Beware the Book Burner

Book Burners are rarely on the right side of history.  Authoritarian regimes, and the frightened call for books to be burns when they don't believe they can win against the ideas contained within the pages of a book.

It was therefore with a sense of alarm that I read last week of a bizarre campaign in Sunderland to ceremoniously burn copies of the bestselling fiction book, Fifty Shades of Grey.

According to the Sunderland Echo,  Clare Phillipson, director of the women’s refuge, today called for the trilogy – led by Fifty Shades of Grey – to be binned. “It’s absolutely disgusting,” she told the Echo. “It normalises abuse, degrades women and encourages sexual violence. “With it being in the media so much many men and women have rushed out to buy it, and many have come to me and told me how distressed they are by what’s written. “Passages in it are about women submitting to men, obeying their orders and violence being used in a sexual and erotic manner. It’s disgusting and sends out the wrong message.”

The Charity is collecting the books until November the 5th, when they will burn the books.

The following day, TV 'Agony Aunt', Denise Robertson waded in to the row.

According to the Echo, she said:  “I’m not surprised by the book’s success, but I just feel it’s terribly sad that people’s lives are so empty they’ve taken to going to buy a book that’s designed for titilation. I’m absolutely with Clare in getting people not buy the book. “Unfortunately, the more we talk about it, the more people will want to buy it probably.” She added: “It’s a horrible book. “I wish it had never been written. “It’s making S&M seem cool and dressing it up in frilly clothes, making it seem nice when it isn’t.

Let me begin by saying I've read the first book in the trilogy but not the others.  It took me around five times to get through the first few pages as it was so clunky, and badly written.  However, once past this, I flew through the book and did find it engaging, and enjoyable.  However, the book doesn't really understand BDSM.  It's depictions absurd and the longitudinal storyline (which I've not got to) that all you need is redemptive vanilla monogamy to be 'cured' of BDSM is rather silly, if not downright offensive to those who do engage in BDSM.

So, it's a pretty lousy but successful book.  That's not grounds for burning it.  If the book is so degrading to women, so utterly offensive; it's all the more puzzling that women are choosing to buy and enjoy all three novels (and other similar texts).

Robertson's assumption that S&M is not 'nice' is also bizarre and disturbing that a woman who has such a high-profile is choosing to display her ignorance.  I can recall This Morning (the show Robertson made her name on) promoting riding crops and fluffy handcuffs as part of a Valentines gift show a few years ago - surely behaviours which can fall within the boundaries of BDSM?

It's re-assuring to see from the comments on both stories that the public are far more 'switched on', and culturally aware than these two individuals, but any call for a public book burning should always be met with scepticism, if not all-out resistance.

Text chat can be obscene: R v GS [2012]

I am indebted to Jane Fae for alerting me to this important story earlier in the month.  Myles Jackman, aka @obscenitylawyer reported on his blog the case of R v GS [2012].

You could be forgiven for not having heard of it - few seem to, and yet the case has potentially extraordinary implications for English obscenity law. According to the Court of Appeal, private one to one text chat on the Internet can be subject to the Obscene Publications Act 1959 (OPA). This means that anyone using the Internet to discuss sexual fantasies may be at risk of committing a criminal offence.

Myles' blog includes the full law report which is well worth a read.

The Court was clearly determined to bend the law for the purposes of an individual case - concerning paedophile images.  Unfortunately, in doing so the Court has unwittingly extended the law - shifting the meaning of 'to publish' to be just one person (for example, via instant chat).  It significantly expands the scope of material that the Police might seek to obtain in the course of an investigation and also means that conversations individuals might be having via chat - and thus be speculative fantasy exploration - may well attract the law in a way that those individuals may be shocked at.

It's tempting to think, "well, this doesn't concern me".   After all, this case concerned a conversation relating to paedophilia, and few would seek to defend such conversations - regardless of the significant extension of law.

However, take a look at the CPS guidelines on the Obscene Publications Act and the scope of instant chat conversations that could come into focus expands further.  Here are those areas that the CPS would currently seek to prosecute (you will note the continued inclusion of fisting despite R v Peacock)

• sexual act with an animal 
• realistic portrayals of rape 
• sadomasochistic material which goes beyond trifling and transient infliction of injury 
• torture with instruments 
• bondage (especially where gags are used with no apparent means of withdrawing consent) dismemberment or graphic mutilation 
• activities involving perversion or degradation (such as drinking urine, urination or vomiting on to the body, or excretion or use of excreta) 
• fisting

So, once again, BDSM practices disproportionately fall within the attention of the law, and we also have scat and piss-play 'chats' falling in the scope of potential criminalisation.

It remains to be seen just what impact the case will have, but it is potentially very serious indeed and surely worthy of greater awareness and debate.

UPDATE:  Another great post on this story from Nigel Whitfield can be read here.

Reflections and future legal directions after #porntrial

Many superb commentators have already entered the fray of commenting upon the decision in R v Walsh.  Heresy Corner,  Myles Jackman, Alex Dymock, and David Allen Green should all be read at once, if you've not already done so.

