[Politics] Bill for "possession of violent and extreme pornography" to become law next week.

[Draven]

BBC News is running an article on the bill for "possession of extreme pornography". I was aware of this previously, having read about it in Bizarre, but I was unaware that this law has been passed. Said law being under clause 64 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill.

This law is the outcome of the campaign by Liz Longhurst, the mother of murdered Jane Longhurst, for the banning of "extreme pornography". Jane Longhurst was killed by Graham Coutts after he had been frequently accessing websites promoting the use of violence and rape towards women.

What this law means is that the possession of pornographic materials deemed to be "violent and extreme" is now a criminal offence. The part that is causing controversy is that this covers "an act which threatens or appears to threaten a person's life". This means that fantasy materials, where the actors are engaging in consensual sex and simply acting, will also fall under this bill due to it appearing that the actors life is being threatened. This means that pornographic materials such as rape fantasies and BDSM will be covered by this law, and possession of such materials will be deemed illegal.

This leads to extremely murky waters, couples are still allowed to engage in consensual sex acts such as rape fantasies and BDSM, but if they photograph themselves/video tape it for their own personal enjoyment, they are then in breech of this law. Lib Dem MP Baroness Miller has said of the act:

"The government is effectively walking into people's bedrooms and saying you can't do this. It's a form of thought police."

Obviously this has provoked outcries from those people whom engage in such consensual acts, and enjoy the use of these fantasy materials as aids to sexual intimacy.

What's the views on this then folk? Quite frankly I think this is none of the governments concerns, as the article is quoted as saying "you don't ban alcohol due to a few alcoholics". When people engage in these activities consensually, and watch fantasy pornography I see no harm in that. Is this thought police? Is the government right to pass this, or have they just stepped into creating laws for our sex lifes?

Discuss.

[LesMTS]

Ridiculous.
It was discussed on here when the bill was first proposed and I think the consensus was that it was stupid. An opinion I still hold.

[Devastator]

I can see both sides.

[fallen_nemesis]

BDSM ... the Marilyn Manson for the 21st century

[Dario]

Fuck that. I need those pictures for the "MS paint over p0rn" thread.

[LesMTS]

Originally Posted by Devastator

I can see both sides.

I can understand both sides, but I think one side is being incredibly reactionary and stupid.
Finding violent pornography titillating does not make people violent, but violent people might seek out violent pornography. This is like banning doughnuts to try to stamp out greedy people.

[fallen_nemesis]

nah, it came across more to me as someone hurt and in a desperate attempt to do good completely managing to miss the mark. As usual with such things loads of other folk who completely don't understand the sitaution or topic jump on the bandwagon and before you know it you've got a full scale lynch mob.

[bikuki]

Wow, surprise surprise - people who are inclined to rape and kill women also like to watch simulated rape/murder.
I'm constantly amazed at how the government can justify stuff like this to themselves.

[LesMTS]

Originally Posted by bikuki

Wow, surprise surprise - people who are inclined to rape and kill women also like to watch simulated rape/murder.
I'm constantly amazed at how the government can justify stuff like this to themselves.

This sums up the issue nicely.

[Hammer]

Great week for this to come in to effect given Lord Laidlaw's little indiscretion.

[metallideth]

To those who fear the legislation might criminalise people who use violent pornography as a harmless sex aid, she [Mrs Longhurst] responds with a blunt "hard luck"

I'm in awe at the depth of argument here. Really.

[TheCastrator]

Originally Posted by Draven

Said law being under clause 64 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill.

Interesting link.
Two things I notice.
1)No mention of Scotland. England, Wales and Northern Ireland, yeah, but no Scotland.

2)

(3) An image is “pornographic” if it appears to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal.

...

So, for example, where—
(a) an image forms an integral part of a narrative constituted by a series of images, and
(b) it appears that the series of images as a whole was not produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal, the image may, by virtue of being part of that narrative, be found not to be pornographic, even though it might have been found to be pornographic if taken by itself.

Loopholetastic:
"Hello. We are a couple. We love each other. We have sex like this."<Sexings>"We love each other. This has been a documentary about how much we love each other. Bye."

[Draven]

Originally Posted by metallideth

I'm in awe at the depth of argument here. Really.

I meant to post that in the original post actually,

Originally Posted by TheCastrator

Interesting link.
Two things I notice.
1)No mention of Scotland. England, Wales and Northern Ireland, yeah, but no Scotland.

2)

Loopholetastic:
"Hello. We are a couple. We love each other. We have sex like this."<Sexings>"We love each other. This has been a documentary about how much we love each other. Bye."

And also meant to discuss this. I noticed no mention of Scotland as well, not sure how this is working or if we have our own separate law?

[Mwezzi]

I generally never know what to say on this because it's such a confusing area.

Case in point: child pornography is banned because of the illegal use of minors in sexual things and also because sex with minors is wrong. Stemming from this is the consensus that sexualising young people can be seen as encouragement towards those who would seek to rape children. BUT! There are several groups which do a sort of simulated paedophilia - that is, the actors/models are all of legal ages but are made to LOOK like they are as underage as possible. This is legal even though the end effect can often be the same and still caters to people who would rather fuck children than adults.
FOLLOWING ON! Raping a person and filming it is glorifying the attack and humiliation of another person and is deplorable, violent scenarios such as this often play a major part in the fantasies of utter bastards who DO attack people sexually or get their kicks out of seriously harming or killing their victims. However, simulating this and filming it with two consenting people who are fully aware of the fantasy nature and know when to stop is not seen in the same light but could be used to the same ends anyway by certain individuals.

People want to stop such scenes playing into widespread porn in an attempt to stop people from thinking rape/paedophilia is okay, but this is seen as discriminatory to those who have no desire to actually harm others.

Now, to go onto psychology there have been multiple studies showing rises in sexual crime and increasing normalisation of sexual violence in areas where sex shops open and pornography of any description is widespread, and that also people tend to go for more hardcore stuff with increasing pornography use as the old images become normalised and lose effect, leading to increasing demand for violent pornography. This often corresponds with increasingly more degrading attitudes towards sexual partners.
On the other side, millions are using pornography with no problem or change to their behaviour.

On the side that finds problems with violent pornography, the only logical step (following both their arguments and other evidence) to take would be to ban ALL forms of pornography in order to see any reduction in demand for the extreme stuff.
Not going to happen because, as said before, of the millions of responsible adults who use all forms of porn without going off the rails and killing each other.

My personal opinions shall not be voiced on this matter here. Waters are too murky. I once tried to put my ideas down coherently and was still scribbling madly 3 pages later. However, I may randomly pick a side if this gets interesting enough.

[LesMTS]

Originally Posted by Mwezzi

FOLLOWING ON! Raping a person and filming it is glorifying the attack and humiliation of another person and is deplorable, violent scenarios such as this often play a major part in the fantasies of utter bastards who DO attack people sexually or get their kicks out of seriously harming or killing their victims. However, simulating this and filming it with two consenting people who are fully aware of the fantasy nature and know when to stop is not seen in the same light but could be used to the same ends anyway by certain individuals.

Violent movies will appeal to violent people, sure, but I can enjoy the thrill of a violent movie yet I'm an embarrassingly peaceful person.
The cart is before the horse in this whole issue.