Cameron, oh Cameron, you dopey devil, what have you done? Here, here and unfortunately here about sums up numpty nuts, who is appearing a laughing stock of anywhere outside the shires? Our illustrious leading PR guru and half Prime Minister (PM 0.5) is taking a keen interest in the nation’s habit of masturbating.
Wait! I hear squealing, "It's for the good of the children."
“Bollocks” many, so very many, people retort, and about time too.
Can this nonsense about child protection get any worse?
Hitler said
"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation. " -Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler, Publ. Houghton Miflin, 1943, Page 403
Cameron is no Nazi, but he is displaying all the tendencies of not being a friend of freedom either. I am flabbergasted that this individual should succumb so easily to a knee jerk reaction more akin to an oppressive state than a considered and factual led response that should be at the heart of any serious democracy. this is enforcement of morality and ideology, and he should know better.
Too many hands being rung by Daily Mail readers perhaps Mr Cameron?
On the other hand, maybe, the all too powerful child protectionists are flexing their respective muscles. They are of courses rubbing their hands (washed of course) with glee. Interesting to note is the following excerpt from the Independent article quoted above.
“There are 50,000 predators...downloading abusive images on peer-to-peer, not from Google,” he said. “Yet from CEOP intelligence only 192 were arrested last year. That’s simply not good enough.
“We’ve got to attack the root cause, invest with new money, real investment in child protection teams, victim support and policing on the ground. Let’s create a real deterrent. Not a pop-up that paedophiles will laugh at.” Jim Gamble.
“Show me the money,” remember that?
In addition, why 50,000 predators and only 192 arrests, what have you been doing with our £6,000,000 pounds over at CEOP. Do you not see that as real investment enough for you, how much do you want, and what exactly will be the result?
Your partner organisation the NSPCC states that:
"Over 90% of children, who have experienced sexual abuse, were abused by someone they knew."
Furthermore,
"17,186 sexual crimes against children under 16 were recorded in England and Wales in 2011/12."
If that is the case, and far be it to dispute the NSPCC, then 17000 cases were not concerning Child Sexual Abuse Imagery, is that correct. Or was, as is widely claimed, CSA discovered on all the computers of these folk in which case your quote is at worst manipulative and at best horrifically ill informed.
Questions I am sure will go unanswered, but in light of the fact that the current PM 0.5 is using this type of thinking and information as an excuse to moralise and enforce his own and others odious ideology of everyone as victim or aggressor, they probably should be answered in clear and concise terms.
Echoes of the war on drugs resound in his warbling and in the cries of economic need from the usual suspects. I cannot help but draw a parallel with the "slippery slope,” that being the slippery slope of censorship as opposed to drug use or pornography.
It began this time around with criminalising "child porn" a term grossly wrong and rightly now considered so as it was renamed CSA (child sexual abuse) imagery.
However soon this also encompassed cartoon and drawn imagery of CSA, then violent porn, and now we have a call to ban rape fantasy porn.We should have stopped them way before cartoon/drawn imagery became illegal; this is thought crime without doubt. We did not stop them, we should have and now we are in danger of paying the price, although I am hopeful that a technical hitch will grind this nonsense to a halt, so it would seem are others.
However, I digress, scene now set, I wonder what all this fuss is about and as usual, a giant leap follows.
This whole fiasco has me reminiscing.
"Birds do it, bees do it, and even educated fleas do it"
The song actually speaks of love, that rare commodity that some, and only some, get to experience as a lifelong and marvellous thing. For the rest of us it is just myth held up by a gossamer thread of hope. The over arching and sustainable love which is maintained with a healthy injection of regular “rumpy pumpy” that actually means something must surely be a pipe dream to many.
That can seem depressing stuff, because that is what we are force-fed as the ideal status to attain, which is depressing if you subscribe to Cameron’s twee ideology of how sex and sexual interactions should be, puritan and restrained one could surmise. Whatever it is, it is about enforcing morality, which government should avoid, especially in the area of sexuality, gender and attraction.
Believe it or not David some folk prefer an alternative morality, like to play the field, get rogered royally by many partners, fisted, strangled, play raped, spied on, doing the spying, peeing on and peed on, tied up, wrapped in cling film, rubberised and gagged, beaten and whipped, covered in cream and yes sadly, shat on occasionally (shivers). As with all things “one man’s meat is another man’s poison” to coin a phrase.
Many folk prefer a more eclectic sexual life and that will include indulging in all the aforementioned activities, and surprisingly, despite this they remain, doctors, nurses, shop workers, bankers, teachers, mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters and yes politicians, all who contribute to society, but not for long if data gathering that you are allowing continues, especially with an opt out.
