Right or Wrong: Illegal to possess erotica?

[Paranoid]

Just found the following headline on BBC news:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/berk ... 297600.stm

It just made me think of the implications of such a ban, in terms of what else it could lead to...

Clearly the murder was a horrible and deeply disturbing thing, but I find it strange that its been blamed on the pornographic material the guy previously held and watched.

I like to think I'm fairly open-minded, and therefore I'm not surprised that there are people out there who find these types of acts erotic (for both parties), and so if both sides are consenting adults why should possession of such material be wrong?

For that matter how do we know this woman was not a consenting party in this sexual activity? The fact it led to her death would then mean the male was not entirely responsible or even a murderer in the true sense of the word (diminished responsibility?)

I guess what I'm trying to say is that banning possession of the material is never going to stop the act...I'd like to see Tony Blair announcing policies on legal sex acts in the bedroom!!

My line of thought is probably flawed, but I thought it was an unusual headline on BBC that warrants discussion...

[hr]

..I've got this pain down all the diodes on my left side...

[Power Metal Dom]

I just heard on the radio that in Britain "extreme and violent pronography" has been made as illegal as child pornography.

Now, "violent pornography" is like, fake rape scenes and so on. But what counts as "extreme pornography"?

[hr]

Like flames on fuel...upon power metal I drool
[l]
[/l]

[Paranoid]

BBC states that sexual acts that can lead to disability will be banned...so surely ALL material showing intercourse will be banned as certain STD's can lead to disability?

[hr]

..I've got this pain down all the diodes on my left side...

[Icarus]

This law is ridiculous. Violent pornography can't cause someone to go out and murder someone. A murderer goes out and kills someone because they want to do it, not because images they've seen on their computer made them do it. To me anyone who seeks out images or videos like the one's in question has something wrong with them, and that's the problem - they're the one's who've already got the problem. Banning the images they seek out won't stop them from wanting to commit violent crimes.

I mean why don't we take this to it's full conclusion? Let's ban every violent video game, ban every scene of violence in movies/tv/books. Let's censor and sanitise everything. Except that won't do squat. Last time I checked people committed violent murders before the internet was invented. The material these people seek out is absolutely sick, but they're the ones with the problem and this law won't change any of that.

[hr]

http://standrews.facebook.com/profile.php?id=37102351

[Lyeta]

Just wondering - but how is "porn" consisting of strangling people any better than child porn? Or necrophilia? I might be being a bit naive about this, but are you telling me that someone who is turned on by killing people or shagging dead people is right in the head? However, I can see the point that it is hard to define what constitutes "violent" porn legally.

[Mehmsy]

"Violent pornography can't cause someone to go out and murder someone."

That all depends on how violent the pornography is. If someone gets off on snuff films, chances are they could (being mentally fucked up, of course) go out and kill someone for sexual gratification. Banning violent pornography is a good idea.

[hr]

http://standrews.facebook.com/profile.php?id=37106593

[Otis redding]

I am all for porn, i like thier in depth plot lines and acting skills, oh yes and p p p p p p p p pussy

[angel_kohaku]

Just because one guy killed someone doesn't mean everyone who watches porn/violent or extreme porn is going to.

This is kind of like saying "Marilyn Manson fans all go and shoot up their schools".



[hr]

I wanna be an anarchist, get pissed, destroy

[angel_kohaku]

Also the thread is worded wrong.

As I see it "erotica" and "violent porn" are 2 different things.

[hr]

I wanna be an anarchist, get pissed, destroy

[Lodestone]

Two technical notes:

The porn now made illegal to possess is already illegal to make or distribute in this country, so this isn't a huge shift in policy.

The implication I've been getting is that they're talking about non-consensual violence: snuff porn, actual rape porn, and actual torture porn, rather than safe scenarios or simulations. I infer this because one reporter spoke about one problem being the difficulty in telling what's simulated and what's real. I may, however, be wrong.

This information may make some a bit less outraged.

Violent pornography can't cause someone to go out and murder someone. A murderer goes out and kills someone because they want to do it, not because images they've seen on their computer made them do it.

Arguments like this are as problematically simplistic as "violent pornography makes people commit acts of sexual violence".

The question is why someone "wants to do it". People are not closed systems; we want because we have been conditioned to want, through whatever sources. I have no doubt that violent pornography could be such a contributing factor.

This is not to say that I endorse the logic of the new legislation.

[Malcolm]

Ted Bundy, the night before his execution, claimed porn got him started.

As did the guy who carried out this murder - he had an obsession with strangulation porn.

Surely it's up to the ISPs to filter that crap at proxy level, as opposed to the government having to bring in near un-enforceable red tape?

