Image Nine Point Four

This story for the Literotica Crime & Punishment 2023 Story Event is set in 2029, to avoid references to real politics or politicians, and to simplify legal processes for story-telling purposes.

Similar legislation to ban 'extreme porn' has been proposed several times in the UK. Opposition has been partially successful.

_________

Image Nine Point Four

"Jan, love? You'll want a read of this!"

"What is it?" My husband is waving his precious tablet at me, so the article must be important.

"New Government, same old paranoia about kinky porn. They're as bad as the last bloody lot." We had yet another election last year, in 2028.

I read. A new Home Secretary, a new attempt to act tough on 'violent' porn. What my hubby Mike calls kinky, and I call BDSM. So it goes. I'd hoped this Government would have better things to worry about, like managing to find a Prime Minister with a longer shelf life than a lettuce.

Like last time round, this 'consultation' is biased as hell, clearly didn't engage with any knowledgable groups before being written, and the proposed legislation would be completely unenforceable in most cases. More worryingly, it could be enforced against almost anyone, if you were deemed to be taking an 'unhealthy interest' in 'specific parts' of completely inoffensive media.

Who here didn't first consider bondage erotic when seeing Penelope Pitstop tied, helpless, to the railway tracks? Or that titian-haired permanent eighteen-year-old, Nancy Drew, bound and gagged in the illustrations, yet again? It always was those scenes chosen to be illustrated, wasn't it, in every single book? According to this proposal, Nancy's publishers should be distinctly worried...

There's a distinct whiff of homophobia, as well, as the document describes various sex toys and piss play in the most distasteful ways possible. It accuses anyone who enjoys any pain of being mentally ill, before it tries the 'protecting women' angle, for good measure. "Typical, getting some terfy bollocks in, too," I mutter.

Mike laughs, greying hairs glinting in the light. "How to tell they've never been to a fetish club, where most of the subs wanting to be degraded are men, and practically everyone wants to be hurt!"

My husband Mike tends to only be a dom in public, but sometimes, at home, he too just wants to hand over control. Outside, he enjoys getting to show me off, because despite my respectable team-leader day job and my ordinary appearance, I'm a total slut who is quite happy for others to watch. If said others are also at a club, so can't be too judgemental, at least.

A good Saturday night will likely see me bound to a bondage frame at a fetish event, wearing nothing but a corset, collar and cuffs, lots of rope holding me still. Mike -- or a friend, or both -- will tease and torture me, building up both pain and pleasure until I'm frantically begging to be fucked and whipped. Either. Both. Just harder. More? Please?

Proper pissed off, energised by a good mug of coffee, I scribble a response to this latest feeble attempt at a neutral consultation document, mostly explaining "this would be counter-productive and a waste of time," and email it to Mike.

"Can you send this in? Me being a politically-neutral civil servant and that."

"Sure. I can add your name, too, using my surname, so it doesn't just look like a dodgy bloke who likes watching filthy porn." I never changed my surname to his.

"You are just a dodgy bloke who likes watching filthy porn!"

"True, but thanks to you, I'm arguing for everyone's right to do it, right? Me and my wife: Jan 'Jones'."

My surname's rare and much nicer. I only use his when ordering pizza from the good place, who still don't have an app. Saves time, not having to spell it.

I rant about the proposal on my friends-only social networks. A few folk promise to respond, but honestly, individual replies to Government consultations are mostly ignored, until either there's thousands of them -- tens of thousands, if you really want attention -- or the person happens to be an expert. Organisations are more likely to be listened to. I'm often the one doing the listening, then explaining it all in words of few syllables to the relevant Minister. Sometimes the PM, even.

In this case, it's obvious that officials at the Home Office were ordered to put out what purported to be a consultation, because Ministers can't lay potential laws in Parliament until consultation, meeting the required standards of the Consultation Code of Practice, such as three months for people to respond, happens.

Two days later, my mate John asks if I can come to a meeting after work. He lives up north, so it's nice to see him when he visits London. The meet-up is in a very gay pub, which holds various fetish nights in the basement.

