When Does Kinky Porn Become Illegal?
Controversial new legislation being enacted in England does not target the production of “extreme” pornography, as some laws do, but the possesion of it. It targets not the pornographer but the consumer. In sending the link to a BBC article reviewing the obvious dilemmas raised by the law, Chad offered the following thoughts.
Hi PervScan dude…
A new law is being passed in the UK on 8 May 2008 that bans “violent and extreme pornography.” Now at first you might think, “Good! We’ll stick that sort of stuff on the same list as child porn and snuff etc.” but once you read the article you realise that “pornographic material which depicts necrophilia, bestiality or violence that is life threatening or likely to result in serious injury to the anus, breasts or genitals has no place in a modern society and should not be tolerated,” says a spokeswoman for the ministry of justice.
Depicts?
If the acts being carried out are real i.e. a real rape, a dude screwing a real corpse etc, then of course the authorities should intervine. But if pornography is made by a legitimate studio, with paid actors, who “act” and use special effects and plot etc to drive a story, then to watch it would be a crime?!?!
I’ve seen Hollywood blockbuster films with major stars that have scenes that would turn you onto a criminal if you still fucking own them? Rape scene from The Accused anyone? Boxing Helena? A Clockwork Orange?
I understand why they are introducing the law, as they think that if people watch violent porn, then they will act out in real life what they have seen and what fuels their desire… But what people should be focusing on in my opinion is what created the desire in the first place. I would think most of these people harbour a fetish for violent sex and seek this material out. I don’t belive people accidently come across violent porn and then become addicted to it, and then go on to act it out.
In fact apart from one case i’m aware of (the Graham Coutts case), i’ve never seen violent porn mentioned as a catalyst for a violent sex crime.
I think more murder and sex crime has been commited by people devoted to the bible/religious causes then pornography! (Just type “priest” and “rape” together in google and search…) But I dont see anyone in any hurry to outlaw the Bible or priests or catholics etc.
And just to finish off, I’m in no way a champion for keeping violent porn on the shelves or internet, my cup of tea is nice fit lasses with lush round bums all oiled up… oh yeah!!, I just think that when censorship or a ban comes into play, then who are the people making the laws and how in touch are they with the real world? And where does it end?
Amen, Chad. The principle behind the law is monkey see monkey do. But if people really acted out the things they see in movies and read in books, you’d have to outlaw nearly every “pernicious influence” except, uh, hell… What would be left to read? Math books? Here’s a prediction. If there were nothing left in the world to read but math books, people would learn to apply numbers to their basest urges. Calculus can be a dangerous weapon in the hands of anyone trying to plot the trajectory of a bomb. And if a rapist had no language other than trigonometry, he would dream of his evil deeds in functions and formulae.
Hmmm. Reading this article made me want to cause serious injuries to David Blunkett’s anus and genitals. Maybe the Beeb piece itself should have been banned?
Then again, I don’t think I know a single person who doesn’t want to incapacitate the man in one way or another, so it’d probably just be shutting the stable door.
David Blunkett??? Isn’t that cunt BLIND??? FFS! That’s Got To Be the living epitome of New Labour Hypocracy! A guy who can only ever Listen to ” Ooh! Mmmm! (Slosh, slosh, slap!) ” wants to stop anyone else getting in on what he so vehemently misses!
Thank fuck I got out of that country!
Any cognitive psychologist can show you that people do act out what they see, and they become accustomed to violence and sex being linked through seeing them portrayed together and more likely to mix the two themselves. Those are facts. Some call it modeling. We see it it action on tv in the US every time we see that some thug has shot some other gangster in order to enforce his will on them.
The problem has always been deciding what sort of risks we as a culture are willing to take in order to have freedom of speech. For instance, if psychologists show that Max’s rape porn leads to 15 rapes a year that might not otherwise happen, do we act? (I realize that the case is never that clearcut, I’m just making a point.)
The English laws have been around a while, and the real problem with them was mentioned above, they criminalize DEPICTIONS of sex acts and not just the sex acts. Technically, catholic school girl uniform porn, beloved of many of us around the world from the US to the UK to Japan, is illegal under British law. Stated reasons are always that it protects the children, but does making it illegal to watch a 25 year old in white blouse, long white socks and blue skirt perform a sex act REALLY protect the virtue of actual 11 year old girls?
It’s always a balancing act. Freedom to see what we as adults want to see versus the chance that our tastes in smut may endanger innocents. How much of an increse in the chance of harming children or other innocents is too much? Can we actually determine the amount of increase that these images cause? All are valid questions that we as a culture have to look at.
Unfortunately, the chances of being able to obtain answers are slim to none. One of the most repressive regimes in modern history, the Stalinist Russian government, prohibited any portrayal of sexuality in media, and yet we all know about their behavior in World War II. The English proposals may be well-intentioned, but to limit free expression, we should demand real evidence that it’s necessary, and will prove effective, neither of which they can begin to show.
its not that violent sex depicted in porn leads to rape it’s that someone who is already inclined towards that behavior has made a choice to go out and rape.
Going more after the consumer rather than the producer? That’s crazy! Usually it’s the other way around! The article here portrays an example of the government acting like a parent pre-emptively banning a child from doing something because he or she thinks that the child would do something bad, stupid, or dangerous! The government is treating its citizens like children! People make their own decisions. Ladycara is right about what she says, that people make their own choices to do things such as rape.
All comments become the property of PervScan. You must use an email address to post a comment. However, PervScan disallows email addresses in the text of comments.
Meet Hotties
