Criminal Justice Bill, Section 63

The Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill yesterday had its third reading in the House of Lords, and by the end of next week it will have received Royal Assent and passed into English law, making it a criminal offence to possess extreme pornographic images.

I won't go into the detail of what the Bill says or how people are interpreting it here, as that has been amply done elsewhere (see for example Backlash, the group that has led the campaign against the law). I just have a couple of thoughts to offer.

Lord Hunt, Parliamentary Under-Secretary in the Ministry of Justice, said the following last night:

This is not, I suggest, a case of policing the bedroom. It is intended to target only the most extreme pornography. We believe that the number of prosecutions will be relatively small, but my understanding—from advice that I have received—is that the offence will be a valuable additional resource for officers already working on protecting the public in this area. I also give an assurance that this offence will not be commenced before a full explanation of it is given to the police and to the courts.

The trouble is that new legislation is very often subject to the Law of Unintended Consequences. In 2003, the Government fast-tracked the Extradition Act, allowing the USA (and various other countries) to extradite UK citizens more quickly and easily than under previous arrangements. The motivation given at the time was that the change in law was required in order to assist in the fight against terrorism. Three years later, the Natwest Three - a trio of English businessmen whose alleged crimes were thought by American prosecutors to have contributed to the collapse of Enron - were extradited on charges of wire fraud. Each was jailed for 37 months after a plea-bargain that saw them plead guilty to one of the charges against them; had they been convicted of all charges, they faced 35 years in prison.

What I believe worries a lot of people is not that the Government is trying to criminalise anyone who likes looking at the occasional saucy picture or video, or even that many people really will be criminalised - in the sense that they can be prosecuted and convicted. The point is rather that a lot of people might have material on their computers, or in their Internet history (which the police can compel an ISP to provide), that could arouse suspicion. Even if they don't, it only takes an allegation from one person bent on making some mischief and the police are duty-bound to investigate. It doesn't need a conviction to ruin someone's career, reputation, relationships and ultimately their life, as some of the more egregious failures of Operation Ore have shown. Arrest and investigation will do just fine and there is no standard of proof required for that.

The police have better things to do than go after every kinky adult in the UK, and the minister is probably right that the number of prosecutions will be small. But we should be fair to the police in what we ask them to do. It is not their job to tease out the likely meaning of ambiguous phrasing (in which this particular Bill is especially rich); neither is it their responsibility to enforce the law with reference to the intentions of the Government that drafted it. It will not be the police's fault if the lives of people who have committed no crime, harmed nobody and never harboured any intention of doing either are ruined. Parliament has enacted a bad law*, despite the best efforts of several courageous and eloquent dissenters in the House of Lords to temper its worst excesses (see particularly the remarks made by Baroness Miller, Lord McIntosh and Baroness Howe at the report stage and third reading - you can link to the relevant text here) . I fear that their failure will cost a few unlucky people very dearly.

*Note that only sections 63 and 64 of the Bill deal with this issue. I am not conversant with the rest of the Bill; perhaps it is otherwise magnificent.

Back in town... but still quiet

It's nearly the end of March, and as promised I'm back in town and able to post again. The curious thing is that I don't really feel that much of a burning desire to post about anything. It's funny how these things can fluctuate - throughout January and February I was on the internet looking at my favourite sites, reading stories and checking out blogs every evening, and even if I was only posting here once or twice a week I was constantly having ideas about things I wanted to write about. After six weeks cold turkey when I've had no access to any of this (and would have had no time for it even if I had), I'm surprised to find that I've kind of got used to it and my blogging enthusiasm has slightly dried up.

I'm not declaring this blog closed, but I think it's only fair to let you know that I don't expect to post regularly for the time being. It may well be that now that I have a bit more time I'll soon get sucked into it all again and I will resume a more regular posting schedule but I'm not going to rush into it - I'd rather wait until I feel the need to write about something than try to rack my brains for something to write about. My interest in all the things you know I'm interested in is as lively as ever - the only difference is that I don't currently have all that much appetite for writing about it. Drop back in a while and see if I've changed my mind again!

The 1000 Club

On logging into my blogcounter account just now I was pleased to find that a short time ago this blog passed 1,000 hits. A good start, I think! I know I ought to be doing a bit more to get myself known like ask other bloggers to add me to their links - and I should add a few more myself. If you have a spanking blog and enjoy reading this one, please do link to me and I will try to add your link asap. And to everyone else, do leave a comment if you drop by! I enjoy all your messages, though of course I'm delighted to have a lurker following as well - so long as you're getting something out of reading I'm happy you're here.

Because of a particularly frantic few weeks of work, with very little time at home, there probably won't be many posts for a little while. I'll try to drop by every now and again, but in the meantime, if you get bored by the lack of activity, please check back towards the end of March.

Hope those around London are enjoying the beautiful early spring weather! I'm stuck inside working all day and all I want is to go for a lovely walk...