"You all right, love?" the doorman asks. Women are a rarity here, women in tailored skirt suits even more so.

"Yeah, thanks. Meeting John Phillips and friends, upstairs."

"Oh, right, come on in. There's a bunch up there, already."

I pride myself on blending in anywhere, but in my work clothes, today I feel out of place. Three squat shaven-headed tattooed guys, a couple younger women in streetwalker clothes, a large possibly-trans woman with huge tacky fake-pearl earrings, and a heavily pierced goth, female, who is joined by a male version.

I'm grateful when John turns up -- skinny jeans and band T-shirt as usual, chatting with an imposing professional dominatrix whom I vaguely recognise. She takes the lead.

"I'll chair this meeting."

There's a round of introductions. We're asked to explain why we're interested in this Government consultation. This rag-tag lot have had some practice in opposing campaigns, apparently.

Our purple-haired chair is Magenta, 'a dominatrix for a living', to supplement her tattooing business.

John: "Twenty-five years of being a kinky queer pervert on the scene." One way to sum him up, I suppose. He's also a university lecturer on tech and internet security, which may be more relevant.

"I'm one of the three owners of melonsellers, the biggest porn site for big breasts in the UK. Call me Melons," grins the biggest bald guy.

Suzy, 'a prostitute' from the Sex Workers Collective, a union for sex workers. Her friend is Trixie, 'a fetish porn actress'.

The goths are Raven and Random, who run a kink club in Essex.

Jenni, a journalist who focuses on trans and sex issues. People nod approvingly. Some more supportive media would be great. Then they all stare at me.

I've handled hostile meetings with trawlermen threatening to push me into the sea. And investment bankers. I can do this.

"Hi, I'm Jan. I go to fetish clubs a lot -- well, regularly, again, now the kids are grown. But more importantly, I'm a civil servant who writes government consultations for a living." That triggers a rustle of interest. "And this one breaks most of the rules of the Consultation Code of Practice!" I warm to my theme. "There's clearly been no engagement with our creative industries," I gesture round the room, "no discussion with stakeholders to ensure their facts are correct, a woeful lack of publicity, and I'm not clear that there's any legal grounds for establishing what's essentially a thoughtcrime, a crime only if you collected images for certain reasons, like to wank over them. Which means that legally, if the Government doesn't see sense after we respond, they could and should be taken to a Judicial Review."

"How does that work?" one of the goths asks. Everyone else sits back in thoughtful silence.

"Basically, how making law works is, Ministers tell their civil servants, including their pet lawyers, to draft some legislation to do what they want. The lawyers will point out where that would break Human Rights law or other UK laws and that. Or rather, they'll say there's a 'risk' of it, risks of it not passing Parliament, etc. Lawyers hate being definite!"

"What's the process?"someone asks.

"OK. We can assume the Government want to get some Regulations laid in Parliament. Regs, rules, secondary legislation, a Statutory Instrument under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 -- all means the same thing. The main Sexual Offences Act tidied up loads of earlier laws. It got the full monty of big debates in each House; this will be deemed something that can be done under the powers that were agreed then, that's why it's called secondary legislation. So lawyers draft these Regs, which need to be laid in Parliament -- literally, placed in the libraries in the House of Commons and House of Lords, for all to see. If they get approved by Parliament, they come into force shortly after. In this case, approval simply means no-one -- MPs or Lords -- complaining during the 20 working days after they're laid -- it's called negative resolution.

"How can we stop that?"

Before these Regs are laid, they need to get agreed by a Parliamentary Committee called JCSI -- Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, seeing as you ask. So lobbying them, so they don't just wave it through, will be important. But usually they pass stuff the first time they see it -- don't get your hopes up.

If that doesn't work, then we'll need to persuade an MP to object to the legislation during its 20 days. The Government could then go for Parliament debating it -- that's called affirmative resolution, both the Commons and the Lords would have to vote for it -- but most likely, they'd withdraw the text, re-draft, and try again later. Which then means JCSI will pay more attention next time round. They could insist on a judge looking at whether the Government followed the law and their agreed processes, and can halt the legislation if it didn't."

