" that they get their kicks from watching women being hurt and abused? And doesn't it send the messge that women are all "brats" and naughty schoolgirls who enjoy being beaten up?
Briony, I'm one of Pandora's fans. And I'm a feminist. And kinky. And a woman.
Why on earth would a spanking movie — or any movie — send any sort of message about "all" women?
Plus, you don't do justice to the diversity of our fetish. There's sooo much more out there besides brats and schoolgirls. Seriously. Go check it out.
Anonymous said…
Unlike most of H's upstanding commentors, this kind of stuff absolutely IS my cup tea, and this article only confirms my belief that kinky people are smarter than nulab prudes, and better able to make decisions about their sex lives.
I doubt anyone will ever be prosecuted under this law. I hope I'm right.
thank you for inviting Pandora Blake to write this guest article. There are very few others that could represent the point of view of the spanking and BDSM communities in such an eloquent and accurate manner.
Briony wrote- "But what does it say about your "fans" that they get their kicks from watching women being hurt and abused? And doesn't it send the message that women are all "brats" and naughty schoolgirls who enjoy being beaten up?"
- To that it can only be said that there are just as many male brats and naughty adult schoolboys, out here in the world, that enjoy being "beaten up" both on an amateur level like myself and whilst modeling for kinky video producers. I find the general argument amongst those that support the recently activated laws that they are some how supporting the feminist cause unsubstantiated. Although the laws themselves to not distinguish between men and women, the general point, that is so often heard from it's supporters, that it is there to protect women can only get the response from male bottoms and subs that the choice to go and get "beaten up" should not only be open to men. This is sexism in its most base and dangerous form, not unlike the attitudes of many in the 19th century that men should have the right to have the opportunity to choose their political leaders whereas women should not. Men should have the right to choose to be "beaten up" in a safe, sane and consensual manner if they wish, on an amateur level or as a professional model. My sisters within the world of spanking and BDSM should have exactly the same right to make that choice.
These unreasonable laws are bad enough in themselves, the openly sexist attitude of many of it's supporters is, frankly, intolerable.
My only trouble with arguing that the case that people who carry out sexual crimes aren't influenced by the pornographic material they consume is unproven is that I can't see how you could ever prove it. I observe, broadly speaking, a connection between the things I think and the way I act; but I benefit from a nice, stable upbringing and highly-developed systems of internal moral sanction, like a lot of fortunate people. Not everyone's like that. What the State should do about it is another matter, of course.
And I wish everyone who disagreed with me took your approach to it.
Wasp_box - Hey, thanks for your reply :)
I think the bicycle incident was a public nuisance/indecency thing rather than anything else? I could be wrong though.
No idea about the balloon thing. I think it's an extension of latex fetish, but there's certainly more to it than that. I think the list in the entry I linked is are quite revealing, as they show what the client is looking for and what the trigger points are.
Briony - Your first sentence is immediately contradicted about your next question. My "fans" include men and women, subs and doms. I'm a "fan" of kinky porn myself. I was looking at pictures of men and women (mostly women) being hurt and abused for years before I started working in the industry. Are you saying it's okay for me to look at porn, but not for men? Or are you saying it's okay for me to act in porn, but not to look at it?
Misogyny is sometimes defined as the view that women do not have individual personalities; that any general statement about women applies to all women. People who think like this are going to think like this whether or not they look at porn, and all we can really do is wait for them to die and make sure our sons are better brought up. And people who don't think like this are going to look at kinky porn exactly the same way I do - as a fantasy.
I've fantasised about being hurt and abused, or watching others being hurt and abused, for most of my life. This doesn't mean I want to be assaulted or raped. Quite the contrary - I'm much more aware of the risks than some of the women I know, and much more inclined to respond with anger to any perceived threat to my person. Nor does it mean I would wish harm on any other person. Fantasy and reality. They're two very different things.
I absolutely believe that kinky porn, whether the submissive figure is male or female, is best when accompanied by informed debate. I'm much more interested in a video of someone being hurt and abused if I know a bit about the model, know that they enjoy what they do, know a bit about their reasons for doing it. I find it hard to enjoy porn where the consent of the models isn't explicit - I'm much more interested if the models have a voice and I can hear in their own words that they got off on making it just asuch as I get off on watching it. So I can sort of see where you're coming from. But I wouldn't ever presume to insist that everyone watching porn subscribe to the same ideals. It's a question of personal taste.
I think that modern advertising, music videos and vanilla porn send a much more misogynistic than any kinky porn, which is, as I've said in my entry, much more focussed on female desire. I'd like to see more female-gaze spanking porn (and intend to produce my own) but there's already a fair amount out there.
