BDSM RTV NEWS!!!!

21 september 2008

Is the law tying itself in knots

Source: www.independent.co.uk London UK

Photographer Ben Westwood has always been fascinated by bondage. But a new law could see many of his images banned and him behind bars. He makes the case for his defence


I learnt recently that there is a new law being brought in, under the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act (2008), to prohibit "extreme pornography". It appears that, as someone who likes such things as transparent underwear, suspender belts, tights, stretchy latex, a bit of spanking and some binding and gagging and who takes photographs of them too unless I get started with a lot of shredding, then pop off to the madhouse for some electric shocks and maybe a lobotomy, then in four months' time I could well be arrested, fined, disgraced and maybe imprisoned.

You can see some of my pictures here. Others would not be considered appropriate even for a liberal family newspaper. But that does not make them, or me, criminal.

In all my experience, I have never "played" with anyone who was not a consenting adult. The way I see it, some people like it and some people don't.

For me, that is not a problem. In my opinion, S&M is just harmless fun. There is no anger or violence involved.

I have always found imagery of fetish sex, indeed of sex in general, to be fascinating and I have quite a collection from over the years (it's what I call my homework).

I don't think that I have been corrupted in any way by seeing these things. They just identified passions that I was born with.

I remember being really turned on when I was eight, although I didn't really understand what was happening at the time.

I was watching the film Jamaica Inn and at the end Maureen O'Hara was bound, gagged and carried off. To my eight-year-old self she looked so desirable! So blame her or Alfred Hitchcock for my tastes, if you like. But don't turn me into a criminal.

Bondage is a game that experiments with control. Dominance deals with having everything under your own direction while you do all the work. Submission deals with having no responsibilities at all you just lie back and submit. These are both good things to know in life generally. You learn to take full responsibility when you act, and you learn when and how to let someone else take the lead (sometimes literally) when they have something to show, or know better, or are simply willing to do the work. Similarly, the dressing-up fetish can be about sophistication and about the knowledge of one's own sexual body. Where is the crime in that?
There have always been issues levelled over the "morality" of sex. For example, the question of whether one should enjoy it, or fantasise about it.

There are those who seem to think that "the act" should just be done occasionally and without thinking about it, only for the purpose of procreation. I wonder what planet they live on. To me, this sounds more like the behaviour of animals.

In my book, it is good and necessary to learn discipline and restraint (the usual kind, I mean) in one's dealings with people and over one's passions. This is civilised behaviour. So are love, trust, compassion and honesty. But why should that exclude fantasy and fetish?

People have accused me of making women into sexual objects. If that is wrong then we should ban most advertising as well, and also many films.
In any case, I don't take my pictures all on my own. Now that I am established, I get lots of offers from models who want to work with me. They tell me that they like to be glamorous, to show what they have got. They like to be desirable. Indeed, being glamorous is also a nice way to make money much better than lots of other jobs.

Of course, making this fundamental part of human nature, and what you think in your head, illegal won't stop it. It will just drive it underground. This is much worse for civilisation and for one's psychology. When things are allowed out into the open, they can be managed reasonably.

For instance, I believe strongly that prostitution should be legalised. Why doesn't the Government do that, instead of introducing this ban on extreme porn? It seems to me that they just want to be seen as "tough". Yet, in my opinion, the present Government has been rather useless and feeble about the most important moral things. They have taken this country to war; they are not strong on green issues: are we, for instance, going to take up the offer by the President of Guyana to pay for them not to cut down their rainforest?

Why don't we put our minds to dealing with these really important issues before serious damage is done to the world, instead of persecuting people for their fantasies?

We already have laws to deal with real violence, and surely there are much more pressing matters to be debating than "Is porn good?"
My answer to that, meanwhile, is simple: of course it is.