Tough Times in the UK

(Picture courtesy of Dreams of Spanking.)

A while ago, Ludwig wrote this rant about a change of the UK law which now has lots of restrictions concerning what kind of content UK based porn producers are allowed to sell online. Forbidden are, amongst many other things, depictions of bondage and gags, age play, as well as spanking and caning which goes beyond "transient and trifling" (whatever that means).

In January, Pandora Blake and Nimue Allen started a campaign to raise money for Backlash in order to fight the new law and to build a legal defence fund, should any UK porn producer be targetted. As Backlash explains on their site: "Backlash is an umbrella organisation providing academic, legal, and campaigning resources defending freedom of sexual expression. We support the rights of adults to participate in all consensual sexual activities and to watch, read and create any fictional interpretation of such in any media."  

(Picture courtesy of Restrained Elegance.)

To raise money, other producers joined in and many models offered to take hard cane strokes for every £10 raised. £3.836 were raised and as a result, you can now watch a whole bunch of free severe caning clips online. You can watch Nimue's video here, Amelia Jane Rutherford's canings here and here and Alex Reynolds' caning here. And there is a whole bunch of free videos on Pandora's site Dreams Of Spanking.

Unfortunately it seems that the impending threat has become very real all too fast. As she explained in this post, Pandora has already received a letter from the ATVOD in February. No one can say how this story will end, but needless to say that Pandora fears to lose the business she has put so much passion, hard work and of course also money into.

(Picture courtesy of Nimues World.)

Of course a lot could be said about the stupidity of the new law and about what it tells us about our society and its view on sexuality and porn. But I think Ludwig already covered that part very well in his post. I have to admit that the cultural and social implications have ceased to shock me. What concerns me is that a lovely friend is having a very tough time now which has already affected her health.

If you like the free videos, you can support the producers by joining their sites. As Pandora wrote in her post: "We are living in interesting times. If you haven't yet joined the site, do it now, while you still can - time is running out, and legal fees are expensive." Of course you can also still make a donation to Backlash if you like.
 

(Picture courtesy of Northern Spanking.)

Maybe the lawyers will be able to prove that the law doesn't make any sense. Maybe Pandora can keep her business after all and continue to make videos which I and many others very much enjoy. For now, I just wish her to get well soon because health is much more important than everything else!

Laughing About Fanaticism

This might be the strangest combination of labels that we had on this blog, ever. Because today's post is a follow-up piece on our post Nous Sommes Charlie which contains both a more personal comment from me on freedom of speech and some dark kinky humour.

I have to admit that I am a bit reluctant to say about myself that I am Charlie Hebdo, because I am not as brave as those who died in the recent dastardly attack driven by ill-will and blind hatred. The news shocked me and made me incredibly sad. As Ludwig and I already wrote in our recent post, we consider freedom of speech one of the most important human rights and yes, even though some people don't like it, that freedom of speech includes blasphemy.

Unfortunately, this isn't the reality in Germany. We still have a blasphemy paragraph in the German Criminal Code which says: Who insults the content of religious or ideological beliefs publicly or through dissemination of writings in a manner that is likely to disturb the public peace, shall be punished with imprisonment up to three years or a fine. This paragraph means that the caricaturists of Charlie Hebdo could theoretically have been imprisoned according to German law, if only there had been enough religious people going nuts because of their cartoons. As critics have pointed out, this law confuses perpetrators and victims - it defines as the "disturbers of the peace" not those people who respond to religious satire with violence or threats of violence, but the people who created the satire. This is sick and wrong! I hope that this medieval relict will be disposed as soon as possible. Unfortunately, I don't think that this will happen. Conservative politicians in Germany even called for a tightening of the law not too long ago.

On the other hand, fortunately freedom of speech is usually rated higher than claims of blasphemy in the legal practice. For instance, German stand-up comedian Dieter Nuhr was accused of revilement of creeds and religious societies by a German Salafi because of his critical satirical statements about Islam. The public prosecution department decided not to bring a charge against Dieter Nuhr. They stated that what Dieter Nuhr does can easily be recognised as satire and that his works lack any signs of xenophobia.

On the day we published our post about Charlie Hebdo, I once more became aware how lucky I am to live in a land which grants people freedom of speech (even though there is still room for improvement) and where I can write a blog without the fear of being persecuted. Because on that very same day, Saudi Arabian blogger Raif Badawi received 50 whip lashes for "insulting Islam". His "crime": He created an online forum on which people could critically discuss Saudi politics and Islam. His verdict: 1,000 whip lashes, 10 years in prison and a fine of about $ 267,000. The whipping is carried out weekly, so he still has 19 whippings to come, death in small increments.

But, what can we do about oppressive regimes and terrorists? I realised that as someone who lives in a country where I have the important human right called freedom of speech, I shouldn't take it for granted. The first thing I can do is exercise this right and voice my opinion on the matter. For instance, I've already signed Amnesty International's petition for Raif Badawi. Defending freedom of speech also means trying to defend other people's right to put forward their opinions - not just in cases like this, but also and just as much so in cases were I disagree with the opinion being put forward.

The second thing I can do is to see the fanatics for what they are, bullheaded and ridiculous people. When I looked for material for our post about Charlie Hebdo, I was reminded of a clip I wanted to share with you, anyway, because it is a great caricature of the stupidity of terrorism and it even has a brief reference to kink. I think one of the best things to do in times of horror is to laugh into the face of those who try to take our smile away. So, here is a Jeff Dunham video for your enjoyment. If you don't know Achmed the Dead Terrorist already, you can find his introduction video on YouTube.

For those of you who aren't into morbid humour: You are of course entitled to your preferences and opinion. Please don't watch the clip and look for something else that makes you happy! Time is much too short to waste it on things one doesn't like.

Nous Sommes Charlie

Left: "100 lashes if you don't die from laughter!"

Right: "Love stronger than hate"

Normally, we do not comment current events here. This is a blog about spanking and BDSM, not about what is happening in the news. In light of this week's terrorist attacks in France, we are making an exception to this.

As you have undoubtedly heard by now, two Islamic extremists attacked the office of French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, gunning down 12 people. Charlie Hebdo had been receiving death threats for years because their caricatures made fun of Muslim fundamentalists. They also made fun of Christian fundamentalists, politicians from all parties, feminists - no group or belief system was off limits for satire. About the threats against them, cartoonist Stéphane Charbonnier who was among those murdered on Wednesday once said: "It perhaps sounds a bit pompous, but I'd rather die standing than live on my knees."

The freedom of speech is one of the cornerstones of an open and enlightened society. Whatever one thinks about the caricatures of Charlie Hebdo, whether one considers them great, funny, juvenile or in poor taste, it is important that they exist. As Markus Becker points out in this German article on Spiegel Online: "A liberal democracy needs blasphemy. For blasphemy questions dogmas. And dogmas - be they religious or political - with their claim to absolute truth are the natural enemy of critical thinking."

Freedom of speech is essential to all bloggers, especially those of us writing about "adult" and sometimes controversial subjects like BDSM. Religious fundamentalists reject not only the freedom of speech, but also the right to freely express one's sexuality. They don't like pornography, they don't like homosexuality and they don't like BDSM (whippings are okay when the sharia demands them, but not as an erotic fetish between consenting adults!). That is why Wednesday's massacre is also an attack on the core values we and this blog stand for.

First and most importantly, we would like to express our condolences to the families and friends of all the victims. Secondly, we have reprinted the Charlie Hebdo cartoons above as a sign of our determination that the perpetrators will not achieve their aims. Attacks like these will not discourage us from exercising our right to think, speak and write freely as we always have. The pen will win out over the sword.

Speaking of upholding values, here are four closing observations:

1. Chumming up with the right-wingers who have always had a problem with "those bloody immigrants" is exactly the wrong reaction to Wednesday's attacks. The vast majority of the Muslims in Europe are peaceful, nice, decent people. Upholding the values of the enlightenment means rejecting both Islamic extremism and xenophobia.

2. Let's not forget that Christian fundamentalists aren't much better than their Muslim counterparts. While they haven't gunned down anyone over a Jesus caricature lately, there were numerous death threats when Monty Python's Life of Brian came out in 1979. Oh, and they hate pornography, too.

3. We don't stone gay people to death anymore in Europe, but we are still a long way from a society where consenting adults can freely and openly live out their sexuality without fear of discrimination. See the recent UK porn law which once again targets various "kinky" activities like bondage, fisting and female ejaculation (it's still legal to do, but not to publish a picture of it, because bondage pictures are apparently a threat to Western civilization!).

4. And before we get too comfortable on our high horse, let's also remind ourselves that the kinky community has its own dismayingly large share of prudes, homophobes and censorship advocates. We've seen enough discussions where fellow kinksters argued that severe CP videos should be banned because they are "disgusting", that we should all censor ourselves so as to not offend vanillas, or that a forum should not permit M/M pictures. Upholding free speech means contradicting such viewpoints in our community as well - and defending people's right to express them!

Ludwig and Kaelah

(Probably) My Last Jolly Good Rant

Whenever I felt the need to have a jolly good rant about something on this blog, I published it with the tag "guerilla warfare". Out of 475 total posts at the time of this writing, 21 fall under that label. So Kaelah (who contributed some "guerilla warfare" pieces) and I haven't done an inordinate amount of ranting. Actually, compared to some other BDSM-themed blogs, we are rather tame. But we have had our share of rants over the years, and when we did, we always made sure that it wasn't just random raging and letting off steam, but backed up by good arguments as well.

I have ranted against reactionary tabloid rags, anti-porn feminists, hypocritical kinksters who live by the motto "Everyone kinkier than me is a pervert!", video pirates, live traffic feeds compromising the privacy of BDSM blog readers, and against the arbitrary censorship policy of online billing services. A good variety of targets. Most of the time, though, my opposition was against the advocates of censorship, whether they were politicians, political activists or even kinksters themselves. Admittedly, there is a healthy dose of self-interest in my stance, because I am into BDSM, have friends who are into BDSM and enjoy watching BDSM porn. But I have a more far-reaching motivation as well. I truly believe that how much freedom a society grants its citizens in regards to sexuality and the expression of sexuality in erotic literature or erotic films is a good yardstick for how much individual freedom a society grants its citizens in general. Those societies which are liberal towards porn tend to be liberal in other ways as well, and those who are restrictive towards porn tend to be restrictive in other ways as well. Therefore, there is a legitimate worry that, if the self-appointed moral guardians succeed in censoring porn which is produced by consenting adults, they will proceed to censor other forms of expression or opinions they dislike as well. All for the sake of "protecting minors" or "upholding family values", of course!

How about one more rant, then, before we close down the blog next spring? This will probably be my last one, and I am launching into it because of present events.

The UK has changed its law in regards to what kind of content porn producers can sell online as "video on demand". UK distributors are no longer allowed to sell content depicting bondage and gags, fisting, public sex, age play, facesitting, urination, female ejaculation, and spanking and caning beyond what is deemed “transient and trifling”.

Even as censorship legislation goes, this is a particularly idiotic and ill-conceived piece. Pandora Blake points out one if its many major inconsistencies:

With these restrictions, distributing images of acts which are legal to consensually practice – such as piss play, bondage and fisting – becomes illegal. It’s fine to do it, but not to sell images of it. Obscenity legislation is meant to prevent the publication of images which might corrupt those watching – in other words, stop people from being tempted to try something that is deemed “extreme”. But quite aside from whether porn does in fact corrupt (and the evidence shows that it doesn’t), if trying it would not actually be illegal, why do the images matter?

Why indeed? Hywel Phillips (Elegance Studios) is equally, and rightfully, incredulous:

Let’s just be clear about how ludicrous the very concept is before we get on to the grossly offensive nature of the restrictions they impose. We’re talking about acts which are entirely legal to do – like doing a BDSM scene with someone where someone is bound and gagged. Or spanking. Or female ejaculation. Or face-sitting. So it’s legal to do it. It’s legal to own pictures and video of it. It’s legal to make pictures and video of it. It’s legal to download it from a site outside the UK, even if the customer is in the UK.

But as of 1st December, it is no longer legal for a UK production team to show it to you.

If you downloaded exactly the same material from a non-UK based site it would be legal for them to sell it to you and legal for you to buy it, watch it and keep it.

What the actual fuck?

I suppose what astonishes me more than anything else is the utterly irrational and arbitrary nature of the list of sexual acts addressed by the legislation. It does not surprise me that those oh-so-awful BDSM practices like bondage, spanking and caning are being targetted - unfortunately, that is to be expected, as they are old favourites of the censors. But why on Earth would anyone want to criminalise the depiction of female ejaculation? What is so threatening about a woman having a squirty orgasm? I suppose it falls outside the scope of Victorian sexual mores, and apparently that is enough for it to be deemed "obscene".

