UK government cracks down on violent porn

Remove all ads!

the victims are more important, when the crown outlawed slavery they were thinking of the victims not those who make money from the exploitation, likewise in outlawing violent porn the home office is thinking of the potential victims over those who would exploit the images for pleasure ot monetary gain.

 

Why is it different to pretend to kill someone in a movie than to pretend to rape someone in a movie? What is the difference between violence in porn and in "normal" media?

I am no supporter of the porn industry, it is a vile cesspool, but I seriously doubt freaky porn makes people do bad stuff anymore than videogames made those kids in Colorado go berserk in their school and so on.

 

I think that the UK is right to do what they are doing. The difference between a rape scene in a movie and this crap that they are talking about is that the movie shouldn't be so graphic. Any graphic portrayal of such a despicable act should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

As for those who say it violates the freedom to indulge in whatever you please, I ask you where is the freedom to walk the streets without worrying that some sick bastard is going to do horrible things to you?

 

My mind boggles at the sort of person who'd get off on stuff like this. Rape or violent sex in a movie is typically qualitatively different to violent pornography; the intention is not to please an audience, and if done well (eg: Irreversible, Happiness) is extremely powerful cinema; it would lose its potency as a message without a graphic depiction. I doubt anyone would derive pleasure from watching parts of those movies - and if they did get pleasure from a woman getting smacked around and raped, or a kid being drugged and raped, I'd be worried about their mental state.

I don't think porn makes people do that; much the same logic applies to video games. The problem already exists somewhere else; except in the case of extreme psychopathology, something else drives people to this sort of material or action. joacqin's point about Columbine is pertinent; it was bullying and marginalisation which motivated the school shootings, not Doom or Quake or Duke 3D. I don't see violent porn as a causative element in violent offending; rather, I see it as possibly being a catalyst where everything else is already there, and as a scapegoat.

Where I believe this material should be controlled or censored is when the acts of sexual violence/rape are the focus of enjoyment and gratification for their own sake. That's an aspect of humanity which I don't believe should be tolerated, and which I find appalling. There is no good reason for it being available that I can think of, let alone agree with.

There's plenty of fetish stuff I cringe at, but I don't think it should be illegal, primarily because much of it is not as shocking or potentially damaging to the psyche. It also doesn't usually involve the same level of degradation, dehumanisation and violence (well, unless you're a teddy bear... and let's not go there, folks - you see people at their worst in my line of work).

That said, the proposed amendments and banning will achieve nothing; sites will simply move. People will still get what they want, the government will appease people and have done just about everything they can without grossly violating people's privacy.

Kiddie porn... well, those ******s who make it deserve to rot in prison's general population, IMO.

 

Anyone that gets off to women being raped, or children (including women that look like young teen girls) is sick. I am shocked that people stand up for this sort of thing. Its not healthy to find rape and child porn 'erotic'.

 

To be honest, no. But do you find equally harmful games such as Soliders of Fortune which are very violent yet introduce completely unrealistic violence or the countless movies that actually introduce horrible violence which in many cases is the entire the point of the movie. To me extreme violence is not much worse than extreme violent sex. Child porn to me is a completely different issue which can't even be compared with rape scenes or violent porn.

In any case, I don't think watching violent porn produces any more rapists than grand theft auto produces car thieves and murderers. It's a perhaps sick and twisted perversion but to me it's a lot better than pedophilia. Even if you would outlaw it, it would serve no purpose. This kinds of things go around in the internet, and I would not dedicate any resources to finding out these sources it would be a complete waste of money and time. Instead I would direct the resources to cracking down cases of real rape crimes or child porn being distributed.

 

Hmm, I notice that a lot of the against acted rape/faked kiddie porn people are arguing 'because it's wrong'.

Well, why do you care if other people who don't interact with you do what you consider is wrong, when it isn't damaging anyone (except maybe themselves, but don't they have a right to damage themselves if they want to?)?

If people are into this sort of thing - so what? It doesn't affect you or anyone else.

 

It affected the mother in the article Chev wrote... (Ted Bundy also got off to violent porn, and made him want to try it out in real life).

Also Shoshino made a good point about slavery, it was considered 'okay' at one point, and I am sure people thought it was simply crazy to set the slaves free, as it would raise prices for cotton, fruits etc.

Placing entertainment and profit above family values...

 

Their addiction can corrupt their willpower if they don't control it and, with their willpower corrupted, they could go out and try it out for real once, like that English musician did. We have no obligation to let them indugle their hobbies and rely on their willpower for that they won't take it out on real people one day. The society has the right to intervene when a person is putting himself in such a state that it becomes difficult for him to tell right from wrong, good from evil, and thus wrong or evil becomes a real possibility.

