Terence Blacker: Now our fantasies are being policed too
We are losing sight of the difference between thought and deed, between the imagined and the real
Tuesday, 15 July 2008
It can be the strangest things which make one miss lost friends. Over the past few days, I have found myself thinking of the writer Willie Donaldson, who died just over three years ago, every time I read reports from the High Court concerning the activities of Max Mosley and five prostitutes. With a powerful member of the English upper classes, some cheerfully frank working girls, uniforms, marathon spanking sessions, German accents, a member of MI6 and, taking the high moral ground, a News of the World reporter, it is the perfect Donaldson story.
Sexual fantasies, particularly those of men who are ferociously correct in their public lives, can be hilarious, as Willie proved, but are always more than a comic sideshow; there is connection between the social and professional roles people play and their more intimate, unbuttoned games. The dramatically complex sexual scenario of which Max Mosley was producer, director and star, was not merely, as he has implied, a private enthusiasm. It is part of who he is.
That, as it happens, is the case of the News of the World, which filmed the thrillingly depraved events and decided – for the most ethical reasons, of course – to tell the story and release a video online. It was not that Mosley liked paying prostitutes to beat him which shocked the newspaper but the storyline he chose for his fantasy. With his five accomplices, he had enacted "a sick Nazi orgy". It was in the public interest that the story was published.
Mosley's case has been to admit the spanking but to deny any connection in the sexual play to concentration camps or Nazism. On this matter, the two sides agree: it is not what happened which matters but the connection with the real horrors of 60 years ago.
So the thought police have entered the bedroom. For the first time, thinking some dark lustful thought, and then acting it out with another consenting adult, is enough to make a person morally culpable. This is surely a significant step forward for the forces of repression, a real invasion of privacy. Humans bring the imagination to bear on their sex lives. Pretence and fantasy is what makes human desire different from the animal version.
Until now, the games which adults play have been accepted as a sort of safety valve. All over the country, the most respectable of wives will, once the world has gone away, become shameless tarts; the most upright of husbands will be simpering gimps and sex slaves. There is no limit to the strangeness of the games that desire plays.
In the light of day, these things may be funny, embarrassing and sell Sunday newspapers, but only the dreariest prude would deny that they are part of the human condition. Fantasy allows people to enjoy the forbidden without doing harm to society at large or (with only rare exceptions) to themselves.
But now we are in such a confused state about sex and offensiveness that we are losing sight of the difference between thought and deed, between the imagined and the real. It is as if we have become so anxious about immorality that merely by allowing thoughts into our heads, we fear we are on slippery slope to actual evil. The dangerous and dodgy landscape of our secret desires will soon spill over into actuality. Sexual dreams alone, if we believe the barrister representing the News of the World, can be "a form of corruption of the personality" leading to "true depravity".
When thought is being policed – by anyone, let alone tabloid journalists – we are in trouble. Who, after all, is to decide the point at which a fantasy becomes unacceptable? In the Mosley case, both sides seem to agree that if in that Chelsea flat the imagined setting had been an English prison then it would have been harmless. Even a contemporary German one would have been fine.
It was the Nazism that was the problem. But what if a Nazi guard had through time travel – anything is possible when desire is the director – entered an English gaol? Where would a fantasy set in one of Stalin's gulags have registered on the scale of acceptability?
It is a shame that Mosley's lawyer was unable to say that his client's fantasy was indeed sad and sick, but it was a fantasy. It belonged to him. Maybe it was his way of dealing with particular demons of his past.
Instead, the idea that even the most private of fantasies can be policed has been given legal force while the News of the World has been able to play the moralist and to accuse the victim of its sting of cynicism. That, like Max Mosley, takes a lot of beating.
-
Print Article
-
Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2008 Independent News and Media Limited





Comments
17 Comments
What we are seeing more and more in this country is the regrettable tendency for some (especially those in power) to say "If we don't like something, you are not allowed to do it".
Even more regrettably, their attitudes are not based on factual evidence, but simply on their beliefs that "it might cause harm, so we should ban it" because of one or two high profile newspaper stories which are not representative of the real situation.
This results in them creating what is nothing more than a Thought Crime on the reasoning that "if people don't see this stuff, they won't do it" which is nonsense.
