Urophilia
May 31st, 2007 at 8:27 am by David FarrarAn interesting case in the Dom Post about a conviction under the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993 for DVDs which show urophilia.
What is interesting is that acts such as urophagia are not actually illegal, but films, videos or publications depicting such acts are illegal.
The FVPCA defines the following as objectionable in Section 3(2):
A publication shall be deemed to be objectionable for the purposes of this Act if the publication promotes or supports, or tends to promote or support,—
(a) The exploitation of children, or young persons, or both, for sexual purposes; or
(b) The use of violence or coercion to compel any person to participate in, or submit to, sexual conduct; or
(c) Sexual conduct with or upon the body of a dead person; or
(d) The use of urine or excrement in association with degrading or dehumanising conduct or sexual conduct; or
(e )Bestiality; or
(f )Acts of torture or the infliction of extreme violence or extreme cruelty.
Now all the activities bar (d) is a crime under the Crimes Act. Specifically
(a) child sex -s132
(b) rape – s128
(c) Necrophilia – s150
(e) Bestiality – s143
(f) Torture/extreme violence – s188
But (consensual) sexual activity which involves urine or faeces is not a crime, yet am image of it, is an offence.
It suggests to me that either such activities should be made illegal, or depictions of them should be made legal. This issue was in fact raised at select committee when Parliament last amended the law. I was one of the submitters – not on that issue, but on how to make the law workable for the Internet. The impression I got from the select committee was they they realised the law is somewhat of an anomaly, but no MP really wanted to be a crusader to stand up for the rights of people who enjoy videos of golden showers etc.
Personally I find anything involving urine or faeces pretty damn disgusting and while I’m pretty broadminded at what I will try, both of those activities are on my never ever list. But I’m not a fan of things being banned just because I don’t like them. And as I have said – they are not actually banned – only images or videos of them are banned.
Related posts:
- Immigration Consistency
- Two years jail in Finland for Insensitivity towards Islam
- In support of Joe Glenn
- Truth in Crime Stats
May 31st, 2007 at 4:05 pm
Written words encouraging them would also be banned.
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 2:50 am
Other parts of pornographys are banned due to bad taste to. For example:
Insertion of a wooden chair into a womans vagina.
Porno where a woman is degraded.
Pornography which not necessarily has underage women in the film but condones or is seen to encourage such behaviour.
Now I do believe such images should be banned. However if a woman consentially wants to stick a whatever in her wherever, so long as its behind closed doors I have no problem.
I do have one question for DF:
Given that (consensual) sexual activity which involves a 16 year old or 17 year old is not a crime, yet am image of it, is an offence. Should the age for which one can pose in pornography be lowered to 16? Or should sex under the age of 18 be made illegal?
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 7:06 am
NZ – I’m comfortable with it being 18 to star in porn. Full rights of adulthood tend to come in at 18 not 16. Sex is one of those rights you get early but not making porn.
Also the age issue is complex as a 19 year old can look 15 etc etc. It is different to say bestiality where it is clear whether a scene breaks the law or not.
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 7:22 am
Libertarianz DID submit that censorship laws should only ban recording of events as actual crimes – and David Cun(t)liffe said “just because the US does this doesn’t mean we should, why should we follow the US”. The prick wouldn’t even engage on it, even though it is patently absurd that people can engage in “water sports” but can’t even write an erotic story about it.
The age matter is curious if only because I am pretty certain that with webcams and phone cameras there is a huge amount of illegal porn being created by teenagers themselves producing images of themselves in mirrors and their own genitalia. Myspace and Bebo have been full of it, but nobody dare talk about the teenagers producing their own exhibitionism porn.
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 7:35 am
I’m into flagellation, necrophilia and bestiality.
Am I flogging a dead horse?
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 8:22 am
come to think of it..
urophilia would be the natural fetish of choice for the right/national..?..wouldn’t it..?
you lot so like giving the rest of us ‘golden showers’..eh..?
(wether we are ‘willing participants’..or not..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 8:47 am
You can have sex using urine and shit?
Please, please, don’t tell me how. The day is far too young and I want to keep my breakfast down.
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 9:02 am
Congratulations philu for the most idiotic posting ever on kiwiblog.
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 9:13 am
The golden shower fetishists may still be safe – clause (d) has the added requirement of “association with degrading or dehumanising conduct or sexual conduct”.
So if everyone is smiling and clearly a willing participant then presumably the material would be unobjectionable??
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 9:19 am
It is sad when Phil feels the need to bring politics into a non political post. Sad, yet not unexpected.
