> Boxing and martial arts doesn't involve sex (mostly).
Apart from women's topless boxing, female on female "submission" wrestling and a few NSFW others...!
> if someone makes a video of himself and his wife dressed in bondage gear, and engage in some mutual slap n tickle - but *don't* have sex on tape, then it's OK?
No, because the offence is having *possession* of that video and, in someone else's entirely *subjective* opinion, it fits the criteria for "risking harm" and you had it for "sexual arousal".
There is a "defence" in the CJIA that says you *are* allowed to own it if you can prove you were a "direct participant" in the acts shown, but that means that if you were videoing two other people you wouldn't have been a "direct" participant and even if it was you in it, were you to be dressed in head to toe leather/ rubber etc, how would you "prove" it was you? (Oh, and, of course, Paragraph 2 of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights says you have the right to be presumed innocent, ie you do not have to *prove* your innocence, but when did this Government ever let trivialities like that get in the way of a Moral Crusade?
> has this kind of nonsense been going on since before Precious Jacqui got her grubby little mitts on the levers of power?
Oh yes, it started under the reign of David "I'm blind, but I'll ban things I can't see" Blunkett, then was followed by Charles "ID Cards are good for you" Clark, followed by John "Jackboots" Reid. Wacky Jacqui is only the latest in a line of Home Secretaries to decide that we can't be trusted to look at pictures they don't like.