[hr]

" ... No-one knows what it's like, to be the bad man, to be the sad man, Behind Blue Eyes ... "

[Captain_Spanky]

Quoting Lyeta from 18:27, 30th Aug 2006
Just wondering - but how is "porn" consisting of strangling people any better than child porn? Or necrophilia? I might be being a bit naive about this, but are you telling me that someone who is turned on by killing people or shagging dead people is right in the head? However, I can see the point that it is hard to define what constitutes "violent" porn legally.

I'm going to come out here and say I completely support the BDSM lifestyle and that the laws in this country are fucking insane when it comes to that. And it is INCREDIBLY naive to believe that anyone who doesn't just practice "vanilla" sex is not" right in the head".

Erotic asphyxiation is NOT strangulation, it's the restriction of breath for erotic purposes. These include (but are not limited to) the lack of oxygen creating an adreniline rush and high in the strangalee, the psychological stimulation of being dominated, which can be coupled with other forms of domination, and so on and so on.

The problem is British law is incredibly archaic when it comes to any form of BDSM. According to the law love bites are illegal, as any sexual practice that "leaves a lasting mark" is considered illegal. If you give your conscent you are merely "aiding and abbeting criminal practice". Think about the looseness of the phrasing of this law and the one in the article for a second and consider the far reaching problems this could cause.

There's a fascinating article in this month's Bizarre and I urge anyone interested in this issue to pick it up.




"Ted Bundy, the night before his execution, claimed porn got him started.

As did the guy who carried out this murder - he had an obsession with strangulation porn."

Oh and fuck this. Porn (or erotica if you're a pussy) is a wonderful tool for couples. If you're sexually repressed that's your problem, not those of others who are willing to experiment with what they enjoy sexually. Porn/heavy metal/violent computer games/horror films etc will always be the Daily Mail readers favourite scapegoat. I thought, however, we had left this mindset behind long before the death of it's greatest champion, Mary Whitehouse.

[hr]

Beatrice - Darling. Dearest. Dead.

[Paranoid]

I'm sorry angel_kohaku but erotica and violent porn are not necessarily two different things at all!

Just because you don't find violent porn erotic does not mean that everyone else doesn't either...same way that a girl having hairy armpits is erotic to one guy and not to another.

As Captain_Spanky explains far more effectively than myself (considering I am not into violent pornography or BDSM) supposedly 'violent' sexual acts cannot be linked directly to intentional murder.

In my original post I made it explicit that I was referring to consenting adults performing these acts. If both are consenting then how can it be deemed illegal? Because the mass majority do not find the same acts erotic?

Obviously there are certain, and very sensible, limits to sexual activity, such as necrophilia, paedophilia etc. and I even agree with the laws preventing people possessing material of that nature, but when it comes to such acts involving BDSM and 'violent' sex is just too restrictive, and ultimately BACKWARD! Government just does not want to publicly admit that there are people out there who are turned on by this stuff!


Final note, but Lodestone a shift in policy from creating and distributing this form of pornography to possessing it IS a major change! The fact that government do not wish to have people make profit from these acts that could result in serious injury is justified on basis of business logic. If there is a market for a certain product, businesses will apply pressure for those products to be produced leading to increased chances of death or other serious injury. But legally, when a business (greater than 2 people) is involved there is a LEGAL separation between shareholders and legal ownership. And so murder can only be charged against a business resulting in a finincial fine or indicment. The owners are not held personally responsible.

So therefore, production of such material would become complicated in the public eye. Possessing such material does not pose any such risk....where's the natural progression?

I'm not shouting you down here Lodestone, but in an academic sense I would be interested to hear your logic behind it being not such a 'huge shift in policy'.

I just find this policy an invasion of privacy and personal preference. OK ban the publication of UK base home-made video's. But if consenting adults find it a turn on how is banning the material going to stop them?

Why not ban homosexual pornography? Seeing as it destroys family values? I'm sure many conservative voters would actually suggest such a change in policy following on from this...



[hr]

..I've got this pain down all the diodes on my left side...

[Power Metal Dom]

I'd like to re-issue my post because I am still none the wiser:

[l]I just heard on the radio that in Britain "extreme and violent pronography" has been made as illegal as child pornography.

Now, "violent pornography" is like, fake rape scenes and so on. But what counts as "extreme pornography"? [/l]


[hr]

Like flames on fuel...upon power metal I drool
[l]
[/l]

[Captain_Spanky]

Quoting Power_Metal_Dom from 00:44, 31st Aug 2006
I'd like to re-issue my post because I am still none the wiser:

[l]I just heard on the radio that in Britain "extreme and violent pronography" has been made as illegal as child pornography.

Now, "violent pornography" is like, fake rape scenes and so on. But what counts as "extreme pornography"? [/l]


[hr]

Like flames on fuel...upon power metal I drool
[l]
[/l]

That's pretty much the fucking point. It can mean whatever they want it to.