The good news is (or will have been), you can have a meaningful sexual relationship that lasts a large part of your childhood and most of your adult life, with no need to take them out to dinner, buy those gifts or apologise when you fart and shit the bed. This is the sexual relationship you have with yourself. Your companions on this journey, porn, either mentally or actually depicted, perhaps a catalogue with underwear wearing scantily clad individuals or possibly a copy of Wuthering Heights if that floats your boat.
Some I imagine (goodness knows why) choose not to indulge in tickling the little man in the boat or in order to refrain from spilling their seed o'er hill and dale, in encouraging lady palm and her five lovely sisters to visit. I am not one of those folk, thankfully, I am a wanker. I have murdered the entire population of the world through various means.
Leaving them to die of thirst on a variety of socks, pants and surfaces or sacrificing them to someone else's stomach acid. Maybe launching them into an ocean of water post shower where they swim hopelessly against the tide until they die of exhaustion without even the hope of a distant uterine passage coming into view, the sperms lot is not a happy one.
I discovered this marvellous past time pre-puberty at about 11, when the best I ended up with was a kind of nice feeling and a small puff of wind. That was till my discovery, at age 12 of the word "emission " in a dictionary, of course, read only after I had wiped my hands and mopped my sweaty brow over the sheer delight of the massive orgasm I had experienced a few minutes earlier.
Since that point, it is safe to say that bishop bashing is a hobby and the old chicken gets choked within an inch of its life, alone and in the company of friends and lovers, with superb regularity. Post 12 years old the lunchtime breaks in the field with mates was never the same again. Goodbye, infantile doctors, nurses, and say hello to group wanking, mutual masturbation and the odd bit of fellatio, it was utterly marvellous!
Roll forward to present day. Rome no longer holds sway over the world and the likes of Socrates and Plato and their thinking on the strength of the individual have long been abandoned in favour of the X-Factor, misery porn like Jeremy Kyle and "I am a victim, get me some money here.”
Makes me wonder what my sex life would be like if I was 12 now?
I believe my 12 year old self then, would be no different from those in a similar situation now. Except for the technology, so I could photograph my John Thomas, upstanding, dozing, playing Fireman Sam or spitting like a puff adder, then oh joy of joys, I could capture my glorious ass hole, pucker up boy, such larks. I could even video me at it, and would have.
Then I would show it to my closest friends, who of course in turn would show me theirs. Then we would film each other, find others on the Internet and show them. As I grew, if inclined, (painfully bashful so never would have) I may have created a blog about my experiences with photos and videos that I share with others who have the same tendencies towards exhibitionism.
The desire to do so would be so strong, the world gazing longingly at me in all my youthful glory, no old flesh just the beauty of my youth, my desire to be admired sated to the full. Hang on, take away the technology, and in some form or another we have been doing this same pattern a very long time, self discovery, sharing and then pursual of the object of our desire be that adulation or adulater.
Before I discovered love and the sexual liaisons that had meaning I discovered pornography, after that phase passed I moved on, but it has remained a constant companion, for all my friends, and myself it may have been illegal but it was never unavailable, and it will always be available, as it always has, for that simple reason Cameron is being idiotic.
To return to Cameron's crazy and problematic confabulation on the subject at hand and specifically the laws, which govern this arena, so broadly over arching that they become dangerous, and a useful tool for discrediting and hurting others. Let alone how to opt in if your a secret married porn user male or female, and what about randy 16 year olds, I just wish he would piss off really, we fought this nonsense before, who thought in 2013 we would have to do it again?
Admittedly, this is just one case, but one case is too many, we need to roll back this legislation and if the LibDems show some sense, they will fight the next general election on issues such as this. Of privacy, freedom of expression and minimising state interference at all levels of life. This will take bravery but they are not exactly winning fans and influencing people now are they?
The worrying factor for those who would curtail our rights to masturbate over whatever we wish to think about is the technology. This aversion to progress and all the change it brings is nothing new, but the main problem in comparison to the Luddites of old is that this lot are in power. They have powerful friends, moreover, so little to do that they tinker around with nonsense such as this all the time, and are obviously; loathsomely obsessed with sex, particularly if it involves children.
It seems that as some hurry from childish and youthful sexual shenanigans, enjoyed or not, good or bad, legal or illegal, we dive head long into adult disavowal over just how horny we were and what we would do to give the purple peaked pirate his bountiful plunder, or to quench the thirst of the furry cup.
At least growing older leads to understanding that I was not alone in these pursuits, on the contrary, although gay men do have a tendency to be more open about same sex encounters than their ostensibly straight counterparts appear to be, that discovery was a bit of a jolt and a great example of disavowal.
I only realised the depth when I personally had grown men whom I knew at school deny to my face we ever masturbated as a group, the fury they displayed was quite peculiar and disturbing. I was glad I did not mention how adept they had been at fellatio at that time, especially considering I could have been fellated by a Crunchie wrapper and paid out like a fruit machine in 10 seconds, meaning they were probably as crap at it as I was.
