Kinky Porn Ban

[BobKKKindle$]

When does kinky porn become illegal?
A bill outlawing the possession of "extreme pornography" is set to become law next week. But many fear it has been rushed through and will criminalise innocent people with a harmless taste for unconventional sex.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7364475.stm

This is a gross infringement on individual freedom and something which should be opposed by all socialists as an attack on sexual diversity. Pornography of this type is used by partners in consensual relationships for sexual arousal, and it is unfair that people should be denied access to material which suits their sexual needs because it is not deemed appropriate by the establishment.

[TC]

The british government has no respect for personal and individual liberty or privacy.

[Lector Malibu]

"Pornographic material which depicts necrophilia, bestiality or violence that is life threatening or likely to result in serious injury to the anus, breasts or genitals has no place in a modern society and should not be tolerated," says a spokeswoman for the ministry.

This does not sound like kinky porn to me.

[apathy maybe]

If it merely depicts necrophilia, bestiality etc., then what is the problem? I suggest that government has no place in a modern society and should not be tolerated.

But, as soon as you start having people killed for porn flics, then that is a major problem. (I have not problem with consensual bestiality, or necrophilia however.)

[Anashtih]

Hell, if you don't know what you're doing, anal sex could be dangerous. Are they going to ban that too?

[TC]

The way the actual law is phrased it includes anything that 'appears' fit in any of those instances not only those that truly do. Vampire erotica, fur suits, and many types of sado-masochism would seem to be potentially criminal.

And...surely anal sex in general fits that description since it can result in serious injury to the anus and from the stand point of an outside observer it might not be clear whether it appears to or not.




But, as soon as you start having people killed for porn flics, then that is a major problem. (I have not problem with consensual bestiality, or necrophilia however.)

Err, theres absolutely no legal problem there since having people killed for porn flics would already be covered under laws against uh, murder, the fact that its in porn would be incidental.

[Lector Malibu]

If it merely depicts necrophilia, bestiality etc., then what is the problem?

Why are you justifying having sex with dead people and animals?

Really , you don't think that's odd?



I suggest that government has no place in a modern society and should not be tolerated.So show them this by beating off to dead squirrel porn.:) I'm not being serious but come on.


But, as soon as you start having people killed for porn flics, then that is a major problem. (I have not problem with consensual bestiality, or necrophilia however.)animals and dead people can't consent...

[Jazzratt]

animals and dead people can't consent...

Why do you need to seek the consent of the dead? They're dead, it's not like you're going to fuck them up any more badly.

As for animals, well the pig didn't consent to being my ham sandwhich but I still ate it.

[apathy maybe]

Err, theres absolutely no legal problem there since having people killed for porn flics would already be covered under laws against uh, murder, the fact that its in porn would be incidental.
Indeed.
@Lector Malibu
What I think about other people "beating off to dead squirrel porn" is frankly irrelevant. As is what you think. If you are a real anarchist, you would recognise that in reality, what other people do, doesn't matter, so long as it doesn't hurt other people.

Dead people aren't people, and I doubt that squirrel's are going to be recognised as people any time soon either.

So, if dead people aren't people, why does their opinion matter? (And besides, what if they had expressed the wish before they died that they wanted to be fucked after their died?)
And animals can give consent (yes they can fight if they don't like something), and if you eat meat, well it is being hypocritical to care if they can or not.

[Lector Malibu]

Why do you need to seek the consent of the dead? They're dead, it's not like you're going to fuck them up any more badly.

I'll keep that in mind at your funeral:rolleyes::lol:




As for animals, well the pig didn't consent to being my ham sandwhich but I still ate it.Not the same. And given the way most animals are treated you might as well "do what you would like" *rolls eyes*

[Lector Malibu]

Indeed.
@Lector Malibu
What I think about other people "beating off to dead squirrel porn" is frankly irrelevant. As is what you think. If you are a real anarchist, you would recognise that in reality, what other people do, doesn't matter, so long as it doesn't hurt other people.

I'm not a real anarchist because I don't support depictions of sex with animals and dead people?

What's next? I'm not a real communist because I don't support child pornography?



Dead people aren't people, and I doubt that squirrel's are going to be recognised as people any time soon either.That's a really sick way of looking at this.


So, if dead people aren't people, why does their opinion matter? (And besides, what if they had expressed the wish before they died that they wanted to be fucked after their died?)I take it your the one for the job.