[hr]

Beatrice - Darling. Dearest. Dead.

[angel_kohaku]

Actually "erotica" and "(violent) porn" are two entirely different things.

The primary purpose of "porn" is for people to get their rocks off.
Erotica tends to be more artistic.

Quoting wiki: While pornography popularly focuses on unadorned and unemotional lusts and the explicit depiction of sexual acts, erotica tends to define material with a higher emotional content, the development of place, character and story line, or of an overall artistic theme.

Or quoting Gloria Leonard: "The difference between pornography and erotica is lighting."

Paranoid: I did not say that I didn't find violent porn erotic. I was merely pointing out that erotica and porn are two different things all together.

Of course, erotica and porn can be one and the same. It's all very subjective and what you deem to be "dirty pictures to wank to" and "tasteful art pictures".

[q]"Violent pornography can't cause someone to go out and murder someone. A murderer goes out and kills someone because they want to do it, not because images they've seen on their computer made them do it."

Arguments like this are as problematically simplistic as "violent pornography makes people commit acts of sexual violence". [/q]

Violent pornography can't cause someone to go out and murder someone. If they already have ... murderery tendancies, violent images aren't going to help, though.

It is only the BBC online article, but nowhere does it say that it was a sex crime [s]of course, one could get all Freudian or whatever and claim that all crimes relate to sex...[/s]. It says that she was strangled AND they found strangulation porn on this guy's computer. Ok, it doesn't require such a great leap of imagination.

It's the broad sweeping statements. Like the guy a few years back who was a big fan of "Queen of the Damned", and killed his friend in a very brutal and vampiric manner. Naturally all people who watch films like this MUST be vampiric murderers.

The governing system is completely fucked. It's bad and wrong and illegal for consenting adults to do as they wish, but it's ok to beat children as a punishment? Corporal punishment wasn't outlawed all that long ago. Some schools even found ways round it and were still using canes untill the late 90s.

And just to condradict myself about sweeping statements: To quote a famous author on erotic asphyxiation: "You know... plastic bags and oranges... Although you're not a Tory MP"

And as a disclaimer, I totally support any sort of lifestyle people want to have. Any sexual practices involving 2 (or more) consenting adults wish to do behind closed doors is fine. Except for anything involving paedophilia and direct death.

[hr]

I wanna be an anarchist, get pissed, destroy

Edited for grammar

[Mr Comedy]

Quoting Power_Metal_Dom from 17:26, 30th Aug 2006
I just heard on the radio that in Britain "extreme and violent pronography" has been made as illegal as child pornography.

Now, "violent pornography" is like, fake rape scenes and so on. But what counts as "extreme pornography"?

If you like I'll send you some

[hr]

"I am in no way interested in immortality, but only in the taste of tea. " -Lu Tung

[steerpike]

Anyone else out there seen that movie with Geoffrey Rush called 'Quills'? This case is so similar to an episode in that film.



[hr]

Nothing is easier than to condemn the evildoer, nothing is harder than to understand him.

F.Dostoevsky

[Paranoid]

[q] Violent pornography can't cause someone to go out and murder someone. If they already have ... murderery tendancies, violent images aren't going to help, though. [/q]

By the same token then a resultant murder of a person due to a stalker could be related to possession of erotica with its higher emotional value. They may already be messed up in the head imagining connections between themselves and someone who is in effect a complete stranger...but possessing material of an erotic nature won't held calm that state of mind will it?

There is nothing in this world that cannot have an adverse affect on you psychologically when held in large doses...its the old saying "too much of a good thing is bad for you"


[hr]

..I've got this pain down all the diodes on my left side...

[Bitterandtwisted]

Not that it apeals to me, but I do enjoy being advocatus diaboli, so in defence:

1) It causes an increase in the number of actual crimes that are simulated therein.

Does it? Are there statistics backing that up or is it baseless speculation and one or two anecdotes of rapists who try to blame what they did on an outside influence?

2) Those who enjoy it are clearly not right in the head.

This may be true, at least in some cases, but that is not in itself a crime.

3) The sort of people attracted to this material are the sort more likely to commit such crimes in the future.

Quite probably, but if they have not harmed anyone yet, is it justifiable to lock them up for potential future crimes a la Minority Report? One could also speculate that such material gives them a harmless outlet for their desires.

6) These people watch the torment of sexually abused people for their own pleasure.

But are not dong the abusing themselves. Furthermore, a great deal of it, while realistic, is role playing, rather than actual abuse.

5) It's yucky

So What?

Of course, almost all these arguments could be used to defend child pornography; the only difference being that one can simulate rape fantasies using consenting adult actors only.


[hr]