This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- Research Participants needed for a Survey on Pornography Use
- Is it normal for a man to dislike pornography?
- Masturbating - is it okay?
- masturbation, help!!
- what age do you think a person should get a phone?
- Can I quote an acronym for a swear word in a history essay?
- 90 days without porn
- Who else is happy that their GCSE's are finished?!
- Excessive washing of everything near me after masterbation
- Maine **** cats
- How do you cope with your boyfriend looking at other females
- How to Block Porn
- posting gcse certificates / art coursework online
- Erection Dysfunction
- Is it possible to get pregnant this way
- Is there a horrible lurgy going round?
- If I put someone in the "ignore list" on TSR would they be able to see my posts?
- do all couples find this normal...
- I find porn disgusting
- Watched a lot of porn
Censoring pornography
Poll
Should violent pornography be banned?
The government has announced plans for new moves to restrict access to certain types of pornography - that it will now be illegal to posses images "featuring violence that is, or appears to be, life-threatening or is likely to result in serious and disabling injury".
Do you think it is right for these steps to be taken?
The issue im concerned with here is of porn depicting scenes of violence or rape between consenting adults. It seems that the wording is perhaps a little ambigious, and could mean that it would be illeagal to view images in which rape is acted out and violence is imitated.
I believe that the state, or anyone else for that matter, has no right to decide what an individual can and cant view - if the depiction of violence is somebody's thing and those involved in making it have not actually been attacked/raped, then it is not up to anyone to decide that it is "immoral" and restrict another's freedom in such a way.
However disgusting or weird somebody's tastes and actions might seem doesnt mean that it should be banned on the grounds of "immorality" etc.
That would lead to a similar situation to that in China where internet pornograhy is filterd as it is seen to be immoral or socially corrupting. The only difference is that generally we dont find soft porn distasteful - we just have a different point at which we draw the moral line, i dont realy see a difference. Also, if a masochist is happy being subjected to pain, who are we to judge and impose our own ideas of morality upon them?
I also think that the Liberal Democrat MP Sandra Gidley is wrong in saying that "you cannot look at this sort of material and not be affected." -I believe that while people who have tendencies towards committing violent sexual crimes may be drawn to this kind of porn to satisfy their urges, viewing it does not cause a person to become violent or be likely to commit crime. There is also a clear line between fantisy and reality.
What also worries me is Home Office minister Vernon Coaker saying "The vast majority of people find these forms of violent and extreme pornography deeply abhorrent." as if to suggest that this is sufficient grounds for new legislation.
I think that this would be a severe blow for personal freedom and liberty if it is intended in the way it seems to be.
I hope i'm wrong.
Anyway, what do you think?
Do you think it is right for these steps to be taken?
The issue im concerned with here is of porn depicting scenes of violence or rape between consenting adults. It seems that the wording is perhaps a little ambigious, and could mean that it would be illeagal to view images in which rape is acted out and violence is imitated.
I believe that the state, or anyone else for that matter, has no right to decide what an individual can and cant view - if the depiction of violence is somebody's thing and those involved in making it have not actually been attacked/raped, then it is not up to anyone to decide that it is "immoral" and restrict another's freedom in such a way.
However disgusting or weird somebody's tastes and actions might seem doesnt mean that it should be banned on the grounds of "immorality" etc.
That would lead to a similar situation to that in China where internet pornograhy is filterd as it is seen to be immoral or socially corrupting. The only difference is that generally we dont find soft porn distasteful - we just have a different point at which we draw the moral line, i dont realy see a difference. Also, if a masochist is happy being subjected to pain, who are we to judge and impose our own ideas of morality upon them?
I also think that the Liberal Democrat MP Sandra Gidley is wrong in saying that "you cannot look at this sort of material and not be affected." -I believe that while people who have tendencies towards committing violent sexual crimes may be drawn to this kind of porn to satisfy their urges, viewing it does not cause a person to become violent or be likely to commit crime. There is also a clear line between fantisy and reality.