I also need to declare my own interest, in that I had a very tiny role in the case as an expert witness, alongside my wonderful Sunderland colleague, Clarissa Smith.  The CPS must be wondering what they put in the water at Sunderland Uni.

Brit readers should also check out the lovely and eloquent Simon Walsh speaking last night on the BBC's Newsnight programme.  It's a very balanced interview and strikes a friendly, sometimes light, but never flippant tone.  A tribute to the presenter Eddie Mair (who is also gay).

I do not propose to re-state the facts, as they have been stated elsewhere, but whilst those descriptions have constructed the images as representing fisting, urethral sounds and one astonishing accusation of child pornography, I've been struck by the lack of mention of scat, which also featured in the fisting images.

Shit-play or sexual play incorporating excrement also characterised the fisting images and whilst the focus has been on injury, I always felt that the issue that might affect a jury more was that of 'disgust' - a term utilised in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, and part of the tests a jury must satisfy.  Representing - quite literally - the 'dirty', the 'unclean', this was for me the issue that a jury might find the most difficult to comprehend, and the most likely to cause discomfort.

Oh ye of little faith.  The jury demonstrated - in a unanimous verdict - that they did not find such an image 'grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character' (within the meaning of S63(6)(b)) and so whilst the focus has been on fisting, I think the acceptance of scat images is just as  - if not more - significant.

If we position R v Walsh alongside the case of R v Peacock, concerning a prosecution (again, for fisting images) under the Obscene Publications Act 1959, we might conclude that fisting has now been rejected under both frameworks.  It would however, be a mistake to assume that the CJIA has been neutered.

The defence expert witnesses (myself and Dr Smith) both argued that the images of urethral sounds and fisting were not pornographic.  This is the first element that needs to be satisfied under the CJIA 'extreme' porn law.

Section 63(3) states:  An image is “pornographic” if it is of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal.

The images concerned in this case were of an amateur nature, described by the defendant of mementos of private parties.  As such, they were documenting encounters which were of themselves, entirely legal.  They were not solely or principally produced for the purpose of sexual arousal.  Consequently, they failed this first test.  The CPS in contrast argued that it was obvious "as a pikestaff" that they were pornographic images.  The languages of the Act means that it is far from clear (and arguably non-intuitive given our broader cultural understanding of pornography).  Moreover, the same argument could not have been advanced if these were images/video produced by a porn studio - that would clearly be 'pornographic' but might still fall outside of the other tests aspects.  In Peacock, the fisting porn was commercial so we are arguably still clearer about where fisting stands in relation to the OPA than under the CJIA.

On we move to the second issue of whether the image is 'extreme namely grossly offensive, disgusting, or otherwise of an obscene character'.  Here we have a judgement for a jury and a legislative section which is appallingly drafted.  'Extreme' does not - I would suggest - equate to 'disgusting'.  I am 'disgusted' when I see sick in the street, the residue of someone having consumed a dodgy kebab and/or too much booze the night before.  I would not however regard an image of the said vomit as 'extreme'.

The law was designed to criminalise a particular type of image.  It had been the successful lobbying by radical feminists on the last government and a tragic murder which led to the current bad law.

Back in 2003, Graham Coutts was convicted of murdering Jane Longhurst. Wikipedia picks up the story... 'At his murder trial, Coutts confessed to a long-standing neck fetish and obsession with strangulation. His testimony, confirmed by other witnesses, stated that he had engaged in breath control play with several consenting partners on many occasions without incident over several years. He had spoken with his GP about his fixation and sought the help of a psychiatrist three years before the killing. Eventually, he started to access violent pornography on the Internet (especially simulated strangulation, rape and necrophilia). He had downloaded a collection of strangulation images the day before Jane's death. This, according to the prosecution, had caused his dangerous sexual behaviour and murderous intent. Critics of the prosecution's argument doubt this explanation, since the behaviour preceded the exposure to such pornography by about five years. No evidence of premeditation was presented to the jury. Mr. Coutts testified that he wrapped a pair of nylon tights around Ms. Longhurst's neck as part of a consensual sexual practice known as erotic asphyxia, which he had undertaken on numerous previous occasions with several different partners. The prosecution claimed that he had invited her to his flat under false pretences, then attacked her.'

Coutts was found to have 69 violent pornographic images on his computer and the argument was that it was this violent pornography which had fuelled his desire, and thus led to the killing of Jane Longhurst.  The logic therefore of a new 'extreme' porn law was to prevent other people being murdered by someone who becomes stimulated into such desires via pornography.

However flawed that rationale - and it seems pretty flawed to me - it is a similar rationale to child porn laws, but has had a far wider application.  You might - quite reasonably - assume that Parliament did not intend to criminalise men consensually fisting one another when they passed this law, but Walsh  - and the failure to demonstrate any regrets abut bringing the case by the CPS - highlights that the CPS do not accept such a narrow focus of the legislation.  The very fears that those who campaigned against the legislation expressed, have been realised, and will I fear, be subsequently further demonstrated.

The third element for consideration is whether 'the image portrays in an explicit and realisitc way any of the extreme acts sex out in section 63(7).  These consist of:

(a) an act which threatens a person's life,
(b) an act which results, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a person's anus, breasts or genitals,
(c) an act which involves sexual interference with a human corpse, or
(d) a person performing an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive),and a reasonable person looking at the image would think that any such person or animal was real.