Could this disavowal be infecting the child protection industry and the legislation our recent moral panics have thrown up as well as Cameron’s craziness that takes in all people under 18 and lumps them together as if they never got past 10 years old?
A child is defined as under 18, that is a problem right there, but more on that later.
Back to the NSPCC, and here is a doozey on the subject close to PM 0.5’s heart:
”Child pornography” needs to be understood, not as a separate genre for and by 'paedophiles', but in a wider context in which cultural ideals of beauty are youth, and the media is reliant upon the sexualisation of children for financial gain.”(2003)
This little number is directly from the NSPCC, who espouse the protectionist arguments that underpin Cameron’s lunacy, and whose very ideology utilises the idea of child sex abuse imagery as direct descendant of a media carrying out a protracted and global move towards the sexualisation of children,
This portrays a horrific case of righteous cause mentality that defines an over arching evil so formless, yet easily definable, so ephemeral, yet timeless and so esoteric yet easily understood. In essence, it is a shibboleth, by definition:
“A belief that is widely held, especially one that interferes with somebody's ability to speak or think about things without preconception”
In spirit, this kind of thinking closes down debate, strangles dissidence and brooks no argument that maybe what we are doing is far too over reaching and our tendency to over react to this should be reined in.
When an ideology such as this needs fighting, how can you do so when the people involved in it cannot think past an unassailable and hegemonic monstrosity that forever dominates the landscape of their pre-determined views.
The answer is you cannot, it simply is too hard to do so. What you can do is sever the beast’s blood supply, and that requires repealing legislation Mr Cameron, not producing more.
To achieve this we need to understand where we are at currently, some definitions would help and after a little digging, I discovered this. The SAP Scale which defines CSA imagery for charities, courts and the police and others. They are labelled levels 1-5 and I have issues with most of them.
1.
Nudity or erotic posing with no sexual activity
2.
Sexual activity between children, or solo masturbation
by a child
3.
Non-penetrative sexual activity between adult(s) and
child(ren)
4.
Penetrative sexual activity between child(ren) and
adult(s)
5.
Sadism or bestiality
Level 2 is also well beyond being realistic, sexuality activity of 17-year-olds is child sexual abuse imagery, I think not. 16-year-olds flicking the bean or saluting Sergeant Spitty is hardly earth shattering, (except perhaps for them) especially with technology that allows them to voluntarily film, edit, produce share and distribute it is in their pockets or bedrooms.
Level 3 means wanking I think, bit vague really, so two 16 year olds wanking each other is CSA imagery, again, bollocks, same goes for a 17 year old playing with a 25 year old, it just simply is not. Again, how many folk under 18 are voluntarily webcaming with people of 18, 19 or 45 or 16 or 15 for that matter, what if the numbers are huge?
Level 4 pretty much the same as three, is it not bizarre that you can legally have sex with a 22 year old at 16 but are a victim if you film it then post it and the 22 year old is guilty of producing and distributing CSA imagery but not child abuse. This is all so muddled headed.
Level 5 same applies again and the thought of leaving the definition of sadism to a jury as the term is badly defined is rather suspect. As for bestiality, more RSPCA than NSPCC, but I have to ask the question, surely this is extremely rare, or am I naive? Besides which, it is already illegal in separate legislation to play porky pig.
Bear in minds that under 18’s are placed on the sex offenders register. The law is simply too vague and some cases should never get to court, but they do, this nonsense of Cameron's will make it worse and in sitting by we are complicit.
This whole house of cards needs to fall and the sooner the better as scares in the press about the tracking of movements on the Internet by security agencies and the gathering of vast amounts of data, including those of children, abound.
When the definition is so wide that the anomalies mentioned happen, then we are criminalising our young, making sexual experiences problematic, dirty, shameful and illegal through a Victorian and puritanical attitude to sex predicated on the fact that teenagers should not have a sex life and under no circumstances should the rest of us be able to see it.
The argument over child pornography is a smokescreen of the first order. If we are to get to grips with the really serious cases, apprehend the producers of the material and help children who are really at risk then the first thing is to stop farting about at the periphery, which is exactly what Mr Cameron is doing.
The time is not right for more controls it is time for less, before data about a child’s (sic) activity is used on them later in life as they run for office or achieve success, and for goodness sake do not be so naive as to imagine that will not happen it most certainly will. .
Mr Cameron, if you want to make a difference, then stop criminalising young people. Recognise that they make choices, have them (and here is the laughable bit) stand by their own decisions and learn from them. Stay out of what we view and produce as sexual beings and sever the beasts life blood to ensure that consenting people, who can legally have sex are not hounded by zealous police officers, school officials, psychologists, righteous cause zealots or god forbid vigilantes.
In addition, pass a law preventing censorship, and certainly preventing blocking, otherwise you may well remind the public of a certain gent pictured below. If not then you really are a silly cnut.
No comments:
Post a Comment