"Extreme pornography" to be banned in the UK

[Tricky]

All i can say is im glad i have normal tastes!i dont get off on seeing people in pain,simulated or otherwise,and i certainly wouldnt get off over corpses,animals or kids *shudders* I watch plenty of porn but nothing deviant!

[MinionZombie]

All i can say is im glad i have normal tastes!i dont get off on seeing people in pain,simulated or otherwise,and i certainly wouldnt get off over corpses,animals or kids *shudders* I watch plenty of porn but nothing deviant! Well neither do I, however the main issues about "appearing" to harm people, which all circles around the completely legal and consenting world of BDSM, how the consultation stated there was no evidence in support of the justification for the taste-based language of the drafted law, to the fact it is against the European Convention of Human Rights as well as the Human Rights Act itself, as well as it being unenforceable and purely populist make it a bad law. As far as I know, shagging animals and dead things is already illegal. As I've also said before, if they're so fussed about it, go for the source rather than a couple of viewers. Cut off the source and you cover it far wider. It's also bad law because it takes justifiably illegal acts and mixes them with people who like consensual, rough sex. Yet again - TASTE has nothing to do with it. I don't like the stuff this law shouldn't be covering (as is being argued here), but taste has nothing to do with it. Different strokes for different folks. Homosexuality used to be illegal, so in turn jailing somebody for longer than that scumbag who left that little girl brain damaged and on a ventilator for life, simply because they like their arse spanked, or like breath play, or like being punched in the nuts, is retarded. The development of the law was full of misinformation, propaganda, deliberate tinkering (e.g. getting organisations the gubment KNEW were in favour of the law, to draw up information that specifically supports it). Meanwhile Amnesty International - who were apparently in favour of it (according to the gubment) actually ARE NOT in favour of it (yet more misinformation you see), because of the fact it's bad law making. These are some of the main issues as to why this legislation faces such opposition from a variety of people and organisations (of which many are women's groups, I might add). It's exceptionally vague, it's misinformed, it lumps genuinely illegal acts together with ones conducted by consenting adults either in a fictional form - or just a consenting context - it's against the HRA and the ECHR, it's against the right to freedom of expression, it's populist, it's been rushed and forced through with few-to-no alterations, which have all been brashly ignored by those hellbent on shoving it through the gate. I can only explain the reasons why it's bad law so many times, as I've repeatedly said, there's a good side to it, but the sheer volume of bad sides outweighs any good or purpose this law has. It's nothing to do with taste, it's to do with what is or isn't good law making - and this is NOT good law making, for the aforementioned (and many more) reasons. Check the Backlash website for more information.

[Chic Freak]

What he said. The only things listed in this legislation is pornography that:- a) Threatens life b) Could result in serious injury to genitals etc c) Necrophilia d) Beastiality Now, personally none of those things particularly do it for me, and more importantly could result in rather dangerous activity. Let's cover two points here:- 1) (c) and (d) are just wrong full stop. 2) I can imagine exploitation resulting in (a) and (b). ie: People desperate for money (or drugs) being 'used' in such pornography. I do totally agree that those things are 100% wrong. It's definitely a good thing that we're finally clamping down on rape-porn and god knows what else that goes on, but the legislation needs to be clarified so that it does not criminalise innocent people making/ owning harmless images that have been completely staged in order to simply appear harmful (e.g. pretending to cut off someone's air supply and have them thrash around a bit even though you're actually doing no such thing). And I've already covered that even though something is simulated or consensual, the amount of effort to prove this is the case would be a nightmare, therefore make a blanket ban far easier to enforce. ie: I don't want to see my taxes wasted proving if a video (from some far off country) showing women being strangled until she passes out, raped and then has her nipples sliced in two, is actually consensual or not... I'm not at all sure a blanket ban would be easier to enforce, as there would be many more porn-people to investigate if every single one was a criminal rather than atm (or in the very recent past), where most people who made simulated images were not criminals at all, just business owners. As I've said, this stuff is legal in the USA, and every video made has to be accompanied by video footage of the actors giving their informed consent before and after the shoot in order to prove that it really was all simulated. If want to see problems, go to the states and try and watch regular films and TV and behold censorship at work... The UK is far more liberal in such areas I'd suggest... I think so, most of the time, but apparently not in this particular area (see above).

[capncnut]

Most of the stuff they are 'trying' to ban is fine by me. But what about extreme pornography that's consentual? Gagging by cock? Double or triple penetration? I can't see it happening because it's accepted forms of pornography now. I just don't see it working out legally. As for kiddie flicks, Realm Of The Senses has a woman dragging her eight year old child towards her by his penis but this film is legal to buy and is not kiddie porn. I'm confused.

