Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Not necessarily. BDSM can apply the other way around. A lot of men (OK probably not a lot but certainly Tory ministers!) enjoy being humiliated/tortured by women which is why any London telephone booth is littered with ads from Dominatrix.

    If you were so inclined you could walk into any porno shop and by videos depicting female domination.

    (Not that I've personally ever been in a porno shop........obviously......erm.. ...)
    I never said the submissive had to be female, or for that matter, the dominant had the be the other sex, it's just the principle of them being humiliated and effectively tortured which may be concentual, but to others may seem forced.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wiwarin_mir)
    I never said the submissive had to be female, or for that matter, the dominant had the be the other sex, it's just the principle of them being humiliated and effectively tortured which may be concentual, but to others may seem forced.
    Again, it's only seriusly deranged people who cannot separate reality from fiction. The people who will go out and act on this sortof thing are not the sort of people who would otherwize stay at home on a Saturday night watching re-runs of Dad's Army.

    There will always be sick people. They will remain so with or without pornographic stimulants.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by piginapoke)
    You do seem to like to go off on odd tangents.
    I might be using an extreme example, but if a nudist magazine can be charged with distributing images of underage children and pictures are in no way erotic or posed, why should people wishing to, download thousands of images or rape, torture and humiliation, it just seems a bit illogical.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Again, it's only seriusly deranged people who cannot separate reality from fiction. The people who will go out and act on this sortof thing are not the sort of people who would otherwize stay at home on a Saturday night watching re-runs of Dad's Army.

    There will always be sick people. They will remain so with or without pornographic stimulants.
    But why should we legally provide them with their stimulant.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wiwarin_mir)
    But why should we legally provide them with their stimulant.
    Because a lot of people enjoy making pornographic movies and are well paid for consentially doing so and a lot of people enjoy watching it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by piginapoke)
    Are you saying you think they should both be legal, both illegal, or the legalities reversed?
    I am saying that some 'indecent' images of children are quite innocent and unerotic, whereas it is impossible to have a harmless, unerotic BDSM image due to its nature.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Because a lot of people enjoy making pornographic movies and are well paid for consentially doing so and a lot of people enjoy watching it.
    I am not saying ban all pornography, only those that is seen to show acts of torture, rape and humiliation, which, although only a few people act upon it, can incite acts of sexual violence.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by piginapoke)
    Erotica is what you make it. I'm sure some weirdo will get kicks out of looking at a supposedly neutral image of a child.
    I am not saying that those kind of images should be legalised, I am simply using them to show that even the most neutral pictures of nude children are illegal, yet the most violent BDSM isn't.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    But then the argument that every single bit of fiction that has ever been made can in some way incite violence. Most computer games incite violence, right down to sonic the hedgehog. TV is full of violence, take a look at 24 or buffy. You cannot use that argument.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by piginapoke)
    Name one instance of sonic the hedgehog inciting violence.
    He is relentlessly going after Dr robotnik, and every time he catches up with him, he attempts to kill him. Dr robotnik also imprisons small, helpless creature inside his drones, who try and kill sonic.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wiwarin_mir)
    He is relentlessly going after Dr robotnik, and every time he catches up with him, he attempts to kill him. Dr robotnik also imprisons small, helpless creature inside his drones, who try and kill sonic.
    Oh, come on. Sonic the hedgehog? I thought we were talking about porn here.
    And yes, anything can incite violence, that's a perfectly valid argument and precisely the reason why BDSM should not be illegal.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by piginapoke)
    Pictures of nude children are illegal because people will use them to fuel their desire to look at nude children no matter how innocent the picture purports to be, and that simply will not do. It can patently lead to paedophilliac acts. Paedophilia is generally considered the most heinous and taboo of acts (excepting maybe genocide), so quite naturally nude pics of kids are illegal.
    I am not saying paedaphila should be made legal, I am simply using it to draw comparisons.
    (Original post by piginapoke)
    Your point seems to be BDSM should be illegal because it leads to violent acts, potentially. Well, all manner of things can potentially lead to violent acts, pornography isn't exclusive on that, and a lot of these things are legal.
    I never said it was

    (Original post by piginapoke)
    There's always going to be an 'unhappy medium', we can't make everything potentially bad illegal (what would be left fun to do?) and we can't make everything legal (path to madness).
    I am not suggesting that we do make everything legal, just some things illegal.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wiwarin_mir)
    I am not suggesting that we do make everything legal, just some things illegal.
    And those would be simulated rape and extreme BDSM, amd I right?
    You still haven't justified why they should be made illegal.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by suspicious_fish)
    Oh, come on. Sonic the hedgehog? I thought we were talking about porn here.
    And yes, anything can incite violence, that's a perfectly valid argument and precisely the reason why BDSM should not be illegal.
    But indecent pictures of children are not the only thing the incite paedophilia, but they are still illegal.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by suspicious_fish)
    And those would be simulated rape and extreme BDSM, amd I right?
    You still haven't justified why they should be made illegal.
    For example, the BBFC will not allow any R18 (R18 being the classification given to porn films) to be released if it shows any sexual acts that can be perceived as being forced.
    Why is there such control for film, but the internet (granted it is a lot harder to control) seems to get away with it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wiwarin_mir)
    But indecent pictures of children are not the only thing the incite paedophilia, but they are still illegal.
    Paedophilia, as I said before, is a very tricky issue because the consent of a child can be contested and its validity debated.
    Nothing incites paedophilia, anyway - it's a thing you are. Paedophiles will always exist, with pictures of children or without.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wiwarin_mir)
    For example, the BBFC will not allow any R18 (R18 being the classification given to porn films) to be released if it shows any sexual acts that can be perceived as being forced.
    Why is there such control for film, but the internet (granted it is a lot harder to control) seems to get away with it.
    Just because something is illegal doesn't make it wrong.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by suspicious_fish)
    Just because something is illegal doesn't make it wrong.
    Really, so just because class A drugs are illegal, they are ok. Things are made illegal because they are viewed as wrong by the government. Paedophiles do not think that their particular fetish is wrong, but everyone else does.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by suspicious_fish)
    Paedophilia, as I said before, is a very tricky issue because the consent of a child can be contested and its validity debated.
    Nothing incites paedophilia, anyway - it's a thing you are. Paedophiles will always exist, with pictures of children or without.
    There will also always be those with BDSM fetishes, as will those who like necrophilia, which is an off-shoot/end product of extreme BDSM. Why is it that necrophilia is illegal, but one of the possible paths to it is not.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AM1)
    Like drugs, pornography can be very addictive and damaging. Furthermore, pornography can be an agent of marital breakdown, where one member becomes "hooked". Many of the "actors/actresses" become involved in the industry because of exploitation, and many get STDs.

    Do you agree?
    I personally don´t think pornography should be banned. Indeed, some "actresses/actors" do get STDs, but I think that´s because of their own stupidity, they should demand the right to use condoms (I´m glad that in all the X-rated movies I´ve seen most of the actors have worn condoms).
    Yes, I admit that pornography can be addictive to some people, but I think the vast majority of people do not become addicted to it. I guess it can cause marital/relationship breakdowns as well, but it can also be watched by a couple together and it can "spice up" a relationship.
    I´m not saying it´s all positive though as many of the actresses (as I think this applies to women in particular) become involved in the industry because they have no other job prospects and are uneducated. Which, of course, is a bad thing and not a situation I´d like to be in. Of course they could work as prostitutes, but which one´s better, being a porn star or a prostitute?
    And on the other hand, I don´t like the way pornography portraits women. But I trust that most men have the intelligence to understand that porn movies are just movies, not reality.
 
 
 
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.