There, got your attention. I've done some odd things in my time but sitting in my car in a hotel car park in Tunbridge Wells talking about sado-masochistic sex to the BBC World Service has to rate high among them. The WORLD HAVE YOUR SAY programme was debating the Max Mosley case and whether your private life should affect your job. One of the other guests was a conservative blogger from the US, whose moralising provoked me into adopting a rather more controversial (and liberal) position than I had intended.
I took the line that what you get up to you in your own bedroom (or a hotel room come to that matter) is no one's business but your own unless
a) it's illegal
b) it's not consensual
c) you have previously moralised about such activities
It was a fairly sparky and heated discussion and provoked 213 comments on their BLOG. If you want to listen to it click HERE and scroll forward to about 6.33pm i.e. 30 minutes into the programme.
55 comments:
I gotta say Iain, the idea of you observing, er taking a view on, S&M orgies made my evening. What would DD and Widdie say? eh?
Absolutely right. The British Conservatives should never stray towards the moralising of US conservatives.
Today, in Britain, it is Labour that is the preaching, moralising, nannying party, but thankfully they'll be out in under two years.
I suppose the big problem for Mosley is he just happens to have Britain's answer to Hitler as a father but as far as whips, chains, prostitutes and uniforms go it should be compulsory in public life. After all you know where you are when your politicians, leaders of industry and general high flyers are chained to a bed underneath a rather large man or woman wearing inordinant amounts of leather and going by the name of Heidi. Or is that just me, ho hum off for a few strokes around the pool.
Seriously, what happens (sexually) in private should stay private. Anyone seeking to profit through selling pictures to the press should be prosecuted for Invasion of Privacy, or whatever law is applicable.
I'm also very uncomfortable with people being prosecuted for downloading images on the internet.
I'm aware they're helping to support paedophilia porn, but the idea of punishing "thought crime" is a rather sinister development.
quite right too - S&M is clearly the new homosexuality, something it's fine for unconnected people to take a view on and try to ban. I will never understand why people on the Right with otherwise good libertarian credentials think they're entitled to weigh in on what other people do in the bedroom... and yes I do include in that Nazi-themed S&M done in conditions one might reasonably assume to be private...
Mmm, did the thought of Widdecombe provoke all this. I can see her in her black leathers now.
I was going to make jokes revolving around her cats but I'm afraid I have to go and wash my mind out with soap and hot water.
You were definately the only sensible person speaking there, Iain. What he does in private is of absolutely no concern to anyone else. If anyone feels uncomfortable working with him after that, then I'm afraid that is their problem; he's not to blame for that. And the only responsibilities he has are those set out formally in his contract of employment; we can't thrust on him our own views of private morality and expect him to live up to them. Also, like you said, we've all done things we'd wish to remain kept a secret; it's just hypocritical to judge him.
It's the day for it today what with Kevin Greening's inquest verdict too. I don't care what people get up to in private if it is not illegal or non consensual. However there are some jobs in which a being a blackmail risk would affect others, so if people are going to indulge in S/M then they need to be comfortable with the fact that it may become public knowledge and therefore an issue if they choose to have a career in a sensitive area.
Forgive me if I am pedantic, but you were perfectly entitled to adopt that position. It's not liberal - in the accepted "liberal sense" - it's libertarian, which has far more in common with conservative ideology than the so called "liberal" nany types.
Nothing wrong with a bit of S & M, even as a threesome but, as was pointed out in the Telegraph, Mr. Mosley was foolish for being surprised that a woman who would sell sex would also sell her 'story'.
Not that this has anything whatever to do with motor racing and those " major backers " of the sport who rant against the decision for Mr. Mosely to keep his job should be given their marching orders (pref. Goosestep).
Now David Mellor in a Chelsea shirt - that should be illegal, surely couldn't have been consensual (how could she?!) and he actually supports Chelsea. That's got to be immoral.
I digress - but not much - as Max Clifford would say "if you're in the public eye should expect to have every detail of your private life examined" - especially if he's paid good money to create the story in the first place so he can go on to rake an even bigger sum from you selling your side of the story.
