Legalise sex with animals

I propose we decriminalize sex between two members of a different species.

Why should two beings involved in a loving bi-species relationship be punished? I am a zoophile and I feel that I am unfairly criminalize for my sexual persuasion. It is unjustifiable to prevent consensual sex between species.

Why is this idea important?

I propose we decriminalize sex between two members of a different species.

Why should two beings involved in a loving bi-species relationship be punished? I am a zoophile and I feel that I am unfairly criminalize for my sexual persuasion. It is unjustifiable to prevent consensual sex between species.

Allow dogging and outdoor sex

In this day and age there should be no laws preventing consenting adults to take part in sexual activity in outdoor places. I accept that there should be controls on where and when, but late at night in a secluded car park seems ok to me, quite fun I guess.

Why is this idea important?

In this day and age there should be no laws preventing consenting adults to take part in sexual activity in outdoor places. I accept that there should be controls on where and when, but late at night in a secluded car park seems ok to me, quite fun I guess.

Sex Education : White Paper proposal

INTRODUCTION

Sex education should be about NOT having babies. Why do teenage pregnancies occur? Nobody tells those clean brains (they are nearly new computers and softwares) properly, and we all experiment. Young people need help, as here, not lecturing.

The Chinese had the right idea, to limit their population, but did they explain masturbation to their population? I wish they had, for all our sakes, because we might then have adopted the idea too.

The following several pages are written by an Engineer, a very senior engineer who is now 67 years old. The body is an engineering structure – it has bones and flesh and nerves and a brain, and also fluids, just like engines use oil. The brain is a digital computer, and it learns as it grows older, but the learning is just like a computer software programme – complex sure, but neverthless a computer and its software. The hardware is what we build as we grow up, enlarging our brains by adding more hardware (brain cells) as we go, and the software is what we learn from parents and school and by simply living and enjoying life as we grow older. We learn all of the time throughout life, and this White Paper is all about our bodies and how sexual they are. It is not emotional, but factual.

It is therefore quite basic, and is meant to teach the young person particularly, what sex is all about, for they expolore themselves too easily. There are no pictures, because that is not the point. It is Information, or as that intelligent robot Johnny 5 would say “INPUT INPUT INPUT”!! Engineering Input.

SOME EXPLANATIONS

Sex is not all it is cracked up to be.

For the man it feels OK, until the explosion of sperm called ejaculation, and then the penis aches for perhaps hours afterwards, because of the high blood pressure inside it which makes it rise called an erection. The blood valve opens after ejaculation and the penis relaxes, but the strain on the internal flesh of the penis and especially its head, is what makes it ache. For the woman, the vagina is almost not exciting at all, and in fact the body of the man banging against her pelvis is not pleasant, but she loves you, so ….. Oh well. All of her feeling is in her clitoris, and so gentle stroking is by far the best for her.

And then if they have a baby at all, the result is screams throughout the night and day for years until the child has learnt to look after itself. These screams change from real screams, to over-exuberance, to a determined “I want …..” as they grow older, and thus they exist right up until they are 18 years old!! My children are now over 40 years old, and I love them to bits, but …… My daughter struggles against a hierarchy at work which seems to want her to work 24 hours a day, and my son has just lost his job because the Company he worked for decided to put his job in China – having got him to go to China to tell them how to do it!!! I am concerned for them, and how it affects my sons young family.

My daughter is not married, for she found that men seemed to want to dominate her life – no way! My Mothers Sister similarly – she married only as she approached retirement! And my Mum is now 90 years old, and quite determined that the doctor is not going to run her life with his tablets, thankyou!

So, kids are with you for ever, and you should therefore consider whether you actually do want them at a young age. Maturity helps, for then you will have explored the world as much as you can or want to, and will then have decided what you really want in life, instead of letting an emotional drive to have sex AT THIS INSTANT, take over your life for years and years and years afterwards.

THE MORNING AFTER PILL

The morning after pill basically rejects implantation of the egg in the womb – nature does this every month of course. Fertilisation takes time – the sperm are not an express train, so the morning after pill rejects unfertilised eggs, and it is recommended that it is taken quickly. Have some in your pocket first, because on a bank holiday weekend you may not be able to get any within 24 hours. You may feel a bit sick after taking it, but only about 1 woman in every 60 actually throws up, when you should then take another pill. Pharmacists should help you, but there are some silly religious ones who want to stop you – find another pharmacist, there are good ones about too.

And maybe you might imagine this couple talking to each other? – “Do you want sex tonight? Why? Because it is nice, and I like it, don’t you? Well, I do not want a child. I agree, but condoms are painful. OK, so maybe no penetration, just play with the outside? Yes, that would be OK.”

Certainly, with careful use of fingers on sensitive nerves alone, both sexes can enjoy each other. Just do not be prejudiced because you have been told masturbation is wrong – it is GOOD and not at all wrong.

WHY IS THERE A SEXUAL DEMAND?

The male of our species passes urine down his prostate-penis tube, which triggers the need for sex after a week or two – women do not have the same demand at all, for their sensitive parts do not lie in the urinary tract. And the same when the male needs to go to the loo – the pressure inside the bladder-prostate valve may cause an erection if he has had to wait a long time, and some may misinterpret this as a need for sex – NOT SO.

SOME PRACTICALITIES

The UK Government or Family Planning Association documents never talk about using tissue to catch a male deposit. Nor about how difficult it is for a man to stop, once started. Nor about anything else useful in August 2010.