A new hairbrush

I went into Boots today to buy a new hairbrush. Sadly the motivation was entirely vanilla; after years of cultivating the wild unkempt look (cultivating may be the wrong word), I've decided there's no shame in a little bit of hair care. It's the kind of hair that still looks fairly wild and unkempt whatever you do to it so I'm not sure how worthwhile an investment it will be.

Anyway, there I was in a fairly large branch of Boots, thinking I would just grab the first and cheapest brush that came to hand and be out again, and I found myself racked with indecision. Of course, my eyes went to the wooden ones first - though idiotically, in the end, I bought a plastic one because it was cheaper and I didn't think I was likely to be using it for anything other than brushing my hair any time soon. How short-sighted can you get? I'll kick myself one day when I do have an opportunity.

Still, I couldn't believe the choices - fat ones, skinny ones, tall ones, short ones... and I couldn't resist trying a few out on my hand to see what the impact was like. I wonder how many shoppers saw me and knew what I was thinking...

I think my friend is a spanko...

I was with some friends on Saturday evening watching Match of the Day when Fulham's 3-0 defeat to Arsenal came on. 'I'm glad I'm not going out with George any more,' remarked Felicity - 'he used to get into a foul mood when Fulham lost. Watching this I'd probably have been a victim of domestic d- violence.'

My radar went up immediately. Reader, is there any explanation for her stutter other than that she started to say 'domestic discipline'? I can't think of another phrase beginning 'domestic ___' where the second word begins with d - and even if so, I certainly can't think of one that would have fit there. Or that she would have stopped herself from saying just as she realised she was about to. I reckon it's got to be 100 to 1 she's one of us.

But then... do I dare risk mentioning it? Well, of course not; one never knows about the 1%. There are subtler ways, of course; next time I see her I won't miss an opportunity to use a word or phrase that she'll recognise if she is, and I'll be poised ready to spot her double-take/ raised eyebrow/ momentary loss of composure/ sudden impassioned plea to be spanked immediately/ whatever. Unfortunately I don't see her that often, and only ever in a group of mutual friends. It's going to be tricky.

It also raises the interesting question of how much difference it makes when somebody shares that interest. I've known this girl for many years and never been attracted to her; she's pretty and I like her but she isn't particularly my type and it's never really crossed my mind. But I have to say, I think it would make a difference. Of course it makes some - any attraction is based, at some level, on certain attributes that a person does or does not have, and an interest in spanking is just one more thing to throw into the equation (you can tell I'm a romantic) - but I'm interested to know how much. There are certainly plenty of people I'd never be interested in however closely our kinks matched.

It's definitely better to discover a mutual interest with someone you're already attracted to than to realise your attraction because of / after you find out about the kinky interest, though. I remember one relationship - a relatively serious one - where I couldn't get the thought out of my head that the girl wouldn't have been interested in me if we hadn't had the kink in common, and it preyed on my mind. I think it must be similar for extremely beautiful girls - you want men to appreciate your looks, of course, but don't want to be valued only/primarily for them, and it can be a major cause of insecurity.

I think to some extent this is a fundamental problem with internet dating, not only on spanking-related sites but in general - usually (when you meet in 'real-life' situations) you find out about shared interests after you discover your physical attraction to someone, and the excitement of discovering them is often what propels and deepens the attraction. Online, you select for shared interests first, then find out more about them through messages, then exchange photos - and even then you can't really tell if you're attracted to someone until you meet them. It almost makes you think 'I really hope I'm going to find this person attractive, it would be such a shame to waste a fellow [mountain-biking / Picasso / wooden hairbrushes] enthusiast'.

The internet situation is an extreme, though. In the case of Felicity, if I confirmed my hypothesis and decided I did find her more attractive than I used to, I'd still have the excitement of discovering something about somebody you know. In a way, that's what you lose from a dating site - something that would be thrilling becomes normal. A bit like what I was saying in my last post about the difference between googling 'spanking story prefect detention' or stumbling across a scene in a mainstream book. I still do the googling, and sometimes I'm very glad I did, but the fortuitous finds are what we all really hope for.

Mixed feelings

Most of us with an interest in spanking have memories of early encounters with literary, anecdotal or other references to punishments that excited our young minds. For me it was Roald Dahl's autobiography, first, then Tom Sawyer being whipped by that mean teacher in the film version of the story, and also a scene in 'Whale Adventure', by Willard Price, where one of the characters on board a whaling ship is beaten with a cat 'o' nine tails. There were probably others, but those are the ones that stick in the mind.

What is curious about this for me - and this is still true now - is that the sensation when I read or see a scene of that sort is not pure excitement. There is certainly a kind of fascination, the strange mix of wanting to read it slowly to dwell on a rare moment of titillation - so much greater for being unexpected, and probably unintended by the author - and wanting to give in to the thrill of reading it quickly. And then the desire to read it again, of course, and the slight feeling of disappointment that there isn't more detail, and that it isn't as good the second time.

