Draft e-petition
by Ian Jade
Do not criminalise recordings of “consensual non-consent” sex.
Responsible department: Ministry of Justice
In January, the Government intends to make the possession of images depicting certain types of legal, consensual sex a criminal act, punishable by up to 3 years in prison.
This is because, although both people who are engaging in sex have consented to do so, they have chosen to pretend that one of them has little or no choice in the matter, for the duration of the scene.
This is known as acting.
We believe that it should remain legal to watch and possess recordings showing scenes which simulate this kind of coercion, just as it will remain legal to watch films depicting simulations of theft, affray, kidnapping, dangerous driving, murder, alien invasion and other criminal activities, whether that be for entertainment or education.
[In addition, scenes depicting coercive sex in mainstream cinema would be treated as pornographic, when removed from the surrounding material. This is frequently done in order to study, comment on or satirise a work which in its entirity would be acceptable under the BBFC guidelines. We therefore further oppose the criminalising and retrospective censorship of similar, existing works, in whole or in part.]
The damage done by criminalising this kind of sexual expression would be difficult to publicly measure, dealing as it does with dark, intimate fantasies, but many people – women and men – enjoy participating in and watching it. To call them criminals for wishing to explore their own sexuality safely, through images, rather than in person, would surely stigmatise and harm them.
(If you do want changes, for goodness’ sake, SUGGEST them! I’m not psychic…)
23.00 – [EDIT to include para on mainstream cinema]
23.30 – [EDIT to remove emphasis capitals]
23.30 – [EDIT to reword para on cinema – thanks, Molly!]
jadewhisk 
This is so much better worded than the original. I was wondering if there should be reference to mainstream film examples that contain rape scenes or not.
If you film has a BBFC rating then it is exempt from the law so movies like The Accused fall into this group however if you possess JUST the ‘rape’ scene and not the rest of the movie then this will fall under this law and you could be prosecuted for that.
Mollyxxx
[…] a petition HERE and a proposed revision/replacement HERE (people were uncomfortable with the […]
This is better than the original as it doesn’t contain the trigger word “rape”.
I wouldn’t put any words in capital letters – yes, they are key words, but it looks childish. A petition is a formal request. There’s also some language I’d change – “play” in the title, perhaps, to “sexual activity”.
Give it a bit of a re-draft and it’d be a much clearer, less threatening petition than the version that’s current at the moment.
I agree. Was trying for emphasis, but you’re right, it looked silly.
OK, good call. I will edit it in.
A great improvement. These comments also appear on the facebook group but I have been advised to repost them here:
I shared your concerns about the original petition but didn’t want to speak up for fear of upsetting the brave individual who put their name to it and took the trouble to create it. The only thing I would perhaps add is that plenty of couples do like to play these kinds of games, and that the law does not distinguish between commercially produced porn and photos shared between couples at fetish clubs and the like. For instance, if a couple enacted some fantasy roleplay, in their home or in the woods, and got into discussing this in the pub with another couple, and the two couples elected to share the photos, they too could be handed criminal prosecutions as easily as people purchasing porn from the US on their credit card.
I might also go further and argue that it is deeply regressive for a government to return to the practice of criminalising individuals for engaging in mutually consenting sexual activity at all.
I shared your reluctance to rock the boat, but honestly I think the petition as worded was doing our cause more harm than good. If the response to this post had been negative I would probably drop it entirely, but it seems set to go ahead.
I didn’t want to labour the point, but I may re-write for clarity – the professionalism or otherwise of the material does not seem to be the issue, only the content.
And, as (I believe) with the Extreme Porn Act, while the sex acts involved are not being punished – and are still legal to perform and watch – possessing images of those acts is (and would be) a criminal offence. Shocking.
The government knows precisely what it is doing. It is up to us to let them know we will not stand for it.
I rather liked “play,” However I am not sure the bit about mainstream media needs to be so big. It seems a bit straw-clutchy.
“Play” might come back. It is a useful and accurate term.
That section covers the fact that, as per Molly’s comment, scenes taken out of context can be considered … um … “actionable” I suppose is the word.
[…] Proposed New Wording Of E-Petition […]
I think that it is an improvement on the original, though still has room for some subtle yet important adjustments. For example, the beginning paragraph says “In January, the government intends…” but by the time this petition has enough signatures, the law will have already been passed and perhaps in a new year. Therefore, I think that saying “In January 2014, the government will pass/passed the law…”
I’m not sure that it’s necessary to include the part saying “This is because, although both people who are engaging in sex have consented to do so, they have chosen to pretend that one of them has little or no choice in the matter, for the duration of the scene.” When the government get round to debating this petition, they may disagree with why you think they passed it in the first place. David Cameron says that the reasoning behind it is to make us all think about women differently, etc.
Finally, the last paragraph mentions that these are “dark” fantasies. Maybe take out that word dark and just call them intimate fantasies. We don’t want to sound as though we even believe ourselves to be weirdos. I think it needs to be presented as something which is just as normal as anything else, but misunderstood.
Apart from that, all good 🙂
Good points, though I’m not sure I entirely agree.
The date could be changed to include time after the law is passed, but I think that will muddy the wording. It’s happening in OUR future, and we want it stopped. Simple.
The part setting out in clear detail what is due to be criminalised is extremely important, in my opinion. The only difference between non-consent porn and vanilla porn is the appearance of coercion – the type and intensity of the sexual encounter is no more extreme than in most other genres of porn. I believe many people on the other side of this debate are confused as to what, precisely, is meant when Mr. Cameron calls this “rape porn”. It is not rape. It is merely portraying something which looks like rape in order to explore the fantasies associated with that scenario. Rape is rightly illegal. Pornography is rightly legal. Some people are determined to conflate the two.
I’m in two minds about your last point. It seems disingenuous not to acknowledge just how powerful and perhaps shameful these kinds of fantasy can be, when pointing out how reluctant people would be to openly champion them. Those of us with our heads screwed on know that doesn’t make it *wrong*. However, perhaps this isn’t the place for a full-on political campaign for the acceptance of even self-admittedly freaky, nasty kinks. Which, of course, are usually OK. Hmmm. I think I might come round to editing that one out. Thank you.
The emphasis ‘This is known as acting’ is both necessary and amusing, I like. I also think certain parts of the media share some of the blame for stirring up hysteria, and it is a sad reflection of politics in this country that politicians continue to pander to it.
I should also imagine that those regressive politicians and journalists that demand such censorship have in mind helpless females being exploited, when the truth, of course, is that this genre of porn features consensual men and women and an audience who appreciate it as pure fantasy.
The more I hear politicians talk about kink, sexual expression and pornography, the more convinced I am that we are really not speaking the same language. If they refuse to educate themselves, and are using emotive language to sway public opinion (as I believe has happened here), then it really does need to be spelled out that clearly.