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 10:24 am
The thing I find most anomalous about porn laws is the ‘promotes or supports’ part. So long as you say it’s wrong and you shouldn’t do it, you can depict pretty much anything at all. But the viewers still get to see it. The news is full of snuff, Special Victims is full of all manner of porn depictions, I’ve seen disgusting rape scenes in many mainstream movies.
Seems to me that porn providers could get around all the laws just by putting a waiver at the start saying “The makers of this film are totally disgusted by the following:”…In fact that is pretty much what a lot of them do say, since feelings of revulsion and disgust are part of a lot of fetishes.
Censor’s discretion will get around a lot of this, but the internet circumvents censors. Seems to me there’s a defence in saying “I downloaded this so I could get outraged about it”.
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 10:46 am
“Insertion of a wooden chair into a womans vagina.”
Chair????? Please tell me you meant chair leg.
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 10:54 am
I’m leery of any sort of ban on consensual adult sexual activity. Be it a ban on pornography representing this kind of fetish or an outright ban of the activities themselves.
After all, if I find golden showers, and such, to be revolting I just won’t buy (Ok, download) porn that depicts human bodily waste as sexy. But if there’s a market and it exists within the realms of the consensual then there is no valid reason to censor.
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 11:54 am
dpf said..
“.it is sad when Phil feels the need to bring politics into a non political post. Sad, yet not unexpected…”
fuck..!..you’ve just blown my ‘righties have no sense of humour’ thesis out the window..
i just had my second..(first was courtesy of mikey havoc on bfm..)..belly-laugh of the day..
(oh..!..hang on..!..involuntary humour dosen’t count..eh..?..as far as any rightie sense of humour is concerned..?
whew.!..so my thesis still stands..!
i can just imagine your pursed lips as you wrote the comment/riposte..dpf..
and shouldn’t you have tacked a little ‘sniff!’..on to the end..?
(heh-heh..!..)
(are you pre-menstrual at the mo’..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 1:00 pm
Lets see…does the activity involve consenting participants…? Yes? Cool….next,is anyone else forced to view it,subsidise it or accommodate it on their own property…? No? Cool..
Is the activity subjectively offensive to some people…? Who cares? Tell them to fuck off and go and read their bible or wring their hands over at NZ conservative…
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 1:24 pm
You are probably right as a matter of logic but I don’t care – very happy to leave that can of shit (deliberate pun) on the banned list.
Although I guess, what’s the harm, I don’t actually have to buy it.
No bugger it, a man has to have some blind prejudices. Poos and wease do not have any place in regards to sex and the law should protect art (porn) from being sullied in such a way!
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 2:02 pm
GPT, I think anal sex in porn is a bigger problem than scat and watersports. I blame Europeans.
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 4:42 pm
GOLDEN SHOWERS , GOLDEN SHOWERS ,IN every budget cullen PISSES on us.I DONT LIKE GETTING A CLARK/cullen GOLDEN SHOWER, AS SUNG BY THE MENTORS,,,
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 5:49 pm
“GPT, I think anal sex in porn is a bigger problem than scat and watersports. I blame Europeans.”
WTF!? …..Ben, is there something you wish to share with the group?
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 11:03 pm
David, and I mean this seriously. If you continue to “float” ideas like this (and the “incest between consenting adults” of a while back), your “Blue Libs” campaign, with which this will naturally be associated, will end up covered with shit.
But I guess it could be showered off….
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 11:47 pm
Of course it all seems moot when you consider the enormous list of fetishes people can indulge in or depict which are not banned in porn – a list that the conservative right (and left ala Jim Anderton) would both happily ban.
The test simply is – who is harmed by an adult buying a depiction of a legal act?
No one, some people are offended – but then it is back to the classic liberal argument that the state doesn’t exist to protect people from being offended. Meat eaters offend some vegetarians. Some religions offend those of other religions.
A simple policy would be to reform laws on pornography to legalise any depiction which does not involve the creation of victims in the recording. In other words, if you’re not filming or photographing a crime then it is not the business of the law (otherwise you’re an accessory of it). There would need to be a few extensions to cover invasions of privacy, and the inability of minors to consent to sexual images taken of themselves – but beyond that, what is legal in real life should be legal to record.
Vote:June 2nd, 2007 at 12:41 pm
Why on earth did a 49-year old prominent Wellington town planner, Robert John Schofield, two years ago import 11 illegal publications that included “fetish DVDs” containing “depictions of urophilia, a sexual fetish focused on urination”, as well as a computer text file that “described non-consensual [sexual] acts with a male described as a ‘teen’”? (Dominion Post 31/05).
