Dominant State, Submissive PopulaceSpanking. Consensual physical or verbal abuse. Physical restraint. Female ejaculation. Strangulation. Facesitting. #ThingsBannedInUKPorn
No, it’s not an anarchist’s Christmas wishlist. The above is a selection of the #ThingsBannedInUKPorn this month. There are many angles people have taken when criticising these recent restrictions on pornography production, all of which can be thought of as anarchist in some sense.
Because market anarchists are inherently sceptical of power structures, it may seem surprising for me to adopt an unashamedly accepting stance towards pre-agreed extreme power imbalances in the bedroom. In fact, I wholeheartedly support individuals who engage in many of the behaviours that have been banned. Even if I was appalled by BDSM practices, a top-down imposition of limits to sexual behaviour between consenting adults is an exercise in power of far larger magnitude.
As the Everyday Analysis Collective write in their excellent column on the subject, “it is … important to bear in mind the fact that the regulation of pornography is not a simply repressive act.” Cries of repression may be cause for alarm, but in order to properly evaluate the restrictions we must examine the consequences of such repression. Treating adults like children — infantilising them by curtailing their pornographic choices – renders the BDSM community even more of an outgroup. It legitimises the disgust and derision of those who do not partake in its practices. A growing body of research suggests that those who engage in BDSM do not fulfil the pernicious stereotype of being psychologically damaged, and are in fact no different from the general population in this manner. Though we should not ignore the marginal cases, one influential 2013 study found that BDSM practitioners are less neurotic, more open to experience and possess higher levels of subjective wellbeing.
Also of primary importance is the flagrantly sexist aspect of the restrictions. The UK government is expressing its opposition to female pleasure by banning the depiction of female ejaculation, but leaving the male equivalent untouched. It is railing against the possibility of female dominance by preventing the portrayal of facesitting. The specific activities that have been restricted fit into a wider narrative, and the Everyday Analysis Collective further draws our attention to this in the aforementioned article: ” … a major problem with the current regulations is that they disproportionately restrict pornography that allows something else, whilst leaving intact that material that reinforces the unequal status quo.”
Whilst I may have used BDSM vocabulary in the title of this piece, it’s worth highlighting the difference between S&M and the state. One places a heightened emphasis on consent and is quite possibly beneficial for us. The other prioritises violence and is demonstrably harmful.
Discover more from The Libertarian Alliance
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Erm, what is “face-sitting” then? I ask because I want to know. Can anyone say? Please?
I am also not clear about “rimming”, “watersports”, and several other things.
Sitting on somebody’s face.
Licking the anus, and urinating for sexual pleasure.
Well, you did ask.
The first comment I have read in 2015. Starbucks will not be pleased.
Contains no swear words. If these words are verboten, presumably we are back to the Victorian standard of referring to everything between the neck and knees as the liver.
?
So anyway, this has little to do with “the BDSM community” who are bystanders caught in the crossfire, and the sexism claim is a canard. The modern war on pornography- like its first wave that was dominant until the sexual revolution- is a consequence of feminism, which treats all sex as a degrading act imposed upon women by demonic male lusts.
Feminism has two primary natures in terms of this issue. The first is the Radicals, who appeal to Marxism. The second is the Angry Mothers, who appeal to “Wont Somebody Think Of The Children?”. The current attempts to censor the internet are being driven by the second party, with the Radicals supplying their nonsense theory of “objectification and exploitation” (legal form supplied by the infamous Catharine Mackinnon); in particular, this was announced some time ago by Dim David Cameron as a reaction to campaigning by Netmums (second party, mumsy feminists) and the NSPCC (first party, Radical feminists). The actual driving narrative was the banning of “rape porn”.
So, it has nothing to do with State “sexism” i.e. the idea that somehow the State- which is thoroughly riddled with feminists- is anti-women. It is a response to the demands of dominant caste women to suppress sexual material which they find, for various reasons, threatening. Since they cannot (yet) get away with entirely banning it, they are salami slicing it by listing ever more acts which are considered beyond the pale as “Extreme Porn”. So, included with “rape porn” was any act they considered to be- in some way- “degrading or exploitative”- and that includes most kinky stuff, including female ejaculation, which may just be weeing anyway, the debate continues, and so on.
This is what happens when you don’t tell feminism to fuck off.
A good article and some useful points raised in the discussion – thanks Ian.
It’s important to remember that these latest administrative measures, driven by the quango “ATVOD” (you really couldn’t make this up), are designed to shut down UK based producers of porn videos. They do not not criminalise the individual who may view this content.
The latter has already been “taken care of” by s63 the 2008 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act, which criminalises so-called “extreme pornography”. This is so vaguely defined that the viewing of almost any “alternative” sex act could constitute a criminal offence.
In 2008, the Home Office stated that this law would result in no more than 30 prosecutions a year; since 2009 there have been over 5500 prosecutions – in one case for the “possession” of a thumbnail photo of a man wearing a gas mask.
The important thing to note about this act is that it potentially criminalises the viewing of images of a large range of activities that are themselves completely legal.
For those who are interested in learning a bit more, I would strongly recommend this blog: http://obscenitylawyer.blogspot.co.uk/ and this site http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/
Dave’s latest move is to append a clause banning “rape porn” to the 2008 act. Bearing in mind that that the mere insertion of a sex toy may constitue “rape” for the purposes of this new law, it will be seen that material showing a further range of consensual (and completely legal) BDSM activities will face criminalisation.
Additionally, it is worth remembering in mind here that the offences discussed above may be committed merely by viewing the material without formally “saving” it, or even by receiving it (unsolicited) in an email.
As to the aims of all of this?
From the “campaigners'” point of view, I have no doubt at all that the aim is indeed to salami slice away porn until it is all but prohibited – and most potential consumers have been scared away.
From Dave’s point of view I think there are probably two aims:
1) Short term: getting some good headlines in places like the Daily Mail.
2) Long term: increasing state control over the internet. The interest in porn is no accident, as they probably calculate that it is the internet’s weakest link, which very few people will be prepared to defend.
In a wider sense these legal measures fully conform to the recent trend in politics of blurring the lines between thought and action, fantasy and reality; I sense that somewhere, Orwell must have a sardonic smile on his face.
Comment promoted to front page
I think Dave’s position on this (other than, apparently the Missionary Position) is that like most politicians today, he is entirely under the thumb of the dominant moral pressure groups- feminists and angry mums, temperance (anti-smokers, anti drinkers, food faddists) and so on. It only take them to kick up a minor stink and the likes of Dave fall inline with it; hence we had Dave back when this was announced standing in front of NSPCC banners at their HQ to make the announcement.
And this I believe is the fundamental problem we have, and have had for some degree for a very long time- the “pressure group system” that dominates our social and political discourse. They force through over and over again bad expansions of the State; this is supposedly “civil society” using the State as its truncheon to beat up everyone else. And we are really going to have to address this and find a strategy against it to make any progress for liberty.
And in a more general sense there is a matter of gender relations. Dave and his ilk are upper middle class, ruling caste whatever you want to call them, and as a class they are absolutely dominated by women. You’ve only got to watch Nick Clegg pathetically traipsing around after his wife to see the power balance. They are so used to giving in to any complaint from a woman of their own caste that the idea of standing up to them in campaigning terms- the angry harridans of Mumsnet and Netmums, the NSPCC etc- is simply beyond their imagining. And hence this.