Comments on: When Does Kinky Porn Become Illegal?

By: mamasboy

mamasboy — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 17:19:20 +0000

its all right for to guys or gals to go at it why not me and my mother

By: Anonimous

Anonimous — Thu, 08 May 2008 23:48:25 +0000

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.

By: ladycara

ladycara — Sun, 04 May 2008 00:56:40 +0000

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.

By: Recluse

Recluse — Fri, 02 May 2008 19:01:17 +0000

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.

By: Husk

Husk — Fri, 02 May 2008 17:22:26 +0000

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!

By: Neko

Neko — Fri, 02 May 2008 08:44:00 +0000

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.