Quote by ChairmanMiaow
I reiterate my question - has anyone on this thread actually read the consultation document, or are you all relying on the media reports?
this is a link to it Chairman
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
porn / violence laws
Sexlightened
I have actually read the consultation paper and would pick out 2 relevant areas, related to my original post.
"As previously stated, we believe that
the material under consideration in this
document has no place in our society and
people should be prohibited from
possessing it. We believe from the
observations of the police and others who
investigate it, that the material may often
cause serious physical and other harm to
those involved in making it; in some cases
the participants are clearly the victims of
criminal offences. We consider that it is
possible that such material may encourage
or reinforce interest in violent and
aberrant sexual activity to the detriment
of society as a whole."
This is plainly a "moral" agenda of the politicos in question and to some extent a knee jerk reaction to the recent case which is actually discussed in the consultation paper.
"28. There is a substantial body of
research which explores the effects of
pornography on attitudes, beliefs and
behaviour. There are many studies
examining the impact of both mainstream
and sexually violent pornography on
individuals and society, which have been
conducted since the 1970s and 1980s
when the threshold of tolerance of
pornographic material rose in many
countries. These studies take different
forms. Some of this research comprises
empirical studies conducted to measure
emotional, attitudinal and behavioural
effects with different samples of males
from the general population. There is also
research with sex offenders which has
attempted to learn how they may have
been influenced by pornographic material.
In addition, there are studies which involve
victims and battered women to
determine the part pornography may have
played in the offences committed against
them. Studies of volunteers’ reactions to
pornography have been conducted in
laboratory conditions. There have also
been a few large studies which have
attempted to investigate whether there is a
correlation of availability of pornography
with rates of sexual offending.
29. The interpretation of the findings of
this research has been the subject of
reviews commissioned by governments in
the US, UK, Australia and elsewhere over
several decades, and the subject of public
debate often coloured by a moral or
political outlook. This has made it difficult
to get a clear picture and understanding of
the possible harmful effects of pornography."
Thus whilst "the police" and "others" are convinced this material is harmful, there is no substantive supporting evidence to confirm this.
If I am misinterpreting the content of the consultation document Chairman Miaow please let me know how. I have no particular axe to grind with regard to the content in question, as I have said previously I find it offensive. however if consenting adults are accessing material produced by other consenting adults why should the government interfere. Even if some of the acts in question would be illegal in the UK they may not have been illegal in the jurisdictions in which they were filmed/photographed, so their relative illegality as acts in the UK is not really relevant. It is illegal within the UK to supply what most people would consider to be "normal" pornography. The government comparatively recently legislated to make illegal electronics which allow UK residents to view foreign satellite TV (popular for "normal" pornography in Continental Europe and Scandinavia).
Why should we have any confidence that the government will really stop at the current proposals?
As for replying to the consultation document, I have some professional experience of dealing with similar "consultations" in the past. It is unlikely that there is any intention of genuinely consulting on the change. The Home Office in Effect is looking to determine how difficult new regulations would be to implement and to flush out any inherent contradictions or obviously silly elements.
It is however impossible to carry out meaningful consultation without a definition of many of the new "offences". The definition of "serious sexual violence" and "serious violence in a sexual context" in particular remains unclear.
"As previously stated, we believe that
the material under consideration in this
document has no place in our society and
people should be prohibited from
possessing it. We believe from the
observations of the police and others who
investigate it, that the material may often
cause serious physical and other harm to
those involved in making it; in some cases
the participants are clearly the victims of
criminal offences. We consider that it is
possible that such material may encourage
or reinforce interest in violent and
aberrant sexual activity to the detriment
of society as a whole."
This is plainly a "moral" agenda of the politicos in question and to some extent a knee jerk reaction to the recent case which is actually discussed in the consultation paper.
"28. There is a substantial body of
research which explores the effects of
pornography on attitudes, beliefs and
behaviour. There are many studies
examining the impact of both mainstream
and sexually violent pornography on
individuals and society, which have been
conducted since the 1970s and 1980s
when the threshold of tolerance of
pornographic material rose in many
countries. These studies take different
forms. Some of this research comprises
empirical studies conducted to measure
emotional, attitudinal and behavioural
effects with different samples of males
from the general population. There is also
research with sex offenders which has
attempted to learn how they may have
been influenced by pornographic material.