[kortick]

first i don't want any porn that doesnt have something extreme about it. second chic is right, as usual, you have to have what is called in the adult film industry "proof on file" which shows the actors/actressess names, dates of birth. SSI#, and consent form. If you dont know about "proof on file" you shouldn't comment on the US porn industry. third, child porn and animal sex is illegal anyways but it still gets made and always will as long as there is a demand for it. last, light bondage and leather fetish can be done in a very tasteful and erotic way without degrading the viewer or the model. grow up people not everything is flavored vanilla if you want boring porn film yourself.

[capncnut]

third, child porn and animal sex is illegal anyways but it still gets made and always will as long as there is a demand for it. Child porn (to a degree) is legal in a few European sectors. Animal porn is available almost everywhere. Not saying it's right, just saying... I don't care whether they ban 'em or not 'cos it's something I don't go near but I can't see an effective measure to eliminate it from downloads. If it can't be removed from downloads then what the f**k are we talking about?

[Chic Freak]

if you want boring porn film yourself. lmao! And you have two of my favourite films as your avatar and sig!

[Danny]

lmao! And you have two of my favourite films as your avatar and sig! that bloody sigs got goodbye horses stuck in my damn head now.

[MinionZombie]

Today I was filming for an educational DVD on "sexual ethics", and one of the bright young things involved (we were shooting with sixth formers) brought up this particular law. Ultimately the main line of thought with everybody was that, aside from "the big three" (as I put it), if it's consensual from all involved - leave it be and who cares. Then I came home and ended up getting into a similar discussion with my parents, which was odd - usually such topics don't come up in my household - it was just really odd to be discussing bondage, BDSM, and this barmy law with my own mum ... then I used the term "bumming" at the dinner table ... ... Anyway, thought you all might like that little story.

[p2501]

dear god that footer..... the horror.

[dannoofthedead]

Are regular movies next? Of course they'll be next. Just like people knit pick and tear apart dialogoue and scenes in regular flicks, you'll get Judi the Bible Beater with her note pad and pen making lists of everything that looks like it might possibly cause an injury or fit those four criteria and then you'll have the actual acts of violence/necrophilia/beastiaity/etc... then the "simulated acts" like rubber sheep. Sure, it sounds far fetched right now but give it a bit of time. Who even thinks to try and pass a law like this when the police and government of any nation is already overwhelmed with the defense and welbeing of the people?

[Neil]

Today I was filming for an educational DVD on "sexual ethics", and one of the bright young things involved (we were shooting with sixth formers) brought up this particular law. Ultimately the main line of thought with everybody was that, aside from "the big three" (as I put it), if it's consensual from all involved - leave it be and who cares. Then I came home and ended up getting into a similar discussion with my parents, which was odd - usually such topics don't come up in my household - it was just really odd to be discussing bondage, BDSM, and this barmy law with my own mum ... then I used the term "bumming" at the dinner table ... ... Anyway, thought you all might like that little story. Sorry if you've already answered this, but can I ask again what in the OP you actually disagree with? 1) An act that threatens a life? 2) An act that results in serious injury to genitals? 3) Necrophilia? 4) Bestiality? Which of these do you think is OK within pornography? Or it is just the 'simulation' you think should be permitted?

[MinionZombie]

1) An act that threatens a life? 2) An act that results in serious injury to genitals? 3) Necrophilia? 4) Bestiality? The "life threatening" thing is a real problem in this legislation, especially as the vast majority of what would come under it - is staged - ergo, there is no actual threat to life. It's like in a movie with stunts, technically you could say there's a threat to life, but trained professionals are there and it's all staged - likewise with the sort of work Chic was talking about, there are professionals there to do that sort of thing. And no doubt in the staged abduction thing or similar, it's clearly obvious it's fake I'd assume, because whoever made it has probably put music in there, or they're using cuts and editing and ... I guess, the 'film' has a plot line running through it - or at least a beginning, middle and end ... you know, as far as porn can manage that anyway ... I'm just assuming there mind. Serious injury to genitals - well if someone has consented to it (i.e. like those sorts of blokes who like having their nuts kneed in, or stood on or whatever - I'd call that serious injury pretty much - HOWEVER, the parties involved have AGREED to it and even LIKE it - ergo, there is NO REASON to ban it or for the gubment to be involved). Necrophilia - against it, for the simple fact that there's no consent involved for one party - i.e. the body. Staged necrophilia - well then clearly it's a fake body, it's still rank as fook mind you. Beastiality - ultimately against it, again for the simple fact that there's no explicit consent. This was brought up in the discussion yesterday with the students, and along my line of thinking on the subject too - you don't know if the animal hates it/doesn't care/likes it. You really don't ... however, because no consent can obviously be given - it's ultimately wrong, I think. I remember hearing something on RadioBam a good while ago and he was going on about some dude who got shagged by a horse - evidently the horse was up for it and didn't give a bollocks - but the bloke got all kinds of messed up inside and DIED! WHAT THE FUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK???!!! The key aspect is "consent" - and that's one of the things involved in simulated/staged stuff, or even the world of dominance, BDSM, what-have-you. Also, just because that nutter who killed Jane Longhurst viewed rape fantasy websites, doesn't mean those made him do it, because: 1) He was actually capable of carrying out such acts in real life. That takes a special kind of messed up brain chemistry that the vast majority of the public don't have. 2) He would have done what he did regardless of it's availability. 3) Violent people are naturally interested in viewing violent content - HOWEVER - non-violent people are ALSO just as interested in viewing violent content (be it movies, tv, porn, whatever). Basically - it's a weak argument, exactly the same as "videogames made me do it" or "I saw Rambo and went nuts" or whatever. If porn actually made people freak out, there's be sky high rape statistics and so on ... meanwhile, with the free availability of porn - especially to the extent in places like Japan - sexual offences have plummeted. Hope that clarifies my position (as well as the fact that the law itself, is bad law making in and of itself).