It doesn't affect me but life teaches that there is a connection between watching kiddie porn and paedofilia and between paedofilia and child sexual abuse. Similarly, when the English musician watched his violent porn in the safety of his house, it affected no one. However, when he decided to try it out for real, it affected the whole community.

That's strange. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but you have it twisted. Rape on an adult is much worse than consensual sex with a minor. Games with extreme violence are marginally connected to the issue at hand.

How do you tell a real rape photo or movie from a fake? Next, if paedofilia weren't illegal in most if not all countries, we would have as many kid porn sites as we have rape sites, if not more. I tend to view games like GTA as funny diversion so long as one isn't getting involved, and indulging in sick urges when someone seems to have found his own world in which he can revel in theft and murder with impunity. It's a bit similar with violent sex. A bit of tooth and nail has never hurt anyone but it's a completely different matter when a sex scene is presented as non-consensual. You see, rape porn is not just a pillow fight.

EDIT: To what Shoshino and Cuchulainn say, I would add that we shouldn't regard victims as collateral damage, by-result of legitimate hobbies, whatever such. If saving a thousand women and children should require depriving a million of men of the freedom to indulge in a sick hobby which is a medical condition and should be treated, then be it.

@NonSequitur:

Possibly. But it's quite powerful. Especially for kids who won't stop playing and turn "God Mode" on to remove such mundane nuisances as the possibility of getting shot back. Ever seen a Quake kiddy in early teens dressed in military fatigues, prodding other kids around and talking trash not even about adults but straight in their face? Kids that are in combat mode all the time and live under siege? Now imagine what happens if you add sex to the violence, especially in ways designed to deliver sexual gratification to the spectator. We already have way too many men who treat women like resource, call them "asses" and refer to relationships as "banging", use beating as "punishment" and so on and so forth. Blame the "patriarchal" society and traditional family values? Heck, no. Unless you're a clinical feminist on the Left Side of the Force. Blame brutalisation of life, glorification of violence, overly lenient law enforcement leading to impunity. Most of all, probably, general public neglect and lack of care.

I can come up with a couple of good reasons to kill someone. Name at least one good reason to rape someone or even use a slightest form of sexual coercion.

[ August 31, 2005, 12:10: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

I don't care what you think I have twisted. To me the legal age limit should be 12 and at that point I would go as far as to say that there can be no consensual sex with an adult. In the age of 14 and above it is very possible and not even that rare. But we're not talking about rape or having sex with a minor here anyway, we're talking about these things being illustrated through faking them. One major reason for me to have a strong stance against child porn that I want no questionable material with children claimed to be over 18 to flow into Finland over the eastern border. The authoroties should not be made to start guessing the girl's age and if the movie comes from Russia or elsewhere from Asia checking the legimate age of the girl would be impossible anyway. I don't see the point of doing the same thing with rape porn.

If I would get complete assurance of the actors/actresses in porn acting as children being of legal age I guess I would allow such movies, but that complete assurance is very difficult to get unless the films come from within the EU or the US, and as such I feel it's better to have illegal to minimize abuse.

I would say that simulating murder is no more a pillow fight either. To some rape porn might seem as a harmless little game since it's fake anyway.

 

Well, I'm seeing this a bit the same as people saying 'ZOMG! D&D makes people summon demons and kill people! Ban it!' - then pull out examples of people trying to summon demons or murdering people to back it up. Now, I'm quite sure everyone here is against that ... so how is this different?

 

The actor's age is only one aspect of the problem.

Why no need to make sure rape is only acted out and not real? What about rape porn from Russia or Asia?

@Aikanaro: D&D doesn't normally revolve around killing people and summoning daemons. Most typically, it's a fairy tale kind of adventure with lots of fighting. For some people, this will be combatting the forces of evil. For others, jolly swashbuckling. Whatever. Of course, you will find maniacs who run games full of rape and murder but most people don't go there. Adventures with overly gross and explicit material can and should be censored.

 

So you think that games like kill puppies for satan (which basically focuses on pushing the comfort level of what is decent by escalating into sicker and sicker things) and Sorcerer (about summoning demons) should be banned?

It's all about seperating fantasy from reality - should those who can be punished because of those who can't? There are innocent victims of other things that have nothing to do with seperating these fantasy and reality - maybe we should ban cars because so many people get killed each year?

 

I can't say that I'm sure (I'm certainly no expert on the subject) but I don't think there's much point in selling real rape porn as fake, while in child porn that might be very profitable since as I said finding those adult actors who look like children might be very hard if not impossible.