In addition, there are studies which involve
victims and battered women to
determine the part pornography may have
played in the offences committed against
them. Studies of volunteers’ reactions to
pornography have been conducted in
laboratory conditions. There have also
been a few large studies which have
attempted to investigate whether there is a
correlation of availability of pornography
with rates of sexual offending.
29. The interpretation of the findings of
this research has been the subject of
reviews commissioned by governments in
the US, UK, Australia and elsewhere over
several decades, and the subject of public
debate often coloured by a moral or
political outlook. This has made it difficult
to get a clear picture and understanding of
the possible harmful effects of pornography."
Thus whilst "the police" and "others" are convinced this material is harmful, there is no substantive supporting evidence to confirm this.
If I am misinterpreting the content of the consultation document Chairman Miaow please let me know how. I have no particular axe to grind with regard to the content in question, as I have said previously I find it offensive. however if consenting adults are accessing material produced by other consenting adults why should the government interfere. Even if some of the acts in question would be illegal in the UK they may not have been illegal in the jurisdictions in which they were filmed/photographed, so their relative illegality as acts in the UK is not really relevant. It is illegal within the UK to supply what most people would consider to be "normal" pornography. The government comparatively recently legislated to make illegal electronics which allow UK residents to view foreign satellite TV (popular for "normal" pornography in Continental Europe and Scandinavia).
Why should we have any confidence that the government will really stop at the current proposals?
As for replying to the consultation document, I have some professional experience of dealing with similar "consultations" in the past. It is unlikely that there is any intention of genuinely consulting on the change. The Home Office in Effect is looking to determine how difficult new regulations would be to implement and to flush out any inherent contradictions or obviously silly elements.
It is however impossible to carry out meaningful consultation without a definition of many of the new "offences". The definition of "serious sexual violence" and "serious violence in a sexual context" in particular remains unclear.
We've read about this on various BDSM sites and the general feeling in that community is that there are a lot of things that are unclear.
As 2 consenting adults who enjoy bondage and dominance (not so much the sado-masochism) and attend various fetish/BDSM clubs at least once a month we feel that if the government don't clarify and clear up the new law then we may as part of the BDSM community as a whole come under scrutiny.
New legislation may also give the law enforcement agency more right to enter fetish clubs around the country and already some clubs are finding it harder to get alcohol licenses we have heard.
Strange coincidence or is the law trying to start curtailing our social lives too?
Also what about people who work in the BDSm scene? Being a Professional Dom/Domme is not illegal although frowned upon by many who wrongly believe it's all about sex.
The new law could signal the beginning of a modern day witch hunt in our opinion.
Just because we enjoy something different doesn't make any of us perverts. Surely it's a matter of personal choices between consenting adults and should not involve the law or government what we like to do in the privacy of our homes or designated fetish/BDSM clubs.
The usual key words of BDSM will always apply - safe, sane and consentual.
As 2 consenting adults who enjoy bondage and dominance (not so much the sado-masochism) and attend various fetish/BDSM clubs at least once a month we feel that if the government don't clarify and clear up the new law then we may as part of the BDSM community as a whole come under scrutiny.
New legislation may also give the law enforcement agency more right to enter fetish clubs around the country and already some clubs are finding it harder to get alcohol licenses we have heard.
Strange coincidence or is the law trying to start curtailing our social lives too?
Also what about people who work in the BDSm scene? Being a Professional Dom/Domme is not illegal although frowned upon by many who wrongly believe it's all about sex.
The new law could signal the beginning of a modern day witch hunt in our opinion.
Just because we enjoy something different doesn't make any of us perverts. Surely it's a matter of personal choices between consenting adults and should not involve the law or government what we like to do in the privacy of our homes or designated fetish/BDSM clubs.
The usual key words of BDSM will always apply - safe, sane and consentual.
what do you make of this..
