THE SEXUAL FREEDOM COALITION

The Sexual Freedom Coalition (SFC) welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Home Office consultation paper. We hope our feedback will allow you to have greater insights into issues raised within your paper. Our experts to name a few, include sex therapists, practitioners, sexual historian, sex workers, gender and sexual health specialists, campaigners, psychologists, social workers, probation officers, lawyers, university lecturers, researchers, event organisers, adult community web-mistresses and computer technicians. We would be happy to provide you with further information or advice concerning any of the topics we raise in our response.

Our Position

SFC promotes and defends the right to freedom of sexual expressions between consenting adults

Our Main Conclusions on this Consultation Document
We have a number of concerns about this consultation document in its current form:

We do not feel it is specific enough to help the public make informed choice about extreme pornographic material. As a result we do not feel legal decisions can be made based on this consultation document alone.
We further feel you have not met your consultation code of practice which states ‘be clear about what your proposals are, who may be affected, what questions are being asked’. In this report the proposals are unclear, those who could be affected have not been considered in depth, and the questions being asked are frequently leading or vague.
Not all the evidence cited in the consultation document is clear or accurate, and in many cases no evidence is sufficiently presented or fully sourced.
No sexually oriented stakeholders were included in the creation of the consultation document - which makes it questionable.
We are troubled that extreme consensual sexual behaviour (ECSB) may be unduly and unfairly targeted. For this reason we do not feel this document has gone far enough to consider the issues of ECSB.
Those who enjoy ECSB or who educate others to practice safely and sensibly appear to have had their views left out of this document. We strongly urge the Home Office to consult with spokespeople from the fetish and BDSM community (bondage, domination and sadomasochistic) as well as sexual therapists, sex historians and researchers who can explain these forms of sexual expressions to the Home Office.
We question why the Home Office seeks to focus attention on individual consumers instead of targeting producers and marketers of non-consensual, harmful and/or abusive materials and making greater efforts to prosecute the latter group (s).
We are uncertain about some of the motives behind this consultation document and maintain critical doubt on the transparency of the process.
Given past experiences of policing sexual materials and content, we are not confident this document provides a robust account of how the proposed legal changes would be worded, managed and interpreted. We are concerned about varied levels of police tolerance and type of practical application that may be used across the UK as we have seen previously in this country.
We are apprehensive that this document and any possible legal changes could lead to invasion of privacy, singling out and harassment of otherwise law-abiding individuals and groups leading an alternative lifestyle.

Our Specific Feedback on the Consultation Document (including answers to questions set out in the document).

As a matter of practice when responding to Home Office consultations SFC generally answers just the questions set out in the document. However this particular document contained so many areas of concern for us we felt it would be helpful for you if we state the errors first.

Foreword
In paragraph 3 it’s stated “By ‘extreme’ we mean material which is violent and abusive, featuring activities which are illegal in themselves and where, in some cases, participants may have been victims of criminal offences’. SFC agrees that in cases where people have been victims of sexual or other forms of violence this is intolerable. However the definition of ‘extreme’ used here and elsewhere in the document is unclear. Who is to say what is ‘extreme’ or what is ‘violent’? What looks violent or abusive to an outsider could well be a carefully planned, safely orchestrated and consented to sexual encounter. Without a more comprehensive definition that incorporates specific ‘non consensual’ violence/abuse, consensual BDSM activities can be pathologised and thus criminalized.

Executive Summary

Paragraph 2 begins ‘there has been increasing public concern about the availability of this extreme material’ we would like to know who has expressed this concern, under what circumstances it has been manifested, how it has been measured, how representative is it and where it has been documented. We are aware of media reports and academic research that documents public concern with sexual imagery, opposition to child sexual abuse and concerns about the portrayals of women in pornography. However widespread accounts of public concern over ‘extreme’ material seem less prevalent. We would ask the Home Office to indicate where and how they obtained this data.

