If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
people devalue it by making out youre just being stroppy, but I like to think that time of the month is when you can see things for how they REALLY are!
The big difference between BDSM, and even simulated rape and torture, is that the participants are willing to partake in that fantasy. That isn't the case with child sex abuse.
I think MoK is about right. The rantings of some woman have allowed the government to hide a whole load of bad news.
Exactly, something which this law fails to do.
No point in driving such fetishes furthur underground, where it is likley to make the situation worse anyway.
Fools in power....
Just what consent is is a tough one though. Offer three month's wages to a destitute woman and she probably would have sex with animals for money, or get whipped for money. And it's been said before that if someone can "persuade" a woman to have sex with a dog, then they're not gonna find it hard to persuade them to sign a bit of paper.
Back to the topic though, I think there are two fundamental questions which need to be addressed and one thing that needs to be made clear -
The thing that needs to be made clear is that violent pornography has never been legal in the UK. Even under the R-18 rating for hard-sex films there are clear guidelines on what is acceptable - what isn't is any thing that breaks the law, material (including dialogue) that will encourage an interest in sexually abusive behaviour (paedophilia, incest, rape); the portrayal of anything which involves the lack of consent; infliction of pain or physical harm (real or in a sexual context stimulated); and any sexual threats, humiliation or abuse which does not form part of a clearly consenting role-playing game.
This law doesn't affect that - what is says is what you get from the internet should be subject to the same laws as what you can get in a shop.
Now to the questions I think are relevant to the debate -
Can seeing certain images cause people to behave in a way they otherwise wouldn't? (and following on from that - how many people have to behave in a certain way to justify banning it)
Because something is legal between a couple in private, does this mean it should be automatically legal to distribute it to the public?
Yes it affects people, otherwise advertising wouldn't work.
However, I don't thin kthat a change in the law is justified following a single case where it was argued that images had an effect.
Let's be clear here. We're not talking about leafleting peoples houses. This is about people accessing, through choice, these images.
It's not like most ISPs (or even Internet explorer FFS) don't have filters...
I'll still post in here cause I also can't keep my mouth shut sometimes :razz: but I'm disheartened to do so sometimes because of the reasons mentioned, but also because of the time difference. I can't get to discussions on time, when I see threads I'd like to post in the points are already made and I'm left to agree or disagree with what has been said, or if I have a new opinion people seldom react to it cause the discussion is kinda over (plus the other reasons).. *Ok, personal rant over.*
If they wish to deal with horrific content, like child pornography, women being raped, incest and other things which we can safely class as evil, so be it. These things have no place in our society, and should have no hiding place either. However, images of things like bondage are far more subjective, and we should exercise caution if wishing to take action against that.
If the advert showed a usage, obviously it wouldn't be the same usage as originally intended, then it would work. Consider McDonalds as an example of how advertising works...
Advertising works by firstly making you think you need something, and then pitching the ideal product to serve that need. The need is synthetic and the product is unnecessary.
Why else would you want any brand of cola, let alone the shiny new brand of sugar-free cola with the taste of real vanilla-flavoured chemicals?
As it stands, though, you'd only really find child pornography in any big quantity if you were looking for it. It doesn't take long to find once you start looking though.
After all there has been plenty of evidence of success campaigns - Bernays famous campaign to make women smoke involved rebranding them in 1928 as 'torches of freedom' - he implied that most women smoked in private, but didn't in public because they weren't allowed to be equal to men (in 1922 it was still illegal in New York for women to smoke in public). The campaign was a huge success, creating an entire generation of female smokers.
It's just an example (but it's one of the most successful) - but it required certain elements to work -
there as a hook that could be used (equality)
smokers were seen as more sophisicated (desire)
the first part of the scale was on a massive scale in new york (acceptability)
But I'm not certain that can be applied to porn, because advertising doesn't work as well with private desires; or I haven't ever seen examples of this.
With violent porn I'd have to think that it's more to do with a psychological predeterminition towards that kind of activity. Something that could be expressed healithy or negatively - and whether pornography would make some individuals determined to act on an impulse already present. Also, whether the few acting that way justifies censorship for the many.
they're doing this in china at the momentv with women.....
The only question is whether the desire to commit violence against women is something that is innate in men, or a large enough number for it to become dangerous to allow such material. It's also important to bear in mind that advertising is something which has had a huge amount of money, effort and talent put into it, specifically with the aim of influencing people. A porn film made by some guy with a handycam hasn't.
When the upbringing is deficient and the child is cared for by an adult that can't provide an essential nurture, and/or the child is a victim of violent treatment, he can grow up to be a rapist or a paedophile (and other things as well, but for the sake of the thread I'm sticking with these two). Of course there is also a biological influence, but if a person has a good and healthy upbringing those tendencies won't turn into conduct. And of course not every child who was cared for deficiently when growing up and/or has been a victim of violence will come to be violent as well. It's when the two combine that the deviant conduct will emerge.
And sadly, many of those conducts happen because there is a society that allows them. An allowing society is the third component of the triangle of violence (perpetrator-victim-society). It has been for ages believed in our culture that the bodies of women belong to men, and that the children belong to their parents. Our patriarcal culture has therefore allowed much of the violent conducts we see every day. And this will continue to happen as long as society remains an accomplice to them. Rape and paedophile conducts may be condemned by the law, but as long as other sexist and adultist behaviours are permitted, and even enjoyed and used as a diversion (like child and violent porn), it is society who normalizes, trivializes and banalizes those terrible violent behaviours. So what do I think? Yes, child porn (even if it is artificially created) and violent porn towards women shouldn't be allowed. There is much more to it than who is directly damaged or not in the production of the material... honestly, society as a whole is damaged by its circulation, as it only helps to feed and promote sick fetishes and perpetuate the worst consecuences of a patriarcal culture.
Id agree with that to a certain extent, but there is a whole group of people who arent the victims of abuse or neglect who still like certain things as a sexual fetish, yet it doesnt have any place in their normal day to day life or pose any problem or risk. Im not talking about child porn as i think thats a seperate issue as it can never be made without abuse, yet a lot of images which involve some sort of sexual violence doesnt involve abuse, and for a lot of people doesnt make people want to go and abuse others.
I think there are plenty of things in the media that "could" have negative effects on peoples psyches, but theyre not banned, because for most people its ok. Violent films, glamourisation of anorexic type women etc. I think its all very well saying other peoples fetishes are sick when you dont have them yourself, but it alienates a whole group of people who enjoy certain things fully consensually and if the images of such stuff is to do with real abuse, then thats bad and should be cracked down on, but dont make it illegal when people do it fully voluntarily. Abusing people is already illegal, but I think its a slippery slope when you start banning things that may or may not possibly have a negative effect on people, just in case it does.
couldn't have said it better myself.