How does a woman clean that male deposit out of her vagina after intercourse? It cannot just collect at the top of the tube!! Does the slightly smelly deposit dribble leak onto her pants during the whole of the next working day? Of course it does.

When she has intercourse, do her internal organs get moved to one side – a little for the vagina is a collapsed tube the rest of the time. The old side saddle mania, was because MEN thought the vagina was wide open all day!

MASTURBATION IS GOOD – NO PREGNANCY, AND FUN

Many religions have said that masturbation is wrong. It makes you blind some say – absolutely ridiculous!! Rubbish religious propaganda. Tell them that rubbing by hand or finger is no different from rubbing any other way! Religious philosophy has been power mad for too many centuries, demanding we have more and more children – and it is the parents who are religious not the child. Who dictates to children what to believe? Who are virgin young and happy until the evil dominating propaganda starts?

Masturbation is nice and you like it too? Good, but the circumcised male especially finds this difficult, and needs help to avoid the vagina – lubrication and softness essentially necessary. KY Jelly should be enough, but clearly it is not just for use by a woman – the packaging message is missing some advice, and so Johnson & Johnson have been asked to add some extra info.

Even normal males would benefit from using it, for the lubricated head of the penis is then more comfortably stimulated – the penis will still ache afterwards, but this route is so much better for both sexes, that its use should be more widely promoted.

CIRCUMCISION IS WRONG, FOR BOTH SEXES

It is recommended that circumcision is not generally practiced – evolution over millions of years has decided that we are OK as we are (no chimpanzee or orangutan is circumcised), and those males who are cut find it painful for ever afterwards.

For women it is a huge disaster caused by religion again. The whole of their bottom end skin (labia, clitoris all most painfully removed) is destroyed by an uneducated comic “surjeon”, who has no feelings of any sort other than sadism – just imagine the screams in the backyard room, where this awful procedure is carried out. IT HAS TO BE STOPPED, for it is MEN who are DOING IT TO WOMEN. STONING TOO, for it is the MAN who BLAMES the woman for HIS evil!! Male penis castration obviously necessary, to really stop such male arrogance.

Back to the circumcised male (whose surgeons do that? Not the National Health Service Surgeons I hope): It is painful when older to have an erection because the skin is often cut too short at birth, and it will not stretch far enough when the male becomes a teenager and has an erection, and maybe not after then either – because the skin has to be made to stretch and that is difficult, though masturbation may help.

So it is misery for life, and not at all helpful, for the natural urine flow cleans the inside of the skin out time after time anyway – as I say the orangutan has had his skin for tens of millions of years now, and it is only humans who are destroying their own penis, and maybe some human circumcised males want suicide for erection can be quite painful. The only other relief for a circumcised male is to use the lubricated vagina, and so they are tied to a vagina for life (thank goodness KY jelly came along) – thus circumcision is yet another disgusting and old religious philosophy to promote having many children in our already over-crowded world.

You should remember that once circumcised the highly sensitive nerves of the male rub inside his pants every minute of the day.

No wonder he never forgets – it must be murder for some, if not all. The foreskin protects and reduces the demand for sex thereby – just as nature intended!

RELIGIONS THE WORLD OVER

Religious Dogma is why we have pregnancies – they merely want to populate the planet dead, and as individuals we mostly do not want them, for we would like to enjoy life first, and wait.

Why is this idea important?

INTRODUCTION

Sex education should be about NOT having babies. Why do teenage pregnancies occur? Nobody tells those clean brains (they are nearly new computers and softwares) properly, and we all experiment. Young people need help, as here, not lecturing.

The Chinese had the right idea, to limit their population, but did they explain masturbation to their population? I wish they had, for all our sakes, because we might then have adopted the idea too.

The following several pages are written by an Engineer, a very senior engineer who is now 67 years old. The body is an engineering structure – it has bones and flesh and nerves and a brain, and also fluids, just like engines use oil. The brain is a digital computer, and it learns as it grows older, but the learning is just like a computer software programme – complex sure, but neverthless a computer and its software. The hardware is what we build as we grow up, enlarging our brains by adding more hardware (brain cells) as we go, and the software is what we learn from parents and school and by simply living and enjoying life as we grow older. We learn all of the time throughout life, and this White Paper is all about our bodies and how sexual they are. It is not emotional, but factual.

It is therefore quite basic, and is meant to teach the young person particularly, what sex is all about, for they expolore themselves too easily. There are no pictures, because that is not the point. It is Information, or as that intelligent robot Johnny 5 would say “INPUT INPUT INPUT”!! Engineering Input.

SOME EXPLANATIONS

Sex is not all it is cracked up to be.

For the man it feels OK, until the explosion of sperm called ejaculation, and then the penis aches for perhaps hours afterwards, because of the high blood pressure inside it which makes it rise called an erection. The blood valve opens after ejaculation and the penis relaxes, but the strain on the internal flesh of the penis and especially its head, is what makes it ache. For the woman, the vagina is almost not exciting at all, and in fact the body of the man banging against her pelvis is not pleasant, but she loves you, so ….. Oh well. All of her feeling is in her clitoris, and so gentle stroking is by far the best for her.