It's all got up by the tabloids, mark my words!
If you are an F1 fan, it's hard to see the Max issue in isolation.
The man is a control freak and has a power base shored up by fear and loathing. Teams are regulated with draconian fines and punishments. Never mind the $100m levied on McLaren. The Williams Tech Director was fined a thousand euros for turning up 5 minutes late at a press conference.
So, when you see Max whipping a girl with a belt and counting 'eins, zwei, drei . . . you know it isn't just a part of his personality he reserves for his private life.
I agree, Iain, about being liberal when it comes to sexual preferences. But when it comes to Max, it is about serious personality disorders that can't be divorced from business life.
And as liberal as one might want to be, whipping the living daylights out of women is at best a minority sport and you wouldn't cultivate many friends by so doing.
Damon Hill has a good piece today about how hopeless his task is to save Silverstone - and a lot of British Industry and tech around there - while Max is President.
How did he win the vote?
The FIA is just like the EU. The big clubs - the net contributors - have as much say as the little clubs who get all the dosh. The Moldovan 50cc Moped club will have voted for Max, for example.
But, don't start me talkin'
That makes you Not Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells.
The Mosley issue had little to do with his private life (though plenty of car companies particularly Honda and Toyota were concerned associating with him could hurt their image in Japan) but a lot more to do with the fact he and Ecclestone screwed everyone in the motorsport world over at some point and it presented an opportunity to rid themselves of the old bastard. He'll retire some time this year or next.
Funny you mention that...
Kevin Greening...' was found dead having indulged in unorthodox sexual behaviour involving restraint equipment and illegal drugs. I will say this is a case of misadventure.'
Mr Greening had been in a black leather sling attached to scaffolding in the bedroom of the Wandsworth flat occupied by his boyfriend Sean Griffin on the day he died, Westminster Coroner's Court heard.
Mr Griffin told the inquest he had become concerned about Mr Greening when he noticed that his face was pale and the area around his mouth was grey.
At the time, the inquest heard, Mr Greening was still wearing a rubber suit and still had cling film and 'gaffer tape' around his trunk.
Mr Griffin said: 'I brought him into the living room which had proper overhead lights because I wanted to check to see whether I could see his pupils dilate.'
Breaking down at one point, Mr Griffin said: 'Kevin and I had a very happy and very vigorous sex life. It was not conventional by heterosexual norms perhaps but it was a sex life which was vigorous and imaginative and we enjoyed each other.'
The inquest heard that tests on Mr Greening's blood after his death found traces of cocaine, ecstasy and GHD.
Mmmm.
Hmmm, thought I, when I read your "Sado Mascochistic orgies" heading. Excellent, Iain's done a piece about Broon's self inflicted S&M sufferings at the despatch box during PMQs.
But this is about sex, Iain...what a swizz :)
All healthy people like to play games. If it's S and M that's fine by me. I don't like football. I don't like S and M, but go ahead, it is none of my concern. It is really only imaginative sex play so what's the problem?
Max Moseley's crime is trying to pretend that he wasn't playing "concentration camp". He got caught, but trying to lie his way out of it was just silly.
People have mentioned Kevin Greening, and I must say his case is perhaps of more interest. Why is it that someone with talent, with a partner, with money and fame feels the need to pump himself full of drugs? I mean, what the feck is the BBC doing condoning this? They clearly know their presenters are up to it. Can't they function without stuffing white powder up their noses? What sad pathetic lives these guys must lead if they can't live without drugs. As for the scaffolding and the duct tape and the cling wrap, if you need that lot to get off you must be very sad indeed. Its more boring than stamp collecting.
As for Max, he has lost a lot of friends in F1 over this, primarily Bernie Ecclestone, and perhaps his wife and family. It is not something we should concern ourselves with, but if it was an MP it would be quite different.
11:02 - Downloading images of sexual abuse of children is not free. They have to give a credit card number. So they are paying to look at, and finance, abuse. So if you approve of "downloading images" (to finance the kidnap and degradation of children), you are a child pornographer and an outcast. It's not "thought crime" if you've paid for it. It's a real crime.