Banning "Dangerous Pictures" or threatening people with jail for consensual BDSM activities will not have any effect except to criminalise consenting adults for having non-State Approved sex lives!
Posted by Graham Marsden | 16.07.08, 18:06 GMT
If this had happened 40 years ago and Max Mosley had been indulging in having some intimate sexual fun with some homosexual friends, with no S and M involved, all the same descriptions of disgust and depravtiy would have been used to justify a newspaper making this public. They would also have pointed out that the law of the land made this kind of activity illegal.
Fast forward 40 years and newspapers and Society in general would be defending Max Mosley's right to have intimate sex with another man. Indeed his right to do so is now enshrined in law.
Let us hope that Society grows up in the forthcoming years to enable it to consider S and M to be part and parcel of an acceptable nature of the sexuality of some of their fellow human beings, just as homosexuality is today.
Posted by Peter | 16.07.08, 15:51 GMT
I believe all adults must demand as a basic human right the ability for themselves to enjoy their own sexuality, whether they are gay/straight, into S&M or a thousand other kinks and interests.
The best thing anyone can do, as Max has done, is stand up for himself/herself, and go ahead and continue to enjoy the thing that brings that person their greatest pleasure, regardless of whether it offends the sensibilities of a few two-faced hacks.
Posted by David | 16.07.08, 14:06 GMT
We could limit this kind of tripe if any paper who wished to publish it were required to also post an examination and a video of the sex lives of the reporter and the edtor involved in bringing the story to the public. Is it not in the our interest to know the sexual proclivities of the people who publish this stuff?
Posted by James Lange | 16.07.08, 13:33 GMT
This is not the first step. More significant is the recent Criminal Justice and Immigration bill, making it criminal to possess an image of violent pornography: as if such images prove intent to maim or murder. Not in effect yet, but will make all into BDSM a target for anyone malicious. A police raid, confiscation of computers and property for years is devastating, even if nowt is found! The Consultation Paper on the Depiction of Non-photographic Depictions Of Child Sexual Abuse; only covers sex, but if it comes to include, as laws about child-sex photos do, to mean any child, any media, it's a huge can of worms. Hundreds of thousands of British men and women, 'play schools' as adults or spank each other. Their erotica is littered with drawings of kids being spanked. Do we reclassify them all as paedophiles, when they're just loving parents who enjoy a spanking, one way or another, and could never harm a child?
Posted by Guy | 16.07.08, 12:22 GMT
We are living in a very dangerous authoritarian society, where big brother wants to monitor each of our activities (CCTV, DNA databases, ID cards), and cast moral judgement.
The problem is that those casting judgement are of dubious character (Blair, Ms. Smith etc.), and see America and their paranoid criteria as their saviour, rather than the cause of our decline.
I imagine Mosley has been singled out, because he continues to portray the Nazi traits, that confirm he has all the evils of his father, a traitor of the British people.
We never learn our lessons from history, indeed the Israelis who we could expect to embrace humanity, are now exponents of genocide and ethnic cleansing.
Posted by Cardrew | 15.07.08, 21:54 GMT
Prurient, spying little worms, everyone of you.
Posted by 999cats+1 | 15.07.08, 19:00 GMT
Even more amusing is the notion that viewing a video depicting ' true depravity ' is somehow a moral cut above the video contents. Since the video was only produced to bring ' Mosely to the Masses ', the NOTW should amend it's defense of the Public Interest to include propagation of S&M pornography. A clear case of the Pot calling the Kettle a Nazi.
As for fantasy becoming unacceptable, it's already a crime in some jurisdictions to create cyber porn pictures with no real people involved. If Pipes were immoral, Magritte's famous picture " This is not a Pipe " could be prosecuted in court. I guess this will make do until we all get a chip embedded in our head [ then watch out ! ]
Posted by rogoz | 15.07.08, 18:58 GMT
Blackmail? If there were no tabloids like the News of the World to "expose" the private deeds of the likes of Mosley, of what use would such deeds be to a blackmailer?
Posted by Emako | 15.07.08, 18:10 GMT
I am laughing at thought of the what the great Willie Donaldson would have made to the revelation that Smacky Max bought his playtime finery from "Marks and Spencer" and I fear Henry Root would have had a field day .. as would Sir Stuart Rose replying to the missive !
Posted by Jeanette Eccles | 15.07.08, 15:14 GMT
17 Comments