And then if they have a baby at all, the result is screams throughout the night and day for years until the child has learnt to look after itself. These screams change from real screams, to over-exuberance, to a determined “I want …..” as they grow older, and thus they exist right up until they are 18 years old!! My children are now over 40 years old, and I love them to bits, but …… My daughter struggles against a hierarchy at work which seems to want her to work 24 hours a day, and my son has just lost his job because the Company he worked for decided to put his job in China – having got him to go to China to tell them how to do it!!! I am concerned for them, and how it affects my sons young family.

My daughter is not married, for she found that men seemed to want to dominate her life – no way! My Mothers Sister similarly – she married only as she approached retirement! And my Mum is now 90 years old, and quite determined that the doctor is not going to run her life with his tablets, thankyou!

So, kids are with you for ever, and you should therefore consider whether you actually do want them at a young age. Maturity helps, for then you will have explored the world as much as you can or want to, and will then have decided what you really want in life, instead of letting an emotional drive to have sex AT THIS INSTANT, take over your life for years and years and years afterwards.

THE MORNING AFTER PILL

The morning after pill basically rejects implantation of the egg in the womb – nature does this every month of course. Fertilisation takes time – the sperm are not an express train, so the morning after pill rejects unfertilised eggs, and it is recommended that it is taken quickly. Have some in your pocket first, because on a bank holiday weekend you may not be able to get any within 24 hours. You may feel a bit sick after taking it, but only about 1 woman in every 60 actually throws up, when you should then take another pill. Pharmacists should help you, but there are some silly religious ones who want to stop you – find another pharmacist, there are good ones about too.

And maybe you might imagine this couple talking to each other? – “Do you want sex tonight? Why? Because it is nice, and I like it, don’t you? Well, I do not want a child. I agree, but condoms are painful. OK, so maybe no penetration, just play with the outside? Yes, that would be OK.”

Certainly, with careful use of fingers on sensitive nerves alone, both sexes can enjoy each other. Just do not be prejudiced because you have been told masturbation is wrong – it is GOOD and not at all wrong.

WHY IS THERE A SEXUAL DEMAND?

The male of our species passes urine down his prostate-penis tube, which triggers the need for sex after a week or two – women do not have the same demand at all, for their sensitive parts do not lie in the urinary tract. And the same when the male needs to go to the loo – the pressure inside the bladder-prostate valve may cause an erection if he has had to wait a long time, and some may misinterpret this as a need for sex – NOT SO.

SOME PRACTICALITIES

The UK Government or Family Planning Association documents never talk about using tissue to catch a male deposit. Nor about how difficult it is for a man to stop, once started. Nor about anything else useful in August 2010.

How does a woman clean that male deposit out of her vagina after intercourse? It cannot just collect at the top of the tube!! Does the slightly smelly deposit dribble leak onto her pants during the whole of the next working day? Of course it does.

When she has intercourse, do her internal organs get moved to one side – a little for the vagina is a collapsed tube the rest of the time. The old side saddle mania, was because MEN thought the vagina was wide open all day!

MASTURBATION IS GOOD – NO PREGNANCY, AND FUN

Many religions have said that masturbation is wrong. It makes you blind some say – absolutely ridiculous!! Rubbish religious propaganda. Tell them that rubbing by hand or finger is no different from rubbing any other way! Religious philosophy has been power mad for too many centuries, demanding we have more and more children – and it is the parents who are religious not the child. Who dictates to children what to believe? Who are virgin young and happy until the evil dominating propaganda starts?

Masturbation is nice and you like it too? Good, but the circumcised male especially finds this difficult, and needs help to avoid the vagina – lubrication and softness essentially necessary. KY Jelly should be enough, but clearly it is not just for use by a woman – the packaging message is missing some advice, and so Johnson & Johnson have been asked to add some extra info.

Even normal males would benefit from using it, for the lubricated head of the penis is then more comfortably stimulated – the penis will still ache afterwards, but this route is so much better for both sexes, that its use should be more widely promoted.

CIRCUMCISION IS WRONG, FOR BOTH SEXES

It is recommended that circumcision is not generally practiced – evolution over millions of years has decided that we are OK as we are (no chimpanzee or orangutan is circumcised), and those males who are cut find it painful for ever afterwards.

For women it is a huge disaster caused by religion again. The whole of their bottom end skin (labia, clitoris all most painfully removed) is destroyed by an uneducated comic “surjeon”, who has no feelings of any sort other than sadism – just imagine the screams in the backyard room, where this awful procedure is carried out. IT HAS TO BE STOPPED, for it is MEN who are DOING IT TO WOMEN. STONING TOO, for it is the MAN who BLAMES the woman for HIS evil!! Male penis castration obviously necessary, to really stop such male arrogance.

Back to the circumcised male (whose surgeons do that? Not the National Health Service Surgeons I hope): It is painful when older to have an erection because the skin is often cut too short at birth, and it will not stretch far enough when the male becomes a teenager and has an erection, and maybe not after then either – because the skin has to be made to stretch and that is difficult, though masturbation may help.

So it is misery for life, and not at all helpful, for the natural urine flow cleans the inside of the skin out time after time anyway – as I say the orangutan has had his skin for tens of millions of years now, and it is only humans who are destroying their own penis, and maybe some human circumcised males want suicide for erection can be quite painful. The only other relief for a circumcised male is to use the lubricated vagina, and so they are tied to a vagina for life (thank goodness KY jelly came along) – thus circumcision is yet another disgusting and old religious philosophy to promote having many children in our already over-crowded world.

You should remember that once circumcised the highly sensitive nerves of the male rub inside his pants every minute of the day.

No wonder he never forgets – it must be murder for some, if not all. The foreskin protects and reduces the demand for sex thereby – just as nature intended!

RELIGIONS THE WORLD OVER

Religious Dogma is why we have pregnancies – they merely want to populate the planet dead, and as individuals we mostly do not want them, for we would like to enjoy life first, and wait.

Repeal laws criminalising creation of images with no illegal source material

The creation and personal possession of any image which has been created manually, be it through being sketched, painted or rendered using a computer, should be legal regardless of the contents of the images. If these images incorporate elements sourced from photographs (or similar) then they should still be legal to create or possess so long as the source image was also legal.

Any laws banning these images should be placed on the distribution or publication stage, and normally only where there is a justifiable reason to believe that distribution to the target audience will result in genuine harm to one or more individuals or products.

Example images where the publication or distribution could be controlled.

If the image contains pornographic or extremely violent material it would be desirable to make intentional distribution to minors illegal. There should already be plenty of laws covering this.

If the image has been created in such a way that when people look at the image they would mistakenly believe that a particular element of the image (e.g. a person, company or product) was involving in an act or situation that that element or its owner would not like to be believed to be involved in then it should be illegal to distribute under libel (or similar) grounds (this is most likely to occur when legal photographic source material has been manipulated so that it looks like an illegal act has occurred).


 

Why is this idea important?

The creation and personal possession of any image which has been created manually, be it through being sketched, painted or rendered using a computer, should be legal regardless of the contents of the images. If these images incorporate elements sourced from photographs (or similar) then they should still be legal to create or possess so long as the source image was also legal.

Any laws banning these images should be placed on the distribution or publication stage, and normally only where there is a justifiable reason to believe that distribution to the target audience will result in genuine harm to one or more individuals or products.

Example images where the publication or distribution could be controlled.

If the image contains pornographic or extremely violent material it would be desirable to make intentional distribution to minors illegal. There should already be plenty of laws covering this.

If the image has been created in such a way that when people look at the image they would mistakenly believe that a particular element of the image (e.g. a person, company or product) was involving in an act or situation that that element or its owner would not like to be believed to be involved in then it should be illegal to distribute under libel (or similar) grounds (this is most likely to occur when legal photographic source material has been manipulated so that it looks like an illegal act has occurred).


 

Consent and Majority… fix please

The issue:

Age of Consent: 16
anyone at or above this age may engage in sexual acts with another consenting person

Age of Majority: 18
anyone below this age cannot vote and is considered a child for the purposes of child porn.

look a bit wierd to you too? it’s currently illegal to own or make indecent images of a 17 year old even if they agree (or even if it’s yourself), but it’s perfectly fine to have sex with them or someone a year younger on a regular basis if they give consent.

Now i may not be a certified genious, but last I checked, sex was a bit more intimate and more likely to result in lifechanging consequences than owning a picture of your girlfriend topless.

Explain the discrepancy please. Then fix what is obviously broken by changing the wording in all relevant laws replacing “18” with “age of consent”.

Why is this idea important?

The issue:

Age of Consent: 16
anyone at or above this age may engage in sexual acts with another consenting person

Age of Majority: 18
anyone below this age cannot vote and is considered a child for the purposes of child porn.

look a bit wierd to you too? it’s currently illegal to own or make indecent images of a 17 year old even if they agree (or even if it’s yourself), but it’s perfectly fine to have sex with them or someone a year younger on a regular basis if they give consent.

Now i may not be a certified genious, but last I checked, sex was a bit more intimate and more likely to result in lifechanging consequences than owning a picture of your girlfriend topless.

Explain the discrepancy please. Then fix what is obviously broken by changing the wording in all relevant laws replacing “18” with “age of consent”.

Amend the Video Recordings Act 1984

Amend the Video Recordings Act 1984 to allow 18R films to be shown on satellite and cable TV and tax each programme at 20% for each pay-per-view. Currently these films, although widely available on both the internet and through licensed sex shops in the UK, are nevertheless unavailable on satellite and cable TV. This amendment would bring us into line with both Europe and parts of North America, and provide a huge new source of taxable income for the government.

Why is this idea important?

Amend the Video Recordings Act 1984 to allow 18R films to be shown on satellite and cable TV and tax each programme at 20% for each pay-per-view. Currently these films, although widely available on both the internet and through licensed sex shops in the UK, are nevertheless unavailable on satellite and cable TV. This amendment would bring us into line with both Europe and parts of North America, and provide a huge new source of taxable income for the government.

Legalise kissing between under-16s

Incredibly, sections 9(1)(b), 13(1) and 78 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 collectively make any sort of "sexual touching" between consenting under-16s illegal.  This includes entirely normal and innocuous activities such as kissing.

What sort of society would do this?  It is quite an extraordinary and shockingly repressive piece of legislation.

"Children of the future age,
Reading this indignant page,
Know that in a former time
Love, sweet love, was thought a crime."

Why is this idea important?

Incredibly, sections 9(1)(b), 13(1) and 78 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 collectively make any sort of "sexual touching" between consenting under-16s illegal.  This includes entirely normal and innocuous activities such as kissing.

What sort of society would do this?  It is quite an extraordinary and shockingly repressive piece of legislation.

"Children of the future age,
Reading this indignant page,
Know that in a former time
Love, sweet love, was thought a crime."