And don't forget that an awful lot of kinky porn is male hurting male, or female hurting male. Do you have a problem with the "message" that sends?
If you're getting a "message" about all women from the kind of porn I'm talking about, I think this says much more about you than it does about the porn.
This is an extremely well done piece-- thanks to Pandora for writing it and to H for choosing so well.
As a feminist woman who only came to terms with her own kinkiness in her 40's, I have some sympathy for Briony's views. After all, mine weren't very different a few years ago, and they were probably the primary reason that I hadn't explored an essential part of my own sexuality. Happily, greater exposure to the kinky community has made it clear to me that they were also almost completely wrong.
Prefectdt is of course right that society tends to focus on BDSM in the context of male-dominant female-submissive activity. That's probably a reflection of our society's uneasiness with relatively new roles for men and for women, and with women's concerns (often realistic, in my view) that relinquishing hard-won control in any form can be a slippery slope.
So I too wondered about men—not women, just men-- who watch kinky videos. I didn’t even consider at first that many of them enjoyed imagining themselves as the "victim," just as I do when I watch a spanking clip. I soon learned the error of that assumption, but I still remained a bit suspicious of male tops. And then, I began meeting kinky people and realized they were just like the everybody else.
The vast majority of men and women I’ve met in the scene treat one another with kindness and respect and look out for the interests of newcomers. Submission or dominance in one’s sexual life seem to have little correlation with the extent of control or responsibility we take in other parts of our lives. Most of the men I’ve met who enjoy dominating women in a kinky context are fundamentally extremely respectful of women- and not in the paternalistic way of the creators of this law. They are also giddily pleased that they can bring us pleasure as they act out their own fantasies (or ours) in a safe, sane and consensual manner.
Sure, there are kinky men who are insecure and selfish and who use kink as a way to try to keep women in a less powerful position, but I doubt that’s because they’re kinky. There are also plenty of vanilla men who do the same, as most of us see in one way or another in our daily lives. In short, there are petty tyrants in every group in society.
There may actually be more predators in the BDSM and spanking scenes than in society as a whole, drawn in much the same way as pedophiles are drawn to children’s and youth groups. Of course, the vast majority of adults who work with children are decent, dedicated people. The same is true in the kinky world. No one suggests that we should disband the Boy Scouts or youth groups because there are pedophiles in the world: we are simply more cautious about screening those who work with youth. Most of us gladly endure such screening because we also value the safety of young people. It works the same way in spanking and BDSM groups, and, as far as I can tell in, in the spanking pornography industry itself. Thus, as Pandora points out, laws forbidding the ownership or making of films made in a safe and consensual manner are absolutely unnecessary.
In addition to my fundamental concerns about censorship in a viable democratic society, I worry that this law will drive the kinky community further underground. Having an internet forum in which to discuss desires I had for so long thought that no one else shared was an essential part of becoming more fully myself, even more fully alive. Society shouldn’t underestimate the human cost of denying kinky people the ability to talk to one another, to meet one another and the express our humanity in a shared community. After all, we’re a distinct minority in society, and it takes networking with an explicitly kinky focus to meet one another and to learn about exploring our desires safely. To drive what are after all basic sexual needs underground seems more likely to cause an explosion than to prevent one.
Anonymous said…
Since people are asking what kind of person watches this, I'd like to speak up.
I get my kicks from damsels in distress it's true. When presented with a woman in pain I get a strong urge first to protect her, then to soothe her, then to progress to making her happy, most likely... ahem... through physical means.
Logic says it's how nature protects wounded and vulnerable people, by making them more attractive to potential mates who will protect them.
Certainly it takes some amount of suspension of disbelief to actually turn it into a sex game, but so does any kind of recreational sex. You're either trying for a baby or you're suspending disbelief.
Anonymous said…
I agree thats its a crazy law, But it only affects extreme violence in porn, Sex does not make crime ok assaulting someone is a crime whether yo consent it or not, animals cannot consent sex so its criminal, violence or intent of self harm is criminal, to provoke a potential harmful or violent situation is caution able by law enforcement, the fact is you can still do your stuff but do not expect that broadcasting it is ok,
I LOVE porn, but you have to see reasoning within the law, it isnt a fierce as they mae it out to be, spankings fine, wankings fine. animes fine, it affects the extremitys
Anonymous said…
I love this article. I always get a bit depressed when I hear "Oh don't worry, it won't affect you" or "Why should I care, it doesn't affect me" (especially when the sentiment is often "Why should *you* care") - the point is that even if I happen to not have or view images that risk being illegal under the law, the law still spreads prejudice against kink as you say, and sends a message that certain consensual acts, even if entirely role-played, are "abhorrent", and comparable to real abusive acts.
