Poll: UK ban on Extreme pornography

[Zykon TheLich]

"The Law Lords ruled that SM activity provides no exception to the rule that consent is no defence to charges of assault occasioning actual bodily harm or causing grievous bodily harm. These are defined as activities which cause injuries of a lasting nature. Bruises or cuts could be considered lasting injuries by a court, even if they heal up completely and that takes a short period of time. *SNIP etc*

So under those definitions, would a love bite be considered assault?

 

[NekoAnastasia]

So under those definitions, would a love bite be considered assault?

I shouldn't think so, unless it was actually a bite that broke the skin, or the resulting bruise was worse than normal. Either way, it's up to the individual judge to decide, stupid law. Since it uses words like "trifling in nature" or "pain so slight that it can be discounted", it's not exactly clear cut.

 

[Zykon TheLich]

So under those definitions, would a love bite be considered assault?

I shouldn't think so, unless it was actually a bite that broke the skin, or the resulting bruise was worse than normal. Either way, it's up to the individual judge to decide, stupid law. Since it uses words like "trifling in nature" or "pain so slight that it can be discounted", it's not exactly clear cut.

Yeah, when I say bite, I mean bite. Kind of a hard 'crime' to track down. IIRC doesn't assault etc have to be pressed by the victim? An associate of mine managed to get away with some truly criminal shit because the victims didn't want to press charges. Mind you I have also heard that the general guidance coming out from the home office is now 'hit em hard if it goes to court'. Fuckers. They're already starting to house prisoners in residential areas...grumble, complain etc.

 

[stompy]

Is the wording of the law "grossly offensive, disturbing or otherwise of an obscene character"? If so, I'm against it; while I would be in favour of the ban against necrophilia and bestiality, the wording of the law allows for too many items, even those of non-pornographic nature, to be banned. It allows for a slippery slope.

If they change the wording, then I need to think about it. As it stands, I am against it.

 

[NekoAnastasia]

So under those definitions, would a love bite be considered assault?

I shouldn't think so, unless it was actually a bite that broke the skin, or the resulting bruise was worse than normal. Either way, it's up to the individual judge to decide, stupid law. Since it uses words like "trifling in nature" or "pain so slight that it can be discounted", it's not exactly clear cut.

Yeah, when I say bite, I mean bite. Kind of a hard 'crime' to track down. IIRC doesn't assault etc have to be pressed by the victim? An associate of mine managed to get away with some truly criminal shit because the victims didn't want to press charges. Mind you I have also heard that the general guidance coming out from the home office is now 'hit em hard if it goes to court'. Fuckers. They're already starting to house prisoners in residential areas...grumble, complain etc.

Not so, not pressing charges doesn't make a difference in some cases. Noteably cases where the government feels like prosecuting people because they're prejudiced bigots. Read more: The Spanner Case [http://www.spannertrust.org/documents/spannerhistory.asp]

 

[cuddly_tomato]

Not so, not pressing charges doesn't make a difference in some cases. Noteably cases where the government feels like prosecuting people because they're prejudiced bigots. Read more: The Spanner Case [http://www.spannertrust.org/documents/spannerhistory.asp]

That is fucking ridiculous.

The police who wasted time investigating that case should be investigated themselves, along with the prosecutors who wasted time and taxpayers money prosecuting it. They should all certainly be suspended from duty.

And the judge? WTF was the judge thinking?

 

[Zykon TheLich]

Not so, not pressing charges doesn't make a difference in some cases. Noteably cases where the government feels like prosecuting people because they're prejudiced bigots. Read more: The Spanner Case [http://www.spannertrust.org/documents/spannerhistory.asp]

Ah yeah, thinking about it, he got away without being charged because there was no evidence without victims' statements.

That (your example) was 1990 though, almost 20 years ago, the potential is still there but I don't think a guilty verdict would have been reached today. Or at least I wouldn't if they hadn't just passed a specific law against it.

 

[vede]

No. First off, who are you harming by sexually contacting a corpse? Dead people don't think, they can't be harmed, they don't have feelings, and they don't have rights (if corpses have rights, trees and stones should have rights, too).

Bestiality, though... Well, it depends. If the animal is showing distinct signs of discomfort during the activity, it shouldn't be allowed, and if the person has some sort of STD, it shouldn't be allowed. If the animal is hurt in the process, illegal. If the animal isn't harmed or traumatized because of the event, it shouldn't be illegal.

As for human-human sexual interaction, humans are capable of saying clearly that they're okay with it, and consensual behavior should be fine. Although the death of any consent-givers should result in a negligence and\or murder charge.

 

[Joeshie]

Oh man, the more I hear about Europe and all the crazy censorship their governments are throwing at them, the more I love living in the US.

 

[vede]

Bestiality, though... Well, it depends. If the animal is showing distinct signs of discomfort during the activity, it shouldn't be allowed, and if the person has some sort of STD, it shouldn't be allowed. If the animal is hurt in the process, illegal. If the animal isn't harmed or traumatized because of the event, it shouldn't be illegal.

While I wouldn't deny that there have probably been mutually gratifying sexual exchanges between humans and animals, the limited capacity for understanding and expression make interpreting an animal's "consent" pretty sketchy. In the 'best case' scenario, there is still a significant possibility that sexual advances on an animal would cause it alarm, distress or fright. In the worst case scenario... I hope for your sake you never have the experience of stumbling across any animal snuff videos. They exist, unfortunately.

Whoa, I never said consent, because animals can't communicate consent with a human, other than through body language. And that's what I'm talking about. If a human and an animal are in sexual contact, and the animal is not trying to get away from the contact, it's fine. (But, as I said, if the human part has some sort of STD, it's out-of-bounds.) Another possible way to go about it is if an animal is actually the one penetrating the human. If that's how it is, then you can be sure the animal is not against the whole thing (unless it's obvious the animal is being forced into it).

I love the Escapist (mostly), it's the only place I know of on the Internet where I can have a nice, calm conversation about topics like bestiality or homosexuality or other controversial topics without having to worry about people going ALL-CAPS and using lots of profanity. Thank you.

 

[Fingolfin High-King of the Noldor]

It's not like porn hurts anyone... Jeez I mean it's not 1. Immoral or 2. A bad thing. It employs a lot of people and it makes people feel very... "Happy"

 

[Fineldar]

Woa, will the joke come true? The classic joke about having to be 21 to by Ultra/thatreally hardcore Porn

 

[Shivari]

I find it sadly amusing to see how defensive people get about porn, even "sexual interference with a human corpse". It's really quite sad.

Anyways, I'm definitely of a different mindset about porn, and sex in general, then most people. I don't think masturbating, or even having casual sex, is moral, and most people will vehemently disagree with me. I really don't care what you think, I don't think it's right to do those things, and I really think you should only have sex with someone you're in a truly serious relationship with. Call me a prude or whatever you will, but I don't believe in it.

This is probably the only belief of mine that correlates with my Catholic upbringing, as I disagree with the church's stance on most every other social issue, including the fact that I don't believe in God anymore.

Now I really couldn't care less about what you personally do in your room at night, but seriously, the stuff that they're banning is stuff that should be banned.

I disagree with your opinions, but I'm honestly curious WHY you hold them. You've stated you had a Catholic upbringing, but that doesn't really address the reasoning that lead you to your conclusions. Do you feel porn, masturbation, casual sex devalue sex? Do you think they're harmful to relationships? Am I on the right track at all, or is it something else entirely?

Those things you mentioned are a part of it I suppose, but they're not really the reasons that I came to my conclusion. I really just don't think those things are moral at all, and it's giving in to the perverse and barbaric side of human nature. Don't we have self-constraint? What do you gain from 5 minutes with porn or some person who you'll probably stop being with in a month or two? I think it's something that an adult should be able to not give in to. Tell me, why do you think porn, masturbation, and casual sex are alright?

If you don't understand, I'm fine with that. This is just how I feel, and I find it's a belief of mine that is hard to justify in a standard debate, as it relies a lot on just how I feel, and not necessarily facts. I really just don't see the point of casual stimulation just for the hell of it. I'm not saying "never have sex ever, and when you do, do it with your eyes closed and pretending you're somewhere far away", I just think it's something that should be saved for a real relationship, not your hand and a computer screen.

 

[Chiasm]

All right, I'm against necrophilia/beastality and for most other things because I believe in INFORMED consent. An animal and a dead person cannot give their consent, therefore anything you do to them is tantamount to rape and should most certaintly be illegal.

Figured anything dealing with extreme situations such as this would be only in drawings and not taken into real life practices as far as finding pictures of it. But we could argue acceptance all night but it's just personal taste. Same way some think Furries are the devil and others love Furries.

Anything else, it should be down to the people involved giving INFORMED consent. This means that they are mentally aware of exactly what's going on, they're mentally sound to make their own decisions, they're not influenced by fear, abuse, etc, they have to be in sound mind, informed, and give their consent. Anything situation where the parties don't give that should be illegal, but if everyone involved does, then they should be good to go with no interference.

I think the main thing is a abusive relationship could be lied as a s/M relationship.

I've been in heavily abusive relationships myself, and I know the kind of mental affect it can have on you, but if you're under duress then that isn't informed consent, so it doesn't count either way. Also, a guy can't just claim for someone else that they consented, because surely they can just refute it? If the man in your example claimed she consented, and she or her child said actually, no they didn't, and it appeared that way on the tape, a lot should happen. Although rape laws within marriage are flimsy as hell.

I agree they can't claim consent, However the wife and child can easily say yes nothing happened which is why abuse can go on for many years. You never as a the abused child dream of telling someone the cuts are from a knife. In a way it forces consent on the wife when she has no choice in fear but to say yes. I think this alone would be a good stand point to ban it.

* However as the UK seems not to have this as a reason and it's just morality then it seems the above issue isn't even a reason why they want to take a away a right so I agree it shouldn't be banned.

I'm still adamant that informed consent is the bottom line. People in the scene know how to protect themselves, they respect one another's boundaries, they have safe words to ensure safe play, etc. It's none of Gordon Brown's business.

I think my view point may also becoming from my own past experiences and relationships, As I have never been in the scene with safe words. But relationships mixed heavily with D/s and in those with the only safe words are "no". I think I could see how a cop may become confused but should still be a firm ground for a country to ban a persons consent.

 

[Chiasm]

Don't we have self-constraint? What do you gain from 5 minutes with porn or some person who you'll probably stop being with in a month or two? I think it's something that an adult should be able to not give in to. Tell me, why do you think porn, masturbation, and casual sex are alright?

This will all be personal thoughts and viewpoints on these issues, However men have to release their built up seed it happens in nature as it is just a part of male biology. As a female however when in a serious relationship there has always been a sense of pride with a mate. Meaning if I masturbate it is to prove love and to show sexual feelings for your mate even if they are away visiting family, As well as in these points you could say you compete with porn and would rather them masturbating to porn of you then porn of another girl. So you can argue porn and masturbating can all be parts of a serious relationship.

However,Casual sex I can agree on but I still feel casual sex is not as intimate as kissing, Animals all have sex but only humans can kiss.

 

[Shivari]

However men have to release their built up seed it happens in nature as it is just a part of male biology.

Something tells me that isn't true, or if it is, I haven't heard about it.

As a female however when in a serious relationship there has always been a sense of pride with a mate. Meaning if I masturbate it is to prove love and to show sexual feelings for your mate even if they are away visiting family, As well as in these points you could say you compete with porn and would rather them masturbating to porn of you then porn of another girl. So you can argue porn and masturbating can all be parts of a serious relationship.

That's a bit of a stretch, and I think that you could hold your sexual gratification if they're away anyway. I'm also not sure I'd be too charmed by my mate masturbating to me, and I wouldn't call that proving their love either.

Plus the fact that I guarantee that most masturbating probably isn't within this context at all.

 

[Chiasm]

Something tells me that isn't true, or if it is, I haven't heard about it.

It's a debated subject with humans at least due to the issue of religion and nature that the two sides will take however with animals it is very common to do sexual things for satisfaction and also for a need of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexuality
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal_2.html

Only credible site I could find that had a article dealing with sexuality, I have books dealing with primates who have open orgy's and also reasoning behind semen build in animals and humans. However other then a book title I can not scan the pages to support it so.

P.S The best part of the wiki I think is.

Prostitution

In some penguin species, the females, even when in a committed relationship, will exchange sexual favours with strange males for the pebbles they need to build their nests.[45]

Dirty dirty lil penguins.

That's a bit of a stretch, and I think that you could hold your sexual gratification if they're away anyway. I'm also not sure I'd be too charmed by my mate masturbating to me, and I wouldn't call that proving their love either.

Plus the fact that I guarantee that most masturbating probably isn't within this context at all.

Like I was saying this part is highly personalized and my views on it, Won't hold true with you or even another girl or couple. But just another viewpoint to think about the reasoning behind it all.

 

[Alex_P]

Oh man, the more I hear about Europe and all the crazy censorship their governments are throwing at them, the more I love living in the US.

We have FBI agents surfing the web to uphold "decency", too [http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050923-5346.html]. The difference is that instead of a law on the books it's just a lot of pressure. Most porn producers aren't going to stick it out in a years-long legal battle that will leave them bankrupt even if they win.

-- Alex

 

[Social Pariah]

I'd happily ban all pornography to be honest.