I have just watched a video in which three people urinate over one another.. one man has a shit in a bowl and gives it to another person to eat
a burning wooden taper is put into the end of the men's penis and set fire to till it burns him.......... right I will not go on explaining everything that occurs in this video because obviously it would be illegal.... well no it is not... and not only that it has been given a British Board of Film censors Certificate and ''surprise surprise'' it's not R18
no this film has been given an 18 Certificate..!!!
could this possibly be true oh yes it's true... the film is dirty Sanchez...bar code 612154... .. for you disbelievers
you see all these actions would not be allowed in a sex film ..but you can show it at other times as long as it doesn't involve sex
so you can see exactly the same so-called depravity in one context and is perfectly all right then the moment you introduce the word ''SEX'' it all becomes different for some reason .....because all these decisions are made for political reasons if these acts are socially unacceptable then that's one argument but to say they are socially unacceptable only when they include sex is ridiculous....
I have just watched a video in which three people urinate over one another.. one man has a shit in a bowl and gives it to another person to eat
a burning wooden taper is put into the end of the men's penis and set fire to till it burns him.......... right I will not go on explaining everything that occurs in this video because obviously it would be illegal.... well no it is not... and not only that it has been given a British Board of Film censors Certificate and ''surprise surprise'' it's not R18
no this film has been given an 18 Certificate..!!!
could this possibly be true oh yes it's true... the film is dirty Sanchez...bar code 612154... .. for you disbelievers
you see all these actions would not be allowed in a sex film ..but you can show it at other times as long as it doesn't involve sex
so you can see exactly the same so-called depravity in one context and is perfectly all right then the moment you introduce the word ''SEX'' it all becomes different for some reason .....because all these decisions are made for political reasons if these acts are socially unacceptable then that's one argument but to say they are socially unacceptable only when they include sex is ridiculous....
Sex God
Quote by bluexxx
What new law are we talking about exactly anyway? Does anyone have a link?
Yeah, yeah, google is my friend:lol: :lol: :lol:
Here ya go...
Christina's question "Are we classed as violent if we whip a poor little subbie?" isn't really relevant: The subject under scrutinity is the depiction of acts of violence, not the acts themselves. Causing actual bodily harm is already illegal, and most of what falls under the unfortunately generalised category of "BDSM" doesn't cause actual damage.
And I don't buy the "consenting adults" argument - Where do you draw the line? Kaz alluded to the recent case in Germany where a man paid someone to stab him to death and eat him. Does consent still count if you're stark raving bonkers?
Quote by bigslut
what do you make of this..
I have just watched a video in which three people urinate over one another.. one man has a shit in a bowl and gives it to another person to eat
a burning wooden taper is put into the end of the men's penis and set fire to till it burns him.......... right I will not go on explaining everything that occurs in this video because obviously it would be illegal.... well no it is not... and not only that it has been given a British Board of Film censors Certificate and ''surprise surprise'' it's not R18
no this film has been given an 18 Certificate..!!!
could this possibly be true oh yes it's true... the film is dirty Sanchez...bar code 612154... .. for you disbelievers
you see all these actions would not be allowed in a sex film ..but you can show it at other times as long as it doesn't involve sex
so you can see exactly the same so-called depravity in one context and is perfectly all right then the moment you introduce the word ''SEX'' it all becomes different for some reason .....because all these decisions are made for political reasons if these acts are socially unacceptable then that's one argument but to say they are socially unacceptable only when they include sex is ridiculous....
...good spot Bigslut, but it's worth noting that all films released in the UK are classified in some way and this one theoreticallyshould not be viewed by under 18's. The problem is that images like these (& worse) on the internet are not regulated and can be accessed easily by minors, I guess that's one of the reasons the state is considering getting involved in internet censorship.
Quote by seagull69
Just to be a bit controversial I believe that this is just another step on this governments agenda of taking us towards a totalitarian state:
First they came for the Homosexuals I did nothing because I wasn't a homosexual
You know the rest :cry:
..why do you have that opinion Seagull??
Quote by alspals
Just to be a bit controversial I believe that this is just another step on this governments agenda of taking us towards a totalitarian state:
First they came for the Homosexuals I did nothing because I wasn't a homosexual
You know the rest :cry:
..why do you have that opinion Seagull??
Because this government appears to bringing in more laws that affect individual freedoms. Only in August did they bring in a ban on the humble mushroom what next
Quote by seagull69
Just to be a bit controversial I believe that this is just another step on this governments agenda of taking us towards a totalitarian state:
First they came for the Homosexuals I did nothing because I wasn't a homosexual
You know the rest :cry:
..why do you have that opinion Seagull??