And animals can give consent (yes they can fight if they don't like something)So a rabbit wants to be fucked by you.


and if you eat meat, well it is being hypocritical to care if they can or not.I do eat meat every now and than and object the way in witch animals are treated for food recourses and other things

Witch sends me back to not eating meat as things are not changing.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

It is indeed a bad law, with simply too broad a definition of extreme pornography. I can't see it being very strongly enforced, since you are going to have kids scouting on the internet for porn who are ignorant of this law, the government can hardly prosecute all of them. I acknowledge that there might be a legitimate policy ground for censoring extremely violent rape pornography, I think that (a) the government should be extremely slow to act on this policy consideration given the unsatisfactory nature of the studies into the issue, and (b) the law is completely disproportionate to this end.

Stupid question, but do you guys in the UK have a judicial mechanism for striking down laws, like the constitutional courts in Ireland and the US?

And on another note, I agree that beastiality and necrophilia should be legal. Though I will say that they are both very gross :P

[Qwerty Dvorak]

And animals can give consent (yes they can fight if they don't like something), and if you eat meat, well it is being hypocritical to care if they can or not.
That's ridiculous. So if a woman fails to fight back while a man proceeds to have intercourse with her, it cannot be rape?


That's a really sick way of looking at this.
It's not. The law does not, nor has it ever, recognized animal rights. We violate animals' right to bodily integrity and life every day, why would this be any different?

[Lector Malibu]

It's not. The law does not, nor has it ever, recognized animal rights. We violate animals' right to bodily integrity and life every day, why would this be any different?

So it should never change?

[Demogorgon]

Stupid question, but do you guys in the UK have a judicial mechanism for striking down laws, like the constitutional courts in Ireland and the US?

No. In limited circumstances. legislation by devolved Parliaments can be struck down, but no chance with the Westminster Parliament. The only exception is where the Human Rights Act and the piece of legislation in question directly conflict, in which case the Human Rights Act has precedence, but even then if the law says it overrides the Human Rights Act, that is all it needs to be legal.

[Cult of Reason]

It is strange to say it, but it increasing looks like the UK is even more fucked up than the USA.

[Awful Reality]

"Pornographic material which depicts necrophilia, bestiality or violence that is life threatening or likely to result in serious injury to the anus, breasts or genitals has no place in a modern society and should not be tolerated," says a spokeswoman for the ministry.

This does not sound like kinky porn to me.

Well 10 inch swords fall under a gun ban, so...

Remember that gun ownership has increased in the UK, so...

Will this make a difference except look dumb?

[Lector Malibu]

Well 10 inch swords fall under a gun ban, so...

Remember that gun ownership has increased in the UK, so...

Will this make a difference except look dumb?

In layman's terms no , probably not.

I don't think it's dumb though or an enemy of freedom though.

I'm sure you can understand why someone would be against this type of material though.

[Psy]

In layman's terms no , probably not.

I don't think it's dumb though or an enemy of freedom though.

I'm sure you can understand why someone would be against this type of material though.

Well, Omaha the Cat Dancer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omaha_the_Cat_Dancer) was banned in Canada over bestialities laws in the 1980's, and were would characters like Felicia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felicia_%28Darkstalkers%29) fit in?

[Lector Malibu]

Well, Omaha the Cat Dancer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omaha_the_Cat_Dancer) was banned in Canada over bestialities laws in the 1980's, and were would characters like Felicia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felicia_%28Darkstalkers%29) fit in?

I'm not saying that every bill that has come down the pike is reasonable or even sane.

This is not one of those examples though.

Were talking about some pretty heavy stuff not fantasy cartoons of cat women.

[apathy maybe]

@RB
"That's ridiculous. So if a woman fails to fight back while a man proceeds to have intercourse with her, it cannot be rape?"
No, however, animals are much more likely to resist if they don't like something. My point was though, is that they are perfectly able to express dislike. Moreover, they are able to express desire (rubbing against a person for example). Animals can consent, and it can be obvious.

[Cencus]

The idea of animal porn freaks me out, the idea of necro porn grosses me out, the idea of rape porn I find really disturbing, but as long as no one is hurt[more than they wish] and it's done with consent it's okish. Not my cup of tea.

The law like many drawn up by the morons in Westminster is bollocks and will probably get thrown out the first time it goes to court wasting millions in the process, but before that there will be a number of poor fuckers who'll get done for whacking off.

The arguement goes that this shit encourages people to act some of what they see, but there is also a counter arguement that says the opposite, that by watching the more extreme porn certain folks will be less likely to rape etc..

[BobKKKindle$]

animals and dead people can't consent...Animals are not able to consent to being eaten or used as test subjects, but we use them for these purposes, and so it is also acceptable to use animals for sexual pleasure. Or do you believe that these other uses should also be banned because they disregard animal rights?


The arguement goes that this shit encourages people to act some of what they see, butThis argument is silly, because when people watch porn, they are aware that they are witnessing something which would not normally occur in the real world, they are consciously engaging in fantasy, such that they will be unlikely to replicate anything portrayed in a film.

[Lector Malibu]

Animals are not unable to consent to being eaten or used as test subjects, but we use them for these purposes, and so it is also acceptable to use animals for sexual pleasure. Or do you believe that these other uses should also be banned because they disregard animal rights.

Who says I'm okay with animal testing or mass meat processing? I do know I'm defiantly not okay with this though.

Ask yourself a question and you don't have to answer me. Ask yourself does the rabbit really wanna be fucked by you.

[Dros]

Who says I'm okay with animal testing or mass meat processing? I do know I'm defiantly not okay with this though.

Ask yourself a question and you don't have to answer me. Ask yourself does the rabbit really wanna be fucked by you.

The point we are making is that no one cares about the damn rabbit!

If you are not okay with meat processing, then you are not a revolutionary leftist. Leftism is grounded in doing what is best for the masses of people in the world. Not the masses ofanimals. Animals are an important source of food and denying people food in practice means killing millions of people.

I'd just like to point out how many anarchists are down right AUTHORITARIAN when it comes to veganism. Don't you think your imposition might qualify as unjust authority or whatever you call it now?

[Lector Malibu]

The point we are making is that no one cares about the damn rabbit!
Oviously.


If you are not okay with meat processing, then you are not a revolutionary leftist. Leftism is grounded in doing what is best for the masses of people in the world. Not the masses ofanimals. Animals are an important source of food and denying people food in practice means killing millions of people.I'm not okay with the way in witch company's produce and process meat. It's not up to you decide where I fall politically.


many anarchists are down right AUTHORITARIAN when it comes to veganism. Don't you think your imposition might qualify as unjust authority or whatever you call it now?Who says I'm a vegan?

[BobKKKindle$]

Who says I'm okay with animal testing or mass meat processing? I do know I'm defiantly not okay with this though.It is not logical to accept testing but be opposed to bestiality on the grounds that the animal cannot express consent - I deliberately made this argument to force you into a position where you would be forced to accept bestiality or, in order to remain logically consistent, also oppose testing, and it seems you have opted for the latter. There is not much that needs to be said about this position - animal testing is of such importance in developing new medication that, by opposing testing, in the absence of viable alternatives to using animals, you are demonstrating hostility to the interests of our species, and so you have no place on the left.


Who says I'm a vegan?How can you justify your consumption of meat and animal products, given that animals cannot give their consent to being slaughtered?


Ask yourself does the rabbit really wanna be fucked by you.It probably does not, but the animal's feelings or consent are not important.

[Lector Malibu]

It is not logical to accept testing but be opposed to bestiality on the grounds that the animal cannot express consent - I deliberately made this argument to force you into a position where you would be forced to accept bestiality or, in order to remain logically consistent, also oppose testing, and it seems you have opted for the latter. There is not much that needs to be said about this position - animal testing is of such importance in developing new medication that, by opposing testing, in the absence of viable alternatives to using animals, you are demonstrating hostility to the interests of our species, and so you have no place on the left.

No Bob I'm not acepting bestiality. I don't care how you wanna word it. And everything is not black and white. I say I don't like testing and you jump the gun and say "what about medicine or science?" When I'm talking about the animals that are slaughtered for women's cosmetics or whatever.


How can you justify your consumption of meat and animal products, given that animals cannot give their consent to being slaughtered?I take it you have never been hunting. Will an animal let you just stand there and do whatever to it? Also , though I'm not a "vegan" I'm not a meat eater again as it was the way I was raised pretty much and nothings changing in the Mc Donalds department.


It probably does not, but the animal's feelings or consent are not important.Keep telling yourself that.

Furthermore I find it really ironic that the Trots were the biggest fans of shutting down chit chat (surprise) Yet here they are getting all red in the face because someone doesn't support this fetish.

Bob you haven't forced me to do anything. You have no clout whatsoever regarding my politics.

[BobKKKindle$]

No Bob I'm not acepting bestiality. I don't care how you wanna word it. And everything is not black and white. I say I don't like testing and you jump the gun and say "what about medicine or science?" When I'm talking about the animals that are slaughtered for women's cosmetics or whatever.You have never suggested that your opposition to testing is limited to cosmetics, and so how can you expect me to recognize that this is your position on this issue? In any case, why is it that you have your position is dependent on the purpose of testing? If you support the idea that animals have "rights" then surely these rights should be applied universally, regardless of context? A right which is not universal loses its meaning and can no longer be classified as a right.

On the broader issue of rights, where do you think "rights" come from? Are they inherent in all living beings, or are they ideas created by humans? What are the criteria for awarding an organism rights? How do the rights of animals differ from humans, and why?


I take it you have never been hunting. Will an animal let you just stand there and do whatever to it? Also , though I'm not a "vegan" I'm not a meat eater again as it was the way I was raised pretty much and nothings changing in the Mc Donalds department. Although animals are not capable of explicitly denying consent (they cannot speak a language which we can understand) even if expression were possible, it is unlikely they would agree to be shot, because all organisms have a genetic propensity towards self-defense. We can, therefore, safely assume that animals do not consent to sexual intercourse or to being hunted. However, why does the consent of animals bear any importance? So what if animals do not consent, why does this prohibit us from using them in any way we wish? You have not yet explained why this concept of "consent" is so important.

In addition to lacking explanation, your insistence on consent also indicates hypocrisy. The fact that you are not a vegan suggests you consume animal products - and yet can you say with certainty that chickens consent to have their eggs taken away for human consumption? These eggs have the potential to become living chickens - and so what right do we have to take them away and use them to make tasty dishes? How is that any more necessary or justified than using animals to develop new cosmetics?

Your entire position is based on a lack of logical consistency.

On a related note, would you support a ban on hunting? Or, in the absence of a ban, do you disprove of hunting? This has recently been a heated political issue in the UK, especially with regard to foxes.


Furthermore I find it really ironic that the Trots were the biggest fans of shutting down chit chat (surprise) Yet here they are getting all red in the face because someone doesn't support this fetish.This is not a trotskyist issue - there are probably some Trotskyists who do not agree with me.

[Lector Malibu]

Although animals are not capable of explicitly denying consent (they cannot speak a language which we can understand) even if expression were possible, it is unlikely they would agree to be shot, because all organisms have a genetic propensity towards self-defense. We can, therefore, safely assume that animals do not consent to sexual intercourse.


Wrong!

As I linked in the vegetarian thread.

Here's a link. Please go over the section closeness to humans towards the bottom of the link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo)



Anyways, As you just said Animals do not consent to sexual intercourse, so why are you defending it. Or is sexual intercourse without consent not rape in your world?

[BobKKKindle$]

Anyways, As you just said Animals do not consent to sexual intercourse, so why are you defending it. Or is sexual intercourse without consent not rape in your world?Consent is only important for interaction between human beings, and so having sex with an animal cannot be defined as "rape" just as killing an animal so it can be eaten is not defined as murder. Those convicted of bestiality are subject to a law that is separate from legislation dealing with rape offenses.


Here's a link. Please go over the section closeness to humans towards the bottom of the link.Although this is interesting material to read, I made clear in my post that I do not view consent as important in the case of animals, and so even if an ape were capable of giving a clear verbal indication that it did not wish to engage in sexual intercourse, this would not make having sex with the animal illegitimate. The ability to develop a vocabulary is also specific to a small group of animals, it does not extend to organisms with lower brain functions, such as fish.

You have not answered any of the questions I put forward in my previous post, such as the origin of rights, and your position on eating animal products.

[Lector Malibu]

Consent is only important for interaction between human beings, and so having sex with an animal cannot be defined as "rape" just as killing an animal so it can be eaten is not defined as murder. Those convicted of bestiality are subject to a law that is separate from legislation dealing with rape offenses.

Those convicted? If it's how you say Bob , why does the court recognize bestiality laws? The court must view animals on some level.

Or do bestiality laws not exist and people approve of this apparently normal behavior ?