Ironically, then, the legislation turns out to be rather patriarchal and anti-feminist - it is still okay for UK producers to sell depictions of male ejaculation, but not female. Moreover, the legislation disproportionately affects producers of BDSM and spanking porn and, because of the criminalisation of fisting, of gay and lesbian porn as well.

Other kinky bloggers have already made a compelling, richly argued case for why this law is wrong and harmful. Pandora Blake's piece, in particular, is excellent. She also provices a great link list of the media coverage so far, which contains more articles worth reading. All that remains for me to do is urge you to make your voice heard if you are kinky and a UK citizen. You could, for instance...

...write to your MP.
...sign this Change.org petition or another one on 38 Degrees.
...donate to the anti-censorship campaign of Backlash UK.
...come to a protest outside Parliament at midday on Friday, December 12th.

Kaelah and I are neither British nor professional spanking porn producers, so the legislation does not concern us directly. But we are friends with Pandora and others from the UK, and would like to see them produce more great videos without having to worry about legal repercussions. And we know that many of our readers are from the UK. So we would like to express our support for your cause and send you our very best wishes. Good luck!

Too Severe for CCBill

Those of you with a subscription to Pandora Blake's site Dreams of Spanking might have noticed that Kaelah's and my martial arts-themed hard caning scene The Final Test, about which we wrote a detailed behind-the-scenes report here, is no longer available. Pandora's credit card processor CCBill insisted on it being either heavily cut or taken down because they deemed the majority of the caning to be too physically severe. Pandora, having no desire to mutilate a scene into which I and especially Kaelah had poured so much effort, decided to take it down entirely. However, you will get the opportunity to see it again in the future - for free!

The Final Test was not the only video on Pandora's site which came in for CCBill's corporate censorship scissors. Pandora had to edit any reference to "force" out of the texts on the site, changing wordings like “He forces Sebastian to bend over and endure an embarrassing bare bottom spanking” to “Sebastian is obliged to bend over”. Some screengrabs from the video The Captain and the Tavern Wench had to be removed for showing welts that were deemed too severe, and a single droplet of blood had to be photoshopped out of screengrabs of an otherwise pretty moderate birching scene (birches easily break the skin, even when not applied with much force). The videos themselves were allowed to stay. All scenes of swordfights were not allowed to stay, though, because of "weapons pointed at the model". In the comedic nautical romp The Pirates of the Jolly Kraken, the following sequence featuring rubber swords (!) is apparently too risqué for CCBill:

The content we are talking about is perfectly legal in the UK, the US and pretty much every other Western democracy (with the possible exception of the radical feminist nanny state of Iceland). This is simply about CCBill insuring themselves against bad publicity from the Christian right, the pseudo-feminist left and other self-appointed moral guardians. The company's thinking probably goes something like this: "We are going to process payments for porn sites, because they bring in some nice money for us, but at the same time, we have to suppress whatever the prudes might deem too extreme, because we want to keep the prudes' business as well!"

We send our commiserations to Pandora for having to go through this nonsense. Shooting your own content and running your own website is a lot of work at the best of times, and you certainly don't want to spend hours and hours on top of that to revise your site and cater to the whims of your payment processor. Pandora writes:

I am furious that after all my efforts to create a site that shows the enthusiastic consent and ethical production behind the porn I make as clearly, accessibly and transparently as possible, I am still being fucked over. This has nothing to do with the UK extreme porn legislation, and little to do with Visa’s requirements – far more severe sites accept credit cards perfectly happily. This is about CCBill covering their asses, and fuck all my efforts to do things right; every blogpost, every comment from happy performers, every behind the scenes video, all for nothing. They have zero legal standing for refusing to process payments for content that is legal, but they have me and every other producer by the short hairs, and so they get away with it. If you’re rich enough to work for free you can do what you want, but if you’re a self-funded start-up relying on income from sales to keep producing, you are fucked, because you have to do what you’re told or you can’t get paid.

And that is that, really. I can't say that I am furious myself. I'm afraid I am much too cynical, and have been for years, to get even mildly angry anymore at people being ignorant and hypocritical. It is to be expected, especially when sexuality is concerned. You can watch boxing matches in our sports arenas, with two heavyweight fighters pummeling each other to the point of lacerations, concussions and broken bones. Videos of real accidents and mishaps on YouTube, often with the participants going through obvious great pain. Not to mention the countless fictional treatments of murder, kidnapping, armed robbery etc. in movies and TV series. All of this is mainstream entertainment. But when it comes to BDSM activities between consenting adults, a single droplet of blood is suddenly considered an alarming injury, and any story involving even the merest hint of non-consent suddenly becomes morally objectionable. What else is new? On the verge between the industrial age and the information age, our societies still have not developed a grown-up, evidence-based, rational outlook on sexuality, and perhaps they never will.

I can see the funny side of it. Actually, my inner aolescent* who loves to be "evil" is delighted that The Final Test was judged "too severe for CCBill". Free advertising like this has made many a shock rock band great. Kaelah is amused as well that she, personified Miss Goody-Two-Shoes, has done something that someone deems worth censoring. (* I guess I can write "adolescent" here. I would not dream of using such a problematic and easily misinterpreted term on an erotic site using CCBill.)

Oh, and the good news for you is that Pandora is planning to release our scene for free:

I’m going to create a new mini-site – I’ve already bought the domain – and publish [the scenes] there. For free. So these requirements are handed down to CCBill from Visa; all other billing agents are the same? Fuck capitalism: I’ll give it all away. Full length video downloads, image galleries, behind the scenes documentaries, associated writings, everything. Plus the comments, the blog posts, the performer bios, all the surrounding context that demonstrates the ethical production and enthusiastic content that went into the making of those scenes, because without that, it’s not representative of what I’m doing.

Free range porn, released into the wild! It’s an exhilarating, liberating prospect. Free economics: the last line of defence against the capitalist censors. If I’m not charging, there’s not a damn thing they can do about it.

"Free range porn"? I like the sound of that.

Ban Porn – Save Our Women And Children!

You are here because the title of this post caught your interest? Great! Or maybe you are here because you want to look at the spanking porn on this blog? If so, shame on you! You are responsible for long-term damage to children and sexual violence against women. That's what the government of Iceland has found out.

You might tell me now that scientific studies conducted in the EU and in the US indicate that it is highly unlikely for children to stumble across pornography online without having explicitly searched for it and that the vast majority of the few children who do accidentally come across porn doesn't suffer any shock, either. But, are you sure? Since the argument that porn must be banned because it is dangerous for children has been repeated so many times by so many different people, there must be some truth to it, right?! Don't let those filthy scientists (who might already be corrupted by their own sexuality and porn) get in the way of the protection of our children! Oh, and don't even bring up cyber nannies and all that stuff. These softwares might be widely available, easy to configure and use and some of them even free of charge, but they would require parents to actively make an effort looking after their children, and invest entire minutes of their time. We can't expect them to do that, can we?

