Violent Pornography - poll

[denny]

Okay, I've set this so anybody can vote, but nobody can see who voted for what. Feel free to link both this post and the one before it which explains the options.

TO CLARIFY: do not tick your personal likes/dislikes here - tick the things you think should be banned from being shown/described in any kind of pornography.

Another clarification: assume consent of all performers. I think it's safe to assume that everyone likely to be reading this agrees on the issue of consensuality (if you don't, feel free to explain why in a comment - anon if you prefer). This would include a pre-death release form signed by the corpse, in the case of necrophilia. You can decide your own definition of 'consenting' for an animal for purposes of voting on bestiality (please see my reply to libellum below).


[Poll #604149]

Comments

[kissycat1000.livejournal.com]

Tere is no option for 'I wouldn't consider doing some of the things that I didn't tick, but they don't hurt anyone non-consentually so I don't think they should be banned'.

[kissycat1000.livejournal.com]

BTW, 'insertion of an object causing pain' falls under the whole 'consentual' thing. Consentual is fine, non-consentual shouldn't be encouraged or filmed. Just my personal opinion here.

[dennyd.livejournal.com]

That's what "I wouldn't consider doing some of the things that I didn't tick" means, isn't it? Otherwise presumably you would have ticked them.

[uberredfraggle.livejournal.com]

As well as not doing some of those things I wouldn't watch them either but see no reason for them to be banned if other people want to watch/do them.

[dennyd.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that was my attitude to quite a few of the things on that list. As long as the people taking part wanted to do it, then fair enough.

The only one that I have trouble deciding on is bestiality, as it's tricky to decide what constitutes consent from various animals.

[flannelcat.livejournal.com]

Seconded.

[world-of-skin.livejournal.com]

Denny, are you willing to share your own personal answers?

[dennyd.livejournal.com]

Hrm... in person, yes, but not on this thread. I don't want to get into a debate about my personal choices here, I want to find out what other people think about the issue.

[wildeabandon.livejournal.com]

I don't think that pornography should be banned, but I do dislike most of it quite intensely. Obviously anything that depicts anything non-consensual (which I believe includes necrophilia & bestiality) should be simulated, but otherwise it would be illegal under other legislation.

[lusercop.livejournal.com]

The simulation thing is interesting - I'm not sure about this at all. I feel that in general, any kind of performing act with animals is bad, because you can never ask the animal whether or not it wants to do it.

[dennyd.livejournal.com]

I think one difference is that existing legislation makes it illegal to produce some (all?) of this stuff, but the new proposed Act also makes it illegal to possess it (which includes the act of viewing it on a website).

[ergotia.livejournal.com]

But if someone has given pre death consent how can necrophilia be non consensual ?

[lusercop.livejournal.com]

It's interesting that 2 of the things in the first section cannot possibly involve consent. These are also the two that come out with long bars for people ticking them.

[dennyd.livejournal.com]

I presume you mean bestiality and necrophilia. I'm deliberately avoiding the bestiality/consent issue for now, but do you not feel that a release form signed before death would be adequate for necrophilia? I'd be happy to sign one personally, if someone I liked wanted a go at my bones :)

[libellum.livejournal.com]

How would you go about obtaining the consent of an animal?

[dennyd.livejournal.com]

Not having this debate here, particularly as I'm personally not convinced that you can (but also not 100% convinced that it's always impossible). Please note that I said you can decide your own definition of consent for an animal, which includes your right to say they can't consent and therefore to vote in favour of the ban.

[flannelcat.livejournal.com]

I'm thinking "Violence - non-simulated." is a difficult one - if it's consentual, is it still appropriate to call it violence?

n 1: an act of aggression (as one against a person who resists);

and

Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing: crimes of violence.
The act or an instance of violent action or behavior.
Intensity or severity, as in natural phenomena; untamed force: the violence of a tornado.
Abusive or unjust exercise of power.
Abuse or injury to meaning, content, or intent: do violence to a text.
Vehemence of feeling or expression; fervor.

I'm guessing so - it's a violent act even if it's received with consent. I'm guessing this is where BDSM gets thorny, yes?

[ergotia.livejournal.com]

The thing is, you see, that I am completely anti censorship and dont think any of it "should be banned" - I dont want bestiality porn to be produced but there are existing laws that can deal with that.

There are issues about duress/coercion of sex industry workers of course.

[dennyd.livejournal.com]

Oops, I missed out the 'none of the above' box. Bloody polls, there's always something.

[flannelcat.livejournal.com]

This would include a pre-death release form signed by the corpse, in the case of necrophilia.

Eh? I think the whole issue of who owns my flesh after it's dead is an odd one - but I reckon it's certainly not me.

http://society.guardian.co.uk/alderhey/comment/0,8006,431006,00.html for an article "Who really owns our bodies? " - Jane Wildgoose (Tuesday January 30, 2001) after the Alder Hey orcan scandal.


"We accept that however questionable the historical origins of the principle, it has now been common law for 150 years at least that neither a corpse nor parts of corpse are in themselves and without more capable of being property protected by rights." However parts of a corpse are capable of being property...if they have acquired different attributes by virtue of the application of skill, such as dissection or preservation techniques for exhibition or teaching purposes..." Regina v Kelly, aparrently - 01 