London SE1 community website

Wicked 2

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Current: 9 of 11
Thursday 26 June 2003 11.54pm
Fair point MM ! (see below)

And that makes me wonder what the reaction would have been, had they dared to set up a sex club solely for gays ? :-)

Then we would see just how "liberated" UK society really is..

(BTW, "post edited" appears under this message, because I wanted to add an extra point after originally sending it off - CS)


MM wrote:
I have to dispute with you one thing, charles. This is definitely not "a very interesting thread". Its actually really dull, and I say that as one of the contributors. So there is some bloody sex club opened in SE1. So bloody what. I really wish some of the more profuse contributors to this site gave other issues a bigger think. And I especially mean the more vociforous ones who in their other lives spend a lot of time whinging about bishops who got the job. U NO WHO U R!

Post edited (27 Jun 03 01:21)
Friday 27 June 2003 9.50am
hi LMJJ- I happen to know a couple of the contributors on the old thread were quite closely linked to the church, and have also been active elsewhere (not on this site) in bad-mouthing a certain gay employee of the church who has been in the news recently. Thankfully, they are not posting their homophobic spleen on this site.


-MM- The Nature of Monkey was Irrepressible.
Friday 27 June 2003 11.26am
Thanks to Charles for an intelligent view from a new contributor. Could I take him up on his reference to me, though?

Sorry to seem petty, Charles, especially when I fully agree with your general point of view. But you are supporting an earlier smear against me - that I am only arguing for the Sheridans because I have something to gain. In fact, as I said at the time, they are direct business rivals of mine in some areas.

Having supported the fetish scene for 20 years, I am doing so now. It has nothing at all to do with the Sheridans personally.

My first post started with my real name and what exactly I do, to make my position clear. I have never been coy. I have certainly never acknowleged any "potentially lucrative commercial links" with Wicked or the Sheridans. This is because there aren't any. They have taken a few ads in my magazines and I have met them a few times. That's it. Overall, I would probably be better off if they disappeared. Those who know me will know that I am no patsy of the Sheridans.

Would Charles please back up his slur and tell us what exactly these "lucrative links" might be? I would love to know.

I seem to have attacked the most sensible contributor for ages - sorry about that

Tim Woodward
Friday 27 June 2003 12.04pm
I've read this thread (and its predecessor) on the sidelines for some time now, fascinated by its twists and turns (kind of reminds me of the plot twists in Roman Polanski's Bitter Moon; now there's a film for you, Mel).

I feel I need to add one more voice to the "stop-the-witch-hunt" side of the debate. I am shocked by the perverted attitude of the likes of Mel, who seeks to stop people performing mutually-consensual acts just because he doesn't like it.

I was reminded of this debate whilst watching the news last night, regarding the news that the Supreme Court in Washington overturning Texas' ban on sodomy. A man with a grudge tipped off police that his neighbour was gay, and the police subsequently arrested the gay man and his partner whilst they were having sex in their own apartment.

The parallels are significant; homosexuality stirs up just as many polarised views as we have seen in this thread. I suggest, Mel, that you consider how your life would be if your lifestyle choice was condemmed by bigots.

Changing topic, someone wrote:
"In my experience, being gay is almost a prerequisite for being a bishop, though I'm a Catholic - maybe it's different in the C of E. "
Now, what sexual proclivities have affected the Catholic Church I wonder? (in case anyone finds this comment distasteful, it's a joke; I'm sure that child-abuse is as prevalent in practitioners of any religion).
Friday 27 June 2003 1.22pm
Hi Tim Woodward

Maybe other contributors meant to slur you but I didn't. You are wrong to take it in that vein. I am just trying to consider all points of view.

By lucrative links, I meant the normal commercial advantages accruing from mutual publicising by enterprises in the same field.
You and Club Wicked appear to be supplying in the main complementary services to the same client base, so it makes sense to collaborate through joint publicity via website links and promotional activities. Nothing wrong with that.