What also worries me is Home Office minister Vernon Coaker saying "The vast majority of people find these forms of violent and extreme pornography deeply abhorrent." as if to suggest that this is sufficient grounds for new legislation.
I think that this would be a severe blow for personal freedom and liberty if it is intended in the way it seems to be.
I hope i'm wrong.
Anyway, what do you think?
Scroll to see replies
will clockwork orange now become illegal?
Autumn Child
I think that this would be a severe blow for personal freedom and liberty if it is intended in the way it seems to be.
I hope i'm wrong.
Anyway, what do you think?
I think that this would be a severe blow for personal freedom and liberty if it is intended in the way it seems to be.
I hope i'm wrong.
Anyway, what do you think?
I can only agree...
Of course. As long as the people involved were consenting adults then it should firstly be assumed that they have a right to do what they wish. However much the majority disagree with it is entirely irrelevent and last time I checked, people's private lifes were not subject to majority rule. I believe that this government is intervening beyond what is neccessary, supposing that these acts caused no harm to anyone then it should not be a matter of the government's.
The issue surrounding this was that a women was murdered by a man who had been viewing violent ponography, but surely someone who is capable of committing such and act would do it regardless of what he had been viewing. It probably was a trigger to him doing it but I've heard the same debates over and over again, whether it be on porn or playstation games. One high profile crime doesn't prove that the majority of supposidly sensible adults would go on to become violent after watching it. but rather that a few, already unstable people, may be inspired by it.
The issue surrounding this was that a women was murdered by a man who had been viewing violent ponography, but surely someone who is capable of committing such and act would do it regardless of what he had been viewing. It probably was a trigger to him doing it but I've heard the same debates over and over again, whether it be on porn or playstation games. One high profile crime doesn't prove that the majority of supposidly sensible adults would go on to become violent after watching it. but rather that a few, already unstable people, may be inspired by it.
Laika
If I'm going to risk jail for watching fake rape now I suppose I might as well go out tonight and go for the real thing.
haha
sick. but funny.
No I dont think it should be banned, not only because I dont see what is the harm in make belive sexual violence between consenting adults, but if it is banned it opens up the flood gates for banning other fetishes such as BDSM ect and eventually leading to the banning of porn! IMAGINE THAT! 
^ exactly. its a slippery slope, how far exactly can porn go before its considered 'violent'?
rizzyh
Violent porn for that guy (forgot his name - Graham Cout or something) was an addiction for him and will probably be for others so it should be banned along with gambling - what's so good about a super-casino?
This will damage local morale.
This will damage local morale.
well what about horror movies or violent playstation games or the internet? should we ban those too?
I think it's ridiculous. Didn't anyone pay attention to Bowling for Columbine? If I'd killed someone you better believe I'd try and blame something else but that doesn't stop me being responsible.
Pornography doesn't make you murder someone, unless you're declared insane at the time of your crime then surely you are the only one who can be held responsible for it? I'd like to know exactly what is included in the laws because I have a copy of Juliette upstairs, if that's not sexual violence then I don't know what is- does that entitle me to 3 years in prison?
I just can't believe the government has wasted time on this just to appease someone grieving for their daughter, they can't hope to do that for everyone and they shouldn't try.
Pornography doesn't make you murder someone, unless you're declared insane at the time of your crime then surely you are the only one who can be held responsible for it? I'd like to know exactly what is included in the laws because I have a copy of Juliette upstairs, if that's not sexual violence then I don't know what is- does that entitle me to 3 years in prison?
I just can't believe the government has wasted time on this just to appease someone grieving for their daughter, they can't hope to do that for everyone and they shouldn't try.
The basic question is whether violent porn increases rape by acting as a 'gateway' and increasing the number of people interested in violent sex, or whether it reduces rape by acting as a safe vent for unacceptable desires. I'd guess it acts as a vent, on the grounds that it's a pretty similar situation to the (US) furore over whether violent video games cause violence, the obvious answer being "No".
