Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Church plans legal action after S&M fetishists tak (94)

This post is on the SM/Bondage/Fetish web board.

2 Aug 09, 3:03 PM
simon_sub
UK(TS), 10 yrs

Toak - i really don't think the church has thrown a "Hissy fit" or indulged in "Histrionics" here at all. Yes, the church is a public building, but like other public buildings there are rules and boundaries that are expected to be observed. If i went into my local Library with a model and began to take "Glamour" photos i'd quite rightly be thrown out, and i would imagine that the police would be called. It would be a totally innapropriate thing to do. That photographer knew what he was doing was wrong, but went ahead anyway, presumabley in some belief that what he was doing was "daring" or "edgy".

It's all about respect. I'm not a practising Chritian, but i know that to those who are, the church is seen as their Lord's house. I therefore treat churches or other places that followers see as sacred with respect.

I would repeat my earlier comment that the photograper specifically chose a Christian place of worship rather than an Islamic or Hindu one, because he knew without doubt that if he were to be discovered doing what he did in one of the two latter venues, he would find himself at physical threat from the congregation.

2 Aug 09, 3:43 PM
Mistress_Avralivia
UK(RG), 4 yrs
£

I don't see a problem with it, it wasn't a Mosque or a Synagogue after all.

I've done far worse things in Church graveyards, and like the man said, "I haven't been struck down by lightning yet so obviously God doesn't mind." (its because hes scared really)

"You're going to massage me, but first I'm going to bind you"

Edited 2 Aug 09, 3:47 PM by Mistress_Avralivia

2 Aug 09, 3:47 PM
Attitude_Adjuster
UK(N), 6 yrs

spirifer wrote:

Attitude_Adjuster wrote:

spirifer wrote:
Sorry, but what utter tosh. I feel pretty happy and secure in the ownership of my own home, but if some photographer just wandered in and started taking sad soft porn photos in it without my permission, I'd be taking legal action too.

Your home is not a public space. A church is, and like any other public space - libraries, pubs, art galleries, yada yada, you have to expect a bunch of people to walk through the door, not all of them whom you will like.

I don't believe that you can just wander into a library, pub, art gallery, yada yada, and just set up your tripod and start taking shots of your girlfriend in her knickers, either.

But only because most of these venues wouldn't leave them unattended in case of knicker-shooting perves

- M (who is now wondering how many cock endowed sculptures in our galleries are virgins....)

And all men kill the thing they love, By all let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!

2 Aug 09, 3:53 PM
Attitude_Adjuster
UK(N), 6 yrs

North_East_Couple wrote:
Yes, the church is a public building, but like other public buildings there are rules and boundaries that are expected to be observed. If i went into my local Library with a model and began to take "Glamour" photos i'd quite rightly be thrown out,

Very probably - but the point I was trying to make is that if you run a public space, you should expect the odd non-conforming visitor. That isn't to say the visitor is right or wrong, just that it will inevitably happen (and hence the shock horror ZOMG reaction is best left with the Daily Mail).

Yes you'd get thrown out of the local library, but I also bet there aren't many local libraries that haven't seen some naughty action that the proprietor would probably rather not think about

And all men kill the thing they love, By all let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!

2 Aug 09, 3:58 PM
twuly_scrumptious
UK, 6 yrs

Crass behaviour. It's fairly obvious why the Church is left open. Why can't people just respect others? Yes, I've turned into my parents.

"I stole it cos it was there and I wanted it. If they didn't want it to be stolen they shouldn't have left it there!"

"I took the photos cos the I liked the Church and they left the doors open!"

Crass, boring, selfish behaviour. What a twat!

2 Aug 09, 11:27 PM
Fire_Fox
UK(DD), 3 yrs

I'm a little confused by this story unless it's the usual style sensationalist reporting more often found in such quality papers like the Sun or the Sport where all you have to do is to grossly exaggerate the sexual content to artificially inject some juice into it. I thought the Mail was more interested in predicting the breakdown of the country or blaming everything on the global warming, immigrants or the economy.

When is someone �Half naked�? Apparently the models weren't exposing anything more than what many wear normally in the street, or else they'd be prosecuted for something like indecent exposure.

�Cavorting in the font�? How big was this font? All the one's I've ever seen are either about the size of a sink or smaller.

Obviously there are lines to be drawn regarding appropriateness, and as stated in the article, it was ok for the Church to grant permission to use a house of God to be used as a setting in a film about a serial killer, but then film companies PAY quite large sums of MONEY to use places like this for settings.

I would suspect Mr Craddock would have been welcomed with open arms if he had several thousand pounds in his hand. It's amazing how flexible the Church becomes when you offer them a few pieces of silver.

Mind what people do, not only what they say for deeds will betray a lie.

2 Aug 09, 11:58 PM
Antisthenes
10 yrs

bohnanza wrote:

spero wrote:

Daily Mail journalist looking for wank material happened upon a website in which he recognised the location, thought he could make a story out of it and still managed to jizz all over the desk.

Daily Mail journo's jizzing all over their desks???

Now's there's an image I'm

a) Going to have trouble clearing out of my mind

b) Explains quite a lot

3 Aug 09, 12:29 AM
Attitude_Adjuster
UK(N), 6 yrs

Firefox5 wrote:
When is someone �Half naked�?

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is_the_glass_half_e... , I can respond when "there is a half a girl of naked"

And all men kill the thing they love, By all let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!

3 Aug 09, 1:15 AM
Fire_Fox
UK(DD), 3 yrs

Attitude_Adjuster wrote:

Firefox5 wrote:
When is someone �Half naked�?

