Porn ban

[SoulKiss]

Originally Posted by cartwrim

The article says the following will be illegal;

• An act which threatens or appears to threaten a person's life
• An act which results in or appears to result in serious injury to a person's anus, breasts or genitals
• An act which involves or appears to involve sexual interference with a human corpse
• A person performing or appearing to perform an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal

Can anyone on here honestly say that the depiction of these things should remain legal? What is a good reason to allow these things to continue? Why would people want to watch these things?

Its called freedom and the right for an individual to make choices based on their own values, not those imposed upon them.

The main thing that bothers me is that possesion of images of the above carries a stiffer (ooo-er missus) penalty than actually doing it, which even if you think that non of the above should be legal to possess images of, SHOULD worry you.

Its like bringing a law in saying that there is no change to the penalties for speeding, (3pts, fine etc) but if you have a youtube clip of someone speeding you can go to prison.

Thats whats intrinsically wrong.

Personally what 2 (or more) people want to do in private (or with a consenting audience) is up to those involved, NOT the government, and if they, want to record it in pictures or on video, then thats fine with me.

[yorkie_chris]

Originally Posted by SoulKiss

Its called freedom and the right for an individual to make choices based on their own values, not those imposed upon them.

That seems to be totally alien to society at the moment.

First they came....

Originally Posted by SoulKiss

Personally what 2 (or more) people want to do in private (or with a consenting audience) is up to those involved, NOT the government, and if they, want to record it in pictures or on video, then thats fine with me.

I agree, that what people do in private; and if they want to photo it / video it for their own personal viewing, then fine - but I think the dissemination of it is the problem. You can't stop people from shag*ing corpses, but I think it's perfectly understandable that the government want to ban the distribution of media depicting it. Same with any of the other 'extreme' acts that they mention in the BBC article.

I took Chris's advice and googled 'breathplay' and agree that it sounds potentially life threatening if taken too far - whereas the other things mentioned by Northwind, (hair pulling and waxplay) don't, so I wouldn't class those as extreme.

I know what people are saying, that they don't like the government controlling what people can and can't watch, but to me, the introduction of this act is an attempt to stop people / animals from actually being harmed during the making of 'pornography'. You could argue no-one gets harmed from someone 'having intercourse with a corpse' but I'm sure it would upset some people if they watched it and found it was their late Nan in the video.

Cheers,
Matt

Oh, 'Breathplay' in google obviously comes up with several different uses for the term. Whilst I found what I assumed to be the correct meaning in this context, I found that it is also a is a 'kinesthetic training technique developed by cycling coach Ian Jackson for use by competative bicycle racers'. I presumed this wasn't what Northy meant so I chose the other meaning 'Erotic asphyxiation'.

I find it amusing how someone giving someone some ral hard assed anal sex can be put in prison.

Meanwhile, Mr Film director has just shot his latest movie about an axe weilding gun toating maniac who likes to remove the skin of his victims to feed to his pet pidgeon.... (or whatever, most grusem horror films).

That stuffs ok though yeah????

go figure

Honestly, UK, i know everyone sprouts its getting worse and worse, but truley, it really is.

We now live in a dictatorship. Its just dictated by a whole room full of people instead of 1 singular person........

[SoulKiss]

[quote=cartwrim;1764843 so I wouldn't class those as extreme.[/quote]

There are no hard and fast definitions of what is extreme.

So depending on who is dealing with your case you could be dealt with differently.

EG I was watching something on channel 4 the other Friday and they showed a clip of some suitably censored for the UK TV Market, "Midget Zombie Porn".

Ok so its a simulated corpse, and animates at that, but its still portraying someone thats mortally challenged.

Not saying I am right or wrong, but I would rather it was Northwind, with his list of activities judging if my porn is Extreme or not than you.

Originally Posted by cartwrim

I know what people are saying, that they don't like the government controlling what people can and can't watch, but to me, the introduction of this act is an attempt to stop people / animals from actually being harmed during the making of 'pornography'. You could argue no-one gets harmed from someone 'having intercourse with a corpse' but I'm sure it would upset some people if they watched it and found it was their late Nan in the video.

Cheers,
Matt

Then is the question really about the material being available, or the simple ethics of the person watching someone shagging a stiff?

If it was their late nan, it would be hilarious.

Now wheres my scottish nan who wasn't voted in power, oh or do I mean Labour and Gorden Brown?

Originally Posted by SoulKiss

There are no hard and fast definitions of what is extreme.

You won't be allowed "hard and fast" anything if they pass this law.

[northwind]

Originally Posted by cartwrim

Hair pulling and Waxplay don't take much imagination but I can't imagine what 'Breathplay' is? Do I want to know?!

Don't google it, you mught get 2 years

Originally Posted by Daimo

I find it amusing how someone giving someone some ral hard assed anal sex can be put in prison........

I'm not sure the new law makes that the case, but if it did I would guess because it is real, whereas the films you describe are fake - ie, 'no-one was harmed during the making of this movie'