Revise the 2003 sex offences act

The 2003 sex offences act contains some important laws, such as a law against voyeurism, and a law preventing showing pornography to children, but some other laws interfere with consensual and unharmful activities, and that is wrong.

Of particular note:

1) Incest laws were extended to include foster siblings.

2) Consensual sex among people believed to have mental disorders were outlawed.

3) Indecent photography laws extended to include 16 and 17 year olds.

4) Sex with a corpse outlawed, regardless of their consent in life.

5) Sex in public lavatories outlawed.

In light of these rediculous encroachment on civil liberties, I think the whole of the 2003 sex offences act should be looked over and reduced to only the portions that involve harmful and non-consensual activities.

Why is this idea important?

The 2003 sex offences act contains some important laws, such as a law against voyeurism, and a law preventing showing pornography to children, but some other laws interfere with consensual and unharmful activities, and that is wrong.

Of particular note:

1) Incest laws were extended to include foster siblings.

2) Consensual sex among people believed to have mental disorders were outlawed.

3) Indecent photography laws extended to include 16 and 17 year olds.

4) Sex with a corpse outlawed, regardless of their consent in life.

5) Sex in public lavatories outlawed.

In light of these rediculous encroachment on civil liberties, I think the whole of the 2003 sex offences act should be looked over and reduced to only the portions that involve harmful and non-consensual activities.

Scrap laws that condone sex with children.

We have laws that define "a child" as anyone "under 18." And yet, the age of consent is 16. Therefore, such laws condone sex with "children." That's sick! "Children" should not have sex – full stop – and we should scrap any laws that suggest otherwise! The age of consent should be the same as the age at which you become an adult – if it is any lower, then we are condoning sex with children!

Why is this idea important?

We have laws that define "a child" as anyone "under 18." And yet, the age of consent is 16. Therefore, such laws condone sex with "children." That's sick! "Children" should not have sex – full stop – and we should scrap any laws that suggest otherwise! The age of consent should be the same as the age at which you become an adult – if it is any lower, then we are condoning sex with children!

End any form of positive discrimination.

As the title says.

The recently passed "Equality" bill currently contains a provision that allows for discrimination against people based on their sex, race or religion.  This discrimination is justified under the banner of "Positive Discrimination" or "Positive Action".

The practice should be outlawed and  prevented by any means possible and the relevant legislation should be removed completely.

Why is this idea important?

As the title says.

The recently passed "Equality" bill currently contains a provision that allows for discrimination against people based on their sex, race or religion.  This discrimination is justified under the banner of "Positive Discrimination" or "Positive Action".

The practice should be outlawed and  prevented by any means possible and the relevant legislation should be removed completely.

Scrap sex laws that discriminate against teachers.

Relatively recent law changes now mean that a teacher can be prosecuted for having a sexual relationship with a 16 or 17 year-old. Yet the age of consent is 16! Why should there be special rules for the teaching profession? Doctors and nurses aren't barred from having relationships with people who have been patients in their hospital. Police officers aren't banned from having sex with people who live on their beat. Tax inspectors aren't banned from french-kissing taxpayers!

Now, if a teacher abused their position, that would be a different matter. If they said to a sixth-former, "I'll fail you unless you give me a blow job," then that would be a clear abuse of their position – but prosecutors should have to show that some abuse of authority has actually taken place. The state should not presume that a relationship is abusive just because one partner is a student and the other is a teacher!

A person could marry a 16 year-old and then become a teacher at their school. They could already have a child together. Surely we can't prosecute them or ban them from being at the same school! And if we don't prosecute married couples, why should we discriminate against other couples who choose not to marry?

Why is this idea important?

Relatively recent law changes now mean that a teacher can be prosecuted for having a sexual relationship with a 16 or 17 year-old. Yet the age of consent is 16! Why should there be special rules for the teaching profession? Doctors and nurses aren't barred from having relationships with people who have been patients in their hospital. Police officers aren't banned from having sex with people who live on their beat. Tax inspectors aren't banned from french-kissing taxpayers!

Now, if a teacher abused their position, that would be a different matter. If they said to a sixth-former, "I'll fail you unless you give me a blow job," then that would be a clear abuse of their position – but prosecutors should have to show that some abuse of authority has actually taken place. The state should not presume that a relationship is abusive just because one partner is a student and the other is a teacher!

A person could marry a 16 year-old and then become a teacher at their school. They could already have a child together. Surely we can't prosecute them or ban them from being at the same school! And if we don't prosecute married couples, why should we discriminate against other couples who choose not to marry?

consensual sex

the law about adult men 'cottaging' in public toilets is not needed. what goes on is consensual, especially in the cubicles behind closed doors. other laws cover offences involving the child in these places.

Why is this idea important?

the law about adult men 'cottaging' in public toilets is not needed. what goes on is consensual, especially in the cubicles behind closed doors. other laws cover offences involving the child in these places.

Get stripclubs off the highstreet

Stripclub licenses should be difficult to obtain and the clubs should be strictly regulated and the women who work in them should get a set wage rather than earning based on how far they are willing to go!

Why is this idea important?

Stripclub licenses should be difficult to obtain and the clubs should be strictly regulated and the women who work in them should get a set wage rather than earning based on how far they are willing to go!

Repeal the age of consent for sex

I propose we repeal the sexual age of consent, replacing it with existing rape laws and a new system of 'relationship assessment', whereby all sex involving persons aged 13-18 will be illegal if deemed coercive or harmful by a court.

