When does kinky porn become illegal?
Five years ago Jane Longhurst, a teacher from Brighton, was murdered. It later emerged her killer had been compulsively accessing websites such as Club Dead and Rape Action, which contained images of women being abused and violated.
When Graham Coutts was jailed for life Jane Longhurst's mother, Liz, began a campaign to ban the possession of such images."
Full story;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7364475.stm?lsm
"Pornographic material which depicts necrophilia, bestiality or violence that is life threatening or likely to result in serious injury to the anus, breasts or genitals has no place in a modern society and should not be tolerated," says a spokeswoman for the ministry.
She points out the law is not intended to target those who accidentally come into contact with obscene pornography and nor would it target the mainstream entertainment industry or those who sell bondage material which is legally available."
What do you think- do you think that extreme porn should be made illegal, or do you think that things are fine the way they currently are in the porn industry?
When a government legalizes something, it is essentially saying that its ok to do it- when a government makes something illegal, it is essentially saying that it is not ok to do that particular something.
As a society, do you think it is acceptable that we have pornography that imitates gang rape scene's or the sexual desecration of corpses etc? Is it right that while we make the actual real life acts of these things illegal, we allow people to still play out such fantasies in porn for people's personal enjoyment/gratification?
Or is this simply a case of another issues in our Nanny state society, and as long as nobody is actually getting hurt in the porn, it doesn't matter how extreme it is?
Will passing a law to ban extreme pornography help protect people in society and encourage better moral behavior, or will this pave the way for further loss of rights and privacy of what we are and are not allowed to do in our own homes with consenting adults etc? If extreme pornography is banned, you then have to ask yourself, what next? Extreme horror films, films of highly illegal criminal behavior etc? Or would the world be a better place without this kind of stuff anyway?
Personally i think "extreme" porn is f*cked up- i think the people that watch such stuff are wrong in the head, but as much as i don't like it, i do question whether making it illegal is really the right way to go forward.
What do you think?
And can you clarify how can you write both sentences in the same paragraph? Maybe I misunderstood, but it seems very contradictory, can you clarify please?
I didn't say they should ban porn, just that the amount of advertising on the internet and the prevalence of aggressive sex being advertised as normal sex should be somewhat limited, much like the courts have done with cigarette advertising, alcohol advertising and the promotion of responsible use. Promoting responsibility is a better idea than outright bans.
So, to put it bluntly, rather than getting 20 emails in my inbox that say 'Grow a **** so big you'll choke the ***** every time', you know, maybe that kind of advertising shouldn't be floating around out there at all, especially if I'm a 13-16 year old with computer access. Adults are still free to engage in whatever form of internet browsing they please without such material potentially finding its way into a young person's hands.
The paragraph you refer to was a bridge; I was mentioning that the courts do not usually have a role in the bedrooms of the nation and that I basically did not agree with the judges findings. But, in the same way that the courts are apt to influence society via such decisions, I feel they CAN have a role in monitoring how certain things are portrayed and disseminated (excuse the pun) into the public forum. To that end young minds should be protected from excessive sexualizaton. I think this is a common concern of many people today, especially those with children.
Anyway that's a very tough question since such kind of media can be accessed through the internet despite restrictions. The same question can be asked regarding videogames, anime and cartoons featuring too many bloody scenes.
I personally think that people who watch that have a little problem but I am pretty sure that the percentage of viewers is much higher than what we might imagin. Also, making it illegal in a country does not mean that the law will be applied on an international scale and sadly, there is not much that can be done except maybe monitoring individuals.
Furthermore, beyond the impact it would cause in the physical world, there are also moral implications here. As has been said before (and perhaps even more eloquently :blush:) there are certain actions that, when taken by a government, the people should take note of. One of these is restricting what we are allowed to do and watch. That alone is cause to be wary, however one should be especially careful when that result was the direct outcome of a rushed legal process. I believe that we, as a people, should always make sure to go about creating legislation in a steady, methodical manner. This will keep any potent yet temporary emotions from forcing hasty decisions.
I believe that, as long as no one is harmed in the making, transporting, or viewing, that you should be allowed to watch what you wish, no matter how immoral or degrading it may seem to others. That is your choice.:wave:
I'm surprised though, I was expecting the traditional police to rush the thread and flame anyone who dared be against them. Maybe this thread smells too much liberal?
:P
What about violence in films? What about photos and videos of body mods such as piercing, branding and scarification? Where do these things fall under the new laws?
