Drawing The Line (9)

MissP's profile

MissP
Posted by MissP on Tue 7 Oct 08, 7:04 PM

Over the years, I've given my support, in thought, and word and deed (and dosh!) to organisations such as Spanner, Backlash, Unfettered, The Sexual Freedom Coalition and others. This is because I strongly believe in my right, and the right of others, to indulge in consensual practices, be it in a dungeon or a bedroom. So long as no harm is done to "others".

However, we are told that necrophilia, cannibalism and paedophilia are valid fetishes, and as such, I should be supporting people's rights to indulge in them. I can't, that's where I draw my line.

Today I read that Max Moseley's hitting back at The News of The World, and their lurid exposure of his sexual antics with pro dommes - all done in privacy, and not, to my mind, in the public interest. But it raises the question, do we have freedom of press or not? If we do, then these kind of tales will not have to be censored, and we all risk outting. Abbott Joseph Liebling said "Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one", but even that's not true these days!

Equally, we are hearing about a man who decided to post a lurid and graphic weblog, concerning the mutilation and killing of a girl band. I'm against "thought crimes" in principle, but do those girls not also have the same right to go about their business, without some frootloop publishing his unpleasant stories about them? Is it morally acceptable to allow a person to write whatever he likes, about whoever he likes - and if so, then why aren't we letting NOTW expose us all, happily? It's no good saying the chap's blog was just fantasy (if indeed that is what it was), the people he talked about are very real.

So where do we draw the line there??

I'm against the nanny state, but do we owe it to each other to police those who are either unwilling, or unable to police themslves?

A pondering P

Replies

7 Oct 08, 7:08 PM
merrynb99
UK(N), 2 yrs
I may not always agree, but I applaud your taking a stance. For me, the line is a fluid place - I guess it's the place between sane consenting adults, and insanity/inability to consent.

8 Oct 08, 9:20 AM
Backdooruk
UK(BA), 9 yrs
You know my stance I'd guess. For me the line isn't that difficult to draw, it's between thought and action. Sure there are times when even that distinction is pretty blurred, but to be honest when it is we are not taking about serious crimes, only relatively minor ones where no one is actually seriously harmed (then the line is clear).
As for press freedom, the concept is about freedom from government interference and censorship, not freedom from the consequences of what they write. But again, the Max Mosley case comes no where near a line curtailing the press to write about anything important, nor can a slippery slope argument be easily made if he wins his case.
I have to confess though I haven't heard anyone say that necrophilia, cannibalism and paedophilia are valid fetishes. But then these two cases are very far from that particular straw battle.
- Chris
Anyone with a brain is manipulable. Only the truly unimaginative are difficult to control.
Edited 8 Oct 08, 9:21 AM by Backdooruk

8 Oct 08, 9:26 AM
Scribbles
UK(RH), 16 mths
We are told - by whom? Sorry, don't mean to sound barky, I'm just wondering.

8 Oct 08, 10:41 AM
MissP
UK(EN), 5 yrs
Chris/Scribbles - I think it wsa last year sometime, and I'm buggered if I can find the post now, but I asked Backlash where they drew the line in the sand. To cut a long story short, they wouldn't, even when specifics were mentioned. Several people posted in favour of ALL fetishes being acceptable.
Sorry I don't have time to hunt it out, but I'm at work!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MissP-Dominatrix/

8 Oct 08, 10:48 AM
Backdooruk
UK(BA), 9 yrs

MissP wrote:
Several people posted in favour of ALL fetishes being acceptable.
I seen people post that all fantasies are acceptable, but I don't recall anyone posting that people should have the right to actually indulge in necrophilia, cannibalism and paedophilia.
- Chris

Anyone with a brain is manipulable. Only the truly unimaginative are difficult to control.
Edited 8 Oct 08, 11:17 AM by Backdooruk

8 Oct 08, 1:42 PM
spirifer
UK, 3 yrs

Backdooruk wrote:

MissP wrote:
Several people posted in favour of ALL fetishes being acceptable.
I seen people post that all fantasies are acceptable, but I don't recall anyone posting that people should have the right to actually indulge in necrophilia, cannibalism and paedophilia.
- Chris

I wonder if MissP is referring to the posts/threads where having such thoughts was discussed? I remember a lot of discussion being generated about the difference between someone having (for example) paedophiliac urges, and actually indulging in paedophilia?
I seem to recall that some people appeared to be in favour of both being criminalised (although how one criminalises thought is a bit of a poser), whereas others differentiated very sharply between thought and action.
The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation - Pierre Trudeau
A denizen of a right little, tight little island.

8 Oct 08, 2:04 PM
MissP
UK(EN), 5 yrs

spirifer wrote:

Backdooruk wrote:

MissP wrote:
Several people posted in favour of ALL fetishes being acceptable.
I seen people post that all fantasies are acceptable, but I don't recall anyone posting that people should have the right to actually indulge in necrophilia, cannibalism and paedophilia.
- Chris

I wonder if MissP is referring to the posts/threads where having such thoughts was discussed? I remember a lot of discussion being generated about the difference between someone having (for example) paedophiliac urges, and actually indulging in paedophilia?
I seem to recall that some people appeared to be in favour of both being criminalised (although how one criminalises thought is a bit of a poser), whereas others differentiated very sharply between thought and action.
No, I was referring to the threads when a german chap chopped up his partner and ate him. On camera!

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MissP-Dominatrix/

8 Oct 08, 2:18 PM
MissP
UK(EN), 5 yrs
Blimey, it was 2 years ago! http://www.informedconsent.co.uk/boards/activism...
and here's the German part http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe...
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MissP-Dominatrix/

9 Oct 08, 8:58 PM
Romola
UK, 3 yrs

But even in that thread, there was a line drawn between the right of an adult to consent to be eaten and the right of a person to violate the rights of a child to be free from abuse. I'm not saying I necessarily agree with the 'consensual cannibalism ok' line, I'd have major questions whether consent to be killed and eaten can be given by a rational person. That's a grey area for me. But the Max Mosley case is a balancing act. The right of a free press to publish and be damned vs the right of a person to go about his private business without interference. The latter right can be legitimately violated if the publication is in the public interest and this, frankly, wasn't.
If we fit everything we write on an adult BDSM website to be understood by people who can't distinguish paedophiles from paediatricians, we might as well just run right into the closet.


	©1997-2009 Informed Consent