Why "sex crimes" should be abolished

[eroticartist]

The other day on this forum I made a satirical posting meant to illustrate what is wrong with the rape laws in respect to English Law. In it I made a statement that ?All sex laws should be abolished? which it turns out gave the opportunity for several Forumites to interpret it in a way that was derogatory to me and to ignore what I had written in my explanatory essay A Criteria of Rape, some even not even bothering to read it but to continue to malign me with ulterior motives and persist in digressing away from the subject of rape into the areas of the age of consent and the downloading of child pornography and continually criticising me for not answering their questions even though they failed to debate my views on rape therefore I write the following thesis:


Why all ?Sexual Laws? should be abolished.
by Mike Freeman
21 August 2008

Sex is neither wrong nor right but a human emotion that has to be satisfied, an analogy being hunger for example. If one does not satisfy it then one is always starving and those who do not satisfy their sexual needs are said to be sex-starved. Having sex and satisfying one?s emotional needs should be as easy and natural as satisfying one?s hunger but history shows us that this natural desire meant by Nature to perpetuate the human race has been used by authoritarians to control them.
Most religions, when one examines them, are sex-hostile and believers are required to control their sexual emotions because the Patriarchs discovered that if one could control a believer's emotions then they could control that person in all ways because control is control per se.
Rulers also discovered that the sexually repressed person under their control could be made to transfer their sexual drive into other areas such as toil and thus there has been a long history of collusion between the State and the Church and rulers and religions everywhere in order to control the people.
Looking specifically at English Law it is obvious that its moral basis is derived from Judaeo-Christianity and the Ten Commandments and once defendants had to swear an oath on the Holy Bible that ?I swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help me God.? I believe that the ?God? requirement has now been removed and it is now ?I swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? with one?s hand on the Holy Bible.
Those who did not obey the rules of sexual control where made to feel shame and to be ashamed of their own bodies and at the height of this sexual repression Victorian England, homosexuality was a heinous crime and Oscar Wilde suffered in Reading Prison, masturbation, the sin of Onan was discouraged in children by masturbation alarms fitted to beds and penile sheaves with spikes inside meant to discourage erections, highly sexual females were said to be suffering from hysteria and as a last resort clitorodectomy was resorted to.
This great era of sexual repression resulted in widespread perversion and the Strand in London was full of brothels catering to the flagellation and defloration of young girls. It was about this time that the age of consent was raised to sixteen by the early feminist movement and the Society for the Repression of Vice and also when the an early version of the Obscene Publications Act came into force. One of the first pornographers to be prosecuted was a photographer that made pornographic images of women dressed as Nuns. He was acquitted because he convinced the jury that the nuns were of the Roman Catholic faith and not the Church of England and his work was anti-Papist propaganda!
The State in England aided by the Church have always sought to use the repression of sexuality to control the people and when in the 1860s photography was invented one of the first popular subject matter was pornography that made affordable sexual images for the people and for the working classes. Before then pornography had only been available in the written word and the State was not overly concerned with that because only the educated middle and upper classes could read whereas the working classes in the main could not. Written pornography at the time was also deliberately obtuse, using many Latin words and euphemisms that could only be understood by the educated middle and upper classes. But as the working classes began to be educated and to read, D H Lawrence? Sons and Lovers was prosecuted the judge revealing his concern that the working classes might be sexually liberated by such literature by commenting to a middle class jury ( to qualify for jury service one had to own property) ? Imagine if your gardener should read it.? However when photography made pornography widely available to the people the authorities quickly realised that a picture was worth a million words and that images of sexuality were a visual truth. Here were happy smiling, beautiful people engaged in all the taboos and it follows that such images were iconoclastic and a propaganda for free love unrestricted by Christian values. Panic in the Establishment ensued and the Obscene Publications Act came into force and was used with increasing severity to stop the spread of pornography to the masses. The criterion of guilt was whether the images in question would ?deprave and corrupt any person likely to come into contact with them.? The meaning of ?deprave? or ?corrupt? is the same to make bad and despite the fact that the middle and upper class legal profession, conspired against the people to prove corruption it has never been proven, and of course the ?person likely come into contact with it? was the person who sought it out. The Obscene Publications Act was merely an artificial devic for censorship and depended on duping the jury and frightening people with the pomp and bewigged rituals of the court with solicitors and counsel speaking in Latin and the English Language twisted ?for the purpose of the law? into a ?Doublespeak? to mean the opposite of what it really meant and many innocent pornographers were convicted and sent to prison for images of adults engaging in consensual sex, images that most of which are now legal.
The Ruling Classes were afraid that if Christian values and the work ethic broke down among the people then they would lose control of them and no longer be used as wage slaves to produce the goods and services required for the growth of consumption to perpetuate late stage Capitalism. This belief came from the education that the middle and upper classes had received at University and in particular the theories of Sigmund Freud the so called father of psychoanalysis who believed that if the masses were not sexually repressed then this would lead to the end of civilisation. Perhaps Freud did not really believe in his theories himself and was just supporting the status quo and perhaps as a deranged cocaine addict who wrote his theories with a straw up his nose and a bowl of cocaine he did, but who knows, but there is no doubt that his theories were widely believed and had a far reaching effect upon society and furthermore that these beliefs were encouraged by the Establishment who feared a polymorphous sexual society.
And as the Church broke down and pornography altered the sexual values of the masses this moral panic became widespread among the British Establishment when the Sixties Revolution began to alter society and the culture of sex, drugs and rock n? roll rocked the foundations of society. Anti pornographers such as Mary Whitehouse sprung up encouraged by the State, formed NVALA the National Viewers and Listeners Association and the backlash had begun. In the courts juries were failing to convict pornographers under the Obscene Publications Act as contemporary moral values were being altered by the increasing availability of pornography with continued exposure to sexual explicit imagery making the depicted behaviour more acceptable. Some artists realised that pornography was revolutionary and that its effect was to alter society as we know it but on the other hand so did the Establishment and they fought hard against what Mrs Thatcher called the ?Permissive Society? which she described as the greatest threat to civilisation as we know it. Our rulers were panicking and when the Internet arrived and pornography became available to anyone who could afford a computer then this moral panic among the Establishment exploded because they believed in Freud?s hypothesis and warning that it would lead to the end of civilisation. I believe that it would lead to a less violent civilisation but then that is beyond the scope of this thesis and I won?t discuss it here.

