In a knot over BDSM
In a recent Guardian column, film reviewer Joe Queenan turned his gaze on The Notorious Bettie Page, a movie about the 1950s model who posed in soft bondage pictures, clad in leather corsets and six-inch patent-leather heels, and holding a whip.
At one point, he commented: "With her winning smile, Page apotheosised an era when fetishism was stylish and witty, and even a tad goofy, when it wasn't all about humiliation, penetration, suspension and asphyxiation. You know: back when fetishism had class."
Well slap my botty with a stick of wet celery and call me a pervert: when did "fetishism" become "all about" such things? When did the bulk of the kink community suddenly start playing dangerous asphyxiation games?
Does Mr Q live on a different planet where his faux nostalgia has some basis in reality?
BDSM is "about" a vast arena of things. But this is typical of how people who haven’t a clue like to characterise it. Does it matter? In one sense, no. On the other hand, with people still being prosecuted and risking prosecution for consensual activities between adults, it's important to tackle ignorance.
When the jury in the Spanner case were told that one of the defendants had had a nail hammered through his penis, they believed what they were told. Since they weren't allowed to see the incriminating video, they didn't know that what actually happened was that one of the men removed a piercing from his genitals before a nail was inserted in the hole and then gently tacked to a table.
Quite a creative form of bondage, actually. And most certainly not the same as having a nail smashed through one's prick.
Unfortunately, even after the 2003 Sexual Offences Act, the legislation makes it an offence to administer or consent to have administered any mark that lasts more than a moment or so. In other words, strictly speaking, a lovebite is an offence.
So you can consent to be beaten up in a boxing ring, but you can't consent to have your ass caned if it leaves marks. (Damn! That's part of the fun.)
The Spanner Trust and others continue to campaign against such paternalistic laws. But articles that dismiss many thousands of people in such a blasé manner don't do anyone any favours in terms of working towards a grown-up and tolerant society.
Joe dear, you don't know what you're talking about. Or else you're going to all the wrong places.
At one point, he commented: "With her winning smile, Page apotheosised an era when fetishism was stylish and witty, and even a tad goofy, when it wasn't all about humiliation, penetration, suspension and asphyxiation. You know: back when fetishism had class."
Well slap my botty with a stick of wet celery and call me a pervert: when did "fetishism" become "all about" such things? When did the bulk of the kink community suddenly start playing dangerous asphyxiation games?
Does Mr Q live on a different planet where his faux nostalgia has some basis in reality?
BDSM is "about" a vast arena of things. But this is typical of how people who haven’t a clue like to characterise it. Does it matter? In one sense, no. On the other hand, with people still being prosecuted and risking prosecution for consensual activities between adults, it's important to tackle ignorance.
When the jury in the Spanner case were told that one of the defendants had had a nail hammered through his penis, they believed what they were told. Since they weren't allowed to see the incriminating video, they didn't know that what actually happened was that one of the men removed a piercing from his genitals before a nail was inserted in the hole and then gently tacked to a table.
Quite a creative form of bondage, actually. And most certainly not the same as having a nail smashed through one's prick.
Unfortunately, even after the 2003 Sexual Offences Act, the legislation makes it an offence to administer or consent to have administered any mark that lasts more than a moment or so. In other words, strictly speaking, a lovebite is an offence.
So you can consent to be beaten up in a boxing ring, but you can't consent to have your ass caned if it leaves marks. (Damn! That's part of the fun.)
The Spanner Trust and others continue to campaign against such paternalistic laws. But articles that dismiss many thousands of people in such a blasé manner don't do anyone any favours in terms of working towards a grown-up and tolerant society.
Joe dear, you don't know what you're talking about. Or else you're going to all the wrong places.
posted by Amanda Kendal at 4:45 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home