Ban On Violent Net Porn Planned

[theintelligentthug]

They can't seem to advertise men's toiletries without using a beautiful woman in the ads.  "Hey boys, use this new razor/deodorant/aftershave/toothpaste and you'll be needing the free sh*tty stick which comes with it, to fight them all off."

 

On the other hand, with women's adverts they prefer to tell us how fat/old/ugly we all are.  Nice.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

its because women are more bothered if theyre told theyre not attractive, whereas men give more of a response if theyre told they COULD be attractive.

[matty]

They can't seem to advertise men's toiletries without using a beautiful woman in the ads.  "Hey boys, use this new razor/deodorant/aftershave/toothpaste and you'll be needing the free sh*tty stick which comes with it, to fight them all off."

 

On the other hand, with women's adverts they prefer to tell us how fat/old/ugly we all are.  Nice.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Woulnd't say that was completely true - there's not many womens ads that don't show "attractive" women.

 

I think advertisers do far more "damage" than porn in their portrayal of men & women, at least with porn you get men/women of all shapes / colours & sizes!!!!

 

Advertisers thrive on making people feel insecure about themselves - can't really say that porn does that???

 

Personally I find women plastered in make up a complete turn off (don't mind a little bit) - but a woman wearing "enough paint to paint a battleship and enough powder to sink one" is just way overboard.

 

Also (IMHO) - perfume is supposed to be a "whisper - not a ROAR!"

[puddy]

Didn't you know that "What every woman wants for Christmas is younger looking skin?". Well, you know it now, don't you?

 

It's all a load of nonsense anyway.

 

If porn gives a more realistic view of women's bodies than adverts, then all of the stuff which I've seen, on which the ladies had plastic tits and shaven fannies, can't be very popular.

 

Unless we're talking about seventies porn, which is a different matter altogether.

[Slim]

Suggest you watch more porn, you're clearly banging on about something that you've never seen.

[puddy]

Or you've seen less real women than I have.

[Rog]

But what IS pornography?

 

Seriously, what IS it? Is it simply material that "is predominantly sexually explicit and intended primarily for the purpose of sexual arousal." or is it that such material is nothing more than something that most adults find anywhere between vaguely titillating more like a pretty picture at one end of a continuum to something that inspires action on the other and that pornography is something beyond that.

 

I always had the impression that an element of pornography was that it had the capacity to corrupt. Maybe corrupt by desensitising in the same way that watching violent films or even playing violent video games DOES desensitise those who do such things or even corrupt by warping weak minds to imagine that the things that they see represent reality and they then go out and try to do the same.

 

Maybe a factor that needs to be brought in is obscenity. I know that in the US material is said to be obscene if the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the ‘prurient’ interests aka the sicko’s.

 

Another factor is if it depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct, especially but not exclusively ruled illegal by any relevant law such as those relating to pedophilia.

 

One thing is for sure the guilt associated with sex that is so associated with religious groups and most especially the Christians who get tense even over normal sex being portrayed or even mentioned seems at least strange when vids of people being dismembered by bombs or shot to hell by gunfire often earn little more than a tut.

 

A bit of tottie showing her bits and pieces? It’s a matter of tast. MY taste runs to such things but hey! I’m not perfect by ANY means! Comic vids such as Snow White and the seven dwarfs (THE version) or even Animal farm (NOT the better known story) even have their place as a bit of bawdy stuff that can get a giggle from even the most snitty (My old now late maiden aunt cracked up over droopy!) but violent pornography? Nah. That’s just sick.

 

A bit like one vid showing necrophilia, bestiality, and flagellation. It never got into the charts, it turned out the makers were just flogging a dead horse..

[Lonan3]

A thoughtful piece on the subject from yesterday's Times includes the following:

 

It is always unwise to legislate in response to a single emotive crime, and the current government consultation owes rather too much momentum to the brutal murder of Jane Longhurst, the Sussex teacher strangled two years ago. Her killer, Graham Coutts, was a regular visitor to such charming websites as Necrobabes, Death by Asphyxia and Hanging Bitches, and the day before the murder he spent about 90 minutes exploring images of necrophilia and asphyxial sex. Jane’s mother, Liz Longhurst, believes that the internet “normalised” Coutts’s disturbing sexual fantasies, convincing him that “he was not alone in harbouring these sick thoughts”. Her remarkable campaign, including a 35,000-signature petition, has persuaded MPs that the solution lies in criminalising the possession of such images, blocking access to the sites and giving Ofcom a new role as internet policeman.

 

These websites certainly appealed to Coutts’s disturbingly violent sexuality. But does that really justify the conclusion, as voiced by David Lepper, Jane Longhurst’s MP, that the internet “doubtless led to Jane’s death”? It is an assumption that needs to be thoroughly tested before a neutral communications channel is blamed for inciting, rather than reflecting, one of the darkest aspects of human nature. Murderers enacted their horrific fantasies long before a few million computers were linked together: maybe we should have been blaming books.

The internet undoubtedly makes such degrading images easier to find, and reinforces a sense of community among those stimulated by them. Yet there is simply too little convincing research to demonstrate that extreme pornography initiates acts of violence. Indeed, some psychologists argue the opposite — that it provides a safe outlet for those who might otherwise enact their malevolent fantasies.

 

There is also a wider question of definition. As Baroness Scotland of Asthal, the Home Office Minister. pointed out in a Lords debate last year, “there is no international consensus on what constitutes obscenity, or when the freedom of an adult to have access to obscene or pornographic material should be constrained”. In our increasingly atomised media culture, built around ever more niche consumer segmentation, who is to determine where “regular” pornography becomes “extreme”? Now that would be a fun Ofcom committee to sit in on.