There are those who support the law whilst claiming not to have anything against BDSM, but this tends to be only as far as the mildest of acts are concerned (as suggested by the Anonymous comment); "I'm okay with this - but that's just going too far".
What will be next? Since the Government is passing a law criminalising drawings of sexual images of under-18s (yes, 18, not 16; which will also catch drawings of adults if the predominant impression is of an under-18), and the Government equates the "extreme porn" law to the law on fictional child porn, a future law on "violent drawings" does not seem inconceivable.
I'm not aware of any push for written material - however, anyone who publishes or distributes written fantasy material should be wary of the Girls Aloud case. If successful, it will set the precedent that written material can be illegal under the Obscene Publications Act, as well as being the first case of material published on the Internet.
The way the laws are going, I can see it remaining legal to rape a blow-up doll or wank over a photo - but I can imagine it being illegal to draw a picture of someone raping a blow-up doll, or possess a picture of a friend "for the purpose of getting aroused by it"... The laws criminalise images but not the acts themselves; and judge people based on apparent motives, not actual motives, which makes them all the more insane.
@Briony - It says that her fans enjoy acts between consenting adults?
If we're worried about sending a message, shouldn't we be worried about much more prevalent mainstream porn, as opposed to alternative interests? Not only is the former far more widespread, but alternative fetish and SM pornography is far more likely to feature men in submissive roles and women in dominant ones, or to have same sex scenes, unlike mainstream porn. The message is that people are in a role because they choose it, and not because of their gender.
@Anonymous: "it affects the extremitys" - No, it affects entirely staged and fictional material - including for example, an extract from a legal film. I think you misunderstand the law, it's not about stopping illegal or abusive acts, it applies to consenting adults, even if it's all pretend. Are you suggesting that crime dramas on TV should be illegal, because crime itself is illegal? Of course not. This law does not criminalise based on what actually happened, it criminalises based on what the image appears to show - even if it can be proven otherwise. (Did you read Pandora's excellent and informative article here? She explains this quite clearly.)
Consenting adults role-playing with a knife are intended to come under the law, if one of them pretends to threaten the other, in an image.
So spanking's fine - but anything beyond that, who knows. Between "mild spanking with a feather duster" and "the most extreme acts conceivable", there's a whole range of BDSM acts that consenting adults do, and view. The fact that we are supposed to be happy that only the mildest of S&M acts are legal in an image (even if staged) shows how restrictive this law has become. Note also that the law has been broadened since it was originally proposed, so please don't be misled by anything you read at earlier stages.
Comments
At least she does it only in her spare time with consenting partners. Labour voters want that for life from the state, & inflict it on the rest of the population!
Still isn't my cup of tea though. Am far more "conventional". But I don't view it as my place to stop people engaging in this sort of doing with each other...
Didn't some chap get prosecuted for having sex with his bicycle a few months ago?
Thank you for an interesting post.
This is another in a long line of stupid and unnecessary laws that criminalise people who are not criminals (presumeably including me after following your links). As you, rightly, point out we already have laws to deal with non-consensual sexual or violent acts.
I do have one question - the balloon thing - how does that work?
As long as there are people like you speaking out then all is not lost. Thank you.
Why on earth would a spanking movie — or any movie — send any sort of message about "all" women?
Plus, you don't do justice to the diversity of our fetish. There's sooo much more out there besides brats and schoolgirls. Seriously. Go check it out.
I doubt anyone will ever be prosecuted under this law. I hope I'm right.
Briony wrote- "But what does it say about your "fans" that they get their kicks from watching women being hurt and abused? And doesn't it send the message that women are all "brats" and naughty schoolgirls who enjoy being beaten up?"
- To that it can only be said that there are just as many male brats and naughty adult schoolboys, out here in the world, that enjoy being "beaten up" both on an amateur level like myself and whilst modeling for kinky video producers. I find the general argument amongst those that support the recently activated laws that they are some how supporting the feminist cause unsubstantiated. Although the laws themselves to not distinguish between men and women, the general point, that is so often heard from it's supporters, that it is there to protect women can only get the response from male bottoms and subs that the choice to go and get "beaten up" should not only be open to men. This is sexism in its most base and dangerous form, not unlike the attitudes of many in the 19th century that men should have the right to have the opportunity to choose their political leaders whereas women should not. Men should have the right to choose to be "beaten up" in a safe, sane and consensual manner if they wish, on an amateur level or as a professional model. My sisters within the world of spanking and BDSM should have exactly the same right to make that choice.
These unreasonable laws are bad enough in themselves, the openly sexist attitude of many of it's supporters is, frankly, intolerable.
