Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Fantasy vs Illegality vs Rights vs Responsibilities
Sex God
Quote by tweeky
You can't censor peoples imagination- or we really will live in the ultimate police state :scared:
We cant have a cake with a cock on it in a swingers forum, anythings possible
you're still allowed to imagine a cock on a cake though :lol:
Here's a problem with this debate. It's almost a subset of the art versus porn debate.
On my bookshelf is a copy of Martyn Waite's 'the White Room'. It's a pretty decent novel that features various real life figures (like T Dan Smith) and a thinly disguised Mary Bell. Telling the story requires references to sex acts that are absolutely illegal. Waite tells the story well, and with considerable skill and force. But he must know that some people will be aroused by the illegal acts he describes, and which they'll use as the basis for masturbatory fantasies. But it's not porn, it's literature. Like . Or any number of historical novels I can think of - the Mandingo novels of the seventies were thinly disguised porn - the Gor novels even more so, but they're still legal to sell.
So why is it legal for Waite or Nabokov to tell his tale, but illegal for a chatroom to discuss illegal acts? It depends on a subjective definition of the purpose of the act of creation - Waite was writing a fair to middling historical novel, so he gets away with it, Nabokov was writing a pretty poor literary novel, so he gets away with it, but someone just wanting to talk about fantasies to their friends, doesn't. I think that's legal sophistry, and it conflicts absolutely with the view taken on images, where the possession of the image or its display can be an absolute offence. I've never really explored where that leaves archives like the Newspaper Library at Colindale - there are issues of the Sun from the 70s and 80s where the Page Three girl picture is a Category 1 / 2 offence under the current laws on child porn....
I digress, of course, but I do think there's a huge amount of subjectivity and woolly thinking in attitudes on this that won't go away just because of appeals to common sense.
On my bookshelf is a copy of Martyn Waite's 'the White Room'. It's a pretty decent novel that features various real life figures (like T Dan Smith) and a thinly disguised Mary Bell. Telling the story requires references to sex acts that are absolutely illegal. Waite tells the story well, and with considerable skill and force. But he must know that some people will be aroused by the illegal acts he describes, and which they'll use as the basis for masturbatory fantasies. But it's not porn, it's literature. Like . Or any number of historical novels I can think of - the Mandingo novels of the seventies were thinly disguised porn - the Gor novels even more so, but they're still legal to sell.
So why is it legal for Waite or Nabokov to tell his tale, but illegal for a chatroom to discuss illegal acts? It depends on a subjective definition of the purpose of the act of creation - Waite was writing a fair to middling historical novel, so he gets away with it, Nabokov was writing a pretty poor literary novel, so he gets away with it, but someone just wanting to talk about fantasies to their friends, doesn't. I think that's legal sophistry, and it conflicts absolutely with the view taken on images, where the possession of the image or its display can be an absolute offence. I've never really explored where that leaves archives like the Newspaper Library at Colindale - there are issues of the Sun from the 70s and 80s where the Page Three girl picture is a Category 1 / 2 offence under the current laws on child porn....
I digress, of course, but I do think there's a huge amount of subjectivity and woolly thinking in attitudes on this that won't go away just because of appeals to common sense.
Sex God
Quote by awayman
So why is it legal for Waite or Nabokov to tell his tale, but illegal for a chatroom to discuss illegal acts?
Is it illegal to discuss them, or just banned under the AUP as 'the company' are scared of possible legal action should their discussion lead to someone breaking the law and trying to blame it on SH?
Quote by Kaznkev
i think part of the problem is the whole would you want your wife or servants to read this is highish brow,and therefore acceptable because proper types will read it and of course respond appropriately.
A chat room where a sad middle men discussed fucking a 12 year old is deemed wrong because they are not pretending its i must say you have to be pretty desperate to wank over Nabakov.
But it comes down to class again!This is art and therefore goes on gallery walls
Who makes the subjective decision,the sort of people who think wives and servants are corruptible.
It's the same the whole world over,
It's the poor what gets the blame.
It's the rich what gets the pleasure.
Ain't it all a bleedin' shame?