As for the women: The government of Iceland is supported by a professor of sociology and women’s studies from Boston named Gail Dines who is an anti-porn activist and says that porn harms the women who appear in it and violates their civil rights. She is a professor and a woman, so she must know best! Men who appear in porn are obviously not harmed, since they are not mentioned, but that's logical, isn't it? After all, men are strong and can look after themselves whereas women are more delicate and therefore need our protection and care. Women in porn might even think that what they do there happens consensually and out of their free will, but we know it better, don't we?

That's why the government of Iceland plans to ban online porn. Porn magazines are already prohibited, but until now the internet has still threatened children and women through the presentation of brutal, unloving sexual acts. Soon, after a Chinese-style firewall will have been installed, that huge danger will be eliminated. Hooray! And, as a positive side effect, women won't have to worry about their husbands watching porn any more. I am sure Iceland will be a much safer and happier country afterwards.

If my arguments haven't already been enough to convince you, let's take a look at what happens to people who come into contact with porn. Take me for an example. I am a soft, delicate woman, but instead of fighting for women's civil rights like Professor Dines, I have been so corrupted by porn that I even decided to participate in writing a blog about it. What's worse, I have published fetish pictures and videos and enjoyed it! Some days ago, I even had dinner with an infamous producer of porn that involves poor women getting beaten. And you know what? I liked him and thought that he resembled a very friendly and intelligent huge teddy bear (more about that in another post). I am obviously a very confused woman who clearly has forgotten who is the enemy. That kind of corruption must be avoided at all costs, don't you think?

And, since the importance of free speech and personal choice is highly overrated, anyway, I have some more suggestions: When I was a child, even at an older age, I was very easily disturbed by all kinds of TV films. For some reason, I never came across any disturbing porn, but I couldn't watch thrillers, I got scared if someone died in a family series and I even remember a Mickey Mouse episode set in a clock tower which caused me nightmares. So, please widen the ban, Iceland, there is much to do: films, songs, books, news magazines – the majority of them depict some kind of violence which can disturb innocent children! And adults spend too much time with them, anyway. What's worse, these evil instruments can lead people to believe in having their own opinions and taking free decisions on how to live their lives. They might even come across studies which prove that all of your talk about porn, disturbed children and violence against women is total nonsense and only a cheap attempt of covering your real intent, which is to force your own conservative, fear-driven, anti-carnal sexual mores on others.

Rude Tops vs. Respectful Tops

(Adele and Jimmy are both experienced tops as well as bottoms.

And avid writers about the question of respect and style.

Picture courtesy of Dreams Of Spanking.)

Poppy and Ana both recently wrote posts about rude wannabe tops / dom(me)s. You know, people who suddenly come over at a party or write an e-mail to a bottom or submissive whom they don't know at all and demand that said bottom / submissive has to submit to them. From the comments written on both posts, it seems that quite many submissives have made such an experience at least once.

As I wrote in my comment on Ana's blog, in my opinion, such wannabe tops / dom(me)s are simply insecure people who try to increase their self-confidence by belittling others. Because people who are really self-confident don’t behave like that. Pandora Blake once aptly described those tops / dom(me)s as being of the "Lord Sir Master Domly McDomlyson" type (because that is the kind of nickname they tend to give themselves in order to show just how important and dominant they are). I think that name is hilarious! And only slightly exaggerated. One could of course come up with a female variant as well.

I am lucky because I have never had to experience anyone like that so far. I guess the facts that I am in a relationship and that I identify as a switch and as not being submissive (even as a bottom) keep those people away. Although I wouldn’t be surprised if I had to deal with one of them at some point.

In my opinion, a real top / dom(me) is someone who has good empathy, pays attention to the bottom's / sub's needs and limits, listens to what they have to say and makes sure that hard limits are never crossed. That is what in my view makes him or her earn the respect and trust that a bottom or submissive needs in order to let go. And I think that good tops / dom(me)s are aware that respect indeed has to be earned and is not something that they can demand simply because they have decided to call themselves Lord Sir Master Domly McDomlyson or Lady Ma'am Mistress Toppy O'Toppyson.

I'm curious, though, how rare or common are rude wannabe tops / dom(me)s really? Have you ever come across one of them? If yes, how did you handle the situation? Finally, since the commenters who had made experiences with rude tops / dom(me)s were usually female, there is another question that is of special interest to me: How about the male bottoms / submissives out there? Have you ever had to deal with wannabe tops / dom(me)s as well?

Copyright Infringement

(A picture that got more than 130 like / reblogged comments on Tumblr.

Sadly, our watermark had been cropped out on purpose.)

Yesterday, I still had no idea which one of my ideas for blog posts I would use next. But then, Erica published a post on a subject which was on my list as well. When I tried to formulate a comment for her blog, I almost wrote a complete post. So, today's topic is copyright infringement.

Over time, several of Ludwig's and my pictures have been used by fellow bloggers, which made me very happy and always went along with the reposting blogger providing a link to our original post. But it was only some weeks ago that I became aware that some of our pictures had been reblogged on places I hadn't previously heard about. So, I started a test, using a new feature of Google Image Search. With said feature, one can search for pictures using the link to the image one wants to look for. Google Image Search doesn't find every copy, but it works quite well. It not only finds copies that are a 100 per cent match, but also cut-outs and slightly altered versions of the picture one is looking for.

Most of the hits I had were on Tumblr blogs. I usually don't look at those because pure picture blogs don't do much for me. But in light of my new findings I became curious, and so I screened several Tumblr blogs for our and other familiar pictures. Quite frankly, the result was a bit frustrating. And I am not talking about the fact that the content of some of the sites where our pictures had been reblogged and some of the comments on the pictures made me cringe a bit.

(Severe pictures are reposted often - what a surprise!)

What I am talking about is that most of the time, no credit was given to the original photographer or blogger. There were some very nice exceptions from that rule, which made me smile and definitely deserve to be mentioned here! Some other Tumblr bloggers at least left the watermarks in the pictures when pictures were watermarked. But, sadly, I also found many Tumblr blogs where watermarks of the original sources had obviously been removed from pictures I knew well. I went, hey, that's from Russians Slaves / Her First Punishment, hey, that's Amelia Jane Rutherford, this picture is from Wild Party 2 by Lupus... And so on.

