Resource: Sexuality in the Margins: Creating a Space for Conversations

The Graduate Journal of Social Science published an issue entitled 'Sexuality in the Margins:  Creating a Space for Conversations'.  It's well worth checking out.  You can see the full contents below:

Editorial: Sexualities in the Margins: Creating a Space for ConversationsArpita Das, Annelies Kleinherenbrink and Ebtihal Mahadeen
GJSS 2013 10:1, pp. 7-12. [PDF]

---

Establishing Asexual Identity: The Essential, the Imaginary, and the CollectiveAgata Pacho

GJSS 2013 10:1, pp. 13-35. [PDF]

Abstract

Pansexual Identification in Online Communities: Employing a Collaborative Queer Method to Study PansexualityAyisigi Hale Gonel

GJSS 2013 10:1, pp. 36-60. [PDF]

Abstract

From the 'Polymorphous Perverse' to Intersexualization: Intersections in Cross-Cultural EthnographiesLena Eckert

GJSS 2013 10:1, pp. 60-84. [PDF]

Abstract

R v Peacock: Landmark Trial Redefines Obscenity LawAlex Antoniou

GJSS 2013 10:1, pp. 85-103. [PDF]

Abstract

Are We Nearly There Yet? Struggling to Understand Young People as Sexual SubjectsFreya Johnson Ross

GJSS 2013 10:1, pp. 104-123. [PDF]

Abstract

The Experimental Neuro-Framing of SexualityIsabelle Dussauge

GJSS 2013 10:1, pp. 124-151. [PDF]

Abstract

---

Book Reviews

Michelle Hutchinson Grondin
Technologies of Sexuality, Identity and Sexual Health edited by Lenore Manderson
GJSS 2013 10:1, pp. 152-155. [PDF]

Ellen Zitani
Il Gioco Delle Parti: Travestimenti e Paure Sociali Tra Otto e Novecento by Laura Schettini
GJSS 2013 10:1, pp. 156-160. [PDF]

Extreme Pornography: Legal Theory, Institutional Reality

Nick Cowen, of the campaign group Backlash, has written a really important piece over at the Freedom in a Puritan Age webzine. He rightly challenges some of the comments by McGlynn and Rackley on the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act.  Whilst I recognise both legal scholars, they have been wrong on this issue.  He also explores an assertion by Paul Johnson (a scholar I nearly always agree with and published a chapter in his latest book early this year) around sending out moral signals - a fair comment by Johnson who draws upon a European lexicon in his argument - but one which Cowen notes the judge in R v Walsh ruled in appropriate (although the defence did put forward the Johnson argument).

The full piece can be read here.

#porntrial - Further Analysis

A number of other reports have emerged following the case of R v Walsh (see this previous post), aka #porntrial.  The solicitor in the case, Myles Jackman, has written a compelling piece on his blog in which concludes:

'It is my contention that the matter is now beyond the remit of the CPS, Met and BBFC and that the subject requires the scrutiny of the Home Secretary, Ministry of Justice and the Law Commission and that questions should be asked in the House.'

Jackman is absolutely right.  The issue of images of consensual sexual acts - both under the Obscene Publications Act and Criminal Justice and Immigration Act should not be decided by more lives ruined, and further costly and clumsy investigations and prosecutions.  We desperately need a sensible review of the law in this area.   Read Myles' full post for his own compelling reasoning.

Daryl Champion has written an excellent piece exploring the messy way that the Daily Mail responded to the case.  It is an excellent forensic exploration and worth a read.

Benjamin Gray also has a very interesting piece on his blog exploring the role of the CPS in all of this, suggesting - and I agree in large part - that anger should be focused on the bad law at the heart of the case rather than the CPS themselves.  Read that piece here.

The post can be seen as a response to a mood reflecting on social media and in some media stories such as this piece by Terri Judd published in the Independent, linking together R v Walsh with R v Peacock and the Twitter joke trial (Chambers v DPP). 

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.

R v Walsh: 'Extreme' Pornography on Trial #porntrial

I promised last night to post a full post of my take on the historic R v Walsh decision, and that will follow later today.  I did however want to explain for any non-Twitter followers why I seemed oddly silent during the whole case.  A few people got in touch asking me what my views were and I'm afraid I was less than helpful.  As you've probably now realised, I was an expert witness in the case which prevented me from commenting on what was going on.  Sorry for not being more helpful but I hope you now understand.

There's an excellent summary and analysis of the case from Alex Dymock which makes a really useful initial briefing on things.

You can read a little more in this piece.

This piece examines R v Walsh alongside R v Peacock and asks if the law is 'homophobic'. There's a nice mention of some of my work published earlier this year (those REF chants in my sleep must be paying off).