Although this is interesting material to read, I made clear in my post that I do not view consent as important in the case of animals, and so even if an ape were capable of giving a clear verbal indication that it did not wish to engage in sexual intercourse, this would not make having sex with the animal illegitimate.It would make it rape and a act of bestiality.


The ability to develop a vocabulary is also specific to a small group of animals, it does not extend to organisms with lower brain functions, such as fish.But wait a minute you just said:

Although animals are not capable of explicitly denying consent (they cannot speak a language which we can understand)

As long as animals can communicate on a level with humans as discussed in the link I gave you there is a case for rights.


You have not answered any of the questions I put forward in my previous post, such as the origin of rights, and your position on eating animal products.Nor am I going to as the argument is about having sex with dead people, censoring porn, and bestiality, Not about my eating habits.

And I'm pretty much done here Bob as I've had all I can stomach for your defense of sexual intercourse with animals.

[BobKKKindle$]

As long as animals can communicate on a level with humans as discussed in the link I gave you there is a case for rights. Explain this case for rights - why does the fact that something is capable of communicating (and thus able to express consent) mean that it should be given rights? Why is so important about this criterion, over other proposed criteria, such as sentience? The implication of this statement is that an inability to communicate means that an entity does not deserve rights - and so should people who are in a comatose state be deprived of their human rights? Does this mean that not all animals are given the same set of rights, given that some animals, such as fish, cannot communicate? What about a dead animal that is able to communicate when alive?


Those convicted? If it's how you say Bob , why does the court recognize bestiality laws? The court must view animals on some level. The law does indeed include provisions for bestiality, but this does not mean that the laws are acceptable, something which, as an anarchist, you should agree with, given that all anarchists do not recognize the state as a legitimate entity. I have never suggested that the law does not punish bestiality - the link I posted is about a proposed ban on bestial porn. Homosexuality also used to be a crime - and yet I hope you would not have supported this solely because it was part of the law.


It would make it rape and a act of bestiality.

As I explained above, rape and bestiality are not treated in the same way under the law, separate articles of legislation are used. Pay attention.


Nor am I going to as the argument is about having sex with dead people, censoring porn, and bestiality, Not about my eating habits.Your "eating habits" are directly relevant to this debate, because your entire case is based on the idea of consent - and yet you also accept the consumption of animal products, despite the lack of consent involved, and so there is a clear lack of logical consistency in your position.

To link this idea to what I said above - if apes are able to communicate and express a lack of consent (which you view as important) why should they be used to test new medication? And yet you said above that you accept testing, expect in the case of cosmetics, which suggests that, in this case, the animal's consent is not important - thus opening the question of how we determine when consent is important, and when it is not. What criteria should be used to make this judgment? How can you reconcile this flexible position with the concept of a right, given that a right is generally understood as universal?

[Ultra-Violence]

What about russian rape porn should that be outlawed?

everything else i could give a rats ass but beasiality is creepy and nasty thats how we gots the calp!

[Psy]

What about russian rape porn should that be outlawed?

Russian rape porn is mostly distributed on the Internet, you can not realistically ban anything on the Internet, for example piracy is booming on the Internet while every effort the bourgeoisie tried to stop piracy on the Internet has failed miserable.

[Organic Revolution]

Russian rape porn is mostly distributed on the Internet, you can not realistically ban anything on the Internet, for example piracy is booming on the Internet while every effort the bourgeoisie tried to stop piracy on the Internet has failed miserable.

It doesnt really matter if it is impossible to ban something on the internet, the reality is, Russian, and all, rape porn should be banned and destroyed.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The more time passes, the more I come to hate living in this country. This is a stupidly-worded law. Under this gormless piece of legislation, someone could be prosecuted for having sex with a RealDoll(tm) made up to look like a corpse, recording the results and distributing them on the internet.

Fucking stupid. There are already laws against murder, rape, animal abuse and interfering with dead bodies. Why the incessant torrent of scatter-brained legislation?

[Qwerty Dvorak]

The more time passes, the more I come to hate living in this country. This is a stupidly-worded law. Under this gormless piece of legislation, someone could be prosecuted for having sex with a RealDoll(tm) made up to look like a corpse, recording the results and distributing them on the internet.

Fucking stupid. There are already laws against murder, rape, animal abuse and interfering with dead bodies. Why the incessant torrent of scatter-brained legislation?
Because people keep getting raped and it's obviously all teh internetz fault.