Honestly, I don't get that. I can understand that people might be careful about linking to the original source when they are posting the occasional vanilla picture on a kinky blog. It stands to reason that many people would not like it when their photos turn up on adult-themed blogs. On the rare occasions when I use pictures from the vanilla web, I don't use any pictures showing people's faces, and 95 percent of the pictures I use are from Wikipedia and therefore published under a free licence (I don't explicitly mention the names of the photographers in that case because I don't know whether they want their names to be associated with a kinky blog).

But for the majority of the Tumblr pictures I am talking about here, this problem doesn't even occur. Most spanking bloggers and spanking film producers won't get mad or throw lawsuits around when bloggers are using their pictures. On the contrary, they are happy about the word-of-mouth, and their only requirement for letting others use their pictures is that proper credit is given. If someone likes a photo well enough to post it, typing a link can't be too much of an effort, right? Cropping out watermarks certainly doesn't seem too much of an effort for some people!

(Another example for the popularity of severe marks.)

The funny (or sad) thing is that there seems to be a code of honour between Tumblr bloggers – they reblog pictures and give credit to the Tumblr blogger who was the first one to post a certain picture instead of opening a new thread. But there doesn't seem to be any understanding that it would be nice to show those who have created the photos in the first place (and often invested a lot of time in doing so) the same kind of respect. The problem is, even those Tumblr bloggers who don't crop out watermarks and who are generally open to posting links to the original source when asked to do so seem to assume that it is the job of those who have taken pictures to find out where their photos have been used without their permission and to send requests about links being provided. In other words, the original creator of the picture is supposed to do all the work.

I guess one could say that I definitely waste too much time on this. But, you know, I sometimes invest hours in taking and editing certain pictures. Often these pictures go along with a story that means a lot to me. In addition to that, it's me in those pictures and they are often very personal. Consequently, it makes me very upset when people who obviously like to look at those pictures don't even have the courtesy to post a simple link. The first thing I did was to replace our old pictures which didn't have watermarks with watermarked ones.

(I nearly froze off my toes for that one.)

Being the INTJ type that I am, I have also developed a consistent strategy of how to deal with situations in which our pictures are being reposted elsewhere. Rainer, who recently wanted to use one of our pictures on his forum, was very kind and asked us for our permission first. In that context, I set up the following rules for the use of our pictures: Generally, Ludwig and I are completely okay with our pictures being used on other spanking blogs and forums. There are four preconditions, though: 1. no use on commercial sites or for commercial events, 2. in case the pictures are used in a context that hasn't got anything to do with our original post, it must be clear that we are not connected with the site content, 3. credit must be given (leaving the watermark in the picture is enough as a basic requirement, if a source is explicitly mentioned, like on Tumblr blogs, it must be the original source) and 4. online use only, no printed media. Maybe I'm going to add a paragraph about copyright infringement to our sidebar in the near future.

Consequently, my strategy for Tumblr blogs is the following one: When I find one of our old pictures, which didn't have a watermark in the first place, on a Tumblr site, I ask the Tumblr blogger who started the thread to provide a link. My request has always been granted so far, which shows that the majority of Tumblr bloggers surely doesn't have any intention to upset anyone. But the problem is that the link doesn't show up in the reblogs (at least not in those that were made earlier). And, as Erica also explained in her post, one can't add a comment to the thread. At least not so easily (you can only like or reblog a picture). So, I got myself a Tumblr blog which I use exclusively in order to reblog our pictures and add a comment with a link to our original post. This link then shows up in the comment thread. I also reblog pictures that are watermarked and add a link to the original post as well. As a result, I now from time to time see people popping over either from my Tumblr site or from another Tumblr blog whose owner I have asked to provide a link to our blog.

(Another picture where the watermark had been cropped out.)

What makes me really angry, though, is when a Tumblr blogger has obviously cropped out an existing watermark. If I find one of our pictures where the watermark has been removed on purpose, it makes me so upset that I inform the blog owner about the copyright infringement and tell them to delete the picture. So far, my request has always been accepted. But, unfortunately, that doesn't solve the problem! Because it is only the original post that is deleted, not the picture itself. Which means that one would have to tell all those who reblogged the picture to delete it as well. There is an easier way, though. One can send an e-mail to the Tumblr support and they delete the picture. So far, they have helped me twice and they were always fast and very kind.

On a funny note: My image search also revealed that a small online magazine which mostly writes about celebrities but also about topics like Star Trek, comics and kink had published an article about our blog. Unfortunately for us, they singled out our worst fun clip to write about – Dachshunds in Space (grrr)! But overall it is a nice little article and a rather kink-friendly one, given that we are talking about a – more or less – mainstream magazine. Well, and given that the magazine is described as a "source for unique entertainment and celebrity news", I assume this means that Ludwig and I are officially celebrities now! Okay, or maybe it just means that our blog offers some unique entertainment. I think I can live with that explanation, too.

We Are NOT Weird

Have you ever thought that you must be a weird person because you regularly visit spanking blogs? Have you ever had the feeling that you obviously don't have a real life because you spend so much time online, looking at spanking pics and reading posts like this one? Well, I can definitely reassure you that there are people out there who are much weirder than us spankos. And there must be lots of them!

Let me explain. When I looked at our statistics recently, I realised that the statistics counter had registered 900 clicks within one hour one evening, as you can see in the picture above. That is much more than we normally have in such a short period of time, even if a post has been Chrossed. So, my first idea was that there must have been a huge bug which had affected the statistics counter but had obviously been fixed rather quickly.

I started an investigation nonetheless, and it turned out that the almost 900 clicks had been real. They came from a board on which people can post picture threads. I won't link to the forum or give you the name, because in my opinion there is a lot of not so nice stuff shown there. The thread that had been the origin of the clicks had already been removed, which explained why the high visitor rate had only lasted for about one hour. But the thread had been archived, and thus I was able to reconstruct what had happened.

Someone had posted a photo with the bald-headed guy whom you can see in the picture above. And then, many, many people with lots of time and a photoshop software had started to copy him into other pictures. Some harmless and funny, some quite explicit and tasteless. The thread was huge! And the picture above was obviously taken from this blog. I decided to repost it here, but made the poor guy whose picture had been used anonymous. Of course the Rohrstock-Palast water mark had been removed, but after having been asked about the source, our photoshop artist posted a link to my original post from which he had taken the picture.

And that was where all the clicks came from. Within a long thread with tons of pictures that was obviously only online for about an hour, over 800 people followed the link to our blog! I mean, how many people must have looked at the thread, then? 10,000? I have to admit that I wasn't sure whether to laugh or to cry about my discovery.