Why is this idea important?

I propose we repeal the sexual age of consent, replacing it with existing rape laws and a new system of 'relationship assessment', whereby all sex involving persons aged 13-18 will be illegal if deemed coercive or harmful by a court.

Repeal the Obscene Publications Act of 1959 and 1964

The Obscene Publications Acts prohibit the production of material likely to "deprave and corrupt" those likely to view it. This is applied to all films being processed by the BBFC, especially pornography.

I would also like to see Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 repealed as it prohibits  'extreme pornography' such as BDSM, bestiality and simulated rape – all of which can be produced with the consent of the participants.

Why is this idea important?

The Obscene Publications Acts prohibit the production of material likely to "deprave and corrupt" those likely to view it. This is applied to all films being processed by the BBFC, especially pornography.

I would also like to see Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 repealed as it prohibits  'extreme pornography' such as BDSM, bestiality and simulated rape – all of which can be produced with the consent of the participants.

Revert to the Protection of Children Act 1978

Over recent years we have seen the definition of 'child pornography' stretched beyond all credibility. The 1978 Protection of Children Act made the simple possession of indecent images illegal, where to be indecent the image had to:

1. Depict an actual person younger than the age of consent (then, and still, 16 years of age)

2. Depict them in a sexual context (that is, the material was produced for the purposes of arousal and is thus 'pornographic')

This was a simple and clear definition. You could easily know what was legal and what was not. Any person old enough to consent to sex could be photographed without danger of being caught by the Act. Simple child nudity of the sort that might appear in holiday photos or family photos of very young children was excluded.

The Act did precisely what it set out to do – protected children. By allowing police to arrest individuals for possession of actual child abuse images, it made it possible for them to target those who produced and supported the production of such material.

Since the 1978 Act, we have had a slew of amendments and new legislation that:

1. Created the notion of the pseudo-image. This is an image which is doctored in some way to make it appear to be an indecent image of a child when in fact it wasn't.

2. Criminialised material where the person depicted looks like (or could be interpreted to look like) a child. An image of a 20-something porn star dressed in a schoolgirl outfit and acting young could be considered child pornography depending on the context.

3. Changed the definition of 'child' to include persons over the age of consent but under 18, thus creating a legal anomaly where a person may legally consent to sex but cannot be photographed doing so, and retrospectively criminalising previously legal material including back-copies of newspapers and top-shelf magazines that featured 16 and 17-year old models.

4. Changed the interpretation of 'indecent' to include simple nudity or even 'provocative poses' by fully-clothed subjects, thus making innocent family pictures potential 'child pornography'.

5. Allowed material depicting imaginary characters – computer-generated or cartoon – who were (or might be construed to be) underage to be prosecuted as 'child pornography'.

6. Most recently, attempting to make written material simply describing any of the above equivalent to 'child pornography'.

Even the most cursory consideration of these changes will reveal that the clear intent of these changes to the law is to outlaw any material which pedophiles – or 'potential' pedophiles – might possibly find arousing. If you follow this route to its logical conclusion you ought to make any photograph or description of a child illegal, and lock all children away from public view lest someone become aroused at the sight of them.

This single-minded witch-hunting of the unseen but ever-threatening pedo-under-the-bed does not make children safer. Indeed, most of the changes have been made to permit the prosecution of individuals who have not harmed children at all. Its purpose is clear – it is thoughtcrime legislation, designed to satisy the baying calls of the gutter press and to keep CEOP and similar agencies in business.

It is now effectively impossible to know if a particular image is illegal or not. There is no safe standard. A picture of a fully-clothed adult may be child porn if they happen to be dressed and posed in a particular way. Offences being now largely based on 'context' mean that until it goes before a jury, you cannot be sure you're safe. People are being sent to jail as pedophiles for 'offences' which, only a few years ago, would have been laughable and which most certainly have not involved any actual children coming to harm.

My proposal is simple. Repeal and amend the various acts as necessary to return the definition of child pornography to that of the 1978 Protection of Children Act, and let the police get on with the business of actually protecting children and catching child abusers.

Why is this idea important?

Over recent years we have seen the definition of 'child pornography' stretched beyond all credibility. The 1978 Protection of Children Act made the simple possession of indecent images illegal, where to be indecent the image had to:

1. Depict an actual person younger than the age of consent (then, and still, 16 years of age)

2. Depict them in a sexual context (that is, the material was produced for the purposes of arousal and is thus 'pornographic')

This was a simple and clear definition. You could easily know what was legal and what was not. Any person old enough to consent to sex could be photographed without danger of being caught by the Act. Simple child nudity of the sort that might appear in holiday photos or family photos of very young children was excluded.

The Act did precisely what it set out to do – protected children. By allowing police to arrest individuals for possession of actual child abuse images, it made it possible for them to target those who produced and supported the production of such material.

Since the 1978 Act, we have had a slew of amendments and new legislation that:

1. Created the notion of the pseudo-image. This is an image which is doctored in some way to make it appear to be an indecent image of a child when in fact it wasn't.

2. Criminialised material where the person depicted looks like (or could be interpreted to look like) a child. An image of a 20-something porn star dressed in a schoolgirl outfit and acting young could be considered child pornography depending on the context.

3. Changed the definition of 'child' to include persons over the age of consent but under 18, thus creating a legal anomaly where a person may legally consent to sex but cannot be photographed doing so, and retrospectively criminalising previously legal material including back-copies of newspapers and top-shelf magazines that featured 16 and 17-year old models.