Agree with WW - had he been an MP, it would have been of concern due to the blackmail possibilities, but he's not, so let's face it, who cares?
I would normally agree that what happens in someone's private life between consenting adults is their business. It becomes a different matter however, when such activities impinge on the job that he holds, to the detriment of the organisation he represents. As president of the FIA he has to accept that while many people will have no problem with what he did, there will be other countries also represented by the FIA that take a rather different view.
It has already happened that he was not welcome at several recent Grand Prix, and that surely must mean that he cannot carry out his duties as president effectively. He should have recognised this and resigned, but as seems to be common these days, he places his own self interest above the organisation he represents.
The FIA may well come to regret this decision, as will many motorsport fans.
a) it's illegal
b) it's not consensual
c) you have previously moralized about such activities.
Now you know its not that simple Iain, even though I agree with your basic point.
You can do what you like as far a the law is concerned thats one thing given A and B.
C has got nothing in particular to do with anything, unless certain individuals believe it does.
Its not up to you or me to personally decide whether this lucky bastard should retain his post or not. It is up to the people that employ him or if he was a politician elect him.
They not only have a right to sack anyone they wish they also have a right to know as much about the LUCKY bastards personal life as they can legally find out. If it does not bother them quite how LUCKY a pervert they are employing or even if he lies about it, then good for them or not, it really is none of our business.
So its OK Iain you can be as much of a raging pervert as you wish as far as I am concerned, you can even lie about it. However I can not and should not answer for the opinions of others and neither should you on this matter.
Have you ever considered becoming PPC for Dulwich and South Norwood?
The place is full of raging perverts I can assure you.
Atlas
Personally I was bitterly disappointed at the outcome of the Mosely case. It seems that he did not indulge in a Nazi-style orgy after all.
Such a shame. It rather brightened my day poring over the newspaper reports and watching the video. Indeed I'd say that it added greatly to the culture of the nation. It's precisely the sort of thing that should be displayed in the Tate Modern. Maybe there's a case for a new GCSE subject here too.
If you're going to have a vote of confidence on your leadership of an organisation, rule number one is make sure that the majority of people who are voting are your "placemen."
These people know that, without your patronage, they would never have got to their own positions of power and so you can be sure that they'll never question your judgement in public - however bad a job you're doing.
Knowing that they cannot be removed from power by conventional methods makes megalomaniacs behave in ever-more extreme ways until they ultimately self-destruct.
This is Gordon Brown we're all talking about here, isn't it?
Weasel: Kevin Greening wasn't on he staff of the BBC at the time of his death; and I don't think it has "condoned" what happened to him, just reported it.
I think the problem is that Max Mosley is the President of an International organisation. Once his private life became known about then effectively he is non persona grata in a number of countries where his organisation operates e.g Dubai, Malaysia . It doesnt mattter whether his personal interests should have remained private or not, you cant turn the clock back and I doubt very much whether the bosses of BMW, Ferrari etc will be happy to appear with him in public. He is a busted flush and should have gone with some honour.
Iain I strongly disagre with your very silly point (c). On your twisted logic no-one could complain about murder if they had done it themselves. (a) and (b) are good enough reaosns, hypocrisy is not. Act your age, and stop using stupid left-wing points.
Generally agree, Iain. This has been a sad spectacle of the British press at its most judgemental, hypocritical and moralising.
I know (or knew) almost nothing about S&M, and am quite unable to see the attractions of spanking. But having investigated this story in some detail (I was even sent a court order for my pains) I have been convinced that the events that actually took place in the "dungeon" bore little or no relation to the manner in which they were reported. The five women involved have been casually described as "prostitutes" and "hookers", which would seem to be very far from the truth. Four of them are close friends, who have a wide circle of admirers and have raised large sums of money for charity. One in particular turned out to be a woman of quite exceptional intelligence, talent and accomplishment, who happens to enjoy having her bottom spanked. They deny that there was any overt "Nazi" theme, or that it was in any sense an "orgy"; and I am inclined to believe them.