Was his intention to test the censorship law to the limit as it applies to the depiction of urophilia and the rape and sexual abuse of male teens? Was he importing the material for personal use only, with no other agenda, or was it for the purposes of supply, distribution, display, or exhibition of the material to another person or persons? For example, was he intending to show this material to teenage boys to sexually arouse them and/or those involved in a compulsion/addiction to seek sexual satisfaction in urophilia?
Any person who is convicted of supplying an “objectionable publication” to any other person is liable “to a fine not exceeding $10,000″ under section 123(2) of the Films, Videos and Publications Classification Act 1993 (henceforth referred to as “the Act”). Schofield clearly took a huge risk importing such vile and lewd sexual material.
Customs officers intercepted all the publications Schofield imported via an overseas “Adult Only” internet website. Eleven of the items were ruled by Customs to be “prohibited imports” under s. 54(1)(aa) of the Customs and Excise Act 1996. They were determined to be “objectionable” publications “in the hands of all persons and for all purposes” as defined in section 2 of the Act. The multiple offences committed by Schofield were ones of “strict liability”.
Schofield had charges laid against him covering 11 items and appeared before Wellington District Court Judge Stephen Harrop on 22 March 2007. Judge Harrop convicted him on two charges he pleaded guilty to, relating to his “prohibited imports”, fining him $150 for one charge and $750 on the other and ordered him to pay $130 court costs. He also denied him name suppression, but this remained in place because of an appeal which was heard this week (see below).
Prior to this District Court appearance and soon after charges were first laid against Schofield, all the “prohibited publications” were submitted by the Wellington District Court to the Chief Censor’s Office for classification, under section 29 of the Act. Schofield, no doubt, hoped that the Office would sanction his “fetish DVDs” and other lewd and offensive material by classifying them “restricted to those 18 years of age and over” rather than imposing a total ban on them. The huge cost of this exercise, well in excess of $11,000, was covered by the Crown – yes by taxpayers! Disappointingly for Schofield the Chief Censor’s Office classified all the imported publications as “objectionable”: including six DVDs, one video, two computer files and three computer image files. Schofield had to cover all the costs of submissions made by his lawyer, on his behalf to the Office, with respect to the publications.
Unwilling to let the matter rest, Schofield chose to appeal all ten of the classification decisions to the Film and Literature Board of Review, a process that cost him personally close on $11,500 in application fees alone. On top of this was the legal bill for complex and lengthy submissions put to the Board by his lawyer, arguing that the material should not be banned. Again, disappointingly for Schofield, last year the Board upheld all of the decisions of the Chief Censor’s Office.
Again, not willing to let it rest there, Schofield appealed to the Wellington High Court against both Judge Harrop’s decisions on conviction and name suppression and he sought to be discharged without conviction. Again, disappointingly for Schofield, Justice Warrick Gendall confirmed all of Judge Harrop’s decisions this week in the High Court at Wellington, and refused to grant Schofield name suppression on the basis of open justice and refused to grant his request for a discharge without conviction which he said was argued on baseless grounds.
Defence lawyer Greg King told the High Court that Schofield had imported the illegal publications by post and via the Internet, not knowing the contents were illegal. Neither Judge Harrop nor Justice Gendall accepted this spurious defence line. The offences were ones of strict liability. It is noteworthy that experienced Customs officers know that the content of such lewd and explicit sexual material is always described in salacious and gratuitous detail to on-line potential buyers, particularly the “objectionable” content which serves as a magnet for obsessive consumers of hard-core pornography that includes urophilia and the sexual abuse of teenage boys.
Urolagnia (also known as urophilia or undinism) is a sexual fetish which participants derive sexual pleasure from urine and urination. These activities are often described by the euphemisms “golden showers” or “watersports”. (A fetish is an object whose presence is necessary for sexual satisfaction).
Lawyer Greg King argued for his client on appeal in the High Court, that the inclusion of urophilia in section 3(2) of the Act was an oddity because it was not illegal but images of it and descriptions of it were classed objectionable. King sought to show that the law was inconsistent – that it was an ass. This is the same flawed argument – the one based on perceived inconsistency – used by those who made submissions to the Government Administration Committee when it received submissions on the Films, Videos and Publications Classification Amendment Bill, that was enacted into law in 2005.
The Ministry of Justice responsible for the Act, together with the Department of Internal Affairs and the Chief Censor’s Office, all recommended to the Committee that section 3(2)(d) of the Act be moved out of the “deeming provisions” and be relegated to section 3(3) of the Act. S. 3(2)(d) states:
(2) A publication shall be deemed to be objectionable for the purposes of this Act if the publication promotes or supports or tends to promote or support – …
(d) the use of urine or excrement in association with degrading or dehumanising conduct or sexual conduct.