In R v Walsh, (b) was arguably the relevant provision and this is for a jury to decide within the ordinary meaning of the term.  Consequently, opposing medical evidence was marshaled by both sides in Walsh, although the CPS expert seemed to suggest that penetrating the anus with anything beyond six inches was akin to taking one's life in one's own hands.   A line which the less-well endowed men of a gay village near you might be trying out soon:  "you don't want that hung like a donkey stud over there, my 3 inches of moderate pleasure are within the safety parameters".  On second thoughts, perhaps not.

It is of course easy to joke about the case.  So much about it was utterly absurd.  Yet, at the heart of the case was a man whose life was turned upside down.  Throughout the case, Simon displayed remarkable fortitude.  He was of course represented by a terrific team, and Myles Jackman in particular should be congratulated for his work as the solicitor in the case.  Whilst we comment and reflect, Simon must pick up the pieces of his life, and try and glue them back together.

Where now?

Alex Dymock has suggested this evening, that 'It becomes difficult to imagine, after Simon Walsh's landmark acquittal on all counts, under what circumstances charges relating to possession of extreme pornography may be brought to the crown court again, but it seems the CPS has a rather prurient interest in bringing other people's private sex lives to light and persecuting them for it.'

I'm not so sure.  As another law colleague, Gary McLachlan noted in a comment on this blog earlier this evening, it's possible that the CPS might bring a case in which HIV transmission is depicted so as to constitute extreme pornography.

It's certainly easy to envisage a scenario under the CJIA - and one which would attract few defenders.  Two consenting male adults.  Both are HIV negative.  Both desire to become 'pozed up'.  Both enjoy bareback sex.  They organise a bareback party, at which only HIV positive men are invited.  They record the party in photos and video in order to share it on their blog for other men who are aroused at the prospect of becoming HIV positive.  One of the 'couple' becomes HIV positive from the encounters at the party.  The video is retained on the hard-disk of the negative partner and the pair split up.  The negative partner retains his sexual desire to become positive and regularly watches the video - alongside other similar videos that friends share on websites and through file-sharing sites - while he masturbates.  The said individual comes to the attention of the police following a child pornography prosecution.  Our negative man was a Skype contact for a man charged for being in possession of child pornography.  The police raid the property of our negative man.  They find no child pornography but do find a series of videos of videos and photographs from the party described above and footage from other parties.  They also discover that the defendant has been hosting a website for the images.  He is charged under the extreme pornography provisions.

Does it sound that far-fetched?  Are you certain of what would happen?

I do however think that Dymock is write in that R v Walsh does reduce the scope for cases under the CJIA.  That could however force the CPS to look more at the OPA.  Following R v Peacock, a number of people - including myself - expected the CPS to revise their guidelines on prosecution.  They didn't.

Let's therefore revisit those guidelines - which are available here.  Here's the key section:

'It is impossible to define all types of activity which may be suitable for prosecution. The following is not an exhaustive list but indicates the categories of material most commonly prosecuted:

• sexual act with an animal 
• realistic portrayals of rape 
• sadomasochistic material which goes beyond trifling and transient infliction of injury 
• torture with instruments 
• bondage (especially where gags are used with no apparent means of withdrawing consent) 
• dismemberment or graphic mutilation 
• activities involving perversion or degradation (such as drinking urine, urination or vomiting on to the body, or excretion or use of excreta) 
• fisting 

Unless any of the factors listed above are present within the given case, the Crown Prosecution Service will not normally advise proceedings in respect of material portraying the following: actual consensual sexual intercourse (vaginal or anal) oral sex masturbation mild bondage simulated intercourse or buggery fetishes which do not encourage physical abuse. Previously buggery involving humans (whether consensual or not) was regarded as suitable for prosecution under section 2 of the Obscene Publications Act 1959. Now, buggery per se between consenting adults is not regarded as suitable for prosecution under section 2. This includes consensual anal penetration in a situation involving simultaneous double penetration (anal and vaginal) between two men and a woman. However, a depiction of buggery would be regarded as obscene for the purposes of section 2 where one or more of the aggravating features set out above are present. Therefore, depictions of non-consensual buggery will still be regarded as section 2 material.'

So, we know fisting images would not now proceed to prosecution, but the guidelines need amending.  We do however have explicit reference in the guidelines to scat play - a feature of the images in R v Walsh.  Although that case was brought under the CJIA, it will be interesting to see if it influences the CPS in their interpretation  -and any revision to - their guidelines in relation to the OPA.  The CPS barrister did after all argue in Walsh that the images were 'degrading' and would be more so if they involved a woman.  If a scat photograph - this time comprising of a woman - formed part of an investigation, would the CPS now feel it inappropriate to bring a case (on the basis that they are unlikely to secure a conviction)?  I'm still not sure.

Walsh is a significant, and welcome, decision.   It is a victory, but the battle goes on.

