Re: violent porn

On Sun, 3 Sep 2006 16:06:16 +0100, PeteM <Otcbn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

The Todal <deadmailbox@xxxxxxxx> posted
It would cover:
(i) serious violence*
(ii) intercourse or oral sex with an animal
(iii) sexual interference with a human corpse


As in SOA 2003. What is it about this government and bestiality? Could
it be that Blair himself is plagued by fantasies of shagging pigs and
cadavers, so he naturally assumes we all feel the same desires and have
to be stopped by force from putting them into practice?


No, it is just that they want to make illegal anything that they know
would disgust most people, but which they believe there is still a
market for.

I can understand the argument against violent porn, in that at the
levels being talked of, it does involve depiction of acts that are
illegal in themselves *and* which involve significant harm to those
involved.

And I do believe that any such imagery, outside of news reporting,
probably *should* be illegal.

But the bestiality and necrophilia are a *lot* more questionable, as
it is hard to see how anybody is done any harm by them.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Computers are not intelligent. They only think they are.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
.

Relevant Pages