Re: violent porn

Alex Heney wrote:

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.

You do realise that what is being talked about is in the most part simulated
acts, not real acts. Simulating a strangulation is no more illegal than
acting a murder is illegal.

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

Why? The government admits that there is little evidence to suggest that
such material causes crime or damage; and there are plenty of devotees of
S&M role play who will testify that no serious damage is done to consenting
participants of such acts. The fact that some sexual practices 'disgust'
middle England is a pretty lame excuse. Indeed, Labour should recall that
such disgust was cited as a reason for why homosexual acts were illegal in
the first half of the 20th Century. I presume that with so many gay Labour
MPs, the government will limit legislating on the basis of the disgust felt
by 'average' persons.

Don't we have enough *real* crimes to worry about, without frittering away
yet more police resource on such an arrant waste of time as this? This is
grandstanding legislation, enacted by a ***-end government that will do
almost anything to get approval in a tabloid leader. Though it would appear
that these idiot proposals may not have gathered quite the plaudits that the
Home Office expected.

But the bestiality and necrophilia are a *lot* more questionable, as
it is hard to see how anybody is done any harm by them.

The animal cannot consent to being abused. I can see a rather stronger case
for banning the images of bestiality than for simulated scenes of sexual
violence between consenting adults.


.