Whilst the definition of ‘extreme pornography’ is unclear, it is further complicated by the sub categorisation of ‘actual scenes’ and ‘realistic depictions’. A person may consent to be in an ‘actual scene’ where they are gagged, bound and cut. A person may fake looking dead to make a fantasy film with their lover. However these are very different from an actual scene of abuse, or an actual abuse of a dead body. Again the absence of a classification around ‘consent’ makes problematic activities that are not harmful and entered into willingly. They may not suit the tastes of everyone in the UK, but that should not make them subject to censure.

In paragraph 2 there’s a mention of how material would be policed. Given the police frequently struggle with identifying pornographic material and in the past have been known to have different policing standards, tolerance and application levels between forces, we cannot be confident that these new legal suggestions based on unclear definitions will be policed fairly and effectively and not used in pejorative manner by anti-rights and anti-choice minority self-interest groups.

We note that in paragraph 4 the term “non-consensual” is used, however it is not used consistently within the document and this adds further confusion to the consultation process.

We are uncertain how new laws may be applied. Since the consultation document recognises the difficulty of prosecuting those in other countries who may be hard to identify, we are concerned that easier targets of individuals who are engaged in creating, viewing or participating in consensual BDSM activities or realistic depictions of extreme sexual behaviour will be criminalized.

In paragraph 5 a further value loaded and undefined term ‘aberrant sexual activity’ is introduced. Although sexual activities are not described in detail in the consultation document, the term ‘aberrant’ implies certain behaviours are bad/wrong and further leads us to suspect that those engaging in consensual BDSM practices are viewed by the Home Office as ‘aberrant’.

Paragraph 5 outlines the plan to break the supply/demand cycle. We would like to see evidence that this approach does work; where it has been successfully applied and how that application has been evaluated. We would also be interested to know if the Home Office has considered other approaches to dealing with extreme sexual behaviour and feel these options should also have been included in the document.

Paragraph 1 of page 2 of the executive summary states ‘It is not our intention to penalise anyone who accidentally stumbles across the material specified in the proposal, or who has it sent to them without their consent…’ Given the tone of the consultation document and lack of evidence/definition provided therein, we do not have much confidence in this particular statement. We are aware that several sexual minority groups (e.g. the fetish, BDSM community, homosexuals, and trans-gendered people) have been pathologised and unfairly treated by the law in the past. We are concerned this document represents yet another example of potential and real harassment or restriction of those who wish to consensually engage in fetish, BDSM and other alternative sexual practices.

Paragraph 2 (bullet points) we feel the first bullet point needs to differentiate between consensual and non-consensual activity. We feel that there may be a ‘false consciousness’ argument implied here, where people say they have consented but this is disbelieved or overruled.

We agree with the second bullet point about the protection of children; however we still find the definitions in this point difficult to work with.

At the close of the executive summary we have an additional question. There are currently a number of books, training classes and workshops that instruct people how to engage in alternative sexual practices in an informed, responsible and consensual manner. They are designed to empower and protect people, and enable them to make choice and decision about alternative sexualities. Under the planned legal changes would such methods of communication, content and materials, those who create/run/distribute them, and their audience be criminalized? We seek clarification.

Introduction

Point 5; page 5 states that it is not possible to give details or descriptions about materials. We feel that if this problem is widespread enough to warrant a Home Office consultation there must be data available about the prevalence of extreme pornographic material. The document would be easier to respond to by the public if precise indication of the extent of the availability of extreme pornographic material was made available (you can cite prevalence data without having to reveal content that might cause distress or offence). This section also mentions a ‘growing trend’ of real time films – again, what is the evidence for this, who collected and analysed the trend data and where has it been published? Necrophilia and bestiality are described as ‘widely available’ yet what this phrase means is unclear – again an indication of prevalence could help respondents have a clear idea about the extent of any problem they are being asked to make legal judgements about.

Point 5 outlines several abusive activities that would be appalling if inflicted on a non-consenting person. However the report does not differentiate between situations of consent and non-consent and the issues and circumstances that might lead to those situations. To clarify we provide two very generalised hypothetical cases (based on the examples given in paragraph 5) to indicate how these explanations are not clear:

Case 1

Janet is a highly successful businesswoman. She has two degrees and runs a profitable company. She is actively involved in BDSM where she enjoys being highly submissive. She enacts well-planned and rehearsed scenes with friends and her partner. In particular she enjoys fantasies and games of abduction, restraint and sexual asphyxiation. She only enacts these fantasies with people who know her well, respect her boundaries and value her safety as paramount. Janet enjoys being filmed during her fantasy play and shares copies of her videos amongst her friends.