4. Changed the interpretation of 'indecent' to include simple nudity or even 'provocative poses' by fully-clothed subjects, thus making innocent family pictures potential 'child pornography'.

5. Allowed material depicting imaginary characters – computer-generated or cartoon – who were (or might be construed to be) underage to be prosecuted as 'child pornography'.

6. Most recently, attempting to make written material simply describing any of the above equivalent to 'child pornography'.

Even the most cursory consideration of these changes will reveal that the clear intent of these changes to the law is to outlaw any material which pedophiles – or 'potential' pedophiles – might possibly find arousing. If you follow this route to its logical conclusion you ought to make any photograph or description of a child illegal, and lock all children away from public view lest someone become aroused at the sight of them.

This single-minded witch-hunting of the unseen but ever-threatening pedo-under-the-bed does not make children safer. Indeed, most of the changes have been made to permit the prosecution of individuals who have not harmed children at all. Its purpose is clear – it is thoughtcrime legislation, designed to satisy the baying calls of the gutter press and to keep CEOP and similar agencies in business.

It is now effectively impossible to know if a particular image is illegal or not. There is no safe standard. A picture of a fully-clothed adult may be child porn if they happen to be dressed and posed in a particular way. Offences being now largely based on 'context' mean that until it goes before a jury, you cannot be sure you're safe. People are being sent to jail as pedophiles for 'offences' which, only a few years ago, would have been laughable and which most certainly have not involved any actual children coming to harm.

My proposal is simple. Repeal and amend the various acts as necessary to return the definition of child pornography to that of the 1978 Protection of Children Act, and let the police get on with the business of actually protecting children and catching child abusers.

STOP TEACHING CHILDREN ABOUT SEX

No wonder we have the highest average of under age sex when my 14 year old nephew comes in from school and tells me he cant wait to have a go, and half the school is pregnant, the education system is ramming sex down there theoats, buzz bus outside where the ice cream van should be giving out free condoms…. what a world.

Why is this idea important?

No wonder we have the highest average of under age sex when my 14 year old nephew comes in from school and tells me he cant wait to have a go, and half the school is pregnant, the education system is ramming sex down there theoats, buzz bus outside where the ice cream van should be giving out free condoms…. what a world.

16 and 17 year olds & the Sexual Offences Act 2003

Repeal of Part 1, Section 45, Clauses 1 and 2, and related

This section extends the definition of "child" from the Protection of Children Act (1978) to cover persons of 16 and 17 years. This age group is thereby covered by child pornography laws in the aforementioned 1978 act and elsewhere. It is thusly illegal to make "indecent" images of 16 and 17 year olds (or indeed in most cases for 16 and 17 year olds to make such images of themselves.) [The term "indecent" is undefined in law.]

The main problem with this legislation is that it is logically and morally incompatible with the age of sexual consent being 16 years. A recording or depiction of a lawful act should not be unlawful; neither should persons who are legally recognised as sexual beings – and therefore adults in that regard – be prohibited from recording or depicting themselves, or consenting to be recorded or depicted, as sexual beings. While the motivation behind the extension of protection to 16 and 17 year olds was well-meaning, it does not make rational or moral sense that an image or recording of a person with whom one can legally have sexual intercourse should be legally defined as "child pornography". The protection of children and young people from exploitation is paramount to a just and decent society; however, the laws by which we live our lives should also make a modicum of sense. This inconsistency in the legislation could alternatively be rectified equally well by raising the age of sexual consent to 18.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal of Part 1, Section 45, Clauses 1 and 2, and related

This section extends the definition of "child" from the Protection of Children Act (1978) to cover persons of 16 and 17 years. This age group is thereby covered by child pornography laws in the aforementioned 1978 act and elsewhere. It is thusly illegal to make "indecent" images of 16 and 17 year olds (or indeed in most cases for 16 and 17 year olds to make such images of themselves.) [The term "indecent" is undefined in law.]

The main problem with this legislation is that it is logically and morally incompatible with the age of sexual consent being 16 years. A recording or depiction of a lawful act should not be unlawful; neither should persons who are legally recognised as sexual beings – and therefore adults in that regard – be prohibited from recording or depicting themselves, or consenting to be recorded or depicted, as sexual beings. While the motivation behind the extension of protection to 16 and 17 year olds was well-meaning, it does not make rational or moral sense that an image or recording of a person with whom one can legally have sexual intercourse should be legally defined as "child pornography". The protection of children and young people from exploitation is paramount to a just and decent society; however, the laws by which we live our lives should also make a modicum of sense. This inconsistency in the legislation could alternatively be rectified equally well by raising the age of sexual consent to 18.

Everything Related to ‘Sex Offending’ Requires Evidence-Based Reform

In 1997, what may have appeared to be a reasonable and beneficial idea, towards a better society, has now become a living nightmare for many individuals and families.

Since that time, mission creep, populist political posturing and law-making, along with the vested interests of the media, lobby groups and a stifling regime of policing, has led to fear, disenfranchisement and little hope towards a worthy future for these people and their families.

This, not small, group of UK citizens, some isolated and poverty-stricken for no good reason, has little real support, a limited ability to fight for their Civil and Human Rights and some, quite unacceptably, live in constant fear of attack or harassment.

So, who can these people be? Who is this sizeable, yet, apparently, invisible group? Who could be suffering so much and yet be receiving so little attention? This group of people are the so-called ‘Sex Offenders’ and their families. This group includes me.

This must end.

Why is this idea important?

In 1997, what may have appeared to be a reasonable and beneficial idea, towards a better society, has now become a living nightmare for many individuals and families.

Since that time, mission creep, populist political posturing and law-making, along with the vested interests of the media, lobby groups and a stifling regime of policing, has led to fear, disenfranchisement and little hope towards a worthy future for these people and their families.

This, not small, group of UK citizens, some isolated and poverty-stricken for no good reason, has little real support, a limited ability to fight for their Civil and Human Rights and some, quite unacceptably, live in constant fear of attack or harassment.

So, who can these people be? Who is this sizeable, yet, apparently, invisible group? Who could be suffering so much and yet be receiving so little attention? This group of people are the so-called ‘Sex Offenders’ and their families. This group includes me.

This must end.

Criminal Justice Rules – GROSS INDECENCY

Amend the Criminal Justice rules to allow men convicted of engaging in consensual adult sex with another man (an activity no longer illegal since the full decriminalisation of gross indecency in 2003) to return to court and have their convictions quashed.

Why is this idea important?

Amend the Criminal Justice rules to allow men convicted of engaging in consensual adult sex with another man (an activity no longer illegal since the full decriminalisation of gross indecency in 2003) to return to court and have their convictions quashed.

personal freedom without the expense or harm to others

Why are we forced to confine our sexual activities by Law to those that certian individuals are only worhwhile?  So long as the act itself doesnt harm someone against there will (BDSM) then why shouldnt we be permitted under Law to take part in those activities? The only sexual crimes that should be illegal are those that are harmful to those that dont wish to be and those aginst children. the so called extreme pornography is only called so because those that are in office and wish to control our every thought and action feel that if they said publicly that they arent botherd by "extreme pornography" or even that they would like to try it and enjoy it, they know that they would never again see the inside of parliment.

Why is this idea important?

Why are we forced to confine our sexual activities by Law to those that certian individuals are only worhwhile?  So long as the act itself doesnt harm someone against there will (BDSM) then why shouldnt we be permitted under Law to take part in those activities? The only sexual crimes that should be illegal are those that are harmful to those that dont wish to be and those aginst children. the so called extreme pornography is only called so because those that are in office and wish to control our every thought and action feel that if they said publicly that they arent botherd by "extreme pornography" or even that they would like to try it and enjoy it, they know that they would never again see the inside of parliment.

amend the Offences Against the Person Act 1861

This act was brought in at a time when even the slightest injuries could cause death through infection. In the famous "Spanner" case (R v Brown) In 1989 it was used to prosecute and imprison consenting adults because they engaged in BDSM (Bondage/Discipline/Slave/Master) sex which caused non-serious injuries.

A Law Commission Report (CONSENT IN SEX OFFENCES) recommended that the law on assault be brought up to date with new definitions of categories of assault.

The Law Commission's recommendations should be put into practice.

Why is this idea important?

This act was brought in at a time when even the slightest injuries could cause death through infection. In the famous "Spanner" case (R v Brown) In 1989 it was used to prosecute and imprison consenting adults because they engaged in BDSM (Bondage/Discipline/Slave/Master) sex which caused non-serious injuries.

A Law Commission Report (CONSENT IN SEX OFFENCES) recommended that the law on assault be brought up to date with new definitions of categories of assault.

The Law Commission's recommendations should be put into practice.

Allow sex workers to work together for their own safety

The laws on prostitution are outdated and need reform. While it is legal for a person to accept money in exchange for sexual services, it is only legal if there is noone else in the premises.

If two or more people work together then the law classes the premises as a brothel and that is illegal.

Not all prostitutes are forced into the profession against their will, many enter into it freely and willingly despite the impression given in some parts of the media. These workers have the right to work safely and without fear of attack

I know that any proposals to liberalise the laws on prostitution will be met with moral outrage in some sections of the press but in my view, people's safety must come first

Why is this idea important?

The laws on prostitution are outdated and need reform. While it is legal for a person to accept money in exchange for sexual services, it is only legal if there is noone else in the premises.

If two or more people work together then the law classes the premises as a brothel and that is illegal.

Not all prostitutes are forced into the profession against their will, many enter into it freely and willingly despite the impression given in some parts of the media. These workers have the right to work safely and without fear of attack

I know that any proposals to liberalise the laws on prostitution will be met with moral outrage in some sections of the press but in my view, people's safety must come first

Simplify age restrictions.

What sense does it make that you can have sex at 16, but you can't see an 18-certificate film at the cinema because it might contain adult sexual material? You can do it, but you can't watch it – yet you can't get a sexually transmitted disease from a film! And how can you be mature enough to get married at 16, but not mature enough to vote until you are 18?

There should be a single age at which you legally become an adult, deemed capable of making important decisions for yourself. This is the age at which you should be allowed to vote, have sex, buy alcohol, gamble and get married.

Why is this idea important?

What sense does it make that you can have sex at 16, but you can't see an 18-certificate film at the cinema because it might contain adult sexual material? You can do it, but you can't watch it – yet you can't get a sexually transmitted disease from a film! And how can you be mature enough to get married at 16, but not mature enough to vote until you are 18?

There should be a single age at which you legally become an adult, deemed capable of making important decisions for yourself. This is the age at which you should be allowed to vote, have sex, buy alcohol, gamble and get married.