The Subjective Nature of Smut

Below is a section of a post from another forum that sums up the opinion of a large number of people about the newly passed Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill:

Quote:

by A Bloke On Another Forum:
“From my reading the CJIB doesn’t say ‘all porn ist verboten!’. It doesn’t even say ‘all bdsm porn ist verboten!’. It merely (if memory serves) criminalises: snuff porn, German nipple-slicing porn, donkey porn et al, and fucking dead-people.”

And if this were specifically the case, then there would be no problem with it being banned. And even if the police were to find something as serious as the above in your* hard drive, it’s doubtful that this on its own could lead to a conviction. I spoke in depth to a Detective friend who confirmed that, in most cases, computer-based evidence is not seen as a serious crime on its own, but merely used in court to add weight to far more serious real-world charges.

Yet the CJIB is worded in a particularly ambiguous way so that an “extreme image” could constitute anything from the German-dead-donkey-nipple-chopping extravaganza you mention as an example to (potentially) something far, far, far more innocuous. It’s a law that could be manipulated for whatever reason, and any image with even a hint of sexually threatening subtext could soon be construed as illegal porn. It’s all in the interpretation, and with a law like this appearing to justify the gutter press’ assault on anything and anyone considered sexually eclectic, then we’re all at risk.

BDSM erotica is a subjective thing, and much harder to classify than ordinary vanilla smut. Most mainstream porn is little more than a sweaty mess of naked body parts rubbing together in various combinations and squelching in and out of a series of synthetically lubricated orifices. There’s sex, of course, but for me and many others, it just isn’t at all sexy.

Ours is a much more cerebral thrill.

Porn for me could contain no actual sex, no nudity, but the implied threat of something else: A hand around a throat; a look of sudden (simulated, of course) terror in a person’s eye; or a bound victim struggling against his or her restraints. BDSM porn is acted out in fleeting moments of films, television dramas, and even cartoons (anyone who grew up watching Penelope Pitstop will know what I mean!) And, when picking apart the wording of the CJIB, it seems that owning the a copy of an entire film approved and rated by the British Board of Film Classification is fine and utterly dandy – but to pick out a certain scene or even a screenshot from that same film that could be seen as having been extracted “solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal” then, by the letter of the law, that’s a crime.

We don’t need dead donkeys and amputated nipples. We just need some official clarification of this new law so that it isn’t misused to prosecute and persecute those who merely like to watch a bit of kink played out or simulated by consenting adults. The News of the World have broken enough of us already without the law itself being misconstrued to their advantage by those in power. We do what we can.

So, to highlight the hypocrisy and dangerously vague wording of the CJIB, here’s the first in a series of clips of how quite a lot of mainstream telly looks through the eyes of this particular Dominatrix. Today’s is from an episode of the BBC’s espionage drama “Spooks/MI5” (rated 12 by the BBFC) which was aired last autumn and, it seems, has had a profound effect on me. I’ve recut it to look as disturbingly sensual as it looks when I picture it in my head. So as not to step on the sensitive toes of the CJIB, I must point out this scene has not been taken out of context “solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal”. Any intimate twinges or emissions you might experience while you watch it will be purely incidental.

*(well, probably not yours)

Click to view through Slide’s eyes.

slide's eyes

Like it? Share it!
Facebook Twitter Plusone Pinterest Digg Delicious Reddit Stumbleupon Tumblr Email

Leave a Reply