A shirtless man manually pleasures a naked woman as she scratches his back, raising long, red marks from his waist to his shoulders.
I like this image for so many reasons. Both his clear efforts to pleasure her and her openness to that (physically and otherwise), as well as her casual sadism scratching his back leap to mind. His partially dressed state, still wearing jeans, just amplifies the attractive disparity of her pleasure and his pain.
Of course, this image—like so many others—could easily be re-contextualized differently, and seen as an (unwanted) sexual brawl. Even without changing the image itself, changing the context changes the message, distorting original intent. Herein lies the danger of relying on promise or premise, rather than policy.
Last year, I wrote about the passage of Britain’s foolhardy ban of “extreme” images, Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, a law that all but guaranteed misuse because of its broad drafting. Although the
government assured Parliament that §63 was intended for cases where someone’s extreme porn habit raised serious cause for concern, this promise has already been broken multiple times. As Heresy Corner recounts:
Campaigners against §63 feared, not only that it would target consumers of consensual fetish porn, but that it was wide open to abuse. That it would give the police a handy weapon to use against anyone who comes to their attention, for whatever reason, and who just happens to have dodgy material on their mobile phone or computer. … This seems to be what happened to [two men, Andrew Holland and Michael Nelson].
The law was pushed through the legislature after a Mr. Coutt murdered a young girl and by way of explanation cited his “addiction” to pornography. But despite the fact that neither Holland or Nelson had any demonstrable “addiction” to pornography, they now have criminal records merely for possessing an image others deem obscene.
Meanwhile, in America, although the government can criminally prosecute many individuals under 2257 record keeping requirements, it “promised” not to. But with American anti-pornography groups drum-banging ever louder, how long do you think that promise will last? As Melissa Ditmore, Ph.D. says, “Sex law is often a front for ideology that constrains rather than liberates….”