The Establishment tried to control the sexual behaviour of the masses by the use of forbidding certain sexual practices under the term ?sexual crimes.? Considering the above the classification of a crime as sexual, it follows, can lead to much confusion. When we look at the term ?sexual crime? it is used to describe a crime where the motivation of the criminal is to obtain sex illegally the same as a robber?s motivation is to obtain money or goods illegal. If a thief obtains money it is not called a ?money crime? or if it is cigarettes a ?cigarette crime? no it is called theft and because the possession of money or cigarettes is legal then it is the means by which the criminal tries to obtain them that is the wrongful act. To be guilty of a crime, and for the purpose of this thesis I am dealing with crimes against the person, one has to commit the guilty act (Actus Reus) and to be mentally aware that one has committed it (Mens Rea) and it is the force that is used that is illegal not the sexual act per se.
The reason I feel that the crime of rape, for example, should be removed from English Law and the laws on violence used instead is because such terms such as ?rape? are sexual it can lead to injustice. The word ?sex? and sex itself is a highly emotive subject which could cloud the real issue, violence against women, in the eyes of a jury. This does not mean of course that people who commit violence or other illegal means to obtain non consensual sex should be allowed to get away with it but indeed the opposite and that the guilty should be punished severely. In fact I believe that offenders who are found guilty under the present system of obtaining illegal sex often receive far too lenient sentences.
If a defendant is charged with rape, for example, then defence counsel might try to suggest to the jury, for example, that the victim is of loose moral values, or a prostitute or a person who habitually engages in promiscuous sex or even a porno model. This tactic creates images of sexuality in the jury?s mind which some of them may find disgusting or unacceptable and there is a danger that the victim may be judged to be not worthy and that the defendant may be found not guilty because of this tactic. Of course the sexual history or the sexual practices of a woman are of no relevance in a case where a defendant is accused of causing a female to have sex against her will. I therefore suggest that to ensure that justice is done we should charge defendants who force women into sex under the laws of violence. Firstly common assault would catch any who defendant who used threats, coercion or made a person feel afraid in order to have sex with them against their will. Secondly we have actual bodily harm where the victim has suffered some physical damage such as a black eye by her assailant or simple held down against her will with sufficient force to cause bruising of various degrees or the use of drugs. Thirdly we have grievous bodily harm where the defendant has inflicted some serious physical damage or even maliciously wounded or tortured the victim. Lastly we have homicide where the victim has died which would be manslaughter if it was accidental and murder if it was perpetrated with malice and aforethought. The judge in all his wisdom should then award a sentence according to the degree of violence that had been used. Compensation when awarded should not be set as a standard but calculated according to the degree of violence or psychological damage suffered by the victim.