Prefectdt
My only trouble with arguing that the case that people who carry out sexual crimes aren't influenced by the pornographic material they consume is unproven is that I can't see how you could ever prove it. I observe, broadly speaking, a connection between the things I think and the way I act; but I benefit from a nice, stable upbringing and highly-developed systems of internal moral sanction, like a lot of fortunate people. Not everyone's like that. What the State should do about it is another matter, of course.
Asquith - Is representative democracy consensual? Gorden Brown's leadership arguably isn't...
And I wish everyone who disagreed with me took your approach to it.
Wasp_box - Hey, thanks for your reply :)
I think the bicycle incident was a public nuisance/indecency thing rather than anything else? I could be wrong though.
No idea about the balloon thing. I think it's an extension of latex fetish, but there's certainly more to it than that. I think the list in the entry I linked is are quite revealing, as they show what the client is looking for and what the trigger points are.
Briony - Your first sentence is immediately contradicted about your next question. My "fans" include men and women, subs and doms. I'm a "fan" of kinky porn myself. I was looking at pictures of men and women (mostly women) being hurt and abused for years before I started working in the industry. Are you saying it's okay for me to look at porn, but not for men? Or are you saying it's okay for me to act in porn, but not to look at it?
Misogyny is sometimes defined as the view that women do not have individual personalities; that any general statement about women applies to all women. People who think like this are going to think like this whether or not they look at porn, and all we can really do is wait for them to die and make sure our sons are better brought up. And people who don't think like this are going to look at kinky porn exactly the same way I do - as a fantasy.
I've fantasised about being hurt and abused, or watching others being hurt and abused, for most of my life. This doesn't mean I want to be assaulted or raped. Quite the contrary - I'm much more aware of the risks than some of the women I know, and much more inclined to respond with anger to any perceived threat to my person. Nor does it mean I would wish harm on any other person. Fantasy and reality. They're two very different things.
I absolutely believe that kinky porn, whether the submissive figure is male or female, is best when accompanied by informed debate. I'm much more interested in a video of someone being hurt and abused if I know a bit about the model, know that they enjoy what they do, know a bit about their reasons for doing it. I find it hard to enjoy porn where the consent of the models isn't explicit - I'm much more interested if the models have a voice and I can hear in their own words that they got off on making it just asuch as I get off on watching it. So I can sort of see where you're coming from. But I wouldn't ever presume to insist that everyone watching porn subscribe to the same ideals. It's a question of personal taste.
I think that modern advertising, music videos and vanilla porn send a much more misogynistic than any kinky porn, which is, as I've said in my entry, much more focussed on female desire. I'd like to see more female-gaze spanking porn (and intend to produce my own) but there's already a fair amount out there.
And don't forget that an awful lot of kinky porn is male hurting male, or female hurting male. Do you have a problem with the "message" that sends?
If you're getting a "message" about all women from the kind of porn I'm talking about, I think this says much more about you than it does about the porn.
As a feminist woman who only came to terms with her own kinkiness in her 40's, I have some sympathy for Briony's views. After all, mine weren't very different a few years ago, and they were probably the primary reason that I hadn't explored an essential part of my own sexuality. Happily, greater exposure to the kinky community has made it clear to me that they were also almost completely wrong.
Prefectdt is of course right that society tends to focus on BDSM in the context of male-dominant female-submissive activity. That's probably a reflection of our society's uneasiness with relatively new roles for men and for women, and with women's concerns (often realistic, in my view) that relinquishing hard-won control in any form can be a slippery slope.
So I too wondered about men—not women, just men-- who watch kinky videos. I didn’t even consider at first that many of them enjoyed imagining themselves as the "victim," just as I do when I watch a spanking clip. I soon learned the error of that assumption, but I still remained a bit suspicious of male tops. And then, I began meeting kinky people and realized they were just like the everybody else.
The vast majority of men and women I’ve met in the scene treat one another with kindness and respect and look out for the interests of newcomers. Submission or dominance in one’s sexual life seem to have little correlation with the extent of control or responsibility we take in other parts of our lives. Most of the men I’ve met who enjoy dominating women in a kinky context are fundamentally extremely respectful of women- and not in the paternalistic way of the creators of this law. They are also giddily pleased that they can bring us pleasure as they act out their own fantasies (or ours) in a safe, sane and consensual manner.
Sure, there are kinky men who are insecure and selfish and who use kink as a way to try to keep women in a less powerful position, but I doubt that’s because they’re kinky. There are also plenty of vanilla men who do the same, as most of us see in one way or another in our daily lives. In short, there are petty tyrants in every group in society.
