"Extreme pornography" to be banned in the UK

[Chic Freak]

As of 9th May, it may become illegal to own "extreme pornography", classed as images intended mainly to cause sexual arousal and featuring:

(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. (Italics my own.)


Obviously I'm anti-sexual violence, necrophilia and bestiality, but if it's not real, surely it's no worse than actors in any other film pretending to do stuff?? Imagination =/= reality and all sane adults are capable of realising this. There is no psychological evidence that watching a film of someone doing something will make you do it later, which is generally why calls to ban violent films/ video games/ music etc is such a crock of sh*t.

I also resent BDSM fans being lumped into the same category as people who bum dogs, among other things :bored: It's not in the same league, and there's nothing wrong with being turned on by a photo of a girl apparently being tied up and whipped (or whatever) when you know damn well it isn't actually real. Fantasy is quantitatively different from reality, psychologically as well as in terms of actual crime rates etc.

/rant

I know there are rather a lot of right-wing type people on this board... what do you all think? Do you think certain simulated sex acts should be banned from porn? If so, is it because you just personally find it icky and "not your thing" or is there a more scientifically based reason that I'm not aware of?

I would like to clarify again that I personally am not "into", say, watching a video of an actor pretending to have sex with a fake "corpse", but I really feel that even if I had the power to do so, I wouldn't ban it just because I don't like it.

Link to Backlash (http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/)

[Yojimbo]

Necrophila and bestiality and anal injuries does not float my boat, but as long as it isn't real I figure who's business is it? Take it far enough and folks will be banning Dawn of the Dead! Or Hamlet!



Though, the idea that real-life pedophiles might be able to get simulated child-porn out there bugs some part of the neo-conservative in my blood. Real or not, it bothers me and seems quite wrong, though the liberal-hippy in my soul says that it is none of my business.

I have also heard that there are folks out there that get off on watching women stomping on kittens and other things. Got to say, simulated or not, there is something there that doesn't sit quite right with me.

I hate to admit it, but I am beginning to realize that lurking somewhere inside of me there lies a fascist who wants to dictate to others what is an isn't socially acceptable.

[Neil]

As of 9th May, it may become illegal to own "extreme pornography", classed as images intended mainly to cause sexual arousal and featuring:

(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. (Italics my own.)


Obviously I'm anti-sexual violence, necrophilia and bestiality, but if it's not real, surely it's no worse than actors in any other film pretending to do stuff?? Imagination =/= reality and all sane adults are capable of realising this. There is no psychological evidence that watching a film of someone doing something will make you do it later, which is generally why calls to ban violent films/ video games/ music etc is such a crock of sh*t.

I also resent BDSM fans being lumped into the same category as people who bum dogs, among other things :bored: It's not in the same league, and there's nothing wrong with being turned on by a photo of a girl apparently being tied up and whipped (or whatever) when you know damn well it isn't actually real. Fantasy is quantitatively different from reality, psychologically as well as in terms of actual crime rates etc.

/rant

I know there are rather a lot of right-wing type people on this board... what do you all think? Do you think certain simulated sex acts should be banned from porn? If so, is it because you just personally find it icky and "not your thing" or is there a more scientifically based reason that I'm not aware of?

I would like to clarify again that I personally am not "into", say, watching a video of an actor pretending to have sex with a fake "corpse", but I really feel that even if I had the power to do so, I wouldn't ban it just because I don't like it.

Link to Backlash (http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/)

I know it's a tough call, but if the act is deemed unacceptable then to realistically simulate it is surely unacceptable as well?

Would you be happy to see someone simulate - so it looked utterly realistic - buggering a 2yr old child?

[MinionZombie]

Anything to do with kiddy porn is totally completely wrong, even faking it is totally and completely wrong.

As for necrophilia - absolutely no to the real stuff, and while I find it really gross and manky, isn't there a film called Nekromantic? Now that's all fake - so, well ... there you are then.

Beastiality - again, icky as fook - I've always wondered if the animals don't like it, like it, or couldn't give a bollocks at all ... but then I just find that really gross so I'd rather not think about it.

...

Everything else is fair game I say, and while it's not to my liking, if nobody is being hurt and the people involved are consenting - WHO GIVES A SH*T?!

It should not be the place of the gubment to act as censor and moral assessor. Labour have been absolutely obsessed with creating new criminal offenses, especially if it'll please some nutjob tabloids. For instance - it's now a crime to set off a nuclear bomb - specifically, that's a crime listed ... wouldn't you have thought that was already bloody obvious?! (As well as essentially pointless in doing, scenes as everyone is in a state of mutual finger-hovering with nobody willing to strike first because of the inevitable strike backs)...

Anyway, getting off track. I find it disgusting how the gubment have been going around seeking to be moral compasses, rushing through ridiculous laws like this which are clearly only based on taste rather than fact.

Just because you find something distasteful, doesn't mean it's wrong or should be banned.

I, like Chic Freak, also resent the likes of (shall we say) 'normal extreme' porn being lumped in with clearly wrong things like kiddy porn - which is THE absolute, no two ways about it, be it fake or real, just WRONG.

Personally I think necro stuff - if it's fake - is straddling the line.

Beastiality, ewwww ... just ewwww.

Everything else - leave it the f*ck alone, if it's consensual there is no need to have anything to do with it in Parliament or the House of Lords.

There seems to be an impression with this bill that there's a mountain of real videos out there, like a real criminal act taking place and being posted ... yeah, bollocks are there ... if there are any, it's an extremely low amount and it'll be in places only the absolutely persistent (and twisted in the noggin) will find them.

They don't have enough prison places for actual criminals, and yet they want to bang up somebody getting off to ... I duno ... a video of some dude getting kicked in the nuts cos he likes it, or a bondage video or something, for THREE YEARS.

There's actual criminals getting LESS than that for far WORSE crimes.

For instance, that absolute bastard who was doing 75mph in a 30mph zone, hit another car and consequently crippled a toddler to the point where she is brain damaged and on a ventilator for life - that piece of sh*t who was doing that absolutely ludicrous speed in that zone got 21 months.

That is an actual crime, men & women watching somebody tied up or fake abducted and porked (I saw that on an episode of Sin Cities once, whatever floats your consensual boat I guess) is not a crime.

There are already laws against kiddy porn, that's covered, yet you get a clear sense from this bill that consensual 'extreme' porn is being lumped in with it and being judged just as abhorrent because some MP's have a disliking to anything other than yawn-worthy missionary in a lifeless marriage (meanwhile they're no doubt seeing rent boys or a dominatrix on the side).

The big three, if you will, are kiddy porn - beastiality - and necrophilia.

Everything else should be left well alone, taste has no place in law making, and those in power should be absolutely ashamed of themselves for being involved in such abuses of power.

The stuff in question isn't to my liking (and the "big three" I think are abhorrent, quite obviously), but I would never legislate against consenting adults doing what makes them happy, or doing something they've agreed to do under their own volition.

[Neil]

It's a problem of policing as well... If you draw a line between it's OK to simulate it, but no OK to really do it, you have to investigate every case... Which then makes it impossible to police...

Out of interest, which of the four rules do you have problems with?

[Terran]

Are regular movies next?

[Neil]

Are regular movies next?

Why would they be? We're more liberal now than in years gone by, and by all accounts generally more liberal than the US for example....

[MinionZombie]

By four rules I assume you mean the ones Chic quoted...


(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. (Italics my own.)

A - use of "appears".
B - use of "appears" as well as the fact that such things would cover bondage and BDSM and such things, which is just something that some people are into and should not be persecuted because the gubment don't find it tasteful (which, neither do I for that matter, but I don't set about banning it).
C - fine with that, although clearly there will be some cases where it's all completely fake - or a case of an actual movie, such as Nekromantic, would people be banged up for possessing a fictional movie, or at least investigated, which might result in ultimately their entire lives being turned upside down and ruined forever (think along the lines of Operation Ore, which focussed on child pornography, and yet all - or at least the vast majority - of people accused of paying for kiddy porn actually had their details ripped off or confused because they paid for porn on a site that showed perfectly legal porn, but actually somehow linked to kiddy porn - people lost their jobs, their families, many even took their own lives after the ordeal went on for years and they were completely innocent)
D - beastiality, no problem with a law about that because an animal cannot consent to the act.

Otherwise it's a law which continues to set an incredibly nasty and dangerous precedent from this top-down gubment we have.

This legislation is completely unworkable, there aren't enough prison cells for actual criminals let alone people who like it rough in the bedroom and aren't committing any crime except a 'crime of taste by some people's standards', it's a total waste of money, it's draconian and it's just a complete waste of time and effort - and what's more, it's built on the back of the Jane Longhurst case - an exceptional case, that was abhorrent and tragic. But throwing together a law based on taste - and NO EVIDENCE (which was even admitted during the consultation period, I might add) - to win over tabloid reactionaries is an abhorrent way to run a country, and create legislation.

There's the clearly wrong (kiddy porn, beastiality, necrophilia) and then there's alternative - yet totally consensual - sexual lifestyles (BDSM, bondage, captive fantasies, spanking etc).

Interesting that there appears to be no real mention of "crush" videos like we heard about on that show on Bravo. That's flat-out animal cruelty and is of course right to be banned and tracked down and gotten rid of.

Many thanks to The Melon Farmers, a site I visit daily for all my censorship-in-the-UK-and-around-the-world news, which has covered this nasty piece of law for a long time now.

As I said before, there's the clearly wrong - which is either totally legislated against already, or is almost completely legislated again - and is in a totally different league, from everything else that is swept up by this rushed and ill-considered piece of trash law.

I certainly don't like the sort of things the law covers, but as I've said many times before, personal taste has no place in creating legislation.

As for the use of "appears", that basically leaves it up to the individual investigator to try and figure out if something is real and not, and surely in a world where a shedload of people believe The Blair Witch Project to actually be real, it is entirely possible - and has no doubt been employed as a filming technique - that some of the porn that would come under this draconian legislation would have been shot specifically to make it look 'real'.

[mista_mo]

Would scat play be in this as well? I personally find someone eating s*it (ala 4 girls finger paint) to be far worse then anything beastiality related.

If it's not real why f*ck around with it? I honestly do not understand why they want to ban that stuff...

Child porn is illegal (as it should be) but images (such as many hentai) depicting "lolicon" is okay. It's not real, that's where the line should be drawn. Personally, everyone is going to view some kind of extreme porn at some point, regular stuff would just get boring, and something more exciting would be wanted by that individual. There are many people who get off to images or videos of imagined beastiality/lolicon/mutilation/necrophilia, but they would find the very idea of themselves in that position revolting.

People just want something different from the norm at times, it's called experimentation.

btw, there is zombie porno out there...it's pretty f*cking weird, and can be classified as necrophilia and mutilation/dismemberment etc (or gore if you wish)..

You get some strange ideas in your head at 4 in the morning after you haven't slept in 3 days I tell you what..

[Neil]

By four rules I assume you mean the ones Chic quoted...



A - use of "appears".
B - use of "appears" as well as the fact that such things would cover bondage and BDSM and such things, which is just something that some people are into and should not be persecuted because the gubment don't find it tasteful (which, neither do I for that matter, but I don't set about banning it).
C - fine with that, although clearly there will be some cases where it's all completely fake - or a case of an actual movie, such as Nekromantic, would people be banged up for possessing a fictional movie, or at least investigated, which might result in ultimately their entire lives being turned upside down and ruined forever (think along the lines of Operation Ore, which focussed on child pornography, and yet all - or at least the vast majority - of people accused of paying for kiddy porn actually had their details ripped off or confused because they paid for porn on a site that showed perfectly legal porn, but actually somehow linked to kiddy porn - people lost their jobs, their families, many even took their own lives after the ordeal went on for years and they were completely innocent)
D - beastiality, no problem with a law about that because an animal cannot consent to the act.

Otherwise it's a law which continues to set an incredibly nasty and dangerous precedent from this top-down gubment we have.

This legislation is completely unworkable, there aren't enough prison cells for actual criminals let alone people who like it rough in the bedroom and aren't committing any crime except a 'crime of taste by some people's standards', it's a total waste of money, it's draconian and it's just a complete waste of time and effort - and what's more, it's built on the back of the Jane Longhurst case - an exceptional case, that was abhorrent and tragic. But throwing together a law based on taste - and NO EVIDENCE (which was even admitted during the consultation period, I might add) - to win over tabloid reactionaries is an abhorrent way to run a country, and create legislation.

There's the clearly wrong (kiddy porn, beastiality, necrophilia) and then there's alternative - yet totally consensual - sexual lifestyles (BDSM, bondage, captive fantasies, spanking etc).

Interesting that there appears to be no real mention of "crush" videos like we heard about on that show on Bravo. That's flat-out animal cruelty and is of course right to be banned and tracked down and gotten rid of.

Many thanks to The Melon Farmers, a site I visit daily for all my censorship-in-the-UK-and-around-the-world news, which has covered this nasty piece of law for a long time now.

As I said before, there's the clearly wrong - which is either totally legislated against already, or is almost completely legislated again - and is in a totally different league, from everything else that is swept up by this rushed and ill-considered piece of trash law.

I certainly don't like the sort of things the law covers, but as I've said many times before, personal taste has no place in creating legislation.

As for the use of "appears", that basically leaves it up to the individual investigator to try and figure out if something is real and not, and surely in a world where a shedload of people believe The Blair Witch Project to actually be real, it is entirely possible - and has no doubt been employed as a filming technique - that some of the porn that would come under this draconian legislation would have been shot specifically to make it look 'real'.

It's interesting you say it's unpolicable, when I see the alternative as being that.

If you distinguish between 'is' and 'looks like' it means every single case has to be investigated to prove if it is indeed genuine or not, which in reality is impossible. In reality if it is real or isn't shouldn't come into it...

Let's shift it to child porn for one second! Let's say we allowed 'simulation'. Do you expect the police then to verify every image before progressing a case revolving around it?

The danger is a knee-jerk reaction with people bringing up things that are not covered by thes proposed rules. For example, you brought up spanking or bondage? Now, unless you're tempted to tie a dead cow up in leather straps and f*** the a**e off it, I can't see how any of the rules apply to this?

The problem is, there is no right or wrong.... The best you'll get is a compromise at 'about OK'...

[AcesandEights]

My thoughts, Chic Freak?

You'll still look stunning, even in a burka. But no worries, that'll still probably take a few decades to come to pass in the UK :D

[MinionZombie]

Those 4 'rules' is the tip of the law's iceberg though surely. That's the main mantra that is repeated about the law, but it goes beyond that and is an exceptionally dangerous law - one that mixes justly bannable stuff that is unarguably wrong, with things of 'different taste' and are consensual and not at all wrong by law - it's been opposed by a whole swathe of groups, even feminist groups have opposed this law.

As for 'simulated kiddy porn' as you keep banging on about, of course that's dodgy, but how do you mean simulated?

I think kiddy porn is the exception to all rules in a way, like ... that truly is the tip of the iceberg, which sits high above anything else and is just ghastly.

Also, that's what I was saying, the sheer man hours and deliberation and no doubt the amount of form filling and beaurocracy (which this gubment loves so dearly) would also add to it being impossible, then add the variables of personal taste, individual ideas/assumptions/theories and then a whole cavalcade more such as how tired is the person, have they seen too much porn during their job and as a result become more innured to it, and so on...

As for bondage, there's people being tied up, sometimes I guess part of the 'role play' of it all is to make it look forced upon the 'victim', there's the kidnap angle probably (which I mentioned before, although on that Sin Cities it wasn't really a bondage thing I think, it was mainly about the kidnap fantasy angle, although technically I think bondage was involved...really confusing) ... anyway... bondage/BDSM and such can be 'violent' or appear as such - aye, "appear", laws shouldn't really be based on "appear", which is essentially like using "might".

For example, you jail somebody who IS a burglar, not someone who MIGHT be a burglar ... if that makes sense, can't be arsed to come up with a better analogy...anyway...erm, where was I?

It's interesting that in the likes of Japan - where pornography is freely available (to most ages as well I think), the cases of sexual crimes have fallen dramatically, drastically even.

It's a similar line (when you think of the Longhurst case, in this context) to videogames. Games are perceived by nutters who don't understand them to make people into murderers, when in actuality being pre-disposed and already capable of such an act makes you a murderer.

Some people are just capable of murder, or rape, or whatever - but the vast, vast majority are not - then there's the difference between reality and fiction, as well as an interesting point that Mista Mo made - people who watch a particular type of porn, but wouldn't want to be involved in it in person at all, now that's an interesting point to add to the discussion.

Anyway, back to the Longhurst thing, that nutter who did it visited rape fantasy websites apparently, and then he took this woman and raped and murdered her (perhaps doing the former after the latter as well). Now - did the sites make him do it?

The question is relative, the main factor is that the man responsible was capable of doing it, unlike the vast majority of people. Regardless of his access to such sites, he was going to do it. Perhaps the sites delayed him, and maybe if he hadn't had those sites he might have done it more than just that once - so more women might have suffered, or he might have done something even stronger (like that psycho Fritzel bloke :eek:).

Also, with such sites as those the Longhurst murderer was visiting - they aren't hosted in the UK, they're beyond British jurisdiction. Also - surely they should be targetting the source, if they're so bothered. If a dictator wants to starve their people, they don't take the food from each family, they cut all the families off from their food supply ... a grim analogy, but it was the first one I could think of.

...

Essentially this legislation requires perception of the grey areas and of taste matters, but it doesn't give a bollocks really. As I said, it takes the clearly wrong, then mashes that in with porn that the gubment personally finds distasteful, which is in itself wrong to do.

[Danny]

*sigh*

oh well, guess ill have to stick with tubgirl, goatse and 2 girls 1 cup then, ho hum :lol:



.........*recollects said imagery* :barf:

[Khardis]

I can see kiddie porn being illegal, of course. Obviously... but this is just silly. Why Brits haven't risen up to overthrow their obviously tyrannical government which is more interested in order than their rights and freedoms is beyond me.

[Neil]

As for 'simulated kiddy porn' as you keep banging on about, of course that's dodgy, but how do you mean simulated?I'm using that as an example as it tend to seem to be the most black and white...

Let's say there's a video showing 'what appears to be' a young child being forcible raped by adults. Should that be permitted? You have no idea if it's genuine, or pretend/simulated?

Now, why is a scene showing say a women being raped against her will any different? Be it real or well faked?

Where does your line differentiate between the two?

How are the authorities to tell the difference to enforce the rules?

[MinionZombie]

Let's say there's a video showing 'what appears to be' a young child being forcible raped by adults. Should that be permitted? You have no idea if it's genuine, or pretend/simulated?

Now, why is a scene showing say a women being raped against her will any different? Be it real or well faked?

In terms of 'simulated' child abuse and 'simulated' rape fantasy - the former would involve a child, who cannot give their fully informed and legal consent ... the latter involves adults who can and have given their explicit consent, and have most likely been paid to be involved as well, so the latter is also a business transaction I guess...

Aside from the fact that simulated kiddy porn is highly unlikely.

Methinks in the realms of the sorts of things being discussed here, kiddy porn is going to almost always be real (cartoons notwithstanding in this argument for now), while 'rape fantasy' (which is a legit fantasy that both men and women hold, I was surprised to hear the first time I heard about it ... again on Sin Cities on Bravo if memory serves) is almost always going to be absolutely consenting, just the same as normal sex, gang bangs, bukkake, supposed voyeur videos, all the sorts of weirdness that comes out of Japan (*thinks of that episode of South Park ... can't help but laugh*) and so on ... at least that's my theory on the matter anyway now that we're in this discussion.

Also, in terms of children vs adults, a kid would no doubt be forced to not tell anyone - something which is a common factor in child abuse cases - meanwhile the same couldn't generally be said of a 'rape fantasy' video - in other words, the former would more than likely be real, the latter would more than likely be faked. I mean of course, that the number of potential 'adult forced to keep quiet cos it was a REAL rape video' would be incredibly low, if not non-existant ... indeed, what's the likelihood of widespread distribution of such real content, and indeed, within the UK borders which is as far as our jurisdiction goes.

I still find it interesting that "crush" videos don't appear to be included in this crazily half-and-half, ill-conceived legislation. Hearing about that on that show on Bravo was atrocious enough. :eek:

Now of course with the rape fantasy videos being real or fake ... indeed, that could potentially be a problem, which just goes to show the sheer difficulty of this legislation. Cops don't have enough time for normal policing, let alone having discussions about reality and fiction in the realm of fringe pornography.

I still maintain that a 'go for the source' method would be far better, it would of course involve international co-operation, but surely that can be achieved - at the very least in terms of kiddy porn which I think every single nation across the globe can agree to be absolutely abhorrent.

But even in a 'go for the source' method, you've still got the issue of taste vs actual crime.

...

I guess my Sociology A-Level is working overtime right now, hehe...well at least that 2 years wasn't wasted anyway!

[Neil]

In terms of 'simulated' child abuse and 'simulated' rape fantasy - the former would involve a child, who cannot give their fully informed and legal consent ... the latter involves adults who can and have given their explicit consent, and have most likely been paid to be involved as well, so the latter is also a business transaction I guess...

But you miss my point...

A DVD is found for sale in the UK, which seemingly seems to show woman being gang raped in Africa. She can be seen being abused and raped over and over, all the time crying to be let go.

So, allow it to be sold or not? There is no way to tell if it is simulated or real... Why should be done?

As I've said, by drawing a distinction between real and simulated, you make it impossible to police - every case has to be investigated and decided...


I'm not saying these rules are right, but then again I do not think there is right and wrong in these situation as they are nigh on impossible to get right. The best we'll do it, 'fair enough'...


As for the 'crush' video's they'd come under the current animal cruelty legislation.

[Khardis]

But you miss my point...

A DVD is found for sale in the UK, which seemingly seems to show woman being gang raped in Africa. She can be seen being abused and raped over and over, all the time crying to be let go.

So, allow it to be sold or not? There is no way to tell if it is simulated or real... Why should be done?

As I've said, by drawing a distinction between real and simulated, you make it impossible to police - every case has to be investigated and decided...


I'm not saying these rules are right, but then again I do not think there is right and wrong in these situation as they are nigh on impossible to get right. The best we'll do it, 'fair enough'...


As for the 'crush' video's they'd come under the current animal cruelty legislation.

impossible to police is a good thing.

[Mike70]

wow in many ways this is a tough one. i have read and re-read this thread before throwing in my 10 cents (inflation ya know).

what right does the govt. have in determining what you will see and hear is, to me, at the core of this. i feel that the govt. has very little right to determine such things UNLESS what you wish to view crosses the line whereby the govt. must exercise its duty to protect individuals from harm and exploitation.

child porn clearly crosses this line and that should be clear to anyone with half a brain.

bestiality, well as MZ said, ewwww and i'll add my own chunder :hurl:

necrophilia - whatever. see a shrink.

that leaves simulated rape and other forms of forced sex. neil is right, it is in many ways, impossible to police. where do you draw line? how can you be sure that what you are seeing is "simulated" or is some poor sex slave being used and abused by her owners? though anyone that would own another human being ought to be shot out of hand anyway but that is a story for another time.

speaking purely from personal taste, i see nothing erotic or arousing in rape, simulated or otherwise. rape scenes are one of the few things that make my jaded, old self very uncomfortable to sit through in the context of a mainstream/indie movie.

i wonder, very much in fact, about people who find this sort of thing sexy and want to wank to it. rape is one of the worst things (along with murder) that you can possibly do to someone and i am totally clueless as to why it would turn anyone on...

[MinionZombie]

Well said Scip.

I agree with Neil about the impossibility of policing, it's both mentally impossible as well as physically impossible - there just aren't the cops, the infrastructure, the time or anything like that.

Indeed, I don't "get" a lot of the legal (i.e. not kids, not animals, not dead people) 'rougher'/fringe porn that is coming under this law, but just because I don't "get" it, doesn't mean I should ban it or demonise people who view it.

The whole Longhurst thing is dodgy too, that psycho would have done that no matter what, and if someone is capable of doing the act in real life, then there's something seriously wrong with them - something that makes them unlike 99.9% of the population. If anything, I'd theorise that such porn delays actual action from the one-in-a-million nutjob out there, perhaps even decrease the severity or extent of their actions if they went out there and did something.

Also Neil, I duno how on earth kiddy porn would be simulated, so I guess that point is moot in a way ... I can understand it between adults as it's 'adult entertainment acting' and there's informed choices, often/usually involved cash exchanges ... also, the sort of freaks into kiddy porn are unlikely to fake it, when they're most likely so disturbed that they'd just do it for real ... I guess the line with those nutters is, are they a participant or just a viewer and/or distributor?

Also, the theory of such a DVD of simulated rape or whatever is moot too. Such DVDs cannot be sold legally in the UK, there's the Obscene Publications Act (which is often used by Customs when they spot a package coming from a flagged website or whatever), also if you want to legally sell a DVD it has to be rated. Such content would immediately be rejected by the BBFC and would never make it near R18 in a million years.

The only way it could be sold is either via the internet (and I think I heard somewhere that all those sorts of sites are hosted in places like Russia or something) or via some udnerground dealer, where it's an incredibly low turn out when compared to the over all population ... think along the lines of 8MM and that underground porn market ... I doubt there's much of that going on, but something along those lines ... I wouldn't be surprised at taking place.

I also just think that it's extremely unlikely for someone to film a real sex crime and then sell it and distribute it. You'd think criminals would want to stay un-caught...

Essentially, this law is ultimately inadequate and ill considered for anything beyond the 'big three' as we've previously discussed...

[SymphonicX]

This wouldn't be a good thread for me to make an evil comment would it?

The real question is, is banning any of this stuff really going to stop people watching it, or create more interest in it? Like the Texas CHainsaw massacre was a lot more appealing when it was banned....

Bottom line is, people will indulge themselves in whatever gets them off - and there's nothing any of us can do about it.

but sure, ban everything if that's what makes them happy....

Right, now I'm off to find some necropeadobeastiality....(that's a guy f*cking a dead kitten)

[MinionZombie]

Symph ... now that's some skilled tone lowering, Sir ... I take my hat off to that. :lol:

Banning stuff is stupid, it just makes people want it more, and after all - drugs are illegal, yet there's plenty of smack heads about. But of course, a bit of rough-yet-consensual-porn shouldn't be illegal nor should it be lumped in with the 'big three'.

They're all about control this gubment, they really are. Control through draconian laws, control through stealth taxes, control through tax credits and hand-outs ... ... as you're all well aware, the current British gubment sicken me, so I'll not go on about it or I'll get all pissed off, and that's not ideal for a Friday night.

[SymphonicX]

MZ: there was a tone to this thread?

hehehehehe

[Chic Freak]

I know it's a tough call, but if the act is deemed unacceptable then to realistically simulate it is surely unacceptable as well?

I know what you mean... my gut reaction is that if something is evil, then a simulated version isn't really much better, morally speaking.

But on a practical level, to use myself as an example: I think murder is wrong, yet Natural Born Killers is one of my favourite films, and the opening scene with the Knoxes shooting up the diner is one of my favourite scenes.

However, knowing that the deaths have all been realistically simulated is absolutely essential to my enjoyment. If I found out they were all real I wouldn't even be able to look at it, I would not enjoy watching it in the slightest, I would be horrified. Fantasy and reality have different characteristics and impacts on our minds.


It's a problem of policing as well... If you draw a line between it's OK to simulate it, but no OK to really do it, you have to investigate every case... Which then makes it impossible to police...

Out of interest, which of the four rules do you have problems with?

In the US, when you make one of these movies, you also have to film the models/ actors before and after, giving their informed consent before and chatting about their performances after, to make it absolutely clear that a) they knew exactly what they were letting themselves in for and b) they were not really harmed. You are not necessarily required to put this in the final film that gets released (although some people do, and make it part of the feature, e.g. the actors saying "I got so turned on when x stuck the electric melon-baller up my butt" or whatever) but they must be able to produce these video documents to authorities on request.

I have problems with the "appears to" bit of all four rules. Obviously I think that footage of real sexual violence, necrophilia and bestiality should be illegal, which they already are, just as I agree that the acts themselve should remain illegal.

I don't have a problem with actors producing films or models producing photos of imaginary scenes though.


Are regular movies next?

Well, exactly. If bondage/ rape videos are banned, you could still knock one out over Irreversible- unless it was decided that getting any enjoyment from violent films, whether it's sexual enjoyment specifically or not, was equally damaging!


Would scat play be in this as well?

I would have thought so... presumably eating poo could endanger your life (or appearing to eat fake poo, of course...)?? Liam and I are also wondering if smoking fetish videos will also become illegal!


There are many people who get off to images or videos of imagined beastiality/lolicon/mutilation/necrophilia, but they would find the very idea of themselves in that position revolting.

Exactly, this what I meant about the psychological distinction between fantasy and reality. People can get huge sexual fulfillment from pretending something in private with their partners that they would absolutely hate to do/ happen to them in real life (e.g. couples who play with rape fantasy do not want to actually rape/ be raped in real life).


The danger is a knee-jerk reaction with people bringing up things that are not covered by thes proposed rules. For example, you brought up spanking or bondage? Now, unless you're tempted to tie a dead cow up in leather straps and f*** the a**e off it, I can't see how any of the rules apply to this?

I didn't see the immediate connection either, as I think of bondage and spanking as being relatively "tame" as far as "extreme porn" goes, but having spoken to some of my fetish employers it seems that the new law will effectively make BDSM photos and videos (including asphyxiation, breathplay etc) illegal and unfortunately seriously damage some people's livelihoods :(


My thoughts, Chic Freak?

You'll still look stunning, even in a burka.

LOL, thank you. Apparently burkas are heading towards becoming bona-fide fetish uniforms now, rather like nun outfits. So maybe you will see me modelling one one day soon ;)


Let's say there's a video showing 'what appears to be' a young child being forcible raped by adults. Should that be permitted? You have no idea if it's genuine, or pretend/simulated?

Now, why is a scene showing say a women being raped against her will any different? Be it real or well faked?

I think the point is here that if it is fake, then it doesn't matter. Obviously not being sure if it was real or faked would still make it illegal, I mean it's illegal right now to sell videos or photos of people committing crimes like this.

I think blaming violent porn for violent sex offensives is rather like blaming bands for fans' suicides or movies for high school shootings. People who do this are putting the cause after the effect. Violent films do not make people violent, but violent people are likely to be attracted to watching violent films.


The real question is, is banning any of this stuff really going to stop people watching it, or create more interest in it?

I'm not sure really, but it will push everything underground into a place where no-one can be open about the material they are producing and everyone is avoiding being policed, which is a terribly dangerous thing.

[p2501]

Given the terminology of section (a) does this in effect rule that owning a copy of CKY or Jackass would then be illegal?

as for the rest it's just that, mindless blather for dimwitted people more intent upon controling what other see or do than in doing anything remotely productive. further since the criteria of what exactly constitues "owning" these materials is poorly defined then it makes this all the more suspect. is it purchasing magazines or videos? is it stored Jpegs on your hard drive. or is it fragmentary data from your internet history?

i dunno, of late i've been catching more and more random cases of cops and prosecutors just ****ing railroading people in order to support their own quotas and funding needs. so whenever i see some sort of newfound "moral legislation" i just feel the need to buy more armor defeating rounds.

these bans serve no real purpose, they're just satisfying a vocal minority.




I'm not sure really, but it will push everything underground into a place where no-one can be open about the material they are producing and everyone is avoiding being policed, which is a terribly dangerous thing.

damn fine point.

[Chic Freak]

Given the terminology of section (a) does this in effect rule that owning a copy of CKY or Jackass would then be illegal?

No, because they were not produced with the sole or major intent of creating sexual arousal (one assumes). This also highlights the hypocrisy of this bill- it's okay to enjoy watching someone's testicles being mashed by a snooker ball as long as you don't have a boner while you're doing it. Gimme a break.


further since the criteria of what exactly constitues "owning" these materials is poorly defined then it makes this all the more suspect. is it purchasing magazines or videos? is it stored Jpegs on your hard drive. or is it fragmentary data from your internet history?

Quote from the CJ&I Bill:

In this section “image” means—

(a) a moving or still image (produced by any means); or

(b) data (stored by any means) which is capable of conversion into an image within paragraph (a).

LINK (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldbills/051/08051.46-51.html#j400)

Btw, the new law went through yesterday, so it will be coming in in January :( Time to do a bit of research into whether I now stand to go to prison for 3 years for some of my images being online, methinks :|

[Marie]

I know there are rather a lot of right-wing type people on this board... what do you all think? Do you think certain simulated sex acts should be banned from porn? If so, is it because you just personally find it icky and "not your thing" or is there a more scientifically based reason that I'm not aware of?

I would like to clarify again that I personally am not "into", say, watching a video of an actor pretending to have sex with a fake "corpse", but I really feel that even if I had the power to do so, I wouldn't ban it just because I don't like it.

Link to Backlash (http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/)

Actually, while a lot of my views are considered to be "Right Wing", I consider myself Libertarian and therefore think Government interference in most commerce is a bad thing, so let the market decide is what I say. Of course, if they discover any real rather than simulated things such as you describe, the press and the legal eagles are going to be on it like flies on offal.

M_

[SymphonicX]

I wonder if we made murder legal would there be an increase?

[Chic Freak]

I wonder if we made murder legal would there be an increase?

Um, probably?

Are you comparing legalising simulated "extreme porn" with legalising murder?


Of course, if they discover any real rather than simulated things such as you describe, the press and the legal eagles are going to be on it like flies on offal.

As they should :)

[SymphonicX]

Um, probably?

Are you comparing legalising simulated "extreme porn" with legalising murder?






No I'm going to the most extreme end of the spectrum for crime or social taboo, and trying to gauge whether people thnk morality alone would be a sufficient barrier to protect one another...There's been suggestion in this thread about it causing no harm if it's totally consentual etc, giving me the impression that we should be left to ourselves to decide, and whilst I d agree with that if it is in context a consentual thing, we've no idea whether it truly is or not therefore could potentially be akin to a heinous crime - what I'm saying is, although we all seem to agree that the government shouldn't overly interfere, if they left it to everyone to decide, would we see an influx of extreme porn where people really are victims onscreen? Is the human moral barrier strong enough to self police? does that make sense? Im probably rambling....

I guess in a way we have been left to self-police in a way until recently....so if anything the issue wouldn't have gotten any worse or any better by anyone's standards...I guess it just strikes me as odd that the government wants to step in now to do something when socially, a lot of people have been using this stuff anyway....and probably will continue to regardless....I'm all for a bit of light bondage myself, but tend to avoid PVC Y fronts....

[Chic Freak]

There's been suggestion in this thread about it causing no harm if it's totally consentual etc, giving me the impression that we should be left to ourselves to decide, and whilst I d agree with that if it is in context a consentual thing, we've no idea whether it truly is or not therefore could potentially be akin to a heinous crime - what I'm saying is, although we all seem to agree that the government shouldn't overly interfere, if they left it to everyone to decide, would we see an influx of extreme porn where people really are victims onscreen? Is the human moral barrier strong enough to self police?

I don't think so, no way. I think those who produce "extreme pornography" should be strictly policed, making their operations as transparent as possible, and be required to prove that what they are doing is simulated and not real, e.g. via the American method mentioned above.

I'm not suggesting for a moment that people should be left alone and just trusted to do what's nice, I'm just saying that it should only be illegal to actually commit what's nasty- not just pretend to for entertainment purposes!

[SymphonicX]

I don't think so, no way. I think those who produce "extreme pornography" should be strictly policed, making their operations as transparent as possible, and be required to prove that what they are doing is simulated and not real, e.g. via the American method mentioned above.

I'm not suggesting for a moment that people should be left alone and just trusted to do what's nice, I'm just saying that it should only be illegal to actually commit what's nasty- not just pretend to for entertainment purposes!

Yeah I agree with that...I wonder what's more costly, policing the legal stuff or making it illegal and policing that?

Same could be said about weed smoking....**** man...legalise it and it'd blatantly cost less to police.....

[Chic Freak]

Yeah I agree with that...I wonder what's more costly, policing the legal stuff or making it illegal and policing that?

Same could be said about weed smoking....**** man...legalise it and it'd blatantly cost less to police.....

I would say that it would be cheaper to police the legal stuff, because that way, the majority of porn/ fetish businesses would be coming forward to authorities and letting them know exactly what they are doing, same as with any other business.

I think it's comparable to making weed illegal in the sense that:

a) people will carry on doing it anyway, thus draining valuable police time
b) making it illegal makes it very difficult for users to buy the 'safe' version of whatever it is they're buying as there is no government-regulated version available to them
c) making it illegal forces buyers to support criminals
d) making it illegal means that these 'businesses' do not pay taxes!

[MinionZombie]

I would say that it would be cheaper to police the legal stuff, because that way, the majority porn/ fetish businesses would be coming forward to authorities and letting them know exactly what they are doing, same as with any other business.

It also holds the businesses accountable if they try and funny business with the performers as well surely.

It's one of the reasons why I think prostitution should be legalised. If it was turned into a legit business, most importantly those involved on the ... *ahem* receiving end ... would be far safer. Protection would have to be mandatory, it'd be easier to keep tabs on what's going on ... and besides, the gubment could tax it. They make enough cash out of booze and alcohol, why not add minge to the list of vices they make mula out of?

Legalising drugs in a similar manner is a bit far though, before anyone goes there from my thoughts on prostitution ... also, I'll state for the record I'd never go to one, I just find the idea quite ... I duno ... unappealing. Some random person you don't know, they've done loads of other people, there's no emotional connection ... it's essentially a really expensive wank, why bother?

I'm of the mind that pokery should be between two people with a connection ... anyway, getting off topic here, where were we?

And how would they actually find people with the condemned porn anyway? That bit's had me stumped since the thread was started.

Now if you excuse me, this thread's making me feel all grotty, lol ... I'm off to the GTA IV thread. :D

[Dtothe3]

As far as I can tell, you can now get done for having images, that you CANNOT get jailed for performing.

IE, my missus makes much more noise then usual during anal sex. This could be depicted as causing her pain/suffering. If we made a film and distrubuted it, we could be arrested for the film, NOT THE ACT.

This law change is absolute bollocks and getting closer to the thought police everyday.

[Chic Freak]

It also holds the businesses accountable if they try and funny business with the performers as well surely.

Yes. Up until yesterday I could work for reputable bondage photographers/ cinematographers, safe in the knowledge that they were registered businesses who paid taxes, had health and safety precautions, insurance, and were monitored by the government. Anyone involved with heavy rope-tying stuff was professionally trained and anything involving water would have a trained lifeguard present (seriously).

I had my driver's license scanned or photographed at every shoot to go in their legal records and signed a model release at the end to help protect myself against my images turning up in places I wouldn't want them to turn up or altered in undesirable ways.

Now I can't take bookings from anyone involved in making "extreme" BDSM images because I'll know that the very fact that they exist means that they have slipped under police radar and are not being monitored by anybody at all, so I wouldn't know if I was taking a booking from a normal person running a business or a total creep.

I just removed my bondage rates from my site and am feeling quite bitter about all this... losing out on up to £50 per hour (about $100) just to be tied up and put a pained expression on my face (or whatever) with or without another girl to mess about with, just plain sucks :dead:

If you were stupid enough to believe that all the pictures of me out there on t'interwebs were real, you'd think I'd been tied up, whipped, spanked, asphyxiated in various creative ways, and had in turn done the same to other girls, when of course I have not done anything of the sort. All I was doing was making money and having a laugh.

Liam's uploading some "behind-the-scenes" style video footage of me and another model doing a bondage/ spanking shoot onto Youtube soon... it's extremely clear that what we are doing is simulated, mostly because we're cracking up as soon as the camera flashes each time. I guess it's too late now, but it would surely be good if people realised what being at a legit, simulated fetish shoot is actually like!


They make enough cash out of booze and alcohol, why not add minge to the list of vices they make mula out of?

Totally agree, it's not inherently anti-social but when it's illegal, it can end up that way. The government could blatently make a mint if they legalised and taxed it, but they won't because if they did they'd never get voted in again.

/rage

I'm off to drown my sorrows in chocolate and go on a massive internet job hunt.

xo

[SRP76]

(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.[/B]

So banging stuffed roadkill on-camera is a no-no now....damn, what I am supposed to do with my weekends now?!:p

[Chic Freak]

IE, my missus makes much more noise then usual during anal sex. This could be depicted as causing her pain/suffering. If we made a film and distrubuted it, we could be arrested for the film, NOT THE ACT.

Hmm. I was wondering whether if, in theory, a bondage image was traced back to one of my employers, whether I would automatically be in the sh!t too as conspiring to distribute or something, but perhaps not. *ponders*

As you say, it's not illegal to actually do these things in the privacy of your own home, it's just illegal to photograph/ video it.

[MinionZombie]

Although this "law" doesn't come into force until January does it?

Is there an official list of what it will properly cover or not yet? Like you're saying, to some people it's their livelihoods the gubment are messing with.

It's also stupid for one simple reason - homosexuality used to be illegal and considered extreme and abhorrent ... nuff said really.

Who gives a crap if some people like it on the rough side, it's supposed to be a free country, even though it's less free than it used to be, which is a disgusting realisation in and of itself.

It's also shocking how rushed this law is, and how anytime anyone has brought forward minor changes or suggestions to wording, it's shot down and seemingly nobody is willing to have a proper discussion about it - like the one we've all been having here.

...

Here's an article about it all from The New Statesman:

http://www.newstatesman.com/200805100003

One thing to point out - numerous lawyers have pointed out that it's totally against the European Convention of Human Rights.

Also of note, the consultation resulted in a majority response that was AGAINST this law, yet it was pushed through regardless. An exceptionally nasty piece of law making in all respects.

[Chic Freak]

Although this "law" doesn't come into force until January does it?

No, I just want to have myself covered in advance.


Is there an official list of what it will properly cover or not yet?

I don't know... let me know if you find one? :)


It's also stupid for one simple reason - homosexuality used to be illegal and considered extreme and abhorrent ... nuff said really.

I thought that. I don't agree with that argument applied to everything, but in this case it's definitely comparable.


One thing to point out - numerous lawyers have pointed out that it's totally against the European Convention of Human Rights.

Really?

[MinionZombie]

Really?

Yes really ... it's in that new statesman article. ..

now, officially I'm drunk,. so I won't go into it too much, but it's officially against the EC-of-HR, so in other words - LAME.

I'm too drunk to continue, laters! :D

[Neil]

Once again, I can't see any problem with this legislation, and TBH it seems to make some sense for me at least...

[MinionZombie]

You can't see any problem with it?

Despite the fact it's been stated that it's contravenes the ECHR, and that the final results of the consultation period were wholly against the legislation even going ahead - so the gubment just blundered on ignoring the wishes of the people.

The fact that it combines actually dodgy, illegal acts with stuff that's only caters to minority tastes, but isn't illegal because the material is consensual and paid for.

Once again, homosexuality used to be illegal ... and that was clearly wrong.

Who cares if someone likes to be tied up, or experiment with breath play, or likes their nuts yanked or their butt spanked ... they want it, it makes them happy, they're all consenting - ergo - law based on taste and no actual evidence of the cause-and-effect the gubment are bleetering on about (which was actually stated in the consultation document, that there was NO EVIDENCE to support this wack-job law).

Finally, legislation shouldn't be rushed out based on one case in a million to grab some headlines.

How about jailing some real criminals, not that there's any space for them.

...

And I don't even like the stuff this law covers!

But it's got nothing to do with like or dislike or taste. There's "the big three" (and rightly so), but those are being mixed with completely fake or completely consensual activities by individuals in their own time and the privacy of their own homes, who lead an alternative sex life.

The gubment has no place banning or controlling people's freedom of expression, another part of the ECHR that it contravenes so unashamedly.

That's why this law is wrong. At the barest, simplest explanation, it's very poor, ill considered, not-thought-through legislation.

[mista_mo]

Why is your government getting so involved in your personal lives?

[Neil]

You can't see any problem with it?

Despite the fact it's been stated that it's contravenes the ECHR, and that the final results of the consultation period were wholly against the legislation even going ahead - so the gubment just blundered on ignoring the wishes of the people.

The fact that it combines actually dodgy, illegal acts with stuff that's only caters to minority tastes, but isn't illegal because the material is consensual and paid for.

Once again, homosexuality used to be illegal ... and that was clearly wrong.

Who cares if someone likes to be tied up, or experiment with breath play, or likes their nuts yanked or their butt spanked ... they want it, it makes them happy, they're all consenting - ergo - law based on taste and no actual evidence of the cause-and-effect the gubment are bleetering on about (which was actually stated in the consultation document, that there was NO EVIDENCE to support this wack-job law).

Finally, legislation shouldn't be rushed out based on one case in a million to grab some headlines.

How about jailing some real criminals, not that there's any space for them.

...

And I don't even like the stuff this law covers!

But it's got nothing to do with like or dislike or taste. There's "the big three" (and rightly so), but those are being mixed with completely fake or completely consensual activities by individuals in their own time and the privacy of their own homes, who lead an alternative sex life.

The gubment has no place banning or controlling people's freedom of expression, another part of the ECHR that it contravenes so unashamedly.

That's why this law is wrong. At the barest, simplest explanation, it's very poor, ill considered, not-thought-through legislation.

I'll try and put this into personal context. 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.

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...


Why is your government getting so involved in your personal lives?

It's not... If you want your girlfriend to jump up and down on your nutts until they're a bloody pulp, go ahead. Just don't expect to sell video tapes of it... ;)

Still can't see the problem in the matter myself, unless you get all 1984 with it.

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...

[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* :dead:
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* :dead:
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. :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 ... :lol: ...

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 ... :lol: ...

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! :eek:

WHAT THE FUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK???!!! :eek:

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. :D I call BDSM on you, or something...:lol:

[Chic Freak]

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)

w00t! :D :D :D

Right, who's next??? :elol:


http://anitadebauch.webs.com/fetish/purplelatex.jpg

*boogies*

[MinionZombie]

w00t! :D :D :D

Right, who's next??? :elol:


http://anitadebauch.webs.com/fetish/purplelatex.jpg

*boogies*
*runs away*

Don't spank me with your feather duster! I might welt, and then the gubment might have to examine my bottom and have a discussion based on opinion and taste rather than solid evidence in their favour, as to whether you've just beaten me to within an inch of my life! :lol:

[SymphonicX]

hehehe "solid evidence"...

