Sex laws that make sense at last

[fluffymark]

The government is finally introducing a new long overdue Sexual Offences Bill, sweeping away all the old archaic and odd sex laws, and replacing them with ones that appear to make sense.
With luck, the new laws appear to be not only gender equal, but also sexual orientation equal, and use mutual consent as the main basis to their decision on what is legal. They've finally seen the light. Hurrah!

Oh, and to completely change the subject, theres a total lunar eclipse occuring from about 3am to 6am in the early hours of tomorrow morning. Yay!

Comments

[fluffymark]

I would hope that forced oral sex does fall under rape, but if the end up defining it purely in terms of penetration, it'll not be.

The Bestiality rules seem a bit unclear. How do you define consent in those cases?

It appears Necrophilia is finally being deemed illegal, though.

[damerell.livejournal.com]

I believe it is the case that animals, like minors, cannot be said to consent. Curiously it will remain legal to fuck a dead animal.

Personally I would not outlaw bestiality - it's legal to kill and eat animals for pleasure, an activity I enjoy very much; so it would be hypocritical of me to insist that people not get pleasure from animals by not killing them...

The exhibitionism clauses are a bit severe as well.

[fluffymark]

Ok that's the first absurdity. Bestiality illegal, Necrophilia illegal, but Bestial Necrophilia legal? Two wrongs make a right? Pah.

I gather the exhibition clauses are to crack down on flashers, and to make them more gender equal (curiously, at present, although rare, female flashers and streakers can only be charged with a breach of the peace, i think). Where are they drawing the line between flashers and naturists?

[damerell.livejournal.com]

Actually, I understand the rationale. Dead people are still worthy of respect; but the only thing we shun with animals is cruelty. If an animal's dead, you can't be cruel to it, so fuck it all you like.

To have sex "carelessly" such that people might see you is an offence - this to me goes well beyond flashers. I'd be much happier if such behaviours were only illegal if a reasonable person would judge that the intent was to be offensive - so flashing is a crime, but accidental exposure is not.

[fluffymark]

Is it not just me who then thinks some sickos could abuse such laws and kill an animal (perfectly legal) in order to make it legal to have sex with it. Is that any better?

And I agree with you about the exposure laws. Definately the times I've had outdoor sex it's becasue it's more liberating and free, while certainly isn't intended to shock any unwitting passer-by.

[damerell.livejournal.com]

Well, they could do that. But this brings it down to the hypocrisy thing; it is perfectly legal for me to kill an animal for the pleasure of eating it, provided that I kill it in a humane fashion. While I might feel that someone who kills an animal humanely for the purpose of fucking it has an odd choice of leisure pursuits, I can't say that their activity is objectively worse than mine.

The trouble with challenging this outdoor sex thing is that you will get "for the sake of the children" thrown at you, because as we know children can watch as much violence as they like but never so much as learn of the existence of sex, because, er, violence is quite rare in real life and sex is something that nearly all of them will participate in at some point.

[fluffymark]

Looked at from that point of view, the bestiality laws make sense, I guess.

As for the sex/violence thing - it does seem odd - the current additude showing violence but now sex impliece violence is a good thing but sex is a bad thing is far from ideal. However, it may be more in tune to what children are used to in real life - a fair number of children are bullied, so are used to violence anyway, and minors aren't supposed to be having sex. I've no idea what the solution to sex education of minors is, but both extremes of outright denial of the existance of sex, and the opposite extreme of letting them view sexual eplicit films are both not good ideas.

[emarkienna.livejournal.com]

According to the document, forced oral sex is currently only "indecent assualt", but under the new laws will be counted as rape: "The offence of rape should be retained as penile penetration without consent, and extended to include oral penetration".

Another good thing imo is that it will now be a crime for a woman to force a man to have sex with her (not rape, but will come under "new offences of compelling another to perform sexual acts").

[fluffymark]

Thanks for the info - i'd no idea what the current or proposed legal status of forced oral sex is/was. Interesting - although i totally agree, it should certainly classify as rape.

And the second part is a relief too - not that i'm going to dig up that past episode again, but i'm glad something is being done about that finally. What are they defining rape as if its not 'compelling another to perform sexual acts' ?