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is_the_glass_half_e... , I can respond when "there is a half a girl of naked"

So by that definition, when it's warm, almost everyone who goes out in shorts and t-shirts is half naked, and that would include one of the tropical white uniforms the Her Majesty's Navy wears!

Most women who go out for an evening in something other than trousers or long ball gowns is also half naked to.

Anyone, of either sex in swimming costumes are a damn site more than half naked.

Why all of a sudden does the Church seem to have a problem with nudity? I take it no ones looked up at the Sistine Chapel ceiling, it seems it's OK to have nudity there or was that Pope Julius II's private porn chamber? I think most kids when they are christened are completely naked, certainly none of the kids I've seen being born have come into the world fully clothed.

It seems very hypocritical of the Church to make an issue about this when sex and nakedness is, in some places, encouraged in the bible where as murder is a bit of a no-no, but according to this article, pictures connecting the church to sex or nudity is to be condemned but murder is considered OK.

Mind what people do, not only what they say for deeds will betray a lie.

3 Aug 09, 5:14 PM
AnEnglishMaster
UK(ME), 5 yrs

ToakReon wrote:

spirifer wrote:
I would imagine that *any* organisation which had its private property used without its permission, in a way which would probably cause offence to its members, would take similar legal steps.

Why should the church not take such legal steps, and why on earth do you believe that taking such steps impacts in any way on its individual members' beliefs?

The church leaves its doors open, its lands open, and actively encourages the general public within - without prior arrangement or "permission". The church is not "private property" in the way that, say, a corporate head office or a private home is.

What this boils down is not "permission" or "lack of permission" but what is or is not considered appropriate to do within a church. Yes - I accept that taking glamour photographs is not "appropriate". Excellent. So how should the church react to this "inappropriate" behaviour?

If could:-

1. Fling around words like "blasphemy", threaten legal action and generally throw it's ecclesiastical toys out of the pram, or it could

2. Issue a dignified and controlled statement that it found the taking of these photograph inappropriate without resorting to the histrionics.

Option 1 does the church no credit. It makes this event, which ultimately is a "non event", far bigger than it needs to be - and makes the church itself appear hysterical, verging on desperate.

Option 2, on the other hand, would show the church in an excellent light. It would stand, calm and firm, making its views known. It would gain both sympathy and respect, and attention would then turn to the photographer to see if he was capable of offering an explanation for his actions.

You ask why the church "should not" take legal steps? Simple. Because they are unnecessary and counter productive. The church would do far better simply rising above this "minor and insignificant matter" - and by doing so SHOWING that it was minor and insignificant. A matter the church will not trouble itself to get all wound up about.

THAT is a strong church.

Screaming "blasphemy!" and "I'm going to get the lawyers on you!" is a WEAK church.

As far as the photographer is concerned, all his Christmases have come early. He could hardly have hoped for more extensive publicity. The threats of legal action may or may not have teeth - I personally suspect they will not - but even if they do his name is made as the "man who took the glamour shots in the church".

Brilliant.

And if the church is damn stupid enough to pursue its course of legal action this matter will just get "juicer and juicer" when it should already be fading into obscurity.

This is a "nothing matter". The church should have been confident enough, sure enough and strong enough to treat it as such. It would have started as nothing, it would have faded into nothing, and there would have been damn all between.

Instead the church panicked and grossly mis-handled the matter.

So why do I believe that taking such steps "impacts in any way on its individual members' beliefs"?

I don't.

Taking legal action is not the cause of impact on people's beliefs, it is the symptom. A confident, sure, strong church would have acted with dignity and moderation. It would not have mishandled this matter. The ACTUAL reaction we see from the church is the reaction of the unsure, the fearful, the weak ... a church that no longer speaks and acts with confidence and certainty.

Strangely enough, despite the fact that I am personally an atheist, I would much rather the Church of England was in institution to be admired for its wisdom than pitied for its hysterical over-reaction.

Toak

Strangely enough, despite the fact that I am personally a believer, I agree with almost all of the above.

I should make it clear that I am not an Anglican - but nor am I using the CofE as an Aunt Sally. Toak is absolutely spot on with his statement about a "dignified and controlled" response being much the better option.

Having said that, a couple of minor caveats.

It WAS crass behaviour by the photographer. There can be no "respect for others" (which, after all, those of us involved in BDSM champion) in feeling that, because HE saw no problem in what he did, that no-one else SHOULD feel any objection.

Theologically, a church building is NOT "the House of God", though many of us think of it that way. In the Bible, God points out that He does not live in a house made with hands. He is immanent and omnipresent, not limited to a location.

But, I recognise that a building may, perfectly reasonably, have a special resonance for those who worship there. And I think that there is *something* about a place where centuries of prayer have taken place, that can help those who gather there. As long as they don't feel God is waiting for them there between one Sunday and the next, and that they cannot interact with Him as meaningfully at home, in the workplace, or anywhere.

As for the calibre of the pictures: they were inappropriate, even if not hard porn. And I am glad that Toak acknowledges that too - very even-handed of you, Toak! I certainly don't feel it is "cutting edge" to position a girl with a short skirt standing directly over a cross, with the imagery being posed to imply that it could penetrate her. Nor is it even remotely tasteful to show a bare-breasted woman on someone's grave. There is no "religious" case against it (there is perhaps a humanitarian one, that we should all be respectful of the dead), but if I were a descendant of the person interred there, I consider I would have every right to feel offended.

As has been suggested, the photographer is probably delighted with the exposure (pun doubly intended!) - one might even think he had planned it. But it was the action of an oaf. And boorishness is not compatible with artistic integrity.

English

Next page