The Society made a robust submission to the Committee opposing the relegation of 3(2)(d) to s, 3(3) and in the end the status quo was upheld. Relegating it to s. 3(3) in the Act, the Society argued, would considerably weaken the Censor’s powers to ban degrading lewd and corrosive sexual material containing urophilia and coprophilia etc. To do so would not be in the “public good”. The Society argued before the Committee that it is the degrading sexual conduct that is integral to this so-called “fetish” activity that is “likely to be injurious to the public good” and thereby constitute the publication “objectionable”.
For over 25 years the Society for Promotion of Community Standards Inc. has sought to “focus [public] attention on the harmful nature and consequences of sexual promiscuity, obscenity, pornography and violence” and “uphold and press for the proper enforcement of applicable law and its amendment where the law is ineffective”. People addicted to hard-core porn who justify such perversions by claiming dependency on sexual fetishes, should seek professional and psychiatric help. ISPs should be required by law to block public access to such content that corrodes and corrupts minds, and destroys relationships.
Vote:June 2nd, 2007 at 12:48 pm
The Society for Promotion of Community Standards Inc. commends Wellington District Court Judge Stephen Harrop for upholding the law by charging a “prominent Wellington town planner” Robert John Schofield, 49, for importing by post via the internet, DVDs that were classified “objectionable” (Dominion Post 31/05). That decision issued on 22 March was upheld in the High Court at Wellington this week, by Justice Warwick Gendall who confirmed Judge Harrop’s decisions on both conviction and name suppression (see below).
The Society believes that all New Zealand Internet Service Providers (ISPs) should be required by law to black list all NZ and overseas websites that promote and support or tend to promote and support “objectionable” publications, including hard-core porn involving sexual conduct of a degrading, demeaning and dehumanising nature, as well as gratuitous and lewd depictions of sexual violence, incest, paedophilia, bestiality etc.
Schofield’s offences were ones of “strict liability” involved the importing of a number of “objectionable publications” under s. 54(1)(aa) of the Customs and Excise Act 1996. Under s. 123(2)(a) of the Films, Videos, and Publications Classifcation Act 1993 (“the Act”), every person who imports an “objectionable publication” for the purpose of “supply or distribution to any other person” is liable upon conviction “to a fine not exceeding $10,000″.
Judge Harrop refused to grant the offender name suppression and refused to grant him a discharge without conviction, based on the defence claim that the consequences of a conviction were out of all proportion to the seriousness of a conviction. He fined him $150 on one charge and $750 on another and ordered him to pay $150 court costs.
Judge Harrop had ruled that “people who wanted to hire Schofield’s services as a planner and resource management consultant would be concerned with the quality of his work, but people should also be able to know who they were dealing with in a work environment.” The offender’s name should therefore be made public and the nature of his offending specified. The decision on name suppression was upheld by Justice Gendall in the name of open justice.
Under s. 3(2)(d) of the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act (1993) a publication that “promotes or supports, or tends to promote or support… the use of urine … in association with degrading or dehumanising conduct or sexual conduct”, must be deemed “objectionable” by the Classification Office.
The Dominion Post reports that Schofield imported “fetish DVDs” which included “depictions of urophilia, a sexual fetish focused on urination”. Describing such a sexual perversion as a “fetish” (an object whose presence is necessary for sexual satisfaction) overlooks the fact that it inherently involves the degrading and dehumanising of participants in lewd sexual conduct. The law deems such content “objectionable” and affirms that it is “injurious to the public good”.
The text of one of the videos imported detailed non-consensual sex acts with a male “teen”. The publication was deemed “objectionable”.
Defence lawyer, Greg King, argued that because urophilia was considered a sexual fetish associated with urination, and was not illegal, then the depiction of such activities should also not be classified illegal, even though the Classification Act singled out the promotion of such activities as illegal. This defence argument failed.
For over 25 years the Society for Promotion of Community Standards has sought to “focus [public] attention on the harmful nature and consequences of sexual promiscuity, obscenity, pornography and violence” and “uphold and press for the proper enforcement of applicable law and its amendment where the law is ineffective”. People addicted to hard-core porn who justify such perversions by claiming dependency on sexual fetishes, should seek professional and psychiatric help. ISPs should be required by law to block public access to such content that corrodes and corrupts minds, and destroys relationships.
Vote:June 2nd, 2007 at 2:31 pm
sg5 – I have no official role with the Blue Libs so it’s pathetic to suggest what I advocate may discredit them
And it’s tough that some people can handle a sensible debate on issues like incest and urophilia. I haven’t actually advocated law changes for either, just acknowledged that there are issues with the existing laws.