Aggravating factors would be if the female was underage and using force against a child to obtain sexual intercourse should, in my opinion attract a very long sentence indeed. Murder of a child in order to obtain sex should be placed in a special category and attract a sentence of imprisonment until death. Other aggravating factors that would attract a longer sentence would be if the victim of violence to obtain sexual intercourse was aged or physically or mentally handicapped or if drugs or torture were used.

Certain people have suggested that if we scrap sexual offences this would allow people to persuade children to have sex without the use of violence. Of course this is erroneous because the law already regards such acts as ?attacks? and they would be dealt with under the laws of assault and actual bodily harm.
Then others have said this would let off people who download child pornography. In my own opinion those who download, or view child pornography should not be charged with any offence unless they have paid a fee because paying a fee increases demand and these people are guilty of conspiring to commit in the very least an assault against a child and could be dealt with by the law as above. On the other hand there should be no censorship for adults in a democratic society and if officers of the law and other government officials can download such images without committing an offence so should the people because the people are entitled to see what is already extant in the world. If it is legal for a person to look at images of people who have been murdered, beheaded for example which is barbaric and a heinous crime against humanity then why not images of all crimes so that we may judge them for ourselves?

People mentioned the age of consent but in the present climate of hysteria in the UK I don?t think that we could have a reasonable debate on the subject. All I am going to say is that, in my humble opinion and as a father, this anachronism should be lowered to a more realistic fourteen in order to stop millions of young otherwise law abiding people and the youth of the UK being classified as criminals and we should move out of the 19th Century into the 21st of a mainly secular society.

[Steve R]

Quite apart from the question of consent - which would, most likely, never arise in the case of an assault under the Offences Against The Person Act - I would, firstly like you to clarify these points please:

Are you suggesting that a rape that involved, for example, the victim receiving a bruise should be prosecuted as assault occasioning actual bodily harm (section 47 of the Offences Against The Person Act)?

Furthermore, are you suggesting that the sentencing should only be commensurate with such an assault?

Are you suggesting that a rape that involved, for example, the victim receiving a cut should be prosecuted as grievous bodily harm (section 18/20 of the Offences Against The Person Act)?

Furthermore, are you suggesting that the sentencing should only be commensurate with such an unlawful wounding?

[harmonyluvver]

Sex is not an emotion sex is a physical act. It is also said that time files, however my clock does not have wings you cannot use a metaphor to give substance to a belief. Our legal system is, rightly or wrongly based upon tradition and precedent we have a long tradition of christianity in this country therefore it is no surprise that many laws are derived from christian dogma.
The history lesson shows that we have made some stupid laws associated with sex but we have done that in many other areas as well it merely shows that Brits are very good at making stupid laws especially where "moral issues" are involved.
It matters not what the crime is a defence/prosecution counsel will always try emotional manipulation and and mud slinging to get a favourable outcome.