Case 2

Juanita is an economic migrant. She has had a number of poorly paid jobs and her friend suggested she pose for some erotic pictures. During one session was drugged, beaten and forced to have sex whilst she was tied and her head covered with a plastic bag. Films are made of this scene but Juanita has no control over who sees them.

We believe any society would condemn the deception, abuse and coercion of Juanita, someone whose vulnerability is exploited by people who wish to abuse women for profit and show disregard to consensual sex play. Under the proposed legal changes Janet and her friends would be targeted because they would be breaking the law. We wonder how much precious police time would be wasted pursuing people like Janet taking away attention and resources that should be put towards cases like Juanita where lies the real risk?

Page 6, point 7. Given the approach outlined in the document which is taking a stringent view about extreme sexual pornography, what evidence does the Home Office have that those who are caught ‘accidentally’ with such material in their possession will be believed to begin with and secondly want to cooperate?

Page 6, point 8 – a ‘huge range of providers’ is described as distributing erotic material (much of which is free) – what is the prevalence of this? How many providers per population? How much of the material is free? Without this knowledge it is very difficult to judge the actual level of availability.

Page 6, point 9 ‘there is evidence that the boundaries are being pushed back and that even more extreme images are now being sought’ – where does this evidence come from? Who are these people seeking more extreme images? How was the information collected and where has it been published? In this paragraph a major distinction between porn pre and post Internet is made, yet Internet theorists do not make such a major distinction – what prompted the Home Office to decide to do so?

Page 6, point 10. Whilst we express sympathy with the female murder victim and her family we feel that one case is not sufficient to revise the law.

Page 6, point 11 the term ‘milder forms of bondage’ is used – what does this mean? Examples of what ‘milder’ represents would be useful to help people respond to this document.

Page 9, point 23 (top of page), the sentence ‘Accessing extreme pornographic images, particularly on paid-for sites, fuels the demand/supply/demand cycle’ is misleading. We would like to see the evidence for this so we could access the research that proves a causal link between paid for sites and demand/supply. We are also confused given that on this page paid for sites are seen as the cause of the problem, whereas the document states on page 6 that the free sites are the problem. This contradiction needs clarification. Is it an issue of availability that is a problem, or payment?

Page 9, points 24 and 25, we support any efforts taken to protect children from abuse.

Your Question: Do you think that the challenge posed by the Internet in this area requires the law to be strengthened?

This question is difficult to answer given the lack of information about exactly what is available, how much and content. The focus for much of the sections is more about material/content and less about the Internet. We endorse workable legislation that actually protects children; supports survivors of rape and targets non-consensual sexual violence. However this new proposal does not appear to be fully addressing this and seems confused whether it’s about policing the Internet or individuals.

Page 10, point 28. ‘There is a substantial body of research which explores the effects of pornography on attitudes, beliefs and behaviours’. This is true but we feel a list of references either as an appendix or online citing the research evidence that underpins this section of the document would have be useful.

Point 28 does not include any evidence from research on the positive aspects of porn/erotica. It is curious how the report specifies ‘there are studies which involve rape victims and battered women to determine the part pornography may have played in the offences committed against them’. When the Home Office commissioned their report into the evidence of harms caused by pornography the researchers were specifically instructed to ignore evidence like this because it was considered ‘anecdotal’. We wonder why the Home Office has chosen to ignore its own instructions and revised this view?

The summary of pornography research offered in the document appears purposefully selective, one sided and limited. We would urge the Home Office to consult with those who have researched this area to identify the aims, scope and boundaries of studies in this area. Of the studies that appear to be alluded to they are mostly concerned with materials that are not ‘extreme pornography’.

