Cant' sleep, and the more I think about the hypocrisy of this bill, the more it irritates me. If you are going to ban certain sex acts on the internet than it should be because it either 1) promotes violence against women or 2) poses a significant health risk
Spanking = no
Bondage = no (but extreme bondage is often associated with captivity so this is what they're going for) The problem is that virtually every couple on the planet has played around with light bondage fun, and a large group probably with handcuffs
Watrersports = no. Peeing on someone or vice versa is an act of degradation, there is no direct violence involved, and it doesn't pose a health risk (You would have to argue the slippery slope fallacy that watersports is a gateway to scat like marijuana is to heroin)
Fisting = yes (perhaps) This is the one case were the sexual act itself could be perceived as a violent act against a woman
Squirting = F)ck no! So let me get this straight, the British government is telling women who squirt when they c)um, that their natural bodily instinct is a deviant perversion they should be ashamed of???
Facesitting = no (If anything this sexually empowers a woman)
So here is the hypocrisy
What act is not listed on here that is more violent to women, and poses a greater health risk in terms of the risk of infection? anal sex!
Why? Because David Cameron has been courting the Gay and lesbian community by enacting same sex marriage into law, and it would be politically incorrect if not & outright political suicide to ban anal sex. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for gay marriage and letting guys f)ck each other in the a$$ until the cows come home, but if your going to ban the above acts, than you need to ban anal sex to.
...and that is why this law is bull$hit! bull$hit! bull$hit!
|