Michael Peacock on Obscenity and R v Peacock

Anyone interested in the recent landmark obscenity case of R v Peacock should check out a splendid couple of videos of Michael peacock aka 'Sleazy Michael' talking about the case - with some rather wonderful props.  It's marvellously open and frank.

Michael Peacock talks about #ObscenityTrial - Part 1 from Absolut Queer on Vimeo.

Michael Peacock talks about #ObscenityTrial - Part 1 from Absolut Queer on Vimeo.

Michael Peacock talks about #ObscenityTrial - Part 2 from Absolut Queer on Vimeo.

Consensual Slavery and the Law

Sometimes it seems that Law and Sexuality is just a fun subject, offering some interesting theoretical perspectives in a traditional liberal arts setting. It's not really 'proper' law, some say. Yet, the importance of practitioners understanding the law and sexuality in a socio-legal context is constantly proven in the courts, and before tribunals. Jane Fae comments in the Guardian today on a case that took place last week concerning the issue of 'consensual slavery'.

The case apparently focused on whether BDSM fell within the scope of 'belief' per the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003. Yes, I was surprised too, given that this regulation (along with what would have been more sensible, the Employment Equality (Sexual orientation) Regulations 2003) were repealed by the Equality Act 2010 (from 1 October 2010). I am left feeling a little confused! I'm assuming that the discussion is around the application of section 10 of the Equality Act (essentially, the old religion or belief regulation) but again, section 12 (sexual orientation) would have been a wiser (although still uncertain) course to pursue.

Read Jane's full piece here.

I also continue to strongly recommend Jane's blog which you can check out here. It focuses on trans issues and specifically her own transition but it will be of terrific interest to anyone interested in gender and sexuality.

Super-Injunctions, Privacy and Transgressive Sexualities

I think it was on the News Quiz that I once heard someone remark that 'super-injunction' implied it had some super-hero like qualities. Personally, I always hear some 50s American male voice-over saying the words whenever I read them (think b-movie intro) "We present Suuuuper-Injunction". Anyway, that American voice has been whirling around my head recently (yes, I'm hearing voices), especially yesterday as I, and thousands of others read the super-injucntion feed on twitter which was doing the rounds.

Today, the mainstream British have begun reporting on the tweet feeds and in one case, the denial of the story. That denial comes from the least plausable rumour (regarding Jemima Khan and Jeremy Clarkson). Khan also suggests on twitter that it's believed to be students who have published these allegations.

The slightly absurd thing is, that you can't report the others if there is a super-injunction, and the impression is left dangling in the air that the other rumours are true. Certainly, the Telegraph suggests the other rumours are all true, and this whole faff therefore amounts to the biggest media attack on super-injunctions that we have thus far seen.

As a reminder, super-inunctions are where, not only do you have an induction against the media to prevent them reporting a story, but the 'super' bit stops them reporting the fact that they can't report the existence of the super-injunction. Think of a Jedia Knight lawyer gesturing his hand and saying "we were never here, now go about your business" to a journo and you're more or less there.

There are five other rumours or leaks on the original twitter account. It struck me that all concern sex. Excluding the Khan tweet (which was also about sex), two concern heterosexual extra-marital affairs, one combines sex-work with BDSM (surely, many a media's mogul's wet dream), one heterosexual sexual harassment, and another sex-work.

I have no idea whether the rumours are true or not, but as I say, the Telegraph story seems to effectively accept that the other stories are true. If they are, it is remarkable that we seem to be developing privacy laws on the back of sex (think Mosley case too), or rather transgressive sexualities.

Two of the tweets refer to sex work/prostitution. Punishing the client rather than the worker has long been the mission of law - certainly post Wolfenden - and along with legal punishments come social shaming. Yet the irony here is that it seems the law is being used to prevent the reporting of a criminal act, which seems doubly odd to me.

These stories reveal that celebrities pay for sex, and maybe ordinary people also pay for sex, maybe sex-work is not merely something that 'other people' do but something that 'we' do. Coming out about sex work could be vital in shifting our understanding and social construction of this form of commercial sexual activity.

A similar argument can of course be made about BDSM. These remains, I would suggest, the 'darkest' sexual desire in the public consciousness after inter-generational sex. Those who are revealed to engage in this practice (as in Mosley) are seen as 'working through issues', defective in some way (in much the same way as 'homosexuals' once were), and it is always seen as involving leather and whips. Of course, BDSM might not always involve such tools/toys and the complex continuum of sexual behaviour that might fit into the label BDSM is rarely discussed in the mainstream media. Again, would it really be that shocking to discover we're kinkier than our social morality tells us we are? Would civilisation crumble at such a revelation?

Finally, we come to extra-marital affairs. Please tell me we are not STILL shocked at marital infidelity. The failure of monogamy and our attempts to cover it up are one of the lasting sexual puzzles of the modern age. Law is used firstly to define the nature of a relationship between two individuals (for like Noah's ark, we apparently only go in twos), and then law is further used to preserve the illusion of pure monogamy. It is perhaps the most vivid example of the law being used to express heteronormative power.

These stories, whether true or not, tell us much about the role of law, sexuality and silence in modern Britain. We're going to hear more about them.

Fetish: The Last Taboo?