Of course, even if I'm wrong, we definitely need fairly conclusive evidence of harm before we start to think about undermining basic freedoms like watching videos in the privacy of your own home. And since the new law seems to be motivated basically by hysteria about a single prominent crime ("A SINGLE MURDERER WATCHED VIOLENT PORN SO VIOLENT PORN CAUSES MURDER!!!11!"), rather than a revolutionary new study on the effects of media on human actions, I think we should all be able to agree it's a bad thing
Of course, even if I'm wrong, we definitely need fairly conclusive evidence of harm before we start to think about undermining basic freedoms like watching videos in the privacy of your own home. And since the new law seems to be motivated basically by hysteria about a single prominent crime ("A SINGLE MURDERER WATCHED VIOLENT PORN SO VIOLENT PORN CAUSES MURDER!!!11!"), rather than a revolutionary new study on the effects of media on human actions, I think we should all be able to agree it's a bad thing
how many of the people commenting (not accusing just wondering) hae actually heard the story behind this? i have to say i do think it should be banned and it isnt an infringement of human rights. well no more so than banning child porn is. i do agree that it depends on whether this actually decreases the criminal instances of violent sexual acts, and i am in the way of thinking that it will, if only by a small amount, but for those small amount of victims its their life, try telling them that their statistic is too small 2 stop some people jacking off 2 violence
Fafnir
And since the new law seems to be motivated basically by hysteria about a single prominent crime ("A SINGLE MURDERER WATCHED VIOLENT PORN SO VIOLENT PORN CAUSES MURDER!!!11!")
on the subject of tabloid campaigns and hysteria, what will we have become if we go down the road of "Megan's Law" in the UK...
I dont normally venture into General Chat, but I had to stop and comment on this post:
Oh really? You dont think that banning freedom of expression is an infringement of Human rights?
I mean - clearly some will argue there is a justified infringement of the right - but to argue it isnt an infringement at all beggars belief.
Rubbish. Child Porn is illegal due to the lack of consent involved - either the child is ACTUALLHY raped, or STATUTORILY raped due to their being mentally incapable of giving consent.
The two are NOTHING ALIKE.
And if we drove trains at 5mph fewer people would have died at potter's bar - saving one life doesnt trump everything you know... the fact that we even have automobiles should tell you something about that.
Anyway - would you extend this point and ban all music, movies, art, literature and the like that could possibly lead to violence?
My what a squeaky-clean, gum-drop dystopia we'll all be in then huh?
squigaletta
i have to say i do think it should be banned and it isnt an infringement of human rights.
Oh really? You dont think that banning freedom of expression is an infringement of Human rights?
I mean - clearly some will argue there is a justified infringement of the right - but to argue it isnt an infringement at all beggars belief.
well no more so than banning child porn is.
Rubbish. Child Porn is illegal due to the lack of consent involved - either the child is ACTUALLHY raped, or STATUTORILY raped due to their being mentally incapable of giving consent.
The two are NOTHING ALIKE.
i do agree that it depends on whether this actually decreases the criminal instances of violent sexual acts, and i am in the way of thinking that it will, if only by a small amount, but for those small amount of victims its their life, try telling them that their statistic is too small 2 stop some people jacking off 2 violence
And if we drove trains at 5mph fewer people would have died at potter's bar - saving one life doesnt trump everything you know... the fact that we even have automobiles should tell you something about that.
Anyway - would you extend this point and ban all music, movies, art, literature and the like that could possibly lead to violence?
My what a squeaky-clean, gum-drop dystopia we'll all be in then huh?
squigaletta
how many of the people commenting (not accusing just wondering) hae actually heard the story behind this? i have to say i do think it should be banned and it isnt an infringement of human rights. well no more so than banning child porn is. i do agree that it depends on whether this actually decreases the criminal instances of violent sexual acts, and i am in the way of thinking that it will, if only by a small amount, but for those small amount of victims its their life, try telling them that their statistic is too small 2 stop some people jacking off 2 violence
That isn't the issue. As i've mentioned in that particular case the man went out and violently murdered a women and horrifically assaulted her sexually. Bearing in mind the type of person it must have taken to commit such a disgusting and shocking crime can you honestly think that the sole cause was violent ponography?
Consider it another way, had the man not watched the porn would he a 'normal' person who wouldn't harm anyone and not capable of committing such a crime? No, I very much doubt it. Whatever the trigger happened to be the real issue is that he was capable of it all along. Whether he would have committed a different crime tommorrow or in a few years hes always likely to do such a thing. Put a non- violent person in front of that film and I'd think it very unlikely that they would develop a tendency towards such violent acts.
It all comes back to the same issue, should we censor anything which may be seen as unfavourable towards society because a very small minority of people may copy it? should the rights of adults who wish to play violent video games or pornography be taken away from then because of the possibility that someone who is already violent may copy it?
In the case of it being only apparent violence - films which seem to depict violent scenes but are actually being acted out by consenting adults with no harm being done, it would seem foolish to censor it, since no violence actually occurs and violence in other media is widely accepted. If depicting a criminal act were to become illegal, you'd have to outlaw a phenomenal number of mainstream films and games.
When real acts of violence are commited with consent, I still think the above argument holds, because what occurs is still an action which takes place between consenting adults, and even though harm occurs there is no criminal action taking place. It's fairly normal for people to subject themselves to pain and possible harm (taking part in a contact sport, for example), so I don't think the violence itself is an issue.
I think the real issue is with actual violence taking place without consent - for example, an actual rape - because a crime is being commited in the process of filming. Naturally crime (and especially such serious crimes as violent sexual attacks) should be prevented and so it would seem sensible to ban such films because of the crime they encourage.
So really I think the wrong issue is being looked at here - banning anything which depicts a violent sexual act is not specific enough and makes some things which would be perfectly legal in a non-pornographic film illegal (if the ban were to be applied consistently, any films with rape scenes in would be banned).
Here's an interesting point about this, though; imagine a couple who were masochists (or sadists, basically they like hurting each other) and exhibitionists, and they made a video of a violent sexual encounter between them. Both enjoy it and it depicts a standard part of their sex lives - why is it then illegal for such a video to be seen by anyone else?
When real acts of violence are commited with consent, I still think the above argument holds, because what occurs is still an action which takes place between consenting adults, and even though harm occurs there is no criminal action taking place. It's fairly normal for people to subject themselves to pain and possible harm (taking part in a contact sport, for example), so I don't think the violence itself is an issue.
I think the real issue is with actual violence taking place without consent - for example, an actual rape - because a crime is being commited in the process of filming. Naturally crime (and especially such serious crimes as violent sexual attacks) should be prevented and so it would seem sensible to ban such films because of the crime they encourage.
So really I think the wrong issue is being looked at here - banning anything which depicts a violent sexual act is not specific enough and makes some things which would be perfectly legal in a non-pornographic film illegal (if the ban were to be applied consistently, any films with rape scenes in would be banned).
Here's an interesting point about this, though; imagine a couple who were masochists (or sadists, basically they like hurting each other) and exhibitionists, and they made a video of a violent sexual encounter between them. Both enjoy it and it depicts a standard part of their sex lives - why is it then illegal for such a video to be seen by anyone else?
Related discussions
- Research Participants needed for a Survey on Pornography Use
- Is it normal for a man to dislike pornography?
- Masturbating - is it okay?
- masturbation, help!!
- what age do you think a person should get a phone?
- Can I quote an acronym for a swear word in a history essay?
- 90 days without porn
- Who else is happy that their GCSE's are finished?!
- Excessive washing of everything near me after masterbation
- Maine **** cats
- How do you cope with your boyfriend looking at other females
- How to Block Porn
- posting gcse certificates / art coursework online
- Erection Dysfunction
- Is it possible to get pregnant this way
- Is there a horrible lurgy going round?
- If I put someone in the "ignore list" on TSR would they be able to see my posts?
- do all couples find this normal...
- I find porn disgusting
- Watched a lot of porn
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