[Neil]

OK, so your issues fall into:- 1) A simulated action of threatening life should be OK? 2) If someone agrees to having their nipple removed with a cheese grater, it's up to them? I can an understand both of these views... But can also see counter arguments. Again:- 1) you have the issue of (a) proving in every case it is simulated and (b) just the fact as a society you are endorsing something that is in reality completely anti-social. 2) I sort of agree with you, but again, it may well be someone is simply being exploited into doing it.

[MinionZombie]

I'm not endorsing people having their nuts bashed or nipples clamped, because I think it's icky - what I'm saying is - who am I to judge? Likewise - who is the gubment to judge. If someone does wanna grate their nipple off, well if that's what they want ... ... well they're f*cking nuts in my view, but I shouldn't judge them if it makes them happy. And no, you can't twist my words to say "well if fiddling kids makes a paedo happy..." or whatever, because yet again it winds back to the key term - consent. CONSENT is the most important and key term here. I also think that talking about 'breath play' or whatever it's called, or something like that as simply "life threatening" is a bit black & white - which again, is yet another impossible issue with this poor piece of law making. Essentially, as this thread shows, it's a never-ending debate - how on earth could this properly be enforced, it'll all ultimately come down to one person's opinion over another's. I again disagree with lumping this debate-fuelled stuff together with "the big three" as I call them. The big three are all cases where consent has not and cannot be given - clear cut case. Everything else involves consent, and most of it is so much a relative minority activity, that it creating any kind of threat to society at large is preposterous. As for the issue of exploitation - that's infinitely impossible to address or discuss to the point of one ultimately decision. Once more - it comes back to consent. The issue of exploitation is related to far wider problems, like prozzies doing random guys so they can fund their drug addictions - they wouldn't need to if they weren't druggies, but then why are they on drugs? Again, wider problems. You can also argue that while they may not like what they're doing - they're still doing it. People trafficking is a whole other ball game when linked to prostitution though, that's a case where there's either no consent or it's produced through fear and intimidation - but that's nothing to do with internet pornography, that's it's own separate issue which can be tackled on it's own - legalised prostitution in a safe and controlled, tax-paying environment would certainly be a big step forward in this issue - but that's getting off topic again. An exploitation-free world is impossible, both literally and from a purely technical stand-point, so it's a bit of a McGuffin argument in my eyes, because as I've persistently said - it all comes down to consent, rather than taste. You've reminded me of the case of that weird bloke (in Germany right?) where some guy consented to another guy eating him ... ... first off, really f*cking weird and out there ... ... but you could argue that's kind of like a form of suicide, in a way ... I certainly don't agree with it. Cannibalism is no doubt officially illegal, but then again so are drugs, and suicide isn't encouraged (actively discouraged) but people still do it - the point being - it's an impossible argument. This legislation fails to be bothered to look into the grey areas, and combines the clearly illegal with the rough-yet-consenting minority fetishes that might come under it. I was reading on the Melon Farmers website that "closer" to the time of the law's enactment, more information regarding it will come out, and that apparently BDSM doesn't come under it (so therefore Chic would be fine in part of her job) - but how many times have you heard something from a gubment body that's changed? It's all very vague from the people behind the law...very strange. ... Anyway, there's only so many times I can clarify myself - and despite my position, it doesn't mean I'm endorsing it - if I was I'd be holding a banner like some Golf Sale advertiser promoting the act of having your nuts sat on or what have you. There's only so many times I can state the two key points: 1) Consent over taste. 2) It's just poor law making in and of itself. 3) The individual dictates their actions, not what they watch (i.e. the capable vast-vast-vast minority, and the incapable vast-vast-vast majority). All for the myriad of reasons I've argued previously, including points that Chic has raised so eloquently. *gasps for air* You're tiring me out, Neil. I call BDSM on you, or something...