Apologies for not spotting this sooner and posting it but Tim Woodward of the website and associated businesses) Skin Two appears in a short video made at the annual Montreal Fetish Weekend. Check out their website for details of next years event. Woodward offers some insights in an area that remains in his words one of the last "taboos" fetish and BDSM identities continue to be legal, social and political concerns and Woodward is right to draw comparisons with homosexuality. He also offers some amusing asides regarding Canadian border agencies. See the video below and check out the Skin Two site here.

Identity Focus: SM Dykes

The 'dyke' will be considered as a separate post on 'identity' but given a forthcoming conference on the subject, it seemed good timing to mention 'SM Dykes'. A variance of the dyke - what we traditionally thought of as 'a butch' lesbian identity but which might also be thought of as assertive - or firm, the SM Dyke identity is therefore perhaps a natural extension, embracing sado-masochistic play. You can find out about a Manchester based group that offers a safe and supportive environment for SM Dykes here. The site also has an excellent resources section on further reading.

I've pasted in details of the forthcoming International Women's SM Conference below. You can register/read full details at this link.

Friday 28th - Monday 31st May 2010

2 whole days of workshops, discussions and a chance to get together with other like-minded women and transguys. Oh, and buffet lunches and tea, coffee and soft drinks are also included. Plus, new this year, brunch on Monday before you head home!

Evening entertainment consists of an auction and cabaret on Friday, Lash for Lasses, Manchester's regular women-and-transman-only SM and fetish night, on Saturday night and the main play party on Sunday.

The prices this year are as follows:
Auction (Friday evening) £4 (SM Dykes Manchester members price £3.50)
Workshops (1 day - Saturday or Sunday) £28 (£26 members)
Workshops (2 days) £51 (£46 members)
Lash for Lasses (Saturday evening) £5 (special conference price, no members discount)
Main play party (Sunday evening) £12 (£11 members)
Brunch (Monday) £15 (special conference price, no members discount)

Full conference package £67 (£62 members)
Full conference package + brunch £82 (£77 members)

If funds are a problem for you then contact us and we'll see if we can work something out. Payment details will be sent with your confirmation email.

The workshop programme, including descriptions of the workshops and biographies of the presenters is now available.

SM Dykes Manchester would like to thank all those who have generously donated to the auction.

The conference is open to all women, regardless of sexuality, and to FtMs, intersexed and genderqueer people who feel that they still have links to the women's community.

On the edge: BDSM and heteronormative denigration

Back in April I organised the Gender, Sexuality and Law Stream of the Socio-Legal Studies Association Annual Conference. One of the papers was a little different -presented by an activist and writer rather than an academic. Daryl Champion presented a really interesting paper on BDSM and was only able to do so thanks to the generous support of Backlash. His paper is now available in full as a PDF on the Backlash website and I would encourage you to go and download it. The title of the paper is 'On the edge: BDSM and heteronormative denigration' and can be viewed here.

Suburbia and the Sex Dungeon

I'd like to be one of those people who endlessly praises the work of the police but they don't make it easy do they? The Daily Mail (is that a boo I hear?) has a story today about (deep breath) a 'sex dungeon' in a 'sleepy village'. Now then, when the Daily Mail says sleepy village, it's code for 'normal', 'nice', 'conservative' and sexless. Oh yes, and children. The land of the immaculate conception. So we learn that Police officers tipped up at a home in Lee Mill, Devon with 'battering rams' but were let in to the property after a plain clothes policeman knocked. According to the story: 'Officers were alerted after neighbours reported 'unusual behaviour' and 'strange sounds' coming from the four-bedroom semi in Lee Mill, Devon.'

So be careful, bit of a scream and before you know it you'll have the Police turning up with a battering ram. Mind you, I get paranoid when I channel flick and end up with the Islam channels blasting out. Such is the collective bonkers like state of society today that I'd probably get raided on suspicion of being a member of Al-Qaeda. I fly a few channels ahead and you hit the kids channels - oh hell, paedophile, click a few more and end up settling on something nice and safe, Sky Arts perhaps. Oh no, somethign on porn, back to beign a perv. What are these standards we should be following and who sets them?

The Daily Mail story goes on to report that:

'The sex 'dungeon' was found in a converted first floor room filled with hundreds of items including whips, gas masks, wooden bats, handcuffs, clothes pegs and shackles.

Police also discovered bondage chairs with straps, straight jackets, sex toys, gimp masks, S&M outfits, shackles, cattle prods and car batteries used to power the toys.

The dungeon was also stuffed with 'various electrical vibrating' items and a recording studio complete with computer equipment and mixing desk.'

I have this image of one of the Police Officers returning home to another 'sleepy village' unable to look at a clothes peg again. Detective Sergeant Stuart Gilroy of Devon and Cornwall police said: 'It's fair to say we were not expecting to find a masochistic dungeon in sleepy Lee Mill. You don't expect to find this sort of thing anywhere.' Is he being serious? Stuart - you need to get out more. Then we have one neighbour saying: 'I've seen traffic jams caused by people trying to go there. It's disgusting. We just want them out and have a nice family move in.' Traffic jams? TRAFFIC JAMS? Do we think this neighbour might be exaggerating a wee bit? It's disgusting to see people drive up and go in someones house? What is disgusting? What has affected this neighbour? What on earth is this 'nice family'? Someone who has 'normal' rows, screaming kids? The family is cast as the great saviours - by which this local means straight people with children.