No, I don't think 'kinky porn' should be made illegal. Kiddy porn is already illegal. Violence, sexual or otherwise, against a non-consenting person is already illegal. Pornography *should* already be inaccessible (or, more realistically, hard to access) for under-18s. What else could they want to tighten up on? That some people might get off on witnessing scenes of 'violence' such as caning, for example, conducted in a safe and consensual way? If violence turns them on, they're unlikely to get much out of BDSM, which by its nature is more usually done in a very controlled way, even when high levels of pain are involved, and not about 'violence' at all.
Furries illegal? Never!
On a serious note, do what you want as long as its safe and all the participants agree to it. What you like is up to you, and higher-ups shouldn't be allowed to poke around that area as long as it doesn't go overboard.
But really, those young minds we're talking about...
You think any healthy guy gives a damn about all that minor crap?
Even if I searched hard, I couldn't find a person who'd refuse to watch porn until he is 18.
Recently, a man who engaged in consensual roleplaying with his wife was charged with rape because there was 'autoerotic asphyxiation' involved (they choked each other during sex) and he had had sex with her while she was in a state of unconsciousness. The judge ruled that he believed unconsciousness indicated an inability to enjoy sex among other things and that a 'reasonable man' would not have proceeded once she lost consciousness.
It should be noted that the reason it went to the courts is because the woman initially filed for assault but later tried to have the charges dropped. The courts picked it up and ran with it.
At any rate, I think if the woman understood that the man had this 'unconsciousness' fetish and that it was limited to a controlled and trusting environment, the courts should not be in the nation's bedrooms. In the same way I feel like they shouldn't be telling us what to watch because it involves a lot of legitimate feet being stepped on. However, I think the greater issue at stake is the fact that via the internet, a lot of 'kinky porn' is being made to appear mainstream, and people are being conditioned to think that violent and/or aggressive sex with women is the norm. This I would not agree with.
I have overheard a lot of conversations involving guys who are large consumers of internet porn, and I have a feeling that the next time they get their hands on a woman it may not go so well.
I think like cigarettes and booze, the level of advertising and sensationalization of porn, not the porn itself, should be metered and cut-back in order to protect young minds until they're closer to adults and able to actively choose what they want. Perhaps this is what the courts are trying to achieve.
:P
Most people who are against it, just label it dangerous so they can find a casus belli to confront the other group.
The US courts have, over the years, defined pornography, paraphrasing here, as whatever the community, as a whole, decides it is. What is pornography to one person may be completely accepted and considered normal by another. You can read some of their rulings here (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/porn/prosecuting/supreme.html).
To make pornography illegal is just the decision of an individual person who is granted the right of passing such judgement.
The same holds true for kinky pornography. What is kinky to one person may be considered normal to another, but it is the courts that will decide the matter whether we like it or not or whether we agree with it or not.
What I find strange here in the US is that many a lawmaker that voted to pass kiddie porn legislation or legislation against gay porn and such were later found to have indulged in the same and were convicted of it.
I believe that the resason why so many legislators pass rulings against what they consider kinky porn and such is because they themselves enjoy it and feel guilty of it afterwards. Thus, they pass legislation against it thinking, because of their Christian upbringing, that it must be illegal for something "so bad" to feel so good.
Now, whether rape, incest, necrophelia, pedophelia, etc should be made illegal pornography I don't know because of the reasons I cited above. Personally I feel those things are sick and abnormal, but on the other hand, some of the sexual fantasies I enjoy and indulge in with my partner could be considered sick and abnormal by others. Like beauty, pornography is in the eye of the beholder.
As long as ones sexual fantasies and fetishes, no matter how "abnormal" we may feel they are, are kept to oneself and enjoyed in private or with a partner then they should not be made illegal and that goes for print, photography and video. For if they were not made available, then more people may seek to act them out in real life.
It is only when one wants to act out those fantasies against the wishes of another or against the law as in rape, incest pedophilia, etc. that one crosses the line I believe. However, whether it is illegal or legal there will always be those that will cross this line and this, I believe can never be legislated as it will never work in the long run for those wanting to make their fantasies a reality.
I hope this makes sense. Anyway, it is my opinion.
And can you clarify how can you write both sentences in the same paragraph? Maybe I misunderstood, but it seems very contradictory, can you clarify please?
At any rate, I think if the woman understood that the man had this 'unconsciousness' fetish and that it was limited to a controlled and trusting environment, the courts should not be in the nation's bedrooms.
a lot of 'kinky porn' is being made to appear mainstream, and people are being conditioned to think that violent and/or aggressive sex with women is the norm. This I would not agree with.
