Poll: UK ban on Extreme pornography

[Lord George]

Recently there has been some debate over the new law that is to be put in place throughout the UK from the 26th of this month, which will ban the possession of extreme pornography. What constitutes extreme pornography is anything of a "grossly offensive, disturbing or otherwise of an obscene character" and/or portrays any of the following
(a) an act which threatens a person?s life,

(b)an act which results, or is 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 (whether dead or alive)

I find this quit disturbing that our government is starting to censor this, I mean what next anything that could be seen as violent, or likely or cause hatred, or likely to interfere with the government where will it end? I am interested to hear your views on this and if you agree with it or not

 

[KendayTheAbsolute]

i said/voted no, because i think people can do anything they want with there personnal lives.

 

[ElephantGuts]

If it's consensual people should be able to do whatever they want. The necrophilia may be a bit over the line since a corpse can't really give consent. People say the same thing about animals but it's not that hard to distinguish the difference between consensual sex and rape in that case either.

The important thing is that nothing is banned because of "morals." I despise "morals" as an excuse to outlaw something because first of all, morals are made up and are different for every culture and person. And you can't stop people from doing something they want to do just because you don't like the idea of it yourself. If you don't want to do it, don't! It's your fault if you're thinking of it or exposing yourself to it, no one's pushing it in your face.

 

[GothmogII]

i said/voted no, because i think people can do anything they want with there personnal lives.

I'd probably agree on the first point. Even on the second if said deceased had given prior permission for their corpse to be used as such.

However...bestiality...that just smells to me far to close to paedophilia. While I'm sure a zoophile would try try and convince me that animals are capable of making a 'choice' as to when and where they have sex, it really isn't the same as a human consenting, and thus not valid in my opinion.

 

[NekoAnastasia]

No. The law says "is likely to result", meaning surely, if my boyfriend and I like breathplay and want to photograph or film some choking and whatnot, suddenly it looks like this action is "likely to result" in death or serious injury, and I can go to prison. How is that any of the government's business?

It's already illegal to consent to being physically hurt, now it's illegal to look at something which looks like it might hurt. The only basis for this kind of law is, "well, it's a bit weird, isn't it? I feel uncomfortable".

Take away a sadist's right to get his fix with consenting adults and you might as well release a wave of sexually frustrated rapists onto the streets.

Informed consent should be the bottom line. If all parties involved have given it, they should be able to do whatever the heck they want. Parties that cannot give informed consent, i.e. children, animals, dead people, are not at risk.

 

[Grenbyron]

i said/voted no, because i think people can do anything they want with there personnal lives.

I say yes because I think people have a right to do what they want with their personal lives. As long as I do not have to see it.

 

[iseko]

It's an obvious given the extreme pornography is some sick sh*t. But every person has different sexual needs. It's better if people get their kicks from online pornography instead of in real life.

Example: My mom is a psychologist. She can't say the name of her patients but she is allowed to talk about the cases. She was once talking about a guy who liked to have sex with very skinny women. Because then he can imagine he is having sex with a little kid. That's some sick sh*t! But it's better then him having sex with little kids.

So, the UK government should not be allowed to ban it.

 

[MurderousToaster]

I really think that it's a yes. I'd rather not have extreme porno. C'mon, who would want to watch a person have sex with a body or animal?

 

[Ruzzian Roulette]

To each his own, leave the porn ALONE!

 

[Fangface74]

What about TV/movies/music/comics where people 'appear' to be very violent and/or sexual?

 

[Zallest]

I voted no before looking at what Extreme Porn was... i thought it was gonna be something cool like regular porn but times a hundred

But, people should be able to choose what they want to wank too so i guess no anyways.

 

[KendayTheAbsolute]

i said/voted no, because i think people can do anything they want with there personnal lives.

I say yes because I think people have a right to do what they want with their personal lives. As long as I do not have to see it.

just don't go to the strange websites.

 

[Combined]

Everything is okay, as long as it's not done/shown in public.

 

[s0denone]

Fuck yes.

 

[curlycrouton]

Recently there has been some debate over the new law that is to be put in place throughout the UK from the 26th of this month, which will ban the possession of extreme pornography. What constitutes extreme pornography is anything of a "grossly offensive, disturbing or otherwise of an obscene character" and/or portrays any of the following
(a) an act which threatens a person’s life,

(b)an act which results, or is 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 (whether dead or alive)

I find this quit disturbing that our government is starting to censor this, I mean what next anything that could be seen as violent, or likely or cause hatred, or likely to interfere with the government where will it end? I am interested to hear your views on this and if you agree with it or not

I thought that those types of pornography were illegal anyway? Seriously though, I'm not bothered about what they're banning, it's more that they're exercising censorship.

However, all the types of pornography stated above are both harmful, disturbing and frankly disgusting, and I can see perfectly well why the UK Government decided to ban them. Especially anything that involves the risk of injuries or corpses.

 

[Fangface74]

I really think that it's a yes. I'd rather not have extreme porno. C'mon, who would want to watch a person have sex with a body or animal?

What about someone who thinks your gaming hobbies are extreme?

A lot of people find these extreme and unwatchable

(Sounds like I'm defending animal porn I know, I'm not it's just that censorship can snowball if not kept in check)

 

[Grenbyron]

i said/voted no, because i think people can do anything they want with there personnal lives.

I say yes because I think people have a right to do what they want with their personal lives. As long as I do not have to see it.

just don't go to the strange websites.

Hehe, wish that was a viable argument. I think you are right but anyone else it seems they forget that if you don't like it, don't turn it on.

 

[zacaron]

I dont support this shit but I will defend there right to watch it. because then they dont go out and try to make there own with people/animals who probably won't give consent to that.