In some weird and twisted way I see what you are trying to say. I don't agree but I see. The problem is that your idea suggests that violation of a persons body against their will is not punishable but the force used to achieve it is. Are you not in danger of ending up with cases where someone who has blacked someones eye in a pub brawl gets the same sentence as someone who has blacked someones eye then raped them ? It appears that you don't see the violation of a person body as an offence only the method used to get them into a position where such a violation is possible. The violence should be seen as one offence the "violation" as another whether its classed as a "sex crime" or a crime of violation is irrelevant so long as it is seen as a heinous crime against another human being.

I think Britain as a country needs to grow up where it's attitude towards sex is concerned and look to learn from countries such as Japan and Canada. This will not be achieved through law, only through education and effort.

I think the age of consent is fine at sixteen. Fair enough some girls mature faster, but until we can test individually for maturity 16 is a fairly good age. I think children would be too open to manipulation by adults at 14. I do think that there needs to be a review of some aspects associated with this though. You can have sex but can't buy a topshelf magazine at 16 strikes me as idiotic, yep some porn should be 18 as it is could confuse or give a false representation of sex, I certainly wouldn't give a copy of a Kelly Stafford film to someone who was learning the ropes, so to speak, but why would them seeing "The Lovers Guide" be harmful? More common sense needs to be applied to underage kids having sex. If a 15 yr old boy has sex with a 14 and a half year old girl they need educating not criminalising. You cant bully kids with the law, only hope to educate and set an example and through that change their attitudes.

[Stewie_McGriffin]

Mods - seriously this is getting out of hand now.

Why the lack of action? We all read the message where you told him not to post this garbage yet still on the circus rolls.

[mrmcfister]

Mr Freeman,
Your views are strange and you have some David Iyke about you.There will be those that agree with you like there are those that think Iyke is the lord jesus.However me... I think you're both a pair of twats..sorry, but I can't be bothered to say why and I know you wouldn't give a toss anyway....

[mrmcfister]

By the way..the mods have warned you about posting this..think you'll be in black soon......

[BGAFD Admin]

First of all, we accept Mike's explanation that this post was made before he saw our request not to post.

As mods we certainly don't believe it is our place to make any kind of case for the defence. However, from reading both this and Mike's previous "A criteria of rape" post it seems fairly plain to us that, contrary to the general perception here, Mike certainly does believe all forms of rape should be punished and isn't advocating that the crime be in any way trivialised.

From the mass hysteria and torch wielding antics of the angry mob that accompanied the previous thread however, it was also obvious that many of the forumites joining in the witch hunt didn't actually bother to properly read what was actually written before joining in the general kicking fest - but as we have already said elsewhere, that was hardly surprising given Mike's opening gambit was obviously designed to provoke maximum outrage.

This is a difficult decision, but having read this article thoroughly, and on reflection, we're going to allow this post to stand. We believe that despite our original notice to Mike not to post it, it would now be churlish and small minded of us to just remove it and thereby not allow Mike the opportunity to make his position and views clear.

If this thread continues to attract balanced and sensible debate as exemplified by harmonyluvver's post above, we will allow it to continue. However, the second it descends into name calling and the kind of general abuse and witch hunt that accompanied the previous thread, then it will be closed and the abusive posts removed.

However, our request to Mike that he now sets up his own blog to make these kind of posts in future still stands. Despite rumours to the contrary, we mods are actually human and our tether for dealing with the kind of fall out these posts attract is fast running out.

[randyandy]

So basically you want to be able to shag fourteen year olds Mike.

My view in other posts of you still stands but obviously I stick with the mods decision and not use the words here:

"The second it descends into name calling and the kind of general abuse and witch hunt that accompanied the previous thread, then it will be closed and the abusive posts removed".

Not sure how being against someone who wants to shag kids and posting replies to comments on the subject turns things into a witch hunt but as mentioned I go with the mods decision.

Its is their forum and their rules after all.