I believe that, as long as no one is harmed in the making, transporting, or viewing, that you should be allowed to watch what you wish, no matter how immoral or degrading it may seem to others. That is your choice.:wave:
The whole question of "porn" is about definition. I do see what you are saying, tend to agree with your sentiment, but have one very straightforward question:
"What is your definition of "harmed"?
Regards,
ジョン
I don't want some smart cretin from above to decide what I want to watch.
Just remove it from tv if there's any, completely, remove it from the shops, completely, so those who want to watch it, who feel the need to watch it can order it from somewhere, or God forgive me, download it.
"What I find strange here in the US is that many a lawmaker that voted to pass kiddie porn legislation or legislation against gay porn and such were later found to have indulged in the same and were convicted of it."
When is the last time one of these people who pass the laws and rant and rave about sex offenders been punished for doing the same? The senator from Idaho who tried to get sex in an airport bathroom and confessed to it never got punished AND he's still in office. The senator from Florida who was trying to hook up with Congressional pages (teen boys). The man from Louisiana who utilized the services of an escort service while married (solicitation, adultery, indecent acts, etc.). If you're going to pass laws about how I have sex or fantasize about sex in my home, then you better not be messing around!
What's next? Why not ban the videos all over the Web showing people blown up/shot in Iraq and Afghanistan? Those images could drive me to try doing that myself. What about the movies like Saw? Porn, movies, video games, etc. are not the problem. It's the lack of responsibility on the part of parents. It's the total lack of acceptance of responsibility that pervades our society nowadays. Why accept responsibility for something you did when you can blame your parents, your friends, tv, video games, movies, drugs, etc.?
Until Congress can police themselves, they shouldn't be trying to police my behavior when it's in the privacy of my own home and with another consenting adult...or by myself.
Also who can determine what is 'extreme' really? I mean something that my friend said as a joke a while back just came back to me, 'people say beastiality is wrong, but the animals don't complain and aren't harmed', that could be partly true, but of course animals lack the intelligence to give their say in the matter.
I find these sorts of things disgusting, I also find it disgusting when guys want their girlfriends to call them 'daddy' in a suggestive sort of way (what the hell is up with that anyway...?), however what seriously has me worried is the violence part of that area, I just don't find that acceptable in anyway and I think people who are into that sort of thing have serious mental issues. This is of course my opinion.
Yes i guess i agree with both of you. My main concern with making stuff like this illegal is that it only paves the way for similar stuff like violent movies or movies with criminal behavior shown in them to be made illegal- where does it stop?
It wouldn't surprise me if there have been people trying to get those kind of movies illegal. When someone has been killed and the suspicion lies within an aspect of the entertainment industry, there is always someone who wants that aspect banned somehow and its usually a family member of the victim I believe.
I define harmed as: if anyone was injured physically or emotionally-such as if one were to be forced to act in certain movies or forced to watch certain things. I think that as long as all of the actors are "acting" (that is to say, that all of those participating in the filming and acting are not actually being harmed or forced in any way), and all of the watchers are doing so willingly and of their own volition, as well as those selling or transporting the material to be doing so knowingly and willingly, then I don't think there is anything wrong with it. Again, I'm sorry if I have been unclear in any way and if you have any more inquiries, please feel free to ask. :wave:
... then I tend to agree with your post. (However much we both may tend to upset others ...!)
Best Regards,
ジョン
:beer:
Notice the following, quoted from the bill:
"(6) An “extreme image” is an image of any of the following—
(a) an act which threatens or appears to threaten a person’s life,
(b) an act which results in or appears to result (or be likely to result) in serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals,
(c) an act which involves or appears to involve sexual interference with a human corpse,
(d) a person performing or appearing to perform an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal,
where (in each case) any such act, person or animal depicted in the image is or appears to be real."
An act which *appears* to threaten a person's life? Like holding a blunt knife to someone's throat, with no intention to use it, if you are larking around for the camera, that's somehow 'wrong'? @_@
I want to quote Lord McIntosh:
"if any of those images involves the commission of a crime in their production, an existing law deals with that, which none of us can contest. This is not an argument for child pornography, for bestiality, for snuff movies or anything like that. No one is defending that and there is a perfectly good law to deal with it."
#If you have any other info about this subject , Please add it free.# |
Author:
webmaster
03 22nd, 2010 in
portal.gzui.com
edit