There's a smattering of applause. Jenny the journo turns to ask, "Does that mean we can only complain about the process? What about the nonsensical 'facts' in the proposals, like any SM that causes severe bruising or raised marks is 'impossible' to consent to or enjoy? Or that all porn actresses doing such are being forced, if not outright trafficked?" Suzy snorts.

"That's a tricky one. Until about 10 years ago, no. But there's been some precedents now, of judges commissioned by JCSI to create panels in the Supreme Court, to assess draft -- or even active -- legislation deemed to be 'fatally flawed'. They can halt any action under that legislation, until it's been revised."

"Ooh! Judges can tell Parliament what to do, you mean? Despite them not being elected?" Trixie's bright.

"Yes, if they point out legal grounds for Parly being wrong. If they want to use the grounds of a law being simply totally stupid, that's tougher -- the few cases there's been convened a panel of three judges, plus a jury to represent public opinion. There was the big case about asylum seekers, you may remember."

Everyone nods, having been vaguely aware. It was front-page news for months.

Magenta raps on the table for silence. "So what you're saying, right: first we need to send in a response to this farce of a consultation."

"Multiple responses! From your organisations, making clear how many people you represent."

Melons laughs. "My sites get views from about 45 million separate accounts a year! You think I can say I represent two-thirds of the great British public?"

"Why not? I suppose some will be foreign, though? But you also said ten million different users view kinky porn a year? That's a quarter of porn users?" Melons nods. "Nice. Mention that. That will help convince Joe Civil Servant -- who we can assume does watch some porn -- that the fetishists aren't that rare or different."

"'Over half of UK adults report watching porn each year.'" Random looks up from his phone. "That would mean one in eight British adults look at kinky porn."

"Excellent! Make it look common."

"No 'make' about it," Melons mutters. "Key part of the industry, love."

"Right. Presumably you do checks, and ensure no-one's forced, trafficked, and all that?"

"Can you imagine anyone doing real hardcore kink and sounding like they're into it when they're not?" he retorts. "And I'm a proper employer, thank you very much. National Insurance numbers, Right-To-Work checks, respecting maximum working hours. We insist on breaks every couple hours. If anyone's being exploited, it's probably them poor IT guys, fighting all the wotcha-callit, D-DOS attacks and hackers, at all hours! Which is why we have to pay them so well."

"Great! Explain in words of one syllable, how you're a fine upstanding employer, to people who think porn is a dodgy underground business."

"Should we say how popular our nights are?" That's Raven, the club organiser.

"Absolutely! And how many people are on your mailing lists. You're probably best placed to explain some of the more extreme kinks, and how they really can be perfectly consensual."

They grill me for a good while. I explain how some poor admin person -- like me, a decade ago -- would be making tables of all the responses, so you want to make their job easy. Who you are, who you represent, how many, source of your expertise. Then, bullet point every 'fact' you dispute, and explain the logic of why you're objecting to the proposals.

"Sure, send me your drafts and I'll edit them."

Over the next fortnight, I learn an awful lot about porn and associated industries!

Did you know one session of corporal punishment costs a man five times what a basic sex session does? Or more? Which means a sex worker needs way fewer clients, and can afford to be fussy. In turn, that makes her much safer, and can also mean she doesn't need to do penetrative sex, if she doesn't want. So even a Government that's anti sex work, like this one, should appreciate kinksters, as they're supporting the mainly-female sex industry workforce, making it a better job and easier to get out of if you ended up in it for financial reasons...

It's a well argued letter, though I can't see the new Home Secretary conceding the point in a million years.

We get about 100 letters sent in, covering every aspect of the consultation I can think of: addressing the impossibility of regulating the internet, supporting the UK's world-class creative industries, how niche porn is more feminist, how permitting boxing and tattooing but objecting to other body modification or decoration just because someone might get off on it is ridiculous, how judging someone for appreciating certain scenes or stills from a non-porn film is basically thoughtcrime straight out of 1984 and will lead to farcical cases like prosecution of some young Media Studies student.