On a methodological issue, point 30 ends ‘it is difficult to replicate, in laboratory conditions, the obsessive and repeated exposure to this material which may occur in real life situations’. Whilst it might be difficult to replicate, how does the Home Office know that exposure to material is obsessive and repeated – does this come from case reports, legal documents or psychological evaluations? This constitutes evidence and stands alongside laboratory studies. We are confused why this evidence, if available, was not reported.

Your Question: In the absence of conclusive research results as to its possible negative effects, do you think that there is some pornographic material that is so degrading, violent or aberrant that it should not be tolerated?

As posed, this question is impossible to answer. It is leading and it requires the reader to make a conclusion based on a limited and inaccurate summary of research that is not referenced.

Page 11, point 33. This states ‘there’s a small category of pornographic material which is so repugnant that, in common with child abuse images, its possession should not be tolerated’. Previously in the document we are told that the problem is huge, widely available, a trend, and a growing problem. This is why a need for some data about prevalence and impact is so important. The document contradicts itself and we are left uncertain about the scale of the situation. By its very nature consensual sexual activity between adults has nothing whatsoever to do with child abuse.

Point 37 (pornography), the definition of pornography used here is unclear – we ask how would material be recognised using this definition?

Point 39 (Content of material) We support the notion that people involved in the creation and use of sexually explicit material should do so being fully informed and consenting to the activity.

Your Question: Do you agree with the list of material set out in paragraph 39?

No

Your Question: Do you believe there is any justification for being in possession of such material?

Yes

The Options

We would like to know on what basis these options were decided on, and who decided upon them. We feel the consultation exercise would better have been served creating these options and putting them out for further agreement rather than presenting people with a selection of options previously decided. The BDSM community should be invited into the consultation as an important stakeholder group. Their support and agreement would give the document integrity, credibility and validity

Page 13, point 50 – this is unclear.

Your Question: Which option do you prefer?

None as it stands in the current Home Office consultation document

Your Question: Why do you think this option is the best?

Not applicable at this point.

Your Question: Which penalty do you think is preferable?

None in the present context and for all reasons discussed in this our response to the Home Office. At this point SFC sees no problem in consensual alternative sexual practices and therefore no penalty is called for.

ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL FROM SFC:

SFC always seeks to be co-operative about new notions and concepts. For this reason we give the benefit of the doubt to the Home Office. We are willing to engage and support you in making this consultation more open, accountable and transparent so that the final document is democratic.

At this stage we acknowledge two issues that rose in your document:

Security of children
Tackle issue of extreme pornography

We would like to put forward two preliminary proposals for consideration:

Security of Children

Do to providers of adult sites on the internet what has been done to vendors on the high street.

By this we mean companies offering adult services and products are not stopped from trading in main shopping areas but are required to employ a suitable location, a prescribed standard of display and a policy of non-admittance to minors.

Under the aegis of this policy adults may partake of sexually explicit goods and the young are shielded from accidental exposure to unsuitable material. Social responsibility is promoted for both parent and vendor alike whilst preserving the adult individual’s right of self-determination and freedom of expression.

An unwritten consensus has been fostered in public life through partnership with community and private sector. It would be logical to apply similar principles in the use of the computer and provision of adult sites on the internet.

Tackle Issue of Extreme Pornography

Seek global solutions for global problems so that the baby (rights and freedoms) is not thrown out with the bathwater (moral order and misplaced public anxieties from lack of knowledge).

There may well be a need to go beyond the Home Office proposal and take a firm grasp of the pornographic nettle. We strictly qualify this statement within the context of consensual alternative sexual practices which is already legal in the UK and must continue to remain so.

However we accept all sexual matters that are non-consensual require us to join forces to tackle any breach and the reason for continued SFC engagement with the Home Office. Towards this end we ask that the British Government give immediate commitment to its employers and citizens to seriously engage in a European and worldwide longitudinal research and evaluation on the effects of various types of pornography (including extreme) on the human psyche.

The final evaluation report is placed before the European Parliament and United Nations so that negotiations can commence to establish an international common policy on pornography including strategies for implementation and where nation states are signatory and bound to ratification within a given time frame.

Dr Tuppy Owens
Sexual Freedom Coalition