 

Apart from they can then market and sell it in Western countries which are probably the most lucrative.

I'm larely ambivalent about the crack-down (Yes I know there's a bad pun in there if you try hard enough).

On the advantageous side (of the ban), I don't understand what people can get out of violent porn and don't see any benefits in the propogation of violent sexual titilation. It's just my opinion (and obviously I have no evidence to back it up) that violence and sex is more likely to cause frustration in the target audiance, and therefore more likely to lead to the fantasies being enacted in real life.
Taken seperately I believe they are more a release of tensions. Violence in computer games for example, is often used as a way of getting rid of frustration - not building it up - because there is direct interaction. Normal porn is presumably used in the same way (at least if someone if by themself!)

On the other hand, just because I don't understand it doesn't mean that other people aren't entitled to there own fantasies. If violent porn is shown as being between two consulting adults - e.g. bondage and S&M then I really can't say I have a problem with it. Similarly I don't have a problem with rape scenes in normal movies - as long as it's not purely being done for titilation. That's a difficult line to draw but I'm reasonably confident that I could judge whether a film has put something in for titilation or as a required and meaningful part of the tale. However, I'm sure that Chev's judgement would severely differ from mine.

Now't as strange as folks is there!

There was a very good BBC2 TV series with Louis Theroux. One of the episodes was spent investigating (tastefully mind) the workings of an American whorehouse. Actually getting to know (humanising but not glamourising) the women and the punters. One of them, in her mid-twenties, looked about 14. She made a point of saying that she prefered her punters to come to her rather than picking up an actual 14 year old.
I doubt is would be as hard as you think, especially if you were to include the far east.

[ August 31, 2005, 17:41: Message edited by: Carcaroth ]

 

Carcaroth brings up a pretty good point. What if, in fact, these sites provide a cathartic effect on individuals. What if, by chance, people who have an outlet for these pent up emotions are actually LESS likely to engage in these behaviors in RL? Again, I have no evidence to back this up, but can this be discounted entirely as a possibility?

 

@ Chev,

You'll find very little argument from me about those points; in fact, most of what you've said concurs with my argument. My point was that since it's a convenient scapegoat and is something that can be legislated and forgotten, it's an appealing avenue to take for government. It won't change anything, except in the minds of some people.

@ Aikanaro,

Good points, and I agree that in an ideal world, everyone would be able to separate fantasy from reality, which would make censorship unnecessary. The sad evidence seems to be that there are those who cannot do this, and who may be encouraged in their actions by some forms of gratuitously violent media. I don't pretend to have the answers; I can only state what I believe to be a preferable state of affairs.

I can see no reason for promulgating (or making available) media whose sole purpose is to get people off on degradation, brutalisation and misery. It isn't a problem unless someone acts on it - and then there's a whole new can of worms to deal with, one which I have not the wisdom or experience to address properly.

 

If you can see no reason for making this crap available, then why allow it? Are you trying to say that the Government has no right to impose standards of decency or morality? Someone in another thread claimed that when Governments make a stand in favour of morality, then you take steps towards a theocratic state. By this, the opposite would apply, a stance against Morality would be a move towards an amoral state. If anything goes, then the first thing gone is freedom...

 

Yeah, that's pretty much what I'm saying. Let me try and demonstrate this:
Let's say that you're living with a government that has a different standard of decency and morality than you. Now let's say they, by there code, see ... oh, adultery as a necessary ingredient of society and pass a law to say that everyone must commit adultery. As a Christian with your moral code - I imagine you'd be pretty pissed.

Well, my moral code is different from yours and, apparently, from the people making the rules in the UK government. As there is no objective standard of morality and decency, the government should stay the hell out and stop inflicting their own ideals on people. That's religion's job, and at least with religion you can accept or reject it freely.


If people act on it - deal with them. If people are that interested in porn and rape I doubt saying 'It's illegal!' is going to stop them getting it and, if they're inclined to act on it (or act on their own accord) - do that.

 

Good point, but with it being made illegal it allows the courts to do something if people are caught in possession - as happens currently with Kiddie porn and Snuff movies.
It's rather preferable to stop people acting on it rather than punishing them afterwards. Or at least it is from the victims perspective.

EDIT:

Interesting to note that this is not really a new law. The types of pornography refered to are already illegal to distribute in the UK so people shouldn't be able to have it in the first place. With the advent of the internet it is that much easier to obtain from abroad, so the law is being re-worded to make it illegal to possess.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4195332.stm

[ September 01, 2005, 13:46: Message edited by: Carcaroth ]