Whatever your personal judgement is, one thing is for sure: If you ever have doubts about whether you are wasting your time reading spanking blogs, rest assured that there are thousands of people out there spending their time with much stranger things. Hmm, maybe I could ask one of them to help me with editing the photos for this blog? That might save me a lot of precious time. Those guys seem to get a lot of regular photoshop practise...

One Small Step For Man

Hi folks, we've done it again! Nope, not what you think. I'm talking about participating in online discussions about ethical treatment of others. Again, this has cost me three days of my life which have been filled with thoughts on the subject. I have to admit that I envy and admire Ludwig for his ability to participate in these discussions without being too involved emotionally. I don't have that ability (yet?), but I think that writing this post will be my way of drawing a line under this chapter.

So, what am I talking about? It all started with my post Happy Pi Day being Chrossed this week. I realised our stats rising and took a look at Chross's Spankings of the Week. Then, I suddenly saw a link on the sidebar to a discussion thread titled "Males as receivers?". I knew that Chross isn't into x/M spankings, and I had always been under the impression that his discussion forum and message board wasn't open to x/M, either. So, the title of the thread caught my attention and I started to read the discussion.

Skip 20 minutes ahead and you'll find me at the phone, my hands slightly shaking, telling Ludwig about my encounter. What caused my discomposure? Well, the thread had been started by one of the moderators of the forum who had discovered x/M material being posted on the site. He asked for advice on how to deal with that. So far, so good. The site belongs to Chross, so it is his right to decide what kind of content he wants.

I had of course always been sad about the omission of x/M since Chross's board and database is the biggest of its kind and there is no equal alternative place to go to for people who are searching for interesting links to spankings in mainstream videos, spanking pictures and recommended new blog posts. There had also always been a gut feeling which told me that x/M (and especially M/M) often is excluded from forums not only because the owners and the users have different preferences but because a small but vocal minority of prejudiced people and homophobes refuses to have any of that stuff anywhere on the site at all.

What made me tremble with rage was that I found my suspicion confirmed when I read the thread. Luckily only to a certain extend, though, but more about that later. It turned out that the moderator who asked for advice had so far deleted all x/M stuff he came across because he didn't want to have anything to do with x/M. In his words: "I don't want to take part in an enterprise that features men on the receiving end. That's gay, and it's beyond the pale." He later claimed that he had intended to use the term "gay" in the sense of "rubbish". But if he meant to say "rubbish", why did he not simply write "rubbish"? As any psychologist who has done research on the psychology of prejudice will tell you, someone using the term "gay" in place of "rubbish" is a pretty good indication that they are, indeed, prejudiced against gay people. Even if you give the guy the benefit of the doubt, calling x/M content "rubbish" is still pretty rude towards people who enjoy that kind of content. In any case, he obviously was not happy about the x/M stuff, and threatened to lay down his work as a moderator should it continue to be allowed on the board.

Luckily, the reactions of the next commenters were less intolerant. There were statements like: "Well, I don't like M/M in particular, but don't have any problem at all with F/M. However I'm a bit worried, why this should be a reason of defaming those who enjoy it. Remember, most people this [sic] spankos are sick." And: "What we don't want( as long as its adults involved) is telling someone that their kink is not okay simply because it does not appeal to us." But only one commenter labelled the original comment as what it was: "The depiction of males on the receiving end does nothing for me either, but neither am I bothered if it is shown on here. What does bother me is the notion of the forum being censored on the basis of someone else's homophobia - which, frankly, is a bit what the OP makes it sound like."

Apart from that, there was a lot of understanding and support for the original comment. Of course, everybody hastened to add that they were not intolerant. But at the same time, the statements featured comments like this: "Have very minimal interest in X/M, and would be fine if those running this site decided to exclude it." Or: "That said, however, this is Chross's blog, and he has every right to run it as he sees fit. If something offends him, or just doesn't fit what he's looking for, I say we step up and FOLLOW the rules. If someone has other interests, perhaps they should blog them elsewhere and not 'force' their preferences onto this group."

Karl Friedrich Gauss finally boiled it down to the main question: "how tolerant can or should we be of the intolerance of others". What I found in the thread was a lot of (more or less) subtle tolerance for intolerance. And I have to admit that I'm sick of this, because it is something that I repeatedly discover when it comes to people who are into x/F and their views about x/M (especially M/M), but never the other way around. Accordingly, the x/M (M/M) haters often get their way, and the x/M (M/M) fans are excluded from the party.

As you might already have guessed, Ludwig and I decided to join the discussion. Since we have already made the experience that not those who make unethical comments, but the ones challenging them are seen as troublemakers by some site owners, we settled for a new tactic, though. Instead of posting two separate long comments, we merged our arguments into a shorter joined comment which presented our point of view and which, thanks to Ludwig, was much more moderate than the original comment I had written. Yep, you have read this correctly: Ludwig was the more diplomatic one among the two of us! How about that for a role reversal. Writing that original (and never published) comment allowed me to give vent to my anger instead of swallowing it, though, and Ludwig embedded several of my arguments in our joined comment. So my work hadn't been in vain.

In order not to let the discussion become endless, our post was supplemented only by one shorter follow-up comment which further clarified some aspects. And then, Ludwig left the discussion with a "Thank you!" to Chross. For what? Well, that's the good news!

I let Chross speak for himself by quoting the most important excerpts from his comments: "I do agree that this was set-up as a X/F board. X/M is not the type of stuff I like, too. But then, if you look at the board rules there is nothing there that forbids X/M stuff. I know there are a lot of people out there who enjoy this sort of stuff and I don't really see a reason to exclude them, just because they are to our mind doing it the wrong way round ;-)! So deletion is not the right means I think. Stuff like that should, however, be labelled accordingly, so that people who might be offended by it, can avoid it. So in the thread name (if it's a new thread) or the post's title a 'M/M' 'F/M' should be added. Either by the poster or a moderator / admin if he notices this kind of stuff. If it turns out that we have a lot of it posted, I will set-up a sub board for this sort of stuff. […] I don't think stuff should be deleted if it IS not labelled correctly. We'll notice the author via a reply or PM and add the label. […] A board lives through its contributions and people who make these contributions, so there is no need to rule with an iron hand and drive people away who bother with uploading and posting stuff for others to enjoy."