A doctor describes the body's reaction to harsh caning, and confirms that there's basically no risk on fleshy parts of the body; 'negligible' compared to the 'routine risks of vaginal sex'.While there's a need for better general education, to reduce the number of men ending up in A&E after putting objects up their arse which weren't designed for it, people indulging in BDSM are 'not being a burden on the NHS'.

Supporting the National Health Service is always a good argument in UK politics! I suspect one could also claim that kink is a good way for stressed medics to relax, but no-one's collected enough of that kind of evidence.

A psychologist copies us her letter, confirming that enjoying any aspect of BDSM or consensual fetishes is not an indicator of any mental illness, and 'is in fact correlated positively with high intelligence.' We all preen a bit at that one, except Melons, who mutters that he already knew he was thick, thank you.

A piercer talks about popularity of kinky piercings, dating back to Prince Albert and before. Again, even suspension piercings are not a problem for the health service.

A tattooist asks if someone having a non-ink tattoo would be breaking this law, doing it for the physical sensation rather than the final picture. If making patterns and pictures with piercings and marks is art -- that's why tattooing isn't assault, legally -- why wouldn't that art be legal if temporary, as a type of performance art?

I have a sneaky suspicion that facts and logic aren't going to win the day.

Five months later, the Government finally responds to its consultation, as they are obliged to do. The published response neglects even to mention most of our side's views and questions, while listing a huge range of 'women's groups', most of which overlap and are just a front for a couple people -- I recall their names from the TERF wars earlier this decade. That mostly got resolved, but it confirms my feeling that the same evangelical religionists and anti-queer forces are behind this, too.

Magenta emails me, cc'ing the rest of the gang. 'What the fuck?'

When we meet, I explain, 'It's what I expected. Time for phase two. Influencing lawyers and MPs.'

We write to our MPs and certain interested Lords, plus various government legal staff and any civil servants whose names we can find who may be working on this, while Jenni does her best to get positive articles into newspapers and to spike the worst opposing ones. I mean, we should all be on the same side, really, objecting to human trafficking and rape, right?

It's made clear, off the record by a Government lawyer mate of mine, that this legislation is going to get forced into Parliament, no matter what.

Another meeting. We've been doubling in size every time, now. The consortium has assimilated all sorts of people: fetish club organisers and the licensees of gay saunas; porn site hosts and specialist magazine publishers, users of many a website catering to specific interests, several lawyers and campaigners interested in personal liberty and democratic freedom issues, sex workers and strippers and adult movie actors, plus a fair few civil servants, angry at the half-arsed survey with leading questions, that's been put out in their name. They're probably dirty perverts, too, but there's things you don't ask about your colleagues. I've bumped into workmates a few times in clubs. We never mention it at work.

Everyone's looking at me, which is faintly horrifying. I had a big meeting this morning, so I'm in my smartest suit, which helps.

"Anyone know a good solicitor? Or barrister, even? Any type of lawyer would do for writing letters. If it comes to presenting a case in court, then I suppose it has to be a barrister."

Magenta, another woman, and an elderly man put hands up. The chap mentions he was the subject of a court case, years ago. They set up a small charity to defend people prosecuted for kink, and would be happy to devote their funds to this cause. But the lawyer they used has recently retired and isn't in contact.

The woman works for a freedom charity, unimaginatively called Freedom!, which defends human rights, especially the unpopular ones. She knows a barrister who might agree to work with us. Magenta smiles at the name.

"Yes, I know him. I talked to him earlier. He said he'd write us a letter for £500, which is way under his usual rate, but he needs commitment we're serious."

"Five hundred quid? The man's having a laugh!" That's the spanking mag guy.

"The man's doing a good two days work for us!" Magenta corrects, the Freedom! lady nodding. "This guy could be earning a few grand a day."

"More than that," I agree. "We need a good, scary, legal letter, with all the citations of precedent and everything. We want the Government to shit themselves about being taken to court!"

"Right. Whip-round time. Who can donate a couple quid... where's coins when you need them? OK, I'll get my account details for you all," Magenta mutters.

"No worries, love," Melons tells her. "I'll cover it. You lot can buy me drinks later."