is it just me, or are all the articles being published about BDSM in the wake of the Max Mosley scandal a bit awkward?
There's stuff ranging from the uninformed (how the women derived enjoyment from the 'brutal and grotesque' activities)
to how common BDSM practices seem to be in the UK
(http://lifeandhealth.guardian.co.uk/relationships/story/0,,2289739,00.html), and other issues like the recent legislation placing ban on possessing 'extreme' sexual images:
(http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1527806.ece) (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200708/jtselect/jtrights/81/8105.htm), The latter, despite its terms, reminds me of an old-school US 'I know it when I see it' understanding of pornography & obscenity because one gal's light bondage is another woman's idea of disturbing and degrading torture. additionally, how is the banning of possession of these images a human rights issue? if the government wanted to ensure that the photo/video shoots were created in a consensual manner by legal adults who were compensated & understood the nature of their work, I could understand, but banning possession of images instead of cracking down on their public availability or their sources seems more like a misguided moral mission.
also, I hadn't realized that BDSM can be illegal in the UK if the injuries are more than transient and trifling
(http://www.spannertrust.org/documents/smandthelaw.asp), which leaves much room for interpretation. the court decision is here (http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/UKlaw/rvbrown1993) and
I'm kind of disturbed I could only find a convenient full text online at something called the Circumcision Reference Library. anyway, the law brings to mind my second favorite English legal idea of yore (the first being coverture): a man had the right to use punishment to correct his wife, so long as he used a switch no bigger than his thumb. courts had no right nor any desire to interfere unless a husband permanently injured his property, I mean, wife. (and no, that law has nothing to do with the idiom 'rule of thumb' but I am annoyed that so many authors have taken pains to 'debunk' that 'feminist myth' without stopping to analyze the fact that feminists were using the phrase to critique a law that gave men the right to beat their wives.) once upon a time women could be beaten with the full approval of the law and now there is the potential risk of public exposure and humiliation of a non-erotic nature, fines, or imprisonment for a consensual beating or having photos & films of 'alternative' sexual culture.
Much of the reporting is heavy-handed but on the whole it points out that BDSM is normal & healthy if done consensually in a trusting relationship, which is good, I suppose, for raising awareness, even if the emphasis is on monogamous, heterosexual relationships. The real issue, though, is privacy. If it was consensual sex, then it's no one else's business how Mr. Mosley gets his kicks, although it's a shame he paid for the fantasy play instead of sharing the good times with his wife!
sorry for this rather long tangent/rant, but I'm just wondering what other people are thinking about the exposure BDSM is getting?