The circumstances in which this story reached the News of the World are rather murky, and there has been plenty of fanciful and ill-informed speculation. But Mosley's private tastes are, at the end of the day, his own affair.
What this saga shows, more than anything, is the knee-jerk intolerance for the "other" that comes so easily, even in a supposedly liberal society.
It's curious how Americans, when it comes to sex, manage to be prudish, prurient and hypocritical all at the same time.
Dunno what's worse, Max or Gordon said...
"whipping the living daylights out of women...wouldn't cultivate many friends"
You'd get plenty of women friends.
verity said...
"Downloading images of sexual abuse of children is ...[not] "thought crime" if you've paid for it. It's a real crime."
Only if they are images of real people. The reason it's a thought crime is that many images are cgi, and even drawings are to be included.
I always suspected that within this body of a Tory there lies a heart that beats liberally.
Anonymous said...
On your twisted logic no-one could complain about murder if they had done it themselves
It's an important principle of English law that you can't consent to be the victim of a crime.
This was re-iterated in a case a couple of years ago when the willing participants in some (unspecified) S&M activity required hospital treatment.
Look here Doyle
"My Views on Sado Masochistic Orgies "
When I read this I assumed it to be just another thread about the House of Commons and then I realised we were being required to discorse on filthy muck -
plus ca change----
Since no-one has done it yet, I'm throwing in the P.J O'Rourke quote:
"No one has ever had a fantasy about being tied to a bed and sexually ravished by someone dressed as a liberal.".
More seriously, Max Mosley's predecessor at the FIA - Jean-Marie Balestre - was in the SS, despite being French.
Scratch point a.
Or are you saying that when homosexuality was illegal it was legitimately the state's (or anyone else's) business if you slept with another man?
Illegality is just a way for the ruling class to ensure something is their business.
Trouble is, although no crime has been committed this is a sleazy episode in a business relying on image.
If leading public figures like Dave, Nick or Gordon were revealed to have unusual recreational tastes I doubt it would be advantageous for them.
Regarding sexual proclivities, I am both unable to understand the appeal of S&M and so immoral I feel reluctant to judge. If you go away on holiday don't ever ask me to look after your thompsons gazelle.
To blackacre, I assume '...beats liberally.' was a pun.
Your trokia is unworkable, and circular.
A better way of looking at this is to say that everyone has a right to privacy. That right obviously covers intimate sexual relations. Any consensual sexual relationship between adults is private and you would in my view need a compelling public interest to publish details of any such relationship. For example a public figure who presents himself as happily married to the wold but in fact has a penchant for call girls cannot claim that his use of their services is private.
Now an orgy is by definition not private. A number of people are involved. This cannot be said to be an intimate relationship.
For me this issue has nothing to do with morals. I am happy to leave those to the Bishops. Rather I worry that powerful and corrupt individuals will shelter their sordid conduct behind an extended notion of privacy when the press tries to expose it. That is the real issue.
bj
"Weasel: Kevin Greening wasn't on he staff of the BBC at the time of his death; and I don't think it has "condoned" what happened to him, just reported it."
Maybe you are technically right but you would be hard pressed to argue that he wasn't drugging himself to the eyeballs when he was with the BBC. The point i made, rather clumsily, was that he is the latest in a line of BBC types such as Mark Speight, Graham Norton,Nicky Taylor, Nigel Wrench, Angus Deayton, Richard Bacon, Grooverider....da de da de da..do i have to go on?
What planet are you on BJ?
The BBC, like any organisation, will know it's employees take drugs. They will also know who they are. Drug abuse is illegal. The BBC is a publicly funded (I have to pay a fecking licence fee) corporation, and yet they are in complete denial that there is a problem, just as they have recently whitewashed their hands over the ridiculous fees they pay to prats like Jonanthan Ross.
(See Janet Daley's recent piece in the Telegraph)
The corporation's tolerance of this type of lifestyle among its high profile employees says a lot about where they are in terms of their moral compass, not to mention their political bias. Generally speaking, I am fed up of being propagandised and preached to by an organisation that is overly populated by decadents, perverts and lefties.
well it WAS illegal, they were prostitutes.