As much as I joke and mock in this post, there are real people at the centre of this. People who are humiliated and reduced by this sort of action. The prejudice of a society quick to condemn, a police force quick to act and slow to think, and a press all too keen to feed this circle of ignorance and prejudice. It seems at all costs, we must protect the illusion of Suburbia.

Read the full story here. Should you think that my post sounds sensible, consider lending your support to the Consenting Adult Action Network (CAAN) here.

CAAN - UK SURVEY ON DISCRIMINATION AND MARGINALISED CONSENSUAL ADULT SEXUALITY / INTERESTS

For some reason you have to be logged into MSN/Windows Live to access the original post but here in full is a post that the Consenting Adult Action Network published earlier today. It's a really important survey so please do complete if applicable (this survey has nothing to do with me):

Do you have a story of being discriminated against or abused due to your sexuality (or sexual interests)? Do you have a story of being afraid because of your sexuality, please tell us that too. Please fill in this survey!

PLEASE SHARE THIS UK SURVEY WIDELY

As part of Consenting Adult Action Network's ongoing discussions with the Equality and Human Rights Commission, one fair point was raised - we do not have properly documented evidence of instances of human rights abuse and discrimination against consenting adults on the basis of interest or private practice of BDSM/fetish and other sexualities which are not already protected under the law. They want evidence of people being denied human rights afforded to others. So CAAN is putting together a handbook about discrimination and human rights abuse. We need your evidence.

There are several areas where we feel that such discrimination is worth documenting:

- in your personal life: friends, relatives and colleagues simply dismissing you as a “perve”, or being afraid to come out, or worse, attacks against you because of your interests;

- in your work life: being warned that your private sex life may be conduct that brings your company into disrepute, or being sacked because of your sexuality or interests;

- in your legal relationships: the threat of your private sex life being introduced into divorce proceedings, or losing contact with children because of it.

- you may have experiences in other areas, please still submit your story.

SURVEY ON DISCRIMINATION AND MARGINALISED CONSENSUAL ADULT SEXUALITY / INTERESTS

Please give as much information as possible. You can use this survey structure if you wish, but you don't have to and please feel free to write as much as you like.

YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION WILL NEVER BE SHARED WITHOUT YOUR PERMISSION, BUT PLEASE BEAR IN MIND THE STORIES ARE FOR PUBLICATION

1. Contact details (email address or other). If you really don't wish to be contacted we will respect that, but may not be able to use your story if you cannot verify certain things which may arise in followup.*

2. Who are you (real names will not be released without your permission,but we do need to verify you are a real person)*

a. name

b. pseudonym

c. role, if relevant (eg Freda Bloggs, primary school teacher)?

3. Who has discriminated against you or denied your human rights on the grounds of your sexuality and sexual interests? Or who do you fear will do so?

4. Describe the discrimination or abuse you have experienced, or that you fear you will experience.

5. Where did this happen, or where do you fear it will happen? If it has or could occur in more than one location, please let us know. eg in the workplace, and at a work social event).

6. When did it happen, or do you think it will happen? If it happened more than once, please state for each incident.

7. Why do you think it happened? what things have made this discrimination possible, what is the cause? Is the cause just your sexuality or sexual interests, or is the cause things such as discriminatory regulations, prejudice, isolation, lack of information, misinformation, exclusive policies, etc.

8. What details may we use? Let us know what details maybe used and what not. eg your name, name of employer, etc.

*You do not have to give contact details or real names, but bear in mind that this work may be called into question by critics who are far less positive towards BDSM than we are and therefore the more information we can have the better and followups may be necessary.

WHERE TO SEND IT

Please send your response to info@caan.org.uk

Background reading:

i. Our proposal to the EHRC - just to be clear, we have not proposed that BDSM be recognised as an orientation, we have asked that EHRC support us to fight for all consenting adults to have sexual rights and equality, whatever their sexuality:

A Case for Sexual Rights: CAAN - The Case for Sexual Rights

ii. CAAN have sent three letters to EHRC and had three replies, if you wish to see these letters, please contact us asking for this at info@caan.org.uk

iii. CAAN's website is here: www.caan.org.uk

iiii. CAAN's statement of principles:

"We believe in the right of consenting adults to make their own sexual choices, in respect of what they do, see and enjoy alone or with other consenting adults, unhindered and unfettered by government."

"We believe that it is not the business of government to intrude into the sex lives of consenting adults."

SkinTwo Fetish Ball North

Last month I blogged about the brilliant Skin Two Yearbook but as well as producing that magazine/book, the group also host social events. As with most "minority" (I really doubt the accuracy of that term) sexual activities, these sort of events tend to be London based but there is going to be a Skin Two North Fetish Ball in Leeds in July - the details of which can be viewed here. It's on July 4th so what other theme could they have had but 'Kinky Americana'?

The tickets are £20 each and are available from http://www.skintwonorth.com/ or selected stockists (see website). Admission on the door is £25.

