Recently Mod2 closed the "Warning for SPS Agencies: Client Caught Taping SPS This Weekend!!!" thread.Amongst the reasons given for this decision
were(as posted by Mod2) "I think everything (and in fact way too much) has been said on this subject" and "At this point the thread is getting nowhere ......closed".At this point I will not touch on other reasons given,opinions expressed or actions taken by Mod2.
I beg to strongly disagree.
IMHO the thread within a period of app. five days had identified a major issue
and had evolved within app. sixty - seven posts from identifying a critical issue to grouping opinions within the framework of a solution.
The critical issue of a client taping An SP without her consent had been identified in the initial post.Following posters condemed this action but were prudent because as mature adults they were well aware that things are not
as they seem.MERB has an on going battle with shills - a situation that is being debated in another thread but a situation that causes us to be careful when re-acting to other posted subjects.Similarly all readers and posters have been approached by bogus charities.When we question bogus charities
we do so not because we are callous and wish to see others suffer but because we do not wish to see scoundrels and parasites profit.Likewise it was proper to subject this issue to serious scrutiny.Regardless as the thread
progressed a moral imperative emerged that CONSENT was the base for such activity.
At the same time a second issue emerged - it became clear that there was a market need.Some clients wished to video tape encounters with SPS and there are SPS willing to accommodate such clients.Very often an activity that is viewed as illegal or immoral may be controlled by providing a context or framework within which it could be expressed by consenting adults.By offering such opportunities non-consentual tapings would be reduced,probably significantly.The MERB community could have used its collective expertise to debate this aspect.Specifically SPS and agencies offering such an option could have been listed as VCF = video camera friendly.The idea of written consent and post taping use could have been debated.Concerns of anonymity or identity could have been debated - the use of Batgirl type masks,temporary tattoos and other disguising techniques would have been advanced.
A baseline example and criteria for CONSENT had been advanced or borrowed
from the "street scene".This concept would have been adapted and developed by MERB members to the situation at hand.
As outlined above the aforementionned reasons invoked by Mod2 do not carry the day.The thread should have been allowed to continue and perhaps it will within the guidance and context outlined above.
Thank you for reading