But I acknowledge you also overlap in some areas and are competitors.

I don't know you or the Sheridans, but I wish you and everyone involved in the promotion of the enjoyment of sex in a responsible and adult manner the very best of success.

The good thing about this debate is how it shows that progress has been made since the eighties, when I first moved into the borough. If any attempt at opening a respectable sex club were tried then, the police would have closed it within an hour.

Finally it looks as if London is outgrowing Soho and all it stands for.
Friday 27 June 2003 7.15pm
One wonders if those here who are so vehemently opposed to SM really understand the term 'consent'. It appears that they don't and must therefore (by their own logic) view all sexual activity as rape.

Thankfully the Mel Allen's of this world are becoming fewer in number...

Saturday 28 June 2003 6.13am
Tim, I'd never heard about the Spanner Case, but will read up on it now, and Rachel you've got it in one!
As I said many years ago when first introduced into the world of lust and debauchery ( described by my Mum who threatened me with violence should anyone get their grubby hands on my vest!)

All this fuss over such a little thing!

and the porcine element takes to the sky...
Tuesday 1 July 2003 11.00am
Several posters above seem to hold similar misconceptions, Wicked is not a sex club it is a fetish club. As I have said before I am not particularly bothered that sex takes place at Wicked, it is the violence and flagrant disregard for the law that I find objectionable.

Tim Woodward would have us believe that a fetish event comprises of dressing up and a little light spanking but in reality, as he well knows, many "players" go much much further than this. In the vaunted "Spanner Case" the 16 men were charged, and found guilty of multiple assaults that had occurred at parties involving over 40 other men. The acts consisted in the main of maltreatment of the genitalia (with, for example, hot wax, sandpaper, fish hooks and needles) and ritualistic beatings either with the assailant's bare hands or a variety of implements, including stinging nettles, spiked belts and a cat-o'-nine tails. There were instances of branding and infliction of injuries which resulted in the flow of blood and which left scarring. The assaults were video-taped and the films distributed among the group. Members of the group were also charged, and found guilty of possessing pornographic photographs of a minor.

Just because that case involved genital maltreatment and beatings it doesn't mean that it goes on at Wicked. But again those involved at Wicked also appear to revel in documenting their activities, and so reviews often with photographs appear on both Wicked's, and the London Fetish Scene's websites. And so yes we do know that similar and other activities take place.

Charles Simon asks what the reaction would have been if a gay sex club had opened. I know of two in SE1, I didn't live in the area when they opened and so don't know what the reaction was then but I haven't heard of any objections since.

MM said that there were posters (on the old thread) who were closely related to the church and that he knows who they are. Could I just make it clear that I am not connected in any way to the church, neither do I know any who are/were, I would however be interested in knowing who he thinks is/was.

Rachel Adler, from Lyrical Computing Ltd author & publisher of Wicked's websites, thinks that because I can't accept that consent has truly taken place for these acts of violence I consider all sexual activity as rape. Of course I don't.
Battered wives often stay with their husbands for years, often will not bring charges against their attacker whom they profess to love, do they consent?
Tuesday 1 July 2003 4.22pm
To Mel

Spanner is history.

Instead of imagining what goes on in Wicked, why don't you go and see for yourself.

If you find something illegal, tell the police, make a statement and be a witness in court.
Tuesday 1 July 2003 4.35pm
You might want to go in Happy Hour 5 until 8 I think it is

Wry grin when I saw the poster :-)

Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Current: 9 of 11

This thread has been closed
We are part of
Independent Community News Network
Email newsletter

For the latest local news and events direct to your inbox every Monday, you need our weekly email newsletter SE1 Direct.

7,000+ locals read it every week. Can you afford to miss out?

Read the latest issue before signing up

Also on the forum
Views expressed in this discussion forum are those of the contributors and may not reflect the editorial policy of this website. Please read our terms and conditions