Vote:June 2nd, 2007 at 7:45 pm
Bearhunter,perhaps it was a tiny “dolly-house” chair.Although quite why anybody over the age of 4 would wish to insert one in any orifice is beyond my comprehension.
Vote:ps …..I would pay good money to see the successful insertion of an adult sized chair.
June 2nd, 2007 at 11:16 pm
“Why on earth did a 49-year old prominent Wellington town planner, Robert John Schofield, two years ago import 11 illegal publications that included “fetish DVDs” containing “depictions of urophilia, a sexual fetish focused on urination”, as well as a computer text file that “described non-consensual [sexual] acts with a male described as a ‘teen’”
Because it turned him on, presumably imprisoning people for watching consenting adults engaging in legal activities turns SPCS on.
“Schofield clearly took a huge risk importing such vile and lewd sexual material.”
He almost certainly didn’t think it was illegal, as it involved adults and there is no crime to engage in urophilia. It may be vile and lewd to most people, but some people like it and after all – if it isn’t your body and doesn’t involve minors, then it shouldn’t be your business.
SPCS takes an obsessively unhealthy view of censorship, almost luridly reporting and describing in some detail cases that come before the legal system. It adopts a judgmental view of sexuality that condemns any sexual behaviour outside its strictly religious point of view. It is very telling that it spends more time worrying about a man peacefully watching a film of consenting adults urinating on each other, than it does about rape and domestic violence.
After all, if it were up to SPCS it would support the criminalisation of consensual homosexual behaviour and would want all depictions of sexuality in printed or other media to be not only clinical, but biased towards their own anti-sexual point of view.
Of course one wonders what motivates people who are so obsessed with banning pornography and know more about it that most! That in itself may be a sign of mental problems.
Vote:June 3rd, 2007 at 5:11 pm
Does this then make this post objectionable? And all of the readers guilty of breeching the act?
“A publication shall be deemed to be objectionable for the purposes of this Act if the publication promotes or supports, or tends to promote or support,—”
As this post does support the act, in that its calling for a lifting on restrictions!
Insane!
Vote:June 4th, 2007 at 11:30 am
Why is the state involved in what consenting adults do in the bedroom? Surely Robert’s taste in movies is his own business (as long as they’re not depicting illegal acts)?
And why is the SPCS concerned about the sexual preferences of consenting adults? Is it because they’re a Christian-based organisation that’s sadly homophobic and believes there’s a link between porn and child abuse?
Vote:June 5th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
The censorship law that included a ban on depicting watersports (and a raft of the other “perversions”) was written by the Shipley Government and simply included all the yuck things they could come up with.
As an aside, banning depictions of legal acts calls into question its corollary: the depiction of illegal acts. Why is murder illegal but its depiction standard fare on nightly TV screens?
Vote:June 6th, 2007 at 10:44 am
Sorry, that should read Bolger Government, with Jenny and Ruth assisting in pissing on the poor.
Vote:June 9th, 2007 at 3:54 am
Something that tends to get lost in this debate:
Pity the poor Customs Officer who turns up to work gets presented with a stack of dvds and gets told: “watch these and log precisely what objectionable things happen at exactly what point in the film”.
Vote:June 12th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
fbmqsczhv qanbsl kuibamyc tjsmgywnv yqatjope mclvyuj nqhx
Vote:June 12th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
fbmqsczhv qanbsl kuibamyc tjsmgywnv yqatjope mclvyuj nqhx
Vote:June 13th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
“Something that tends to get lost in this debate:
Pity the poor Customs Officer who turns up to work gets presented with a stack of dvds and gets told: “watch these and log precisely what objectionable things happen at exactly what point in the film”.”
Flatmates GF has to do this. Shes seen some pretty horrid shit in that job.
Vote:July 7th, 2007 at 11:01 pm
Flatmate’s GF should get a new job. No-one is forcing her to watch this stuff. Pity the poor Customs officer ditto. Bet the customs officers are pissed off cos the stuff they found wasn’t the really bad stuff.
Vote:Judge Harrop pissed all over Schofield and we have all viewed that in the paper – doesn’t that mean Harrop should be fined?
May 27th, 2009 at 10:21 pm
libertyscott is so on the ball with comment re scps, who are a bunch of dogooders who expect everyone to be squeaky clean. what makes them think they are flawless, the bloody idiots? everyones made different and have different preferences – not into this personally, but open minded enough to think that if its consensual, it should be ok if done safely and no one is being hurt. people should have the right to express themselves however way they want. and no one on this earth can ever measure the tolerance levels of society these days.
Vote: