"Extreme pornography" to be banned in the UK

[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. 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 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. 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 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 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....