But that's not all I feel. Especially - as in all of the three instances I mentioned - when there is a strong sense of injustice, and of sympathy with the victim, I feel the kind of indignation and sympathy that I might if an actual friend of mine were undeservingly subjected to a similar punishment. I've always had a strong, visceral hatred of injustice - often quite out of proportion to the suffering caused to the object of my compassion. I remember once lying awake unable to get to sleep after somebody in my class - not even someone I knew particularly well - was given a 30-minute detention after school for talking in class. It was the first detention given to anyone in my class and I remember experiencing a kind of wounded shock on his behalf that he could be treated so brutally.

Excessive? Well, I was a sensitive kid. I also wasn't a very childish child; people always found me very serious. I hated that I couldn't be taken seriously by adults (other than my parents), and I think the manifestation of any kind of authority served as a very unwelcome reminder that my classmates and I were children, powerless to defend ourselves as equals. We were, as the Americans say, 'the one-legged guy in an ass-kicking contest'. Nobody likes that.

My flesh still creeps when I hear the word 'punish'. It's horrible. Even the idea of me 'punishing' someone else is uncomfortable (with that specific word involved - the notion is otherwise quite attractive). If I ever heard my friends talk about a 'punishment' meted out by their parents I felt a twinge of revulsion. And I think my particular horror at that word is all to do with the connotation of a completely one-way relationship. With most punishments visited on children, the person doing the punishing gets to decide whether it's deserved; the child being punished doesn't get much say in the matter. There are parents and teachers who work in a slightly different way and give the child a chance to defend themselves, and then it's not quite so alarming, but having that power effectively puts the authority figure beyond accountability. And for me that's the awful thing: the idea that people could be punished wrongly and have no chance to defend themselves. Also, those parents/teachers who will say: 'I think that was wrong. Do you agree? What ought your punishment to be?' are no better; any complicity from the child here is reached under duress. In fact the pretence of 'consensual punishment' makes it even worse. Only those who genuinely want to hear the case for the defence are tolerable; but still, they can never get away from the fact that, owing to their position, they must sit in judgment of their own 'case for the prosecution'. I'm not really criticising it - of course this is an unavoidable situation, and I am not some kind of anti-discipline hippy 'progressive'. But I think a bit of discomfort at the monopolistic nature of one's power over another individual is a healthy thing to have - and as this post suggests, this extends to adult D/s relationships as well as those involving kids.

It's funny thinking through the various strands suggested by this contemplation - most of which hadn't occured to me before I started writing. Weirdly, I think the slight feeling of discomfort (which at its worst can actually go so far as to make me feel quite sick) can't be completely dissociated from the thrill. (What would the worst be, incidentally? Probably if I saw/read of a really harsh punishment of a character I really sympathised with who definitely didn't deserve it, compounded by their being particularly submissive - say in order to protect someone else. Awful. Anyone want to write the story?) When I go online and trawl for stories and videos they don't tug the same strings - partly because they don't have the advantages I mentioned above of being unexpected or unintended, but partly because there is no sympathy for the spankee. If it's a story, she (I don't really read stories involving male bottoms) is a character I haven't invested anything in, who I know perfectly well only exists for my titillation, and frankly where's the fun in that? If it's a video, I know perfectly well she's a model who chose to be there and is doing very nicely out of it. (If I thought there were any possibility that might not be the case, I wouldn't watch the video.) And I think that's why it's never as 'good' as coming across it unexpectedly in a novel, period drama, etc. Witnessing a spanking in real life would be the most exciting and also the most distressing - I would be completely captivated, and probably sickened.

Another thing that occurs to me is that my nascent dominant tendencies probably had a lot to do with the extreme revulsion I always felt, as a child, at being subject to authority, or patronised. Of course all kids hate that to a certain extent, but I wonder whether my particular sensitivity to it - God, I hated being told off - might have had something to do with the lack of a submissive streak. In fact I wonder whether, in general, the kids who seem sensitive and disinclined to do things that will get them in trouble - basically those who seem excessively, even unnaturally resistant to being told off - are often those with dominant tendencies. It would fit, wouldn't it, with the fact that a lot of dominant types (sexually) tend to be quiet, even sometimes a bit moody - generally speaking, sensitive rather than aggressive. Whereas the stereotype of alpha male masculinity - the kids who ran around doing everything, got told off all the time, and grew up into burly rugby players who drink nine pints and then get into fights with anyone they don't like the look of - is surprisingly often associated with secret desires to be forced to wear a nappy then stamped on by leather-clad women wearing stilettos.

That might be a bit facile and maybe it's too hard to generalise about something as complex as the roots of people's sexuality, but I think there's a grain of truth - in a few cases at least, even if it doesn't work as a 'general model'. And now? I'm off to find some pitifully inadequate stories and videos.

Happy New Year!

Just a quick post to wish you all the very best for 2008. My New Year's resolutions:

1) Do something proactive to meet like-minded people (any creative suggestions for what that might be are welcome)
2) Keep this blog going
3) Find a living situation conducive to playing when I want to
4) Devise ingenious clandestine tactics for finding out which of my friends are also secret spankophiles (again, if you're ahead of me, let me know)
5) Do some spanking.

Hope you had a great New Year's Eve and that you have a happy, kinky year.