• Welcome to The Cave of Dragonflies forums, where the smallest bugs live alongside the strongest dragons.

    Guests are not able to post messages or even read certain areas of the forums. Now, that's boring, don't you think? Registration, on the other hand, is simple, completely free of charge, and does not require you to give out any personal information at all. As soon as you register, you can take part in some of the happy fun things at the forums such as posting messages, voting in polls, sending private messages to people and being told that this is where we drink tea and eat cod.

    Of course I'm not forcing you to do anything if you don't want to, but seriously, what have you got to lose? Five seconds of your life?

Kinky Porn Illegal in Britain

I only skimmed the article, but this sounds like an absolutely horrible, vile, evil law to make. It really depends on the extent that they enforce it though - if it ends up being like the "no one under 18 may access porn" law where, at least here in America, every single person under 18 accesses porn and I have never heard of a single person getting arrested... well that's not so bad.

But if it ends up being like child porn laws, where the FBI is actively monitoring the internet to make sure absolutely no child porn is downloaded or accessed at all - well that sort of sucks. Especially because you can't go half an hour on 4chan without inadvertently seeing some "extreme porn".

edit: okay, so i saw this section:

definitions of extreme pornography said:
  • An act which threatens or appears to threaten a person's life
  • An act which results in or appears to result in serious injury to a person's anus, breasts or genitals
  • An act which involves or appears to involve sexual interference with a human corpse
  • A person performing or appearing to perform an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal
Click to expand...

this seems somewhat reasonable to be honest. #4 should definitely be illegal but the other ones should probably stay legal as long as no one is forced to do anything against their will in front of the cameras.
 
Maybe if the Internet didn't exist this could work, but too late for that. Not to mention if someone enjoys violent and shocking porn, well that's their god damn business.
 
Zeta Reticuli said:
#4 should definitely be illegal but the other ones should probably stay legal as long as no one is forced to do anything against their will in front of the cameras.
Click to expand...
Which is why we make laws against rape etc. Why go after the people who just have pictures of these crimes happening? (Or "appearing to" happen?)

EDIT: Ehhh I guess there's that it'd be horrible for actual rape victims having pictures of their rape being distributed as porn. I don't know what to do there; it'd be nice to prevent that but I still don't think anyone's... guilty of anything by having the pictures.
 
Considering the thousands upon thousands of people who access pornography, I don't know how on earth they're actually going to police this.
 
Zhorken said:
I still don't think anyone's... guilty of anything by having the pictures.
Click to expand...

There's the supply and demand thing, though. Even if someone doesn't pay to download child pornography/a film of someone being raped/something equally horrifying and illegal (if they do they're basically funding said crimes, so the guiltiness is fairly obvious), just the act of downloading it is saying "I enjoy this; make more of it".
Though I think the more important point is the one you raised; the rape victim quite obviously didn't give consent for their sexual assault to be filmed and distributed, and so downloading/owning a copy of it, I think, is morally wrong.
 
However, not all of what's banned is rape. Or probably isn't rape, anyway; people lie about consent rather frequently.

Banning pictures or videos of people being raped makes some sense, but it's not clear whether they're going for things where that actually happened or if they're also going for things where everyone involved wanted to act things out for fun and profit.
 
Dannichu said:
There's the supply and demand thing, though. Even if someone doesn't pay to download child pornography/a film of someone being raped/something equally horrifying and illegal (if they do they're basically funding said crimes, so the guiltiness is fairly obvious), just the act of downloading it is saying "I enjoy this; make more of it".
Though I think the more important point is the one you raised; the rape victim quite obviously didn't give consent for their sexual assault to be filmed and distributed, and so downloading/owning a copy of it, I think, is morally wrong.
Click to expand...
I don't know exactly how this sort of porn tends to be distributed; I figure it's often just mixed in with other rape porn and shared around without enough information attached to flag it as actual rape and a lot of people probably just don't think about these things while they're watching porn. It'd be easy enough to come across an actual rape image/video without knowing.

Then there's child porn and I agree that it's wrong to seek that out knowing it's actual child abuse. My immediate impulse is to add that it's not exactly something you can fake, but images and, as far as I know, videos can be faked believably enough to satisfy porn-watchers. But that's not important; even if it isn't/can't be faked, I still don't think that the law should be trying to go after the people watching child porn/someone being raped/whatever even if they are indirectly encouraging more of it to be made. They're not the ones actually doing anything.

And in any case, the BBC article doesn't mention rape or child porn. If I'm reading right and the article's accurate, they're just making assumptions about people who like "extreme" porn and banning it as "extreme" without putting much, if any, emphasis on consent on the production end. The repeated "appears to" suggests this too, and I don't know what they'd consider to "appear" to depict an act — people acting it out? Believable but fabricated images/videos? Drawings? These are all arguably covered here, and it's what the article says people are worried about. A law that punishes people, no matter how lightly, for liking whatever porn they like would be awful.
 
Last edited:
At first I thought this law was the defenition of utter bullcrap, because some people actually like that, but after seeing the definition of extreme pornography, I find this is the smartest thing Britain has done, since the Beatles.
 
Why? Your immediate response is correct - people like what they like. But you figure out what they mean and suddenly you revoke that? People can't help as to what they are sexually attracted to.
 
I'm not speaking of child porn or actual rape footage. I meant porn that "appears" to be extreme in the ways described above.
 
Yeah, the StraightHell website is now banned in the UK. I was quite sad about that until I remembered that I torrent all of my porn anyway. It's ridiculous because the porn is clearly not an actual event (and most of the videos state this at the end anyway, or even at the beginning).

At first I was like "whatev" but then I was like "oh hey..."
 
Well yeah, if extreme porn means extremely violent porn, or rape videos, even of fake but very well preformed... then banning it would be reasonable. I support hard work for money, but with this being in the option to make money a lot of money, for people in poorer classes with no education, many would be forced to take it just like many take prostitution don't you think?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom