“We specifically want the Government to close a loophole in the pornography legislation which allows the lawful possession in England and Wales of pornographic images that depict rape, so long as the actors are over 18,” they say.
“Depictions of necrophilia and bestiality are criminalised by the same legislation, meaning that animals and dead people are better protected than women and girls.
Because animals and dead people cannot give consent while women over the age of 18 can.
It\’s a fairly simple concept. Consenting adults get to do whatever. Those who cannot, for whatever reason, consent, get protected.
What gets me Tim is that for decades the feminazis have been telling us that ‘rape’ isn’t about some feller with a butcher’s knife and a hardon, but is in fact about coercion, marital pressure, telling fibs about your Aston… But NOW, yep, it’s the guy in the balaclava again. The problem with these people is they’re just thick.
Since when has a “loophole” operating by expressly allowing something?
And I’m guessing it was expressly provided for because it represents some adults’ personal expression, consenting adults that is.
I was just running through in my mind all the mainstream films that contain rape scenes, some salacious, some very serious: ‘Straw Dogs’, ‘Once Upon A Time In America’ are just the first two that comes to mind. Interestingly, ‘The People v Larry Flint’ doesn’t contain any such scene.
As I see it, I don’t have to like something to recognise I shouldn’t ban it. Unfortunately I am think I am sinking under a tide of fascism (and that is the term I want to use for it).
Who exactly wrote this? Your post doesn’t say.
Is only actual necrophilia banned, or (as the language suggests) is pretend necrophilia not allowed? Because if that be the case, then there is an inconsistency in the law.
One cannot consent to be necrophiled, and one cannot consent to be raped. Once can consent to pretend to be both of those things.. so the law pick a side and be consistent.
Interesting, they seem to be saying that women should have no more rights than animals.
Magnus
I never thought of it like that, but you’re dead right. They are saying that animals and dead people are more protected than CONSENTING women (girls are actually already protected by the law). So yes, women need protecting from their own decisions.
Consenting adults get to do whatever. Those who cannot, for whatever reason, consent, get protected.
It has to be more complicated than this. Because girls can consent to pretend to have necrophilic sex. Everyone must have heard the story about someone who asked his girl friend to lie very very still?
On the other hand VW Beetles cannot consent and there is, allegedly, at least one man who find them sexually attractive. I have seen him on TV so depicting it is clearly not a crime. I am willing to bet a lot more men like shoes. Which also cannot consent.
I would say this is mostly about disgust and having sex with dead people and animals is just more disgusting than rape for a lot of people. After all, no one is harmed when it comes to having sex with dead people and animals. We can kill and eat the animals. I do not see how anyone can claim their welfare is impaired to a greater degree by having sex with them. I think a lot of animals would not even notice.
I imagine if they got there wish it would not be long before another similar group where campaging for women to have the right to consent to pretend to be raped. Afterall, how do actors perform in a scene with a rape with this?
Necrophilia and bestiality aren’t illegal to protect animals and the dead, Tim; that’s just nonsense. Consent is one good reason why they shouldn’t be legalised, but it’s not why they were criminalised in the first place. I imagine, underneath the religion, disgust, and taboo, disease-prevention had a lot to do with it.
The Thought Gang,
You’re right: depictions of necrophilia are legal. There was quite a good Canadian film about a necrophiliac a few years back. I saw it in the cinema, and the place wasn’t raided by the police at any point.
If these people get their way, DVDs of “The Accused” — an anti-rape feminist film — will be banned.
Does this mean I have to burn my DVD of Titus Andronicus?
Seriously, I know that most people are, well, fucking stupid, but do they really not understand that “acting” means “pretending”?
So Much For Subtlety,
> After all, no one is harmed when it comes to having sex with dead people and animals.
Yeah, if you discount the devastating epidemics.
HIV started in chimpanzees and crossed to humans at some point. I’m not saying it crossed via sex (it probably didn’t), but it’s still a good example of why having sex with an animal is most certainly not harmless.
I’m not saying it crossed via sex (it probably didn’t), but it’s still a good example of why having sex with an animal is most certainly not harmless.
I’m probably being dense but could you explain this?
Since chimpanzees have HIV, having sex with them is a really bad idea. In a world in which HIV has not yet crossed to humans, if you have sex with a chimpanzee and then later with a human, you have kicked off a chain of events that will kill millions of people. Even if you don’t start the epidemic, you could still contract HIV and then pass it on to two or three people, thereby killing them and yourself. It’s far from harmless.
HIV and chimps was just an illustrative example. More broadly, various animals have various diseases that are communicable to humans, including some diseases that are only communicable by sex. Even more broadly, viruses evolve based on their available environment. If a virus is exposed to a wider range of host organisms, it can become more effective (flu, for instance, has been resistant to vaccination because pigs can catch human flu and duck flu and the rural Chinese keep pigs and ducks and humans in close proximity, meaning that a new strain of flu evolves inside the pigs every year).
Here‘s the law itself: the Home Office justification for it is:
and
Scenes in classified films are excluded from the legislation, so just because you’ve seen something in a film doesn’t mean its depiction must be generally legal.
> Scenes in classified films are excluded from the legislation
Blimey. That’s insane.
Oh I see… if the film is classified the material becomes totally harmless.
Actaully there are so many questions arising form that second insert that i hardly know where to start. however:
“and which may encourage interest in violent or aberrant sexual activity”
Really! Is that an empirical finding or just sanctimonious postering on the part of those who believe they are better than me? Does soembody really believe they have the right to decide that something isn’t good for me?
There are very good reasons for banning kiddy porn, all centred on the horrible non-consenting, abusive activity itself and its pysical and psychological effect on the victim. There are equally good reasons for banning animal porn. However, adult porn is consensual and so it doesn’t matter if I find it horrible, I can keep my opinions to myself. The empirical evidence of infectious harm simply isn’t there. This is nothing more and nothng less than one person or group wanting to decide what I should or shouldn’t like. Well I’ll decide that thank you very much.
P.S. Who the hell actually wants to watch a rape scene?
10 Rillington Place comes to mind as an example of necrophilia and rape.
Ban it ! I say !
If I wrap a piece of bacon around my todger is that beastaility?
“a desire to protect society […] from exposure to such material which may encourage interest in violent or aberrant sexual activity”
Gonna get a lot of Dad’s Army reruns come election time…
“If I wrap a piece of bacon around my todger is that beastaility?”
AND necrophilia!
“Scenes in classified films are excluded from the legislation
Blimey. That’s insane.”
No, just the inevitable result of these rushed ‘We must DO SOMETHING’ legislative attempts top placate NuPuritans while not gutting a thriving industry too much.
Presumably, men and women who have rape fantasies.
Taking the latter, rape fantasy is known to be common among women. This does not mean they really want to be raped. That’s what fantasy is for; experiencing in the safe environment of fiction things that either you can’t do or wouldn’t really want to do.
People fantasise about all kinds of things. Women, being socially dominant, often have submissive, “out of control” fantasies. Consider the popularity of Fifty Shades Of Fanfic, for instance.
I am not a psychologist and all that, but I will make a reasonable guess that most males with rape (“rapist”) fantasies are socially low ranked males (“beta males”) who imagine taking sexual control because, in real life, they have none.
In general, people fantasise about what they are not, rather than what they are (a fundamental error the Feminists make). Poor people fantasise about being rich. Ugly people fantasise about being good looking. Richard Murphy fantasises about understanding economics. And so on.
Hence, the popularity of rape porn. Women are fantasising about not having the sexual control they do have in real life, men are fantasising about having the sexual control they don’t have.
SBML – If I wrap a piece of bacon around my todger is that beastaility?
No – it’s pigs in blankets.
A girl I worked with who used to shag me (or anyone else available) when she was pissed, which was a lot of the time, was a genuine rape fantasist ie she wanted to be roughed up, tied up, threatened, the works.
Too much for me, but it was her bag.
If it’s illegal to depict rape in films, why not to act out rape in real life?
@IanB – Women are fantasising about not having the sexual control they do have in real life
You may be ion to something – this was a high powered and extremly, I mean *extremely* attractive woman.
The exemption for classified films seems sensible to me. A film is illegal if it contains “extreme images” produced “principally for the purpose of sexual arousal”. The BBFC is supposed to make its own judgment on this, so the exemption is just saying that you can’t be convicted on the basis that the classifiers got it wrong.
Well I hadn’t intended to provoke such a detailed analysis, but thank you Gentlemen for your – thank God – appropriately expressed thoughts and analysis. It really could have all gone wrong there.
You seem to have explained the answer to my question about empiricals. The evidence suggests that porn acts as an alternative rather than complement to sexual activity, including violent sexual crime. So banning adult rape fantasy porn is probably counter-productive and will, probably, lead to some poor victim wondering “why me?” in a couple of years.
But not to worry, as JuliaM pointed out, some cretin will still be able to look back and say “something had to be done and I did something”.
Which brings us back to the basic point that this is just the Victorian terror of wanking, rebranded.
Dear Marge
I’m into sadism, necrophilia and bestiality!
What’s my problem
Bill
…
Dear Bill
Sounds like you’re flogging a dead horse!
Marge
Ah, the old ones are the good ones.
Matge, BTW, was an old fashioned agony aunt in a newspaper.
“Those who cannot, for whatever reason, consent, get protected.”
Except that this isn’t really true – there are a ton of things you can do with/to an animal that it wouldn’t likely consent to even if it could.
For example, I can’t imagine that cows would be so obliging if they knew what was in store for them.
Depiction of bestiality and necrophilia (or the actual practice) are not illegal because of consent issue, they’re illegal because a rather significant portion of our societies consider it disgusting and those who practice/are interested in (even as a fantasy) it as severely mentally deranged.
Well, that’s the point really. Prohibition of sexual paraphilias is largely down to whether they are considered sufficiently icky by those who influence the lawmaking process. Notably, homosexuality until a few decades ago. Up the poop chute? Disgusting. Shouldn’t be allowed. Etc.
Also, for instance, watersports. Not actually illegal (I think) here in Ukay but the BBFC won’t pass it (that’s a pun, thar) and I suspect the moral Plod would try to get it included in “extreme” given half a chance. Possession of watery porn is however AIUI illegal in similarly methodist/puritan Australia. Because, you know, icky. The whole thing is a farce.
But mainly because it’s not based on any kind of calm reason, but on feelings. Going back to rape, the whole wrong thing about it is that a rapist has chosen to satisfy his own feelings and desires at the expense of others. He doesn’t mind the harm he causes so long as his emotional wants are satisfied.
A syndrome which, I cannot help feeling, afflicts the campaigning types who bring these laws into existence.
PaulB,
The BBFC is supposed to make its own judgment on this, so the exemption is just saying that you can’t be convicted on the basis that the classifiers got it wrong.
So next time a woman indulges in some fantasy rape with her husband and he films it, before they can watch again, she has to send it off to the BBFC and pay £100+ for the privilege and wait for it to come back, who may decide that it’s not acceptable to be rated, despite the fact that it will only be viewed by the participants.
The BBFC should have been dumped as a regulatory body years ago. Let them certify cinema and mainstream films to give viewers information about a film. To be fair, I think they do a pretty good job of that now. But they were always at their worst as censors, whether it was The Evil Dead, The Good Son or massacring Enter The Dragon.
Ian B – “Also, for instance, watersports. Not actually illegal (I think) here in Ukay but the BBFC won-t pass it (that
These truncated comments always drive me mad with the wondering what might have been.
Oh F*ck.
I was just pointing out that the BBC once put on Frankie Goes to Hollywood-s original clip for Relax. Which featured watersports. Although in those innocent days no one probably realised what it was.
And that a lot of sex is one-sided and even a little exploititive. Oral sex for instance. You have to look at the entire relationship. It is not a very interesting point.
Stigler: No, certainly not. Depictions of rape are not covered by the act, but even if they were section 662a says it’s not an offence to have the images if you were a participant.
You are allowed to read what it says before you sound off about it.
And then we get to 636(b) and, wading through the attempt to look objective, we find-
It’s illegal if it’s icky.
That’s 90% of Japanese pr0n sites illegal in one fell swoop, then. For whatever reason, most Japanese porn has a more-than-slightly forced air about it.
JuliaM writes:
… which is … insane.
What if someone consents prior to death for their body to be used by necrophiliacs after their death?
Just thought I’d throw this in here (so to speak):
Ian Bennett #40
It’s Cornwall; how is this news?
Which gets us into the interestering realm of that guy who consented to be killed and eaten by a German cannibal.
Maybe we could have a donor card scheme. “I would like to help someone to come after my death”.
Which gets us into the interestering realm of that guy who consented to be killed and eaten by a German cannibal.
That was deeply, deeply weird. Even more so when I read that the cannibal had advertised for somebody to volunteer for the role of main course and had multiple responses who were keen!!
Which gets us into the interestering realm of that guy who consented to be killed and eaten by a German cannibal.
Not in UK Law. Under R vs Brown (IIRC) you can’t consent to ABH or above, so you certainly couldn’t consent to be killed. Whether you could consent to be eaten if you died of natural causes is another matter, o’course…
One interesting aspect of Brown though, that I’ve always wondered about, is combat sports, like – say – boxing. In which people certainly consent to risk ABH without fear of prosecution. I can only assume that this supports the assertion above that this is all mostly about the ‘ick’ factor.
JamesV – “What if someone consents prior to death for their body to be used by necrophiliacs after their death?”
Does that apply to UCL and Jeremy Bentham I wonder? They seem to have a fetish for the guy. So it is a strange world where you can consent to drunken Med students leaving body parts in each others lockers, but you cannot consent to drunken Med students performing sexual acts with your corpse.
sam – “I can only assume that this supports the assertion above that this is all mostly about the [ick] factor.”
But also tradition. If something was commonly done before these new laws were passed or toughened, then it tends to be allowed. If you tried to start a new game like Rugby today it would probably be banned. Even Mixed Martial Arts has had trouble in the UK I believe.
I think most people here will live long enough to see American football banned. And I doubt boxing will survive that long in the UK.
Ironman,
> The empirical evidence of infectious harm simply isn
Oh, bollocks. Let’s type all that again, then. And, Tim, for the love of God, fix this bloody thing.
Ironman,
> The empirical evidence of infectious harm simply isn’t there.
Sorry, but it is. I refer you to the Furries. What they do is harmless, but they are still evidence that sexual preferences can be shaped by repeated exposure to material and that those preferences need not be innate in the first place. What started as a silly in-joke on the Net has resulted in an entire community of people who literally cannot experience sexual excitement unless their partner is dressed as a giant teddy-bear.
I used to agree with youa bout child porn: that the harm lay in producing it, but that the only people who’d view it were already paedophiles and non-paedophiles would be revulsed by it. The existence of the Furries demonstrates that there is probably a grey area made up of people who become paedophiles if they see enough of it. Indeed, a couple of recent cases appear to indicate that there are some predatory paedophiles out there using this principle to recruit assistants.
God, I hate humanity sometimes.
Silly in-joke? I don’t remember furry ever being an in joke. It seems more to me that the net simply revealed the existence of a certain number of people whose preferences were shaped by heavy exposure to anthropomorphised animals in Western animation.
Which would it seems to me actually strengthen the case for the importance of exposure to sexually normal imagery and indeed experience during the formative years. I’d be interested to know what the level of paraphilias is among people raised as nudists. I suspect it’s lower than among the genpop, because they’ve seen a lot of what the other sex actually look like, for instance.
Anyhow, I don’t remember it ever being a joke.
You may not remember, but it was a joke. The history’s out there on the Web somewhere; I read it ages ago, and very fascinating it was too. The whole thing started on a forum (maybe an old Usenet group) where someone said “Wouldn’t it be funny if…”, then everyone acted like they really thought that way, for a laugh, then there was gradual turnover between the forum’s old users and new people who joined in the community’s behaviour without knowing its history, et voila: new fetish. Amazing that such a thing could happen, but it did.
Anyway, even if it had never been a joke, it’d still make the same point: sexual preference can be changed through conditioning, and that’s a good reason to stop the viewing, not merely the production, of child porn.
Hmm, that sounds a bit like internet mythology to me. I’d want the name of that group, the dates, and an archive to peruse before I believe it.
As to your second point, sure it can. But it actually then leaves us with other questions, like why some individuals are susceptible to “conditioning” and others aren’t. Take BDSM. There was a phase when I thought maybe I could expand my market as a rude artist by pandering to that, since it’s quite popular. Looked at loads of it. Just couldn’t “get” it. Gave up and stuck with my shiny happy erotic approach instead. (Glad I did, as it goes). So I think you’ve got some more general personality thing going on.
Second question; why then do we consider it verboten to suggest that homosexuality might be a consequence of conditioning?
Even bigger question? Is it wise to exclude all erotica from youngsters in their formative years, causing them to indulge parasexualties like wanking over the Freeman’s catalogue bra section, or fantasies about Cheetara out of Thundercats? Might it be that parasexualities develope due to lack of “mainstream” stimuli?
Did flagellation become “le vice anglais” ironically because of the popularity of beating the young to keep them on the straight and narrow?
Does a delayed start to real life sexual experiences make abnormal sexual development more likely?
Interesting data points: (1) in the 1950s there was a craze for administering regular (indeed copious) enemas to children among Middle American Moms. The result appears to have been the development of significant numbers of those children with an enema fetish.
(2) The rubber gas mask fetish is found almost exclusively among men who were in their formative years during the War, and were crammed into air raid shelters with women wearing gas masks, the heady aroma of rubber…
So, we seem to be looking at a common biological/psychological phenomenon of imprinting. And this leads us further down the garden path to…
You will commonly find progressives/feminists/etc arguing that “studies show” that the human brain is still formative into the 20s. The implication of this is always that these “incompletely formed” minds are not fit to make decisions for themselves and, thus, not fit to choose to have sex (specifically). But…
If the brain evolved to imprint sexually, that would imply the opposite. The young brain retains its plasticity until well after puberty so that it can imprint sexually. This would mean that it needs the correct sexual stimuli in order to do so. But, our current strategy is to attempt to enforce the opposite; to deny this brain which is eager to imprint on something from receiving any sort of stimuli at all, with high ages of consent to both having sex and looking at others having it.
Thus, we may actually conclude that puritan policies intended to “protect” the young are actually encouraging sexual malformation.
So here’s a suggestion. Maybe we ought to have a category of porn specifically rated for teenagers, focussed on a positive ambience and “normal” sexual activities. And maybe we ought to be, rather than horrified, pleased if our teenage offspring are having some normal sexual relationship with a girlfriend/boyfriend. It may well be a lot healthier than hiding under the covers with either the Freemans Catalogue or fantasies about Cheetara out of Thundercats.
Squander Two
Anyway, even if it had never been a joke, it’d still make the same point: sexual preference can be changed through conditioning, and that’s a good reason to stop the viewing, not merely the production, of child porn.
And God knows what Japanese cartoons are doing to children. Japan has had a recent problem of young men who cannot climax with normal women. Various causes have been suggested but this makes me wonder.
However if this is true, then do you think that homosexuality is something that can be changed?
Is this a new problem, or a newly identified problem? An inability to orgasm can be caused by simple shyness and awkwardness in the presence of women. The young man is literally scared of “letting go”. A problem which is likely to be exacerbated by politically correct feminism. Just as a for instance.
Well, we don’t know that they’re doing anything to children, but let’s just presume they are, then we can all have a jolly good panic about it, which is about the only acceptable response in the modern Western world, apparently.
> why then do we consider it verboten to suggest that homosexuality might be a consequence of conditioning?
Politics.
The gay lobby put a lot of effort into persuading everyone that homosexuality is innate (and, to be fair, most gay people genuinely believe it is), which has done a lot to help their acceptance, because people tend to be more reluctant to damn someone for the way they’re born than for a choice they make. Personally, I don’t dislike gay people regardless of whether it’s innate or a choice, so I can happily ignore that propaganda. But I see its value.
I suspect that, just like all other human sexual behaviour, it’s a combination of innate and conditioned, and can sometimes be changed through conditioning. Course, just cause it can be changed, doesn’t mean anyone’s actually figured out how yet. But it seems very strange to me to suggest that men can be conditioned to become sexually aroused by certain kinds of shoe but not by women.
And there goes my chance of ever going into politics. Shame.