Poll: UK ban on Extreme pornography
- Thread starter Lord George
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Wow this is, well stupid. One thing I would like to ask is why do some of you care about whether an animal can consent to anything or not? We literally kill animals without asking their permission, consent is only important for humans. As far as the human corpse thing goes, it should be illegal unless some form of written consent was given by the individual prior to death or whoever controls the body. (Like if it had been donated or surviving family.)
Edit:Ironically the whole tentacle thing in Hentai owes it's existence to censorship laws in Japan regarding showing human genitalia.
Edit:Ironically the whole tentacle thing in Hentai owes it's existence to censorship laws in Japan regarding showing human genitalia.
I dislike it on principle, it is a seedy, perverted, insipid and degrading blight on society, that I take care to avoid at all times if possible. Merely in my opinion of course, based on my own personal principles and morals.Dele said:
I put no because this kind of thing is wholely unneeded. This kind of explicit acitivity seems to be usually done with the consent of the person partaking (All except the corpse, for obvious reasons). Unless this kind of thing is being done illegaly, I don't see how it's any different from the prohibition of alcohol in the US in the 20s.
... The term Nocturnal Emission aka a Wet Dream comes to mind. Basically if the guy goes unsatisfied for a period of time his subconcious takes control while he's asleep and usually he dreams of sex and actually ejaculates all over the bed.Shivari said:
Another thing to note is that once asleep every guy pops a stiffy, no matter the situation, unless he's got ED.
Look on the bright side, if you believe the media, and you're caught with your porn and put in jail, you'll have a cushy room, total freedom, a free games console and dvds, and quality food delivered to your room three times a day.
Yes, I'm slightly cynical about believing all I read
I notice I've never seen any of these journalists volunteer to do a month inside to prove what a 'holiday camp' they are, but that's a separate topic. I remember watching the Morgan Spurlock series '30 days' and the US prison system certainly didn't look easy.
Personally, I think as a society you have to draw a line somewhere and the majority of people are against access to child porn, necrophilia, bestiality, and extremely violent porn.
Now say you (as in a previous court case) like to hammer nails thru your dick for kicks, I feel you're endangering your own life, and need protecting from your own desires, however, when it comes to BDSM like heavy whipping, beating, etc, that's fine.
I think in some cases the line needs to be drawn between 'its ok to do it between consenting adults ' but 'its not ok to profit from it by selling media of it'.
I've seen some stuff before online and I'm thinking some foolish girls have got into porn and not realised what they signed up for. There's a world of difference between sating your own fetishistic desires, and doing what some creepy porn director says because you need the money, or think it'll be a break into the industry. Note I'm not anti porn, I just realise that there's darker areas of the business that could use some tightening up (damn that line needs some editing).
Yes, I'm slightly cynical about believing all I read
I notice I've never seen any of these journalists volunteer to do a month inside to prove what a 'holiday camp' they are, but that's a separate topic. I remember watching the Morgan Spurlock series '30 days' and the US prison system certainly didn't look easy.Personally, I think as a society you have to draw a line somewhere and the majority of people are against access to child porn, necrophilia, bestiality, and extremely violent porn.
Now say you (as in a previous court case) like to hammer nails thru your dick for kicks, I feel you're endangering your own life, and need protecting from your own desires, however, when it comes to BDSM like heavy whipping, beating, etc, that's fine.
I think in some cases the line needs to be drawn between 'its ok to do it between consenting adults ' but 'its not ok to profit from it by selling media of it'.
I've seen some stuff before online and I'm thinking some foolish girls have got into porn and not realised what they signed up for. There's a world of difference between sating your own fetishistic desires, and doing what some creepy porn director says because you need the money, or think it'll be a break into the industry. Note I'm not anti porn, I just realise that there's darker areas of the business that could use some tightening up (damn that line needs some editing).
I don't know if they should ban those 4 categories. To be fully honest though, if they were going to ban pornography of a certain intensity then those 4 categories mentioned at the start would be where I'd draw the line.
I'm usually more open-minded when it comes to people's rights to certain vices, as long as it's their choice to make. However, today I can't agree with allowing people to see such disturbing things.
My opinion isn't all that well thought out, but my first impression of the matter is "If you have to watch that degree of pornography to be aroused where more harmless pornography has failed, you need help not more rights!"
Also, those films endanger the lives of the people in them. There's a reason why regular films use stunt doubles and special effects when ever graphic stuff goes down. If they didn't, film makers would be charged with reckless endangerment or worse. Remember, those are real people that are doing those things. Porn studios aren't as easily traceable as movie studios. What about those films about participants that are permanently injured? With shady studios the factor of human trafficking comes into play. I doubt directors would solicit people off the street with the line, "Hey! Wanna be in a movie where you cut off your- !?" I'm not saying all people who are in such films are doing it against their will, but I'm willing to bet some are. I don't think the right to watch such films is worth the cost it takes to make them.
Finally, I don't think it's healthy to watch those sorts of things anyway. I'm not saying "pronz is badz!!", I'm just saying a line needs to drawn somewhere. When people watch those films, assuming they get off to it, they'll eventually want to act out those things they see. Most people wouldn't follow through with such urges out of morality or compliance with the law, but failing to do so can cause sexual frustrations. (I'd like to cite the episode of South Park, "Overlogging" as a reference. Stan's dad becomes so accustomed to the weird fetishes of the internet that when the internet stops working he loses it, explaining "Once you see things like that, you can't just go back to Playboy.") It's just plain unhealthy to watch those graphic things. I can't imagine a normal, healthy contributor to society (insert stereotypical sunshine variety doctor, teacher, or businessman) going home and having to watch somebody dig up a dead grandmother to boink, just so they can blow off some of the sexual urges they had that day.
Now, I know it's not acceptable to generalize and people should usually do what they want, but I support the idea of banning the types of porn that was listed in the OP.
My opinion isn't all that well thought out, but my first impression of the matter is "If you have to watch that degree of pornography to be aroused where more harmless pornography has failed, you need help not more rights!"
Also, those films endanger the lives of the people in them. There's a reason why regular films use stunt doubles and special effects when ever graphic stuff goes down. If they didn't, film makers would be charged with reckless endangerment or worse. Remember, those are real people that are doing those things. Porn studios aren't as easily traceable as movie studios. What about those films about participants that are permanently injured? With shady studios the factor of human trafficking comes into play. I doubt directors would solicit people off the street with the line, "Hey! Wanna be in a movie where you cut off your- !?" I'm not saying all people who are in such films are doing it against their will, but I'm willing to bet some are. I don't think the right to watch such films is worth the cost it takes to make them.
Finally, I don't think it's healthy to watch those sorts of things anyway. I'm not saying "pronz is badz!!", I'm just saying a line needs to drawn somewhere. When people watch those films, assuming they get off to it, they'll eventually want to act out those things they see. Most people wouldn't follow through with such urges out of morality or compliance with the law, but failing to do so can cause sexual frustrations. (I'd like to cite the episode of South Park, "Overlogging" as a reference. Stan's dad becomes so accustomed to the weird fetishes of the internet that when the internet stops working he loses it, explaining "Once you see things like that, you can't just go back to Playboy.") It's just plain unhealthy to watch those graphic things. I can't imagine a normal, healthy contributor to society (insert stereotypical sunshine variety doctor, teacher, or businessman) going home and having to watch somebody dig up a dead grandmother to boink, just so they can blow off some of the sexual urges they had that day.
Now, I know it's not acceptable to generalize and people should usually do what they want, but I support the idea of banning the types of porn that was listed in the OP.
Don't take this the wrong way all y'all, but i think that people in positions of authority are taking their power a bit too far. This ban for example, can be seen as discriminatory towards all those people into the weird porn. However, lawyers aren't going to stand up for the people into this porn, and those people aren't going to stand up either...i just think that people should be allowed to do what they want with their porn and time and money so long as they dont adversely affect the community
This thread amazes me. Like many here I'm not exactly a connoisseur of bestiality or necrophilia. However, what amazes me is that even the people who advocate a standpoint that morality and the law shouldn't be related, all cry out "but it's wrong to have sex with dead people".
The dead are not people. They are waste, they are fertilizer, they are a lifeless object no different from a stone. The notion that these corpses carry value or merit respect is entirely built upon moral ground.
And please, let's not get hypothetical, asking how I'd feel if someone had sex with the corpse of my wife or my child. In the end how I'd feel in such a situation is irrelevant. Because as it stands, there aren't exactly many legal outlets to go about getting a corpse.
If you're going to try to make an objective argument based on logic and science, don't do it half-assed. If this thread made no mention of bestiality or necrophilia, how many would have voted "yes" so eagerly? Taboos like these are simply employed to manipulate us all like sheep, hoping that our outrage exceeds our reason.
We also need to sit down and consider what the words risk, injury, and harm mean. They are fuzzy words, and can be contorted to be anything. If we cannot consent to letting others "assault" us, how soon until we cannot put ourselves at our own risk?
There are people who feel the need to amputate their body parts, for any number of reasons. Is this harm? It's "bizarre". But is it harm? What should we do with someone we find who amputated his toes? Institutionalize him? Prison time? Isn't that every bit, if not more harmful than what put him there? I'd rather give up toes, fingers, and maybe even limbs than years of my life because I don't meet someone's idea of normalcy.