So, this means that my second (i.e. toppy, and M/M loving) half is now officially welcome on Chross's message board! Yes, x/M threads have to be labelled. Yes, there might be a separate sub board one day. Yes, those who called for protection from getting into any contact with material that doesn't match their preferences have been heard. But still, Chross as the owner of a private message board who himself isn't interested in x/M has officially welcomed x/M contributions on his board and made a personal statement for more tolerance amongst spankos. Which is a wonderful message and also sets a prominent example, because Chross's site is one of the big players in our community.

And, even if there should be a separate board one day, I don't have the feeling that it will be hidden somewhere where nobody sees it. Karl Friedrich Gauss already used the new official freedom and posted a link to one of Jimmy Holloway's thought-provoking posts in the "blog beat" thread which points out interesting new blog posts in the spanking community. For me, this is a step towards more tolerance and a peaceful co-existence of different kinks in our community!

Please No More!

(Standard schoolgirl spanking fare from Girl Spanks Girl, Girls Boarding School, Pain4Fem and Punished Girls. By comparison, videos with male spankees or innovative spanking scenarios are hard to find.)

Some time ago Adele Haze wrote a very interesting post called Schoolgirl spanking: A favourite fantasy. In that post, she explained that she can't get enough of schoolgirl scenes, no matter how repetitive they might be. Adele also analysed why she likes schoolgirl scenes so much and why she can't get enough of them. And then she asked her readers about their opinions.

Funnily, Ludwig and I reacted the same way when we talked about Adele's post. Our shared opinion: “I wish I wouldn't have to see the same things again and again! I am getting tired of reading about and watching the same old stories over and over.”

Ludwig has written reviews of several schoolgirl spanking films and websites featuring schoolgirls. He always preferred the more creative and unusual schoolgirl storylines, but he liked the schoolgirl scenario as a classical spanking genre. Today, though, he is so fed up with schoolgirls that even imaginative variations on the topic, like Northern Spanking's Schoolgirls in Space, hardly manage to raise his interest.

I've made similar observations, but my issues go even further. Although I'm female and predominantly a bottom myself, I don't want to hear about x/F scenarios anymore. The reason: The internet is so full of x/F spanking stories, films and pictures that I simply sometimes can no longer stand it. I'm missing a certain balance, like Pandora so wonderfully described in her recent post Male spanking showcase. The result: What was once thrilling has become rather annoying and almost a turn-off.

I assume that all spankos have scenarios we can't get enough of. Today I don't want to ask you about those, though. What Ludwig and I would like to know instead is: Are there any aspects of kink which you once liked but can't stand anymore today? If yes, why has your interest in them diminished? Please feel free to share your thoughts in the comment section!

Sense and Futility of Online Debates

(Image courtesy of XKCD. A webcomic of romance, sarcasm, maths, and language.)

As Kaelah pointed out in Kink, Discussions and Emotions, we had a fair number of online debates in the spanking community in recent months. A few more than normal perhaps - is it the time of year for that, or just coincidence? Today, I would like to share with you my personal views about the matter of online debates in general.

There is, of course, the famous dictum that arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics: even if you win, you are still retarded. I don't entirely agree with that. You can find discussions on the internet that are intelligent, informative and respectful. Most, however, are not, and that is where the saying comes from. It all depends on who is doing the discussing. If you have a bunch of people who are classy and mature enough so that they are not looking to "win" every argument, your chances for an intelligent debate are good. Indy, Mija, Kaelah, Paul and I managed a debate like that recently, about Spanking Tube's policy of keeping M/M content separate. Even though we had to agree to disagree in the end (Kaelah and I didn't think Spanking Tube was worthy of as much condemnation as the others gave it), it was always friendly and a very interesting discussion overall.

Should one ever debate with people who are not classy, but obviously stupid and / or mean-spirited? That is another question entirely. Is that worth it, if nothing else, to publicly counter their misguided ideas? Or is it always a complete waste of time? Dan of Spanking Blog thinks it is the latter. Here is what he had to say in a recent comment he made here:

"I start from the premise that the internet is full of sexually broken people and ethically broken people. This, in most of ten years of moderating blog comments, I am convinced is the case. [...] I just don't think there's much point in engaging with broken people. They never change their opinions, it leads to flame wars, and I'm not sure it does a lot of good with the mass of silent readers, either. Ultimately this isn't a 'you shouldn't' claim on my part; it's just a 'I generally don't, because it strikes me as a waste of time.' There's a saying attributed to Robert Heinlein: 'Never try to teach a pig to sing ... it wastes your time and annoys the pig.'"

Kaelah, on the other hand, is of the opinion that it is necessary to engage with strange and / or stupid people, because if you don't, you abandon the field to them. So if you care about the subject that is being discussed, you have an obligation to speak up. My own position on this lies somewhere between Dan and Kaelah. I am going to recount how I arrived at it emotionally. That requires me to go back a few years in time:

The most emotionally draining debate I have ever been involved in, in the spanking community, happened in early 2009. I had recently made my first "professional" spanking film, as a guest top for Mood Pictures. I had written an extensive behind-the-scenes report on the blog and I also mentioned it on the British Spanking Forum. One poster there was evidently so shocked by looking at Mood's site that she wrote a long (2.000 words), rambling, furious post condemning them and myself. Most of it was just a rant about how horrified she was to discover that such videos even existed, how no adjective could describe her disgust, how she felt the urge to format her hard drive after just looking at some trailers. The one argument she used, if you can call it that, was that any model willing to do such a video surely had to be mentally ill, that therefore, the videos were not consensual "since the people involved are not fully mentally healthy", and that anyone watching such stuff had to have an even worse mental illness.

I had seen similar rants before, but this one was even dumber and more vicious than the norm. The poster freely admitted that she was "not a psychiatrist, psychologist, or even remotely associated with the mental health profession", but insisted that her assertions had to be right because they were based on "common sense". It really was pathetically stupid. A whole bunch of me-too-sheep quickly jumped on to express their full agreement with the original poster, and before long, the thread was ablaze with all the usual urban legends about the exploitation of starving, drugged Eastern European girls...

I knew it probably would not do any good, but since I had been called out by name, I replied to the thread. I  did so in a consciously polite and diplomatic manner, saying that I could understand how not everyone likes severe caning videos and how some people might be totally turned off by them, but that this was a matter of taste and that the assertions which had been made about the moral aspects were unfounded. The videos were, in fact, fully consensual, there was no exploitation of desperate poverty involved, most models were people who wanted rather than needed extra money, they knew what they were doing and they were treated respectfully on the set. In light of this, I concluded, the OP's theory about all the models being mentally ill did simply not have any basis in fact. Neither did her theory that only a sociopath could enjoy such videos. Many kinky people play hard and like hard videos, and they are nice, caring people. Anyone who knows me in person will tell you that consent, decency and respect for the spankees are of the utmost importance for me.