There may actually be more predators in the BDSM and spanking scenes than in society as a whole, drawn in much the same way as pedophiles are drawn to children’s and youth groups. Of course, the vast majority of adults who work with children are decent, dedicated people. The same is true in the kinky world. No one suggests that we should disband the Boy Scouts or youth groups because there are pedophiles in the world: we are simply more cautious about screening those who work with youth. Most of us gladly endure such screening because we also value the safety of young people. It works the same way in spanking and BDSM groups, and, as far as I can tell in, in the spanking pornography industry itself. Thus, as Pandora points out, laws forbidding the ownership or making of films made in a safe and consensual manner are absolutely unnecessary.
In addition to my fundamental concerns about censorship in a viable democratic society, I worry that this law will drive the kinky community further underground. Having an internet forum in which to discuss desires I had for so long thought that no one else shared was an essential part of becoming more fully myself, even more fully alive. Society shouldn’t underestimate the human cost of denying kinky people the ability to talk to one another, to meet one another and the express our humanity in a shared community. After all, we’re a distinct minority in society, and it takes networking with an explicitly kinky focus to meet one another and to learn about exploring our desires safely. To drive what are after all basic sexual needs underground seems more likely to cause an explosion than to prevent one.
I get my kicks from damsels in distress it's true. When presented with a woman in pain I get a strong urge first to protect her, then to soothe her, then to progress to making her happy, most likely... ahem... through physical means.
Logic says it's how nature protects wounded and vulnerable people, by making them more attractive to potential mates who will protect them.
Certainly it takes some amount of suspension of disbelief to actually turn it into a sex game, but so does any kind of recreational sex. You're either trying for a baby or you're suspending disbelief.
Sex does not make crime ok
assaulting someone is a crime whether yo consent it or not,
animals cannot consent sex so its criminal,
violence or intent of self harm is criminal, to provoke a potential harmful or violent situation is caution able by law enforcement,
the fact is you can still do your stuff but do not expect that broadcasting it is ok,
I LOVE porn, but you have to see reasoning within the law, it isnt a fierce as they mae it out to be, spankings fine, wankings fine. animes fine, it affects the extremitys
There are those who support the law whilst claiming not to have anything against BDSM, but this tends to be only as far as the mildest of acts are concerned (as suggested by the Anonymous comment); "I'm okay with this - but that's just going too far".
What will be next? Since the Government is passing a law criminalising drawings of sexual images of under-18s (yes, 18, not 16; which will also catch drawings of adults if the predominant impression is of an under-18), and the Government equates the "extreme porn" law to the law on fictional child porn, a future law on "violent drawings" does not seem inconceivable.
I'm not aware of any push for written material - however, anyone who publishes or distributes written fantasy material should be wary of the Girls Aloud case. If successful, it will set the precedent that written material can be illegal under the Obscene Publications Act, as well as being the first case of material published on the Internet.
The way the laws are going, I can see it remaining legal to rape a blow-up doll or wank over a photo - but I can imagine it being illegal to draw a picture of someone raping a blow-up doll, or possess a picture of a friend "for the purpose of getting aroused by it"... The laws criminalise images but not the acts themselves; and judge people based on apparent motives, not actual motives, which makes them all the more insane.
@Briony - It says that her fans enjoy acts between consenting adults?
If we're worried about sending a message, shouldn't we be worried about much more prevalent mainstream porn, as opposed to alternative interests? Not only is the former far more widespread, but alternative fetish and SM pornography is far more likely to feature men in submissive roles and women in dominant ones, or to have same sex scenes, unlike mainstream porn. The message is that people are in a role because they choose it, and not because of their gender.
@Anonymous: "it affects the extremitys" - No, it affects entirely staged and fictional material - including for example, an extract from a legal film. I think you misunderstand the law, it's not about stopping illegal or abusive acts, it applies to consenting adults, even if it's all pretend. Are you suggesting that crime dramas on TV should be illegal, because crime itself is illegal? Of course not. This law does not criminalise based on what actually happened, it criminalises based on what the image appears to show - even if it can be proven otherwise. (Did you read Pandora's excellent and informative article here? She explains this quite clearly.)
Consenting adults role-playing with a knife are intended to come under the law, if one of them pretends to threaten the other, in an image.
So spanking's fine - but anything beyond that, who knows. Between "mild spanking with a feather duster" and "the most extreme acts conceivable", there's a whole range of BDSM acts that consenting adults do, and view. The fact that we are supposed to be happy that only the mildest of S&M acts are legal in an image (even if staged) shows how restrictive this law has become. Note also that the law has been broadened since it was originally proposed, so please don't be misled by anything you read at earlier stages.