Mine's a bit watery...

[MinionZombie]

hehehe "solid evidence"...

Mine's a bit watery...
*ewwww*

Your evidence has the runs and smells horrible!

*hands X some triple-quilted bog roll for his ailing evidence* :D

[SymphonicX]

*ewwww*

Your evidence has the runs and smells horrible!

*hands X some triple-quilted bog roll for his ailing evidence* :D

The evidence locker is a bit sore and red....ouch....think I need some wet wipes...

[MinionZombie]

The evidence locker is a bit sore and red....ouch....think I need some wet wipes...
Your bumhole has been damaged! I'm arresting you on suspicion of hurting your arse and will lock you up for 3 years and put you on the sex offender's register, young man! :lol:

[Marie]

Your bumhole has been damaged! I'm arresting you on suspicion of hurting your arse and will lock you up for 3 years and put you on the sex offender's register, young man! :lol:

Of course the true irony is they'd lock you up in a place where there are guys who really WOULD do damage to your "bumhole":eek:

M_

[SymphonicX]

Of course the true irony is they'd lock you up in a place where there are guys who really WOULD do damage to your "bumhole":eek:

M_

Trust me, after the curry I've had......

[MinionZombie]

Trust me, after the curry I've had......
Ah geeeezus, I know what you mean.

Be it a dodgy burger, or a dodgy pint of Stella, or last week when I'd had many-a-can of Strongbow and was up at 9 after a crap night's kip, and promptly shat me guts out to the extent that I regretted not opening the window just beforehand ... :lol:

Annnnnnyyyyyywaaaaaaayyyy ... nice spot of irony there Marie, well played. :D That is indeed a cruel irony too.

[Mike70]

alrighty then. the turn this thread has taken in the last few posts has my weird-stuff-o-meter going up a point or two.

[MinionZombie]

lol, it's gone from people who like it rough, to the bumhole after-effects of a lad's night out. :D

[mista_mo]

i hat it when you cut your toe nails and they stink even worse then before you cut them- it's like they are holding stench in.

God I missed that smell...the popcorn one..oh God..I just wanna take my feet an-

Never you mind guys.

[Neil]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7682709.stm

TBH, it appears Ben Westwood just want some cheap publicity, and this is an easy way of doing it! Getting 3-4 young ladies in provocative clothing to wander around the Westminster is bound to get you in the press! Ask them anything about the subject, and you'd proably get a blank look back!

Is his career doing that bad!

[MinionZombie]

I believe it's all part of a larger protest, led by CAAN, the Melon Farmers have stuff up about all this kinda thing frequently.

The proposed law is still unjust, the police still haven't been told what the new thought crimes are, CAAN cannot get a single answer from any government body about the proposed law and so on.

As long as everyone consents - what's the problem?

The only things that should be illegal are kid porn (no consent and downright sickening), dead people (no consent) and beastiality (no consent).

But should a sexy lady posing with a fake dead body, or a zombie, or a skeleton be banned? I wouldn't say so, that's a gigantic area of grey - and if you've already stepped into a big puddle of grey mud within "the big three", how on earth can you possibly step beyond that and judge consenting adults who like a bit of rough? :rockbrow:

[Neil]

I believe it's all part of a larger protest, led by CAAN, the Melon Farmers have stuff up about all this kinda thing frequently.

The proposed law is still unjust, the police still haven't been told what the new thought crimes are, CAAN cannot get a single answer from any government body about the proposed law and so on.

As long as everyone consents - what's the problem?

The only things that should be illegal are kid porn (no consent and downright sickening), dead people (no consent) and beastiality (no consent).

But should a sexy lady posing with a fake dead body, or a zombie, or a skeleton be banned? I wouldn't say so, that's a gigantic area of grey - and if you've already stepped into a big puddle of grey mud within "the big three", how on earth can you possibly step beyond that and judge consenting adults who like a bit of rough? :rockbrow:

I suspect, this has all gone a bit 'Daily Mail' and Melon Farmers - with little to do these days compared to 10yrs ago - is desperately trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill...

I bet you this turns out to be the application of some common sense, in some dangerous and time/money wasting areas...

[MinionZombie]

There's nothing mountain or molehill about it, it's quite simply bad law making, and one of many, many, many measures introduced by "New Labour" to restrict the country's freedom of expression, freedom of thought, freedom to not be watched, accused, spied upon and judged unfit because you don't have mainstream tastes.

And this is coming from me, who doesn't wanna be involved in, nor see people getting kinky - but if it's consenting and it makes them happy - why should I judge them? Likewise, why should the government - especially using legislation which:

1) Is based on taste.
2) Admitted in its consultation document that it had NO EVIDENCE to support its claims.
3) Falsely representing the consultation response (they said more were in favour, when actually the vast majority were AGAINST it).
4) Is poorly constructed, and ill-thought out.
5) Has been all-but confirmed (as far as I know) to be ILLEGAL under the European Human Rights legislation.

Little to do these days for the Melon Farmers? No siree, they have LOTS to cover and it's never-ending. Ten years ago the main focus was how the BBFC had only just decided to lighten-the-f*ck-up, now video nasties are rarely an issue anymore (as in the likes of Driller Killer etc), now it's the Big Brother state that exists to persecute and spy.

Our very own Chic Freak has seen her modelling work hit hard by this legislation as employers 'flee the scene', so-to-speak, for fear of being jailed for 3 years and placed on the sex offender's register because they like 'alternate' sexual things.

It's not my bag, but once more - why should I judge? I don't, and neither should the gubment.


I bet you this turns out to be the application of some common sense, in some dangerous and time/money wasting areas...

What on earth does that mean?

[capncnut]

The only things that should be illegal are kid porn (no consent and downright sickening), dead people (no consent) and beastiality (no consent).
You forgot granny porn (MILF's are okay but over 70 is a no-no) and scat vids. You know scat, old bean?

"Scabba-dabba-dee-bop-wop-do-do-dop!" :D

[Bub666]

You forgot granny porn

:hurl:

[MinionZombie]

You forgot granny porn (MILF's are okay but over 70 is a no-no) and scat vids. You know scat, old bean?

"Scabba-dabba-dee-bop-wop-do-do-dop!" :D
:lol:

Oh man I can never listen to that Scatman John track that was so huge in the 90s ever again without thinking of 2 Girls 1 Cup. :lol: It was a classic 90s mainstream track though, still got a CD with it on somewhere.

Hey man, I don't wanna look at old people getting into some wrinkly effing, but if it makes them happy then I'm all for it ... ... just don't jiggle your wrinklies in my face. :lol:

You're having a larf indeed, but it's that sort of mentality (from people in power that actually mean it) - in all seriousness - that has defined this poorly written, human-rights-opposing 'legislation'.

Consent is the key, not taste.