But, as expected, it really did not do much good. In fact, the personal attacks from the OP and others intensified, calling me a "psychopath", a "sick, sick man" and (my favourite) a "true Teutonic demagogue". Some accused me of just being on an advertising mission for Mood, as if I got a profit from every video they sold (I obviously don't). My arguments were largely ignored or misrepresented. Because I was obviously a bad guy, I was not worth listening to. They did not feel like they had to reply to the content of my posts or even read them. Eventually, after wasting far too much time repeating myself and trying to explain myself, I resigned myself to the fact that it was futile and I just gave up on the discussion.

It wasn't all bad. I received a good deal of support as well, posters agreeing with my point of view, saying that they found the generalisations of the OP judgmental and offensive. In the end, it was probably a fifty-fifty split, pretty remarkable for a forum that did not usually cater to "severe" tastes. I also received messages in private, encouraging me to not be bothered by the people attacking me, who were apparently known for being insufferable, anyway. I would have been even more thankful if the private messengers had come out into the open, but I could understand that not everyone wanted to make themselves a target.

On balance, though, it was a very hurtful and draining experience for me. Not so much because of the personal attacks per se. Actually, I regretted that some of the most colourful insults (like the "true Teutonic demagogue") were deleted by the moderators. I would have been happy to see them remaining as a testament to who was really behaving psychotically here. No, what really hurt me was simply the stupidity of it all, the disappointment on a human level. The fact that a whole mob of people - spankos, who should have known a little bit about the dangers of prejudice and the merits of tolerance - was willing to jump on me based on totally faulty assumptions, without even listening to what I had to say for myself. When so many people are behaving in such a painfully stupid, painfully judgmental way, it just bothers me. I mean, it just undermines your faith in democracy, doesn't it? Makes you wonder whether universal suffrage is really such a good idea.

I can brush off name-calling, but what infuriates me a great deal is when people just keep ignoring or misrepresenting what I write. I don't expect anyone to agree with my point of view. But if you are going to reply to me, you might at least do me the courtesy of reading, and trying to understand, what I actually write. I remember how, in another discussion about severe play, I probably explained five or six separate times how my own moral position was that 1) all participants in BDSM have to be consenting adults, and 2) no permanent physical damage must be inflicted. And still, several pages into the thread, people kept going: "But OMG, what about mutilation and murder? WE HAVE TO DRAW THE LINE SOMEWHERE!" So I resigned myself to the fact that I was talking to idiots, and I gave up on that discussion, too.

What helped me to put everything into perspective, and to put it all behind me emotionally, was the realisation that going through a series of painful, frustrating discussions is an experience which most performers in spanking videos make almost as soon as they appear on the scene. It almost seems like an initiation ritual of sorts. In chapter seven of her autobiography Dances With Werewolves, Niki Flynn recounts how she had just made her first film The Exchange Student and started chatting about it on online forums: "Most of the members were friendly and welcoming and many were interested in hearing about the shoot. I loved reliving the experience, so I was happy to talk about it. What I wasn't prepared for were the attacks." Some people would confront Niki with all kinds of wild claims and accusations. How her fantasies were sick and how the films she made promoted violence towards women. How the canings in Lupus videos were all fake, anyway, just make-up. How she was not really a spanko at all, but just a publicity whore making videos for the fame and money. Et cetera.

Other performers in spanking videos talked to me about similar experiences of theirs. It always seems to be the same arc. You make your first film. You are still brimming from the experience and start talking about it on forums or in chats. Most people are friendly, asking you about the shoot and wanting to know more. A few attack you, though, and there is always at least one who writes a lengthy diatribe about how you are a psychopath, a whore or generally the scum of the earth. That takes you by surprise, it hurts, and for a while, you focus only on the negative stuff. Eventually, you put it into perspective and you just divorce yourself from it emotionally.

With hindsight, it occurred to me that the OP and the others attacking me at British Spanking had not really been talking about me at all. They had a certain preconceived notion of what someone who watches severe caning videos (or, even worse, participates in them!) must be like, and that preconceived notion was impossible to shake. I had to be a psychopath, could not possibly be anything else. No matter what I said or did, there was nothing that would have changed their opinion. In their minds, liking these videos and being a nice guy were simply irreconcilable. It was beyond the horizon of their imagination.

Once I realised that, any sense of anger or hurt that I still carried inside of me after the discussion just evaporated. I felt a sense of pity for these people (honest, non-condescending pity) because they were so limited. But I did not feel any anger towards them anymore. Moreover, my impulse to publicly confront their claims evaporated as well.

When I had replied to threads which claimed that severe caning videos were immoral, or exploitative, or fake, I had never done so because I honestly expected to convince the people who started such threads. I had replied to them because I feared that, if I did not, their nonsensical ideas would spread and other people would believe them. So I addressed every such post, every false claim made in them, every flawed argument... It took me a while to realise what an overkill it was. The point is, people are going to believe what they believe. Some people are going to have an informed opinion, others are going to believe nonsense. It is not my job to correct all the latter or to address every single nonsensical claim that is made somewhere on the web.

If people want to inform themselves about Eastern European CP videos, they can read my behind-the-scenes reports and those of other performers who have worked there, like Adele Haze or the aforementioned Miss Flynn. If people want to find out whether I am a psychopath or not, they can read my blog where I have written a ton of stuff over the past three years about who I am, what I do, my thoughts and feelings. It's all on the record for those who are interested. And if some people, on the other hand, choose to persist with chatter about evil / mentally deranged / fake caning videos, that is their prerogative. I can't be bothered with it and I honestly don't care about it anymore.

So, these days, I just ignore blatantly stupid opinions. I only respond to them when they are voiced by a commenter on my blog (which happens extremely rarely, because I have an intelligent audience here) or if they are voiced by a commenter in my immediate "neighbourhood", on the blogs which I visit regularly (also very rare, because the blogs I like have generally intelligent audiences as well). I care about the intellectual environment in my neighbourhood. As for the big wide web, a lot of nonsense is being talked there in many places, and will forever be talked there in many places. Not my concern, not my job to dispel it. Leave it to the people who live there.

Anyway, that's my take on it. If you like, share your personal views about the whole subject. Did you ever get stressed out by one discussion you were involved in in particular? Did you emotionally divorce yourself from it, and if so, how? Do you still get involved in weirdo debates, or can't you be bothered with them anymore? Let us know your thoughts and experiences.