Home Politics & Debate
Come and join our Support Circle, every Tuesday, 8 - 9:30pm! Anyone is welcome to join. Sign up here

another day another dodgy law passed in parliament....

124»

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    sophia wrote:
    :heart: ditto tbh.

    I'm sure I'll be forced to retract this oh so dramatic strop in a few days' time, I just snapped. Hey, what can I say, it's my period, it makes me a little crazy and irrational :razz:
    Oh GOD, I think i argue BEST when im on the rag tbh. Everything seems SOOOO clear. The best time for really getting into a debate!

    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!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    \
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The big problem is still where the line is drawn with regards to violence.

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    The big problem is still where the line is drawn with regards to violence.
    The only line to be drawn is whether it's consensual or not.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The only line to be drawn is whether it's consensual or not.

    Exactly, something which this law fails to do.
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Stalin's Organist Posts: 13,327
    Stupid law. The BDSM communit suffers enough with image problems as it is...

    No point in driving such fetishes furthur underground, where it is likley to make the situation worse anyway.

    Fools in power....
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    Exactly, something which this law fails to do.
    Although just out of interest, how do they know whether it's consensual? Or do they just assume that all porno actors are so shit, there's no way they could convincingly fake something like that?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Most legitimate pornography you get enacting violent fantasies makes it quite clear that its just acting, its just a fantasy.

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Nice to see you'll still be around Sophia - as other's mentioned - it'd be less of a place without you.

    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?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Jim V wrote:
    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)

    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.
    Because something is legal between a couple in private, does this mean it should be automatically legal to distribute it to the public?

    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...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yes it affects people, otherwise advertising wouldn't work.
    Advertising only works to get people to pick a particular brand of something you want in the first place. Never in the history of the world has advertising caused someone to buy something that they didn't want. Otherwise, you could use advertising to sell tampons to men.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    sophia wrote:
    there's just quite a gentleman's club kind of culture in here which means that only certain people are listened to, and it's the ones who've been around for years and done their P&D service, having the same old arguments with each other.
    Not to jump on the bandwagon of the ranting :p , but sadly I agree. It's the same people who are listened to, and this forum is practically reduced to the few guys who discuss with each other plus with the odd troll that comes in. Sometimes sensible people join in but their views aren't taken into account, at least not seriously, so they eventually leave (like you sophia). This is certainly a big loss, you will be missed, you made this forum loads more interesting.

    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.*
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Advertising only works to get people to pick a particular brand of something you want in the first place. Never in the history of the world has advertising caused someone to buy something that they didn't want. Otherwise, you could use advertising to sell tampons to men.
    Actually, I think publicity can create many needs in the public that weren't there before. Best example: bubble gum.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Let me make one or two things clear here. It is definitely not the state's job to tell consenting individuals what they get up to in the bedroom. I don't want the government telling me what I can do with a girl I've just pulled, for instance. (yes, I know the prospect of me pulling is pretty laughable, but hear me out) If you give them that right, soon we'll have an official "Sex Positions The State Considers Acceptable" list issued to every household in the UK. Presumably John Prescott will agree to be the male model in the picture poses, and I'm sure Tracey Temple can return for one last shag with the old goat. I certainly wouldn't put that prospect past New Labour's Orwellian, Stalinist tendencies.

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Advertising only works to get people to pick a particular brand of something you want in the first place. Never in the history of the world has advertising caused someone to buy something that they didn't want. Otherwise, you could use advertising to sell tampons to men.

    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...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Advertising only works to get people to pick a particular brand of something you want in the first place. Never in the history of the world has advertising caused someone to buy something that they didn't want. Otherwise, you could use advertising to sell tampons to men.

    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?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yes, but it still needs to pitch that product in a way that appeals to desires or needs that the person already has. In this case it could be a desire for refreshment, or to look good and have lots of friends, or a number of other things. But the desire has to be there in the first place. An advert can't create it. Which is why child pornography could only appeal to and influence people who have those tendencies in the first place, it couldn't create them in someone who doesn't.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I happen to think it would be possible to market child pornography to people who wouldn't otherwise look for it, but it is hard to prove it. When you look at how the media sculpt sexual ideals, it's perfectly believable. Ten years ago big silicone breasts were the ideal, and now anything more than a handful is a waste. How young people should look has changed, and people need to look younger than ever before. It's not a big leap from a 15-year-old model on the catwalk to a 13-year-old girl on her back in a porno flick.

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Child pornography is a tricky area though. It would be easy to market child pornography featuring teenage models, because basically, men don't only find girls attractive when they reach 18, so there would be a desire for it. However, I think if you were talking about child porn featuring younger kids, even to babies, then that wouldn't be the case, because no matter how you advertise it, the desire simply isn't there (well except obviously the odd sick fucker). An actual example of this would be the spectacular failure of trying to market porn to women.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    getting off topic but what most advertising does is create a need by playing on your insecurities and promise to make everything better if you buy/wear X .......usually reinforced by some fabulous celebrity endorsing the product, so you think well so-and-so uses it it must be the shit.......95% of ads are completely unnecessary, the need is manufactured by the sheer number of brands overlapping the same product, you see 100 different ads for deodorant and you think damn everyone else uses it but i don't use any, i must smell awful :shocking: , then you go and buy one......
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So does advertising have a comparison with porn then or is it a deadend comparison.

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Jim V wrote:
    So does advertising have a comparison with porn then or is it a deadend comparison.

    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.....
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Jim V wrote:
    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.
    Ann Summers have done a pretty good job of it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Maybe it does come down to the line in the sand then, if anyone can be convinced to want any kind of behaviour is it a mistake to ban material that would cause people to start wanting to be abusive in sexual encounters?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Jim V wrote:
    Maybe it does come down to the line in the sand then, if anyone can be convinced to want any kind of behaviour is it a mistake to ban material that would cause people to start wanting to be abusive in sexual encounters?
    Whoa. Who said anything about anyone being able to be convinced to want any kind of behaviour? That's been my point throughout this entire thread. Advertising (and therefore, presumably other images) can only appeal to people who already have those desires. They may not realise that they have them, or they may have been oppressed, but they're already there, they can't be created. Another example of this would be the repeated attempts by some to use therapy to 'cure' people of homosexuality, all of which have proved huge failures. You can't 'influence' a gay man into finding women attractive.

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Men aren't born violent rapists, they grow to be them. Guys aren't born paedophiles, they are made by society. While it's true that all people bring in their psyche violent pulsions, these are normally -if when kids they are cared for properly- channeled into positive conducts, like work, competition, sports, (healthy) sex, etc.
    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    .
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    bluewisdom wrote:
    Men aren't born violent rapists, they grow to be them. Guys aren't born paedophiles, they are made by society. While it's true that all people bring in their psyche violent pulsions, these are normally -if when kids they are cared for properly- channeled into positive conducts, like work, competition, sports, (healthy) sex, etc.
    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.