Machiavelli 11:25 - Says they were prostitutes, so it was illegal.
Prostitution is not illegal in Britain, for God's sake! Soliciting and making a pest of yourself on the public streets is illegal, but prostitution is perfectly legal.
CEOs and politicians have been forced to resign for lesser scandals, I don't know why it should be different for Max. Image and sponsorship money is very important to F1, now a lot people involved in the sport don't even want to be seen with him. I think that's enough reason for him to step down.
I don't know if you guys follow F1, Max is an axxhole. If you have followed his woeful responses since the scandal broke, you would know he's an incompetent, unprofessional axxhole.
I would normally agree that what happens in someone's private life between consenting adults is their business. It becomes a different matter however, when such activities impinge on the job that he holds, to the detriment of the organisation he represents. As president of the FIA he has to accept that while many people will have no problem with what he did, there will be other countries also represented by the FIA that take a rather different view.
right, by that logic, it would be perfectly ok for a company that did a lot of business with strict moslem countries to discriminate against homosexuals, wouldn't it?
But, let's face it, when BMW and Audi are amongst those complaining, you just have to laugh. I'm amazed they managed to issue a complaint with a straight face.
Oh, and can we remember that he never meant it to be broadcast, so anyone crying 'offensive' should direct their complaint elsewhere.*
I'm prepared to go further than Iain. If it is consensual for all parties involved and you're not publicly trying to prevent others doing it then I couldn't care less what goes on behind closed doors, and whether its legal is moot.
Verity - Your comment that "they have to pay by credit card" is not only misleading, but quite dangerous.
A well-known actor (Chris some-one) in England recently complained the judge had been too harsh on him, and had wrongly judged that he must have paid by credit card for the appalling videos he'd looked at on-line. Chris was adamant that he'd obtained them freely.
What you are doing, inadvertently without doubt, is perpetuating the myth that on the internet, if it's free, it must be legal. Not so.
Verity said...Prostitution is not illegal in Britain, for God's sake! Soliciting and making a pest of yourself on the public streets is illegal, but prostitution is perfectly legal.
Indeed, it would be interesting to see how they framed legislation to make it illegal, if they ever tried...
4) It was extreme NAZI overtones
Does your view change at all if this S&M orgy happens to involve dominatrices and dominated communicating in German and with some Nazi role-playing?
These are of course aspects of the events that are somethingly contested. But would that make a difference to your view Iain it 'twere true?
And is including a spies' wife and a journalists' snout among your Valkyries something of an error?
And what if these FIA chiefs who let him off and Max himself are freemasons like the chap who gave you (or rather Conservative Home) the gossip you passed off as a Labour Party campaign press release yesterday?
wrinkled weasel said...
"I am fed up of being propagandised and preached to by an organisation that is overly populated by decadents, perverts and lefties."
Apart from the 'lefties' bit, this could also describe the Conservative party.
Windsor Tripehound said...
"It's an important principle of English law that you can't consent to be the victim of a crime."
Not always. There are exceptions.
"This was re-iterated in a case a couple of years ago when the willing participants in some (unspecified) S&M activity required hospital treatment."
Conviction overturned on appeal.
Conviction overturned on appeal.
Do you mean R v Brown?
I didn't know it had been overturned if you did. Hope so. If you read what the trial Judge (James Rant - what a name) one can't quite help feeling that the fact that it was a gay masochistic orgy had an effect...
DES - who cares about the Nazi overtones? He's not actually committing genocide, is he? Nor celebrating it, any more than women - or men, let's not be sexist - who have rape fantasies are 'celebrating rape'. It's just what happens to get him off. You may think that makes him an unpleasant individual, but many people are guilty of that, and we can't legislate against all of them.
"right, by that logic, it would be perfectly ok for a company that did a lot of business with strict moslem countries to discriminate against homosexuals, wouldn't it?"
Max Mosely is employed (albeit unpaid, at least by them) to represent the FIA. As such, when many of the people he has to deal with refuse to speak to him then the FIA has a problem.
As a holder of an effectively political office, Mosely has to be aware that everything he does will have an impact on his role and how it is perceived. If he does things that damage that, then it is right for him to be replaced.
In an ideal world, his private life would not become public knowledge. In an ideal world, his private life becoming public knowledge would not have an effect on his job. We do not live in an ideal world.
It is interesting that it now appears that the support Mosely had in the vote came from organisations representing about 5% of the members. One wonders what they might possibly have to lose...
As a holder of an effectively political office, Mosely has to be aware that everything he does will have an impact on his role and how it is perceived. If he does things that damage that, then it is right for him to be replaced.
You haven't actually answered my point. You said "As president of the FIA he has to accept that while many people will have no problem with what he did, there will be other countries also represented by the FIA that take a rather different view.". And I'm not disagreeing.
But I pointed out that by that logic an openly gay man could be prevented from heading up an organisation that did a lot of business with strict Moslem countries. I'm not saying we live in an ideal world, I'm asking if you would defend discrimination against someone on the grounds of their sexuality in the name of realpolitik.
If you would, fine. If you wouldn't then you can't in this case.
I think Dirk Bogarde, (playing a character rather interestingly called Max) and Charlotte Rampling dealt rather more effectively with sado-masochism in a Nazi context in 'The Night Porter', than this Max and his spanking prostitutes collective.
However you regard Mosley's private morals, the fact is that he is head of an umbrella organisation representing thousands of people who are rather more interested in fuel injection than flogging; the question is, can he represent their interests effectively, or at all, if from now on the press and media hound him continuously on his preference for leather belts as against drive belts?
Jilted John said...
"Do you mean R v Brown?"
So, I don't know the name, and I may, on reflection, have been referring to a different case to that referred to by Windsor Tripehound.
The one I meant involved nails and hammers and bits of anatomy that women don't have. I took an interest in it as it brought water to me eyes! Far as I know the conviction was overturned.
The one I meant involved nails and hammers and bits of anatomy that women don't have
yep, that's Brown.
and yes, I read that with legs firmly crossed.
What I don't really understand is why Max Mosely still wants the job.
Still.....he is paying prostitutes for sex which involves him being punished. This is not something I could conceivably want to indulge in, but if the women are not sex slaves but willing participants and he is paying them well, and it does not affect his ability to do his job, why the fuss?
I gather it is because there is some suggestion of Nazi style rituals although he claims this is not true.
Mosley got caught out by an illegal sting and should not have to resign as a result. The arabic states being sniffy about it is just amazing.
The most interesting fact to emerge to my mind is that one of the sado masochistic prostitutes involved turns out to be the wife of an an MI5 officer. What sort of security checks do they carry out on them nowadays (MI5 officers that is?)
"But I pointed out that by that logic an openly gay man could be prevented from heading up an organisation that did a lot of business with strict Moslem countries. I'm not saying we live in an ideal world, I'm asking if you would defend discrimination against someone on the grounds of their sexuality in the name of realpolitik.
I believe there is a difference. A gay man (I hope I am not speaking out of turn here) no more chooses to be gay than a black man chooses to be black. Discrimination against either would not be acceptable because it is not a matter of personal choice, but of who they are. An individuals behaviour is a matter of personal choice.
That it took place in private would normally mean no-one would be any the wiser, in which case fine. I have no particular issue with what he did - I don't think he should resign solely on that basis, rather that now it has become public knowledge, it is preventing him from carrying out his duties as he should, and the FIA should have removed him in their own interest.
I would hope a public body such as the FIA would respond to objections against someone based solely on their sexuality robustly - I place little credence in the moralising of religions in such matters, when they appear to be so full of hypocrites.
My objection against Mosely continuing is a practical one, not an ideological one. He has become a liability. To use your example, if he happened to be homosexual, and was caught engaged in activities in public, as other public figures have been in the past, I would expect a similar reaction.
I guess what I am saying is, do what you like, but if you get caught don't expect others to like it.
Jilted John said...
"yep, that's Brown."
Okay. Sorry.
Post a Comment