BDSM and the National Union of Students

The latest Consenting Adult Action Network (CAAN) includes an item sent in by one student supporter detailing a motion put before the NUS LGBT conference this weekend. I've been following the conference via twitter and will boo some general observations a little later on. The BDSM motion was apparently passed and I've pasted the full motion below:

NUS Motion Heading: BDSM Rights: An LGBT Issue Conference Believes:

1. That BDSM refers to the practice, orientation or lifestyle of Bondage and Discipline, Domination and Submission, Sado-Masochism and related activities.

2. That many activities that consensual BDSM practitioners participate in are illegal under current UK law.

3. The Criminal Justice Act 2008 outlaws various forms of "extreme" pornograpy.

4. BDSM Liberation organisations such as CAAN (the Consenting Adults Action Network) have spoken out against this legislation.

5. The Government's consultation document for the Criminal Justice Act (2008), clearly states that research has found no causal link between exposure to violent sexual imagery, and propensity to commit violent sexual acts.

6. The forthcoming extreme pornography law in Scotland is even more restrictive and criminalising than the Criminal Justice Act (2008)

7. That the Consenting Adult Action Network (CAAN) statement of principle, which reads: "We believe in the right of consenting adults to make their own sexual choices, in respect of what they do, see and enjoy alone or with other consenting adults, unhindered and unfettered by government. We believe that it is not the business of government to intrude into the sex lives of consenting adults."

Conference Further Believes

1. That children, and non-consenting adults, need to be protected from being the victims of sexual activity

2. Activities that take place between consenting adults behind closed doors are not the business of government.

3. That LGBT people are more likely than heterosexual and/or cis people to be victimised in matters pertaining to sex and pornography - demonstrated in cases such as R vs Brown where gay men received disproportionate punishment - whilst straight, heteronormative couples are often let off by judges.

4. "Pornographic" BDSM imagery is often instrumental in educating BDSM practitioners in safe sex practices.

5. That policy on censorship must be equal and evidence-based .

Conference Resolves:

1. To campaign against the forthcoming censorship laws in Scotland as being unjustly criminalising of consenting adults.

2. To sign up as an organisation to CAAN's statement of principle in solidarity with BDSM rights activists.

3. To inform NUS LGBT membership about issues pertaining to censorship and pornography, and specifically how they affect LGBT people.

You can sign up as a supporter of CAAN here.

Skin Two: Fetish Yearbook 2009

A few weeks back I was generously sent a copy of the 60th issue of 'Skin Two' (thanks guys!). I've been holding off blogging about it until I had time to write a proper post on the text. It takes a different format to past issues which were in a magazine format. I've never seen one of those but this copy, a hardback book priced at £25 or $50 is a quality production. The website claims it is a coffee book and it's a very accurate description of the text (provided your visitors are not overly sensitive). Many so called coffee table books are quality productions but can sometimes feel a bit of a rip off. I have to say, this feels worth it. It has terrific and wide ranging content. The bag of the book includes advertisements for a number of latex, rubber and fetish stores but it's perhaps a tribute to the scene that these are great compositions too. There is erotic fiction and some amazing art. A couple of pictures by James Stiles are included which are in the Mapplethorpe tradition. Mapplethorpe himself features pretty extensively in an earlier section of the book entitled 'From Mapplethorpe to Mosley' written by Daryl Champion. It's a well written short overview. it's followed by what I would regard as something of a coup and worthy of much wider dissemination - an interview with Peter Knight who as Vice Chancellor of the University of Central England, Birmingham (now Birmingham City University) defended the right of his library to hold Mapplethorpe, a large black and white collection of the artist's photography. It is a work of brilliance and was rightly defended from Government and Police censors who were seeking to destroy the book under Obscene Publications legislation. This area of law is then brought right up to date by John Ozimek who considers the new extreme porn law. Alex Henderson writes a thoughtful piece exploring whether the English law could have an impact across in the USA and considers the 1969 Supreme Court decision in Stanley v Georgia. You're probably getting the idea, this is not a wank mag. it's a serious but entertaining piece of work. It's also beautiful.

It has some terrific photography by Will Santillo who designed the cover shown on the right, and some photos that I loved by Mark Varley who explores rope bondage. He travelled to the homes of 18 women and 'introduced them to his style of rope bondage'. This takes the form of women tied to kitchen tables. There are wonderful pictures that are clever and engaging.I have to confess I have fallen in love with some work by Silent-View, a photography project led by a German photographer and model. The artist produced the gas mask/cup and tea photograph which I've posted here. The only picture I could find is in black and white but the original is in colour and it does make a difference. I adore the intersection of gender, sexuality and domesticity portrayed in the image which somehow reminds me of the quite different American Gothic by Grant Wood.

There are more pictures and comment sections but the book begins with photos from various balls and parities. The pair at the top of this picture (which I rather like for reasons that I consider obvious) are from the San Francisco Fetish Ball.

The whole thing has been put together and published by Tim Woodward and it is a brilliant production. It can be bought on the Skin Two website which has a host of links, materials and an online store. It can be viewed here.