 

If a simulated rape sequence is unacceptable today, what about consensual S&M or even gay sex tomorrow? What tends to deprave or corrupt one person may prove perfectly inoffensive to another. Yet once the Government begins to pull down the curtains on the legally permissible internet, how can we prevent short-term political pressures determining what is safe for our private consumption?

[Mr. Sausages]

Or you've seen less real women than I have.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Oi! I was gonna say that.

 

Except I'd have said 'fewer'.

[matty]

Necrophilia???

 

I used to enjoy that until some rotten cu*t went a split on me!

[ButterflyMaiden]

But what IS pornography?

Seriously, what IS it?  Is it simply material that "is predominantly sexually explicit and intended primarily for the purpose of sexual arousal." or is it that such material is nothing more than something that most adults find anywhere between vaguely titillating more like a pretty picture at one end of a continuum to something that inspires action on the other and that pornography is something beyond that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

McKinnon's definition which was accepted by various State Courts in the US is a useful working definition.

 

Pornography is defined as the graphic, sexually explicit subordination of women in pictures and/or words that

also includes women presented dehumanized as sexual objects who enjoy pain or humiliation;

or women presented as sexual objects who experience sexual pleasure in being raped;

or women presented as sexual objects tied up or cut up or mutilated or bruised or physically hurt;

or women presented as whores by nature; or women presented being penetrated by objects or animals;

or women presented in scenarios of degradation, injury, torture, shown as filthy or inferior,

bleeding, bruised, or hurt in a context that makes these conditions sexual.

If men, children, or transsexuals are used in any of the same ways,

the material also meets the definition of pornography

[matty]

But what IS pornography?

Seriously, what IS it?  Is it simply material that "is predominantly sexually explicit and intended primarily for the purpose of sexual arousal." or is it that such material is nothing more than something that most adults find anywhere between vaguely titillating more like a pretty picture at one end of a continuum to something that inspires action on the other and that pornography is something beyond that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

McKinnon's definition which was accepted by various State Courts in the US is a useful working definition.

 

Pornography is defined as the graphic, sexually explicit subordination of women in pictures and/or words that

also includes women presented dehumanized as sexual objects who enjoy pain or humiliation;

or women presented as sexual objects who experience sexual pleasure in being raped;

or women presented as sexual objects tied up or cut up or mutilated or bruised or physically hurt;

or women presented as whores by nature; or women presented being penetrated by objects or animals;

or women presented in scenarios of degradation, injury, torture, shown as filthy or inferior,

bleeding, bruised, or hurt in a context that makes these conditions sexual.

If men, children, or transsexuals are used in any of the same ways,

the material also meets the definition of pornography

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Not really taken seriously by the US courts any more though is it? - I think the whole McKinnon thing is seen by most now as a "man-hating" not very logical diatribe.

 

Getting back on to the "racist" type veiw again here - from what I've read on the net regarding her radical views - ie hetro men = bad, women = good, homosexual = good.

 

(Radical feminism/men hating as analogous to racism).

 

You're still using McKinnon as your source, even though you've posted that you don't really agree with her radical opinons, but you agree with her "high quality research and well constructed arguments".

[ButterflyMaiden]

Not really taken seriously by the US courts any more though is it? -

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I shared a house in London with two girls who were radical feminists when I was still a student. One of them had a collection of McKinnon's work and also had some of Dworkin's work ... a small number of her books and several published letters. I read most of these over time and have also read one or two more of Dworkin's publications. The material I read was well researched but, in my opinion, lacked credible conclusions.

Regarding McKinnon's definition of pornography you are mistaken in that the US courts dont take it seriously ..

You need to make the distinction between their "Ordinance" ,which was successfully challenged in the courts, and their academic work.

Do a little more research on McKinnon's definition of pornography and you will discover it was accepted without reservation by the courts ... and, in fact, was used by opponents of the "Ordinance" to successfully argue that it (The Ordinance)

contravened citizen's rights enshrined in the US Constitution.

It is still the case that anti pornography campaigners in the US find themselves thwarted by McKinnon's well constructed definition of pornography .. because it has long been accepted by the courts and ruled on .. (albeit not to the satisfaction of McKinnon)

[ButterflyMaiden]

This thread has prompted me to attempt a memory refresh regarding anti pornography campaigns and especially the unsuccessful campaign undertaken by McKinnon and Dworkin.

To get to the point .. I had never read any of Dworkin's early work and a friend pointed me this website today. It contains a number of interesting extracts from her work including her early work on pornography. I hope you find it informative.

Dworkin Library

[Slim]

Would this be the published work that's no longer in print? Sounds very credible....

 

I'm not aware of any definition of pornography in UK law. The applicable acts usually refer to obscene publications (material is "obscene" if it has a tendency "to deprave or corrupt" those likely to be exposed to it). If you're talking about pornography as defined in your above post, then we're talking at crossed purposes. What you consider to be pornography isn't what I consider to be pornography. Where does a girl posing naked in playboy fit in to that definition? Is playboy not porn?

 

Then again, I'm not a bra burning, testicle eating, comfy shoe wearing lesbian milliant earth mother, so I doubt we're going to agree here

 

Quick edit: To counter the wimmin propoganda links, I present http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/, work safe.

[matty]

BFM, You're still using outspoken radical feminists (men-haters) - to defend your anti-porn stance.

 

IMHO defending Dworkin/McKinnon is not too dis-similiar from saying something along the lines of "Hitler had some great ideas".

 

- He probably did, but it doesn't make him a "good man" or someone to be admired.