Because this government appears to bringing in more laws that affect individual freedoms. Only in August did they bring in a ban on the humble mushroom what next
I agree that the government should have little control over individual freedoms, but if 'our' freedoms could have a negative influence on someone else (our kids) then doesn't it seem reasonable to at least have the discussion? Which is why the proposals are only in the form of a consultation document at this stage.
Don't mind the discussion but I think that its a bit rich that a government that bombs the crap out of innocent people should get hot under the collar about a bit of violent porn( I hate violent porn and all forms of violence by the way)
Anyway this government makes me violent it should be banned
Anyway this government makes me violent it should be banned
The reality of law is that you make a law banning sexual acts against those unable to resist and then insert, in the same legislative act, laws banning the watching of others having sex.
You ban consenting sexual-sado-masochism, in effect, and insert more parts banning something else.
In effect, and fact, you are gradually banning life and freedom.
More laws does not equal less crime, the reasoning behind making the laws is flawed because the people penning the legislation are unable to make the mental jump to thinking as opposed to acting.
Criminals don't obey laws, so more laws equals less obedience of law. Which also means less respect for the law.
All of this is a gradual process of moving from a policy of control of crime and criminals, to a policy of control of the population.
Life's tough !
You ban consenting sexual-sado-masochism, in effect, and insert more parts banning something else.
In effect, and fact, you are gradually banning life and freedom.
More laws does not equal less crime, the reasoning behind making the laws is flawed because the people penning the legislation are unable to make the mental jump to thinking as opposed to acting.
Criminals don't obey laws, so more laws equals less obedience of law. Which also means less respect for the law.
All of this is a gradual process of moving from a policy of control of crime and criminals, to a policy of control of the population.
Life's tough !
Quote by JTS
The reality of law is that you make a law banning sexual acts against those unable to resist and then insert, in the same legislative act, laws banning the watching of others having sex.
You ban consenting sexual-sado-masochism, in effect, and insert more parts banning something else.
In effect, and fact, you are gradually banning life and freedom.
More laws does not equal less crime, the reasoning behind making the laws is flawed because the people penning the legislation are unable to make the mental jump to thinking as opposed to acting.
Criminals don't obey laws, so more laws equals less obedience of law. Which also means less respect for the law.
All of this is a gradual process of moving from a policy of control of crime and criminals, to a policy of control of the population.
Life's tough !
:thumbup:
Quote by JTS
The reality of law is that you make a law banning sexual acts against those unable to resist and then insert, in the same legislative act, laws banning the watching of others having sex.
You ban consenting sexual-sado-masochism, in effect, and insert more parts banning something else.
In effect, and fact, you are gradually banning life and freedom.
More laws does not equal less crime, the reasoning behind making the laws is flawed because the people penning the legislation are unable to make the mental jump to thinking as opposed to acting.
Criminals don't obey laws, so more laws equals less obedience of law. Which also means less respect for the law.
All of this is a gradual process of moving from a policy of control of crime and criminals, to a policy of control of the population.
Life's tough !
..the consultation paper does not cover the banning of these acts, from what I can see it appears to address who has access to view imagery of sexual violence and amonsgt other things.
Your high brow argument holds up well in a utopian society where individuals have nothing to gain or no wish to gain by the disadvantages of others..however it is naive in a society where this is not the case.
Criminals, by definition have failed to observe laws which in most cases are there to protect the general public ..how far these laws are applied to protect us is what we should be debating on this particular issue. If laws didnt exist of course there would be no criminals, however it would be a society ruled by anarchy and lessfreedom for the individual.
Quote by alspals
[
..the consultation paper does not cover the banning of these acts, from what I can see it appears to address who has access to view imagery of sexual violence and amonsgt other things.
.
This is my concern that the government is trying to control what we can and cannot view on the internet. I can't see the reasoning behind it at all unless it has more sinister reasons as I have mentioned before.
Quote by seagull69
Seagull I agree with you, it is a concern that any government may be considering banning anything we wish to view for entertainment in our own homes. However without legislation the internet becomes a free for all. I'm not interested in what might turn you or anyone else on, as consenting adults..but I am worried if extreme sexual/violent is accessible by children with parents who don't or can't monitor their online activity.
Orgasminator
Quote by alspals
Just to be a bit controversial I believe that this is just another step on this governments agenda of taking us towards a totalitarian state:
First they came for the Homosexuals I did nothing because I wasn't a homosexual
You know the rest :cry:
..why do you have that opinion Seagull??
Because this government appears to bringing in more laws that affect individual freedoms. Only in August did they bring in a ban on the humble mushroom what next
I agree that the government should have little control over individual freedoms, but if 'our' freedoms could have a negative influence on someone else (our kids) then doesn't it seem reasonable to at least have the discussion? Which is why the proposals are only in the form of a consultation document at this stage.
The problem is that people in power dependent of their views can take any erosion of individual freedoms to an ilogical conclusion...
Your individual freedom to read and view and respond on this site potentially opens your own children to viewing adult material of a sexual nature, if you can see it then so can they!
Does this mean that as adults we should not be allowed to view adult sites, or adult sites where people activly engage in meeting others with a view to engaging in sexual acts involving more than two "loving" and consenting adults because a covernment feel that we are being imorall.
It used to be ilegal for homosexual acts to take place if there is more than 2 people present, but the same was not true if no homosexual acts take place... also homosexuality was only against the law if performed by men and not by women as women were not deemed capable of such acts.
The problem is without specific definitions of what is, and is not, classified as against the law it will always be open to interpritation... Technically the film "The accused" with Jodie Foster, Kelly McGillis et. al. could fall under this new law.
Also this, along with previous changes via the CJA, becomes a retro-spective law not specifically but due to its wording and context which is a very very dangerous precident to set as it opens up the posibility of people being criminalised for doing things that were previously not against the law which is something that the law has always protected against.
Take the latest idea to either amend or repeal parts of the HR act, and also to allow "terrorist suspects" to be held upto 3 months without being charged... ok so we all say "well if it stops another attack on london then its a good thing...." untill you and some friends have been talking to each other saying "god this covernemnt is crap, its about time someone threw them all out" and someone decides that YOU are potentially discussing overthrowing the covernment and decides that you are conspiring to do so... and you end up locked up for 3 months without recourse to legal representation and without being charged.....
Quote by alspals
Seagull I agree with you, it is a concern that any government may be considering banning anything we wish to view for entertainment in our own homes. However without legislation the internet becomes a free for all. I'm not interested in what might turn you or anyone else on, as consenting adults..but I am worried if extreme sexual/violent is accessible by children with parents who don't or can't monitor their online activity.
Tried to stay out of it but have to put in one bit
In my opinion, laws should not be made because of bad parenting. This generation is becoming a blameless society. It is always someone elses fault. If you have kids, you look after them. You don't want them to see anything, then don't let them see it.
Computers can be passworded, digital TV's can be blocked, you can even make an extension for your normal TV and lock it away at night, etc. No excuses by parents should be used as there are easy ways to combat this.
Parents need to start taking their role more seriously and exerting their "Parental responsibility".
As for what should be banned? Anything that is already covered by current legislation i.e. images of actual murder, , assault etc
What two consenting adults do........no matter how bizarre e.g. the missionary position only :shock: should not be legislated against
Dave_Notts
Quote by alspals
Seagull I agree with you, it is a concern that any government may be considering banning anything we wish to view for entertainment in our own homes. However without legislation the internet becomes a free for all. I'm not interested in what might turn you or anyone else on, as consenting adults..but I am worried if extreme sexual/violent is accessible by children with parents who don't or can't monitor their online activity.
I know where you are coming from but the state is not interested in whether little johnny is getting off on so wacko porn blimey you can bet your life that half your MPs are down getting a flogging from so mistress. They are using this to see how far they can go to controling what we cannot veiw and read. They Know how powerfull the internet is. You don't have to rely on the government lie machines anymore.
And when it comes to obscene images. As a kid I was brought up on one. It was this guy who was wiped and flogged then they nailed him to a cross and stuck a spear in his side. That really is sick and they showed it to kids
Sex God
Quote by seagull69
And when it comes to obscene images. As a kid I was brought up on one. It was this guy who was wiped and flogged then they nailed him to a cross and stuck a spear in his side. That really is sick and they showed it to kids
I'm not sure I follow you. Are you saying that a painting or statue of a man having his hands and feet nailed to a cross is somehow more obscene than a video of a man having his nuts nailed to a table, and if so, on what basis do you make the distinction?
Quote by Ice Pie
And when it comes to obscene images. As a kid I was brought up on one. It was this guy who was wiped and flogged then they nailed him to a cross and stuck a spear in his side. That really is sick and they showed it to kids
I'm not sure I follow you. Are you saying that a painting or statue of a man having his hands and feet nailed to a cross is somehow more obscene than a video of a man having his nuts nailed to a table, and if so, on what basis do you make the distinction?
I don't see any difference between the image of christ being crucified than an image of a man with his nuts nailed to the table. I find it strange that it seems acceptable to show an image of christ to kids and not be horrified by it
Quote by Ice Pie
And when it comes to obscene images. As a kid I was brought up on one. It was this guy who was wiped and flogged then they nailed him to a cross and stuck a spear in his side. That really is sick and they showed it to kids
I'm not sure I follow you. Are you saying that a painting or statue of a man having his hands and feet nailed to a cross is somehow more obscene than a video of a man having his nuts nailed to a table, and if so, on what basis do you make the distinction?
The act of any person being nailed to anything is obscene. There have been copycat rituals of the originals since they nailed JC up. One of the famous ones was the nailing of British/Canadian POWs to a barn door in WW1. There have been more recent ones as well. I can't see the difference myself.........except one will make me balk quicker.......but both still obscene.
Dave_Notts
Sex God
Quote by seagull69
And when it comes to obscene images. As a kid I was brought up on one. It was this guy who was wiped and flogged then they nailed him to a cross and stuck a spear in his side. That really is sick and they showed it to kids
I'm not sure I follow you. Are you saying that a painting or statue of a man having his hands and feet nailed to a cross is somehow more obscene than a video of a man having his nuts nailed to a table, and if so, on what basis do you make the distinction?
I don't see any difference between the image of christ being crucified than an image of a man with his nuts nailed to the table. I find it strange that it seems acceptable to show an image of christ to kids and not be horrified by it
Well now I'm confused then, because you describe the Christ image as obscene, implying that you disapprove, yet you apparently approve of depicting similar acts of brutality in the name of sex. :dunno:
Quote by Ice Pie
And when it comes to obscene images. As a kid I was brought up on one. It was this guy who was wiped and flogged then they nailed him to a cross and stuck a spear in his side. That really is sick and they showed it to kids
I'm not sure I follow you. Are you saying that a painting or statue of a man having his hands and feet nailed to a cross is somehow more obscene than a video of a man having his nuts nailed to a table, and if so, on what basis do you make the distinction?
I don't see any difference between the image of christ being crucified than an image of a man with his nuts nailed to the table. I find it strange that it seems acceptable to show an image of christ to kids and not be horrified by it
Well now I'm confused then, because you describe the Christ image as obscene, implying that you disapprove, yet you apparently approve of depicting similar acts of brutality in the name of sex. :dunno:
Not quite Ice pie if you have read my previous comments you would see that I do not like violent sex in any shape or form. My comment about christ is that it is an image that is shown to very young children.
Sex God
Quote by seagull69
And when it comes to obscene images. As a kid I was brought up on one. It was this guy who was wiped and flogged then they nailed him to a cross and stuck a spear in his side. That really is sick and they showed it to kids
I'm not sure I follow you. Are you saying that a painting or statue of a man having his hands and feet nailed to a cross is somehow more obscene than a video of a man having his nuts nailed to a table, and if so, on what basis do you make the distinction?
I don't see any difference between the image of christ being crucified than an image of a man with his nuts nailed to the table. I find it strange that it seems acceptable to show an image of christ to kids and not be horrified by it
Well now I'm confused then, because you describe the Christ image as obscene, implying that you disapprove, yet you apparently approve of depicting similar acts of brutality in the name of sex. :dunno:
Not quite Ice pie if you have read my previous comments you would see that I do not like violent sex in any shape or form. My comment about christ is that it is an image that is shown to very young children.
I didn't say you like it, I said you apparently approve of its depiction. I read that approval into your complaint about control. Did I misread you?