CAAN Call to Action

The Consenting Adult Action Network (CAAN) has released the following call to action:

Join us to mark the death of another freedom.

* Sunday 25th January 2009, Parliament Square, Westminster, London, 2-5pm*

Beware the kinky porn ban!

On the eve of the commencement of the kinky porn ban, CAAN are back in London for another awareness raising action about laws which criminalise adults because of their sexuality. A law we don't think the Government is publicising widely enough, which all adults who possess or access pornography need to know about.

This law is based on lack of evidence and lies!

Provisions 63-68 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 come into effect on 26th January 2009. Despite lack of evidence, the government claims criminalising of the possession of what it calls 'extreme pornography' will reduce sex crime. In fact, what evidence exists provides grounds for thinking this measure will have exactly the opposite effect to that intended - making sex crime MORE prevalent.

This law creates harmless criminals!

This law now gives the police the power to invade anyone's home and interfere with their privacy. Convictions for possessing extreme porn will carry up to 3 years jail sentence and inclusion on the Sex Offender Register. Just for possessing an image.

This law gives murderers and abusers excuses!

Abuse is illegal, holding images of crimes is illegal and material which promotes abuse is illegal, and quite rightly so – so where's the need for a new law? This law is aimed at consensually made adult fantasy images and based on the bad excuses of a murderer. "The pictures made me do it".

What do we want? Autonomy! When do we want it? Now!

Please join us. Feel free to bring placards and banners and dress as you please, as long as it's not obscene or involving nudity. Yes, you can bring masks, chains and cuffs. Do not bring: alcohol, non prescription drugs or weapons.

If you can attend the action, or are able to assist with things behind the scenes like transporting equipment, people, or donating resources during the time surrounding the action, or are interested in sharing a lift (there’s several carshares already, please get in touch with us ASAP at info@caan.org.uk

Extreme Pornography Guidance

Following on from my last post, the Home Office released guidance on the new extreme pornography offences last month. That guidance can be read here. It highlights just how absurd the legislation is. Paragraph 5 which examines how pornographic material will be defined is a particularly good example. This legislation is appallingly conceived, badly drafted and a disgrace in the twenty first century.

Identity, RoB & Online Stores

Following on from Manchester and our chat today, here is the link to RoB (the store some of you visited in Manc) and the catalogue today was from Expectations (similar line to RoB). In the case of both sites, a degree of caution is recommended as there are some nudity. Safer sites are Bent (I regularly link to their blog on here), Prowler and Diva Direct. Both Prowler and Diva are part of the same media group that provides us with our free Pink Papers (thank you so much!) and produces Gay Times/GT and Diva. Finally there is CloneZone which sit he online store for the shop some of you visited in Newcastle and which has a presence in Manchester (some of you may have visited during the Manchester field trip). In the new year we will be further exploring notions of identity in the context of these materials, but for now just enjoy the ideas for seasonal gifts! ;-)

London Gay Sex and Fetish Awards

The London and Gay Sex Fetish Awards 2008 take place on the 6th December. Nominations closed today but you can vote until 23 November. You have to register on the site to vote. Rather brilliantly the events will also support the Consenting Adult Action Network (CAAN) to which I recently added my support. According to the press release: 'Spike Rhodes, a seasoned club promoter whose past clubs include Warriors, Renegades, Sleaze and DNA, announces the launch of London’s first ‘Gay Sex & Fetish Awards’ at Union on Saturday 6th December, together with his newest Club ‘Filth’ on the dance-floor making it a dance party with awards and a fundraiser for GMFA.

The event is in celebration of our sexual diversity; Spike feels its an important time to stage such an event now as new laws making it a criminal offence to posses ‘extreme porn’ come into force in the New Year. The awards also support the Consenting Adult Action Network (www.caan.org.uk).'

The Medicalisation of Sadomasochism: From De Sade To DSM-IV

A member of the Informed Consent website has posted a really interesting essay with the above title. This is some undergraduate work they've done and I enjoyed reading it. I wish she was one of my students! lol. The essay can be viewed here.

Mosley, Public Morality and the Privacy Debate

The Max Mosley/privacy debate continues following the remarks of Paul Dacre. Today the Guardian carries a comment piece by Mosley himself in which he responds to some of the recent debate. It's a well written and well argued piece in which he directly responds to some of the Dacre comments by stating:

'To Dacre, the private pursuit of S&M among like-minded adult
enthusiasts is "unimaginable depravity". His misplaced moral outrage reminds me
of the prejudices once targeted at the gay community, not least by the Daily
Mail.'

He also tackles the issue of public morality which I blogged on yesterday. He writes:

'No reasonable adult will ever object to (or even be interested in) what others
do in their bedrooms provided it is consensual, lawful and in private. So how in
a civilised society can we allow a life to be wrecked and a family to be
destroyed for no better reason than to sell a few newspapers?'

I want to agree with Mosley. It's certainly should be the case but I'm not sure it is the case. A lot of adults (reasonable remains a moot point) would have views that the law may not reflect. For example, on capital punishment. It does not follow that those views are translated into law. Judges, and indeed Mosely, are practising a form of morality, just a very different one to that of Dacre's.