Amputation is a bit of an "extreme" point. So let's look at piercings, they are okay, right? But what if they decide that "extreme" piercings are not okay? Let's say any piercing done by a scalpel, larger than 14 gauge, or that will not naturally close when jewelry is removed would earn the title "extreme".
What about acupuncture? Is that harmful? Needles going into a body, I don't really understand it myself. Must be harmful, right?
Fact is there are many people that find amputations, piercings, tattoos, or just plain beatings to be incredibly freeing the same way a person would find acupuncture or even a massage to be so. Some people can do these things on their own, others may need to enlist the aid of a partner.
We hear people rant and rave about fetishes, and how people are "sick" and have any variety of mental conditions, but isn't feeling the need to have everything "normal" just as debilitating as a condition as being a masochist, sadist, or whatever floats your boat? In fact, it may be more delibilitating. At least the "sick" people might have realistic expectations. Those who wish everything to be "normal"? Well, they are better off trying to reach up and grab the Sun, so that they can put it in a bottle, and save it for a rainy day.
The dead are not people. They are waste, they are fertilizer, they are a lifeless object no different from a stone. The notion that these corpses carry value or merit respect is entirely built upon moral ground.
And please, let's not get hypothetical, asking how I'd feel if someone had sex with the corpse of my wife or my child. In the end how I'd feel in such a situation is irrelevant. Because as it stands, there aren't exactly many legal outlets to go about getting a corpse.
If you're going to try to make an objective argument based on logic and science, don't do it half-assed. If this thread made no mention of bestiality or necrophilia, how many would have voted "yes" so eagerly? Taboos like these are simply employed to manipulate us all like sheep, hoping that our outrage exceeds our reason.
We also need to sit down and consider what the words risk, injury, and harm mean. They are fuzzy words, and can be contorted to be anything. If we cannot consent to letting others "assault" us, how soon until we cannot put ourselves at our own risk?
There are people who feel the need to amputate their body parts, for any number of reasons. Is this harm? It's "bizarre". But is it harm? What should we do with someone we find who amputated his toes? Institutionalize him? Prison time? Isn't that every bit, if not more harmful than what put him there? I'd rather give up toes, fingers, and maybe even limbs than years of my life because I don't meet someone's idea of normalcy.
Amputation is a bit of an "extreme" point. So let's look at piercings, they are okay, right? But what if they decide that "extreme" piercings are not okay? Let's say any piercing done by a scalpel, larger than 14 gauge, or that will not naturally close when jewelry is removed would earn the title "extreme".
What about acupuncture? Is that harmful? Needles going into a body, I don't really understand it myself. Must be harmful, right?
Fact is there are many people that find amputations, piercings, tattoos, or just plain beatings to be incredibly freeing the same way a person would find acupuncture or even a massage to be so. Some people can do these things on their own, others may need to enlist the aid of a partner.
We hear people rant and rave about fetishes, and how people are "sick" and have any variety of mental conditions, but isn't feeling the need to have everything "normal" just as debilitating as a condition as being a masochist, sadist, or whatever floats your boat? In fact, it may be more delibilitating. At least the "sick" people might have realistic expectations. Those who wish everything to be "normal"? Well, they are better off trying to reach up and grab the Sun, so that they can put it in a bottle, and save it for a rainy day.
If I thought it were morally wrong and a blight on society sure, probably just as well for the loving majority I don't have such political powers.Dele said:
The extreme acts like necrophilia, bestiality and pedophilia are already banned. Banning the viewing of such images, even if they are just drawings is down to debate. Banning images that are likely to cause things to happen is one step too far for myself. That I could easily type bestiality into google search and view more images than I would ever want or need to, if I were into that, just proves how pointless such a ruling is.
That myself and my girlfriend are into mild sadism along with masochism, and that we make images with no intent to distribute makes us somehow criminals? I think not.
Personally I'm thinking that half the British judicial system must be quaking in its boots right now. I've known enough judges and solicitors in my time and MAN, they are into stuff I wouldn't even consider.
That myself and my girlfriend are into mild sadism along with masochism, and that we make images with no intent to distribute makes us somehow criminals? I think not.
Personally I'm thinking that half the British judicial system must be quaking in its boots right now. I've known enough judges and solicitors in my time and MAN, they are into stuff I wouldn't even consider.
Suppression makes people crazy. You cannot make sexual desire go away. There is no amount of emotion-masked-as-logic arguing that can change that. Rather than rigid bans and coldness, why not encourage people to keep it on the screen and not do dangerous things in real life? But that would of course eliminate the easy way out people usually take where they just go on about "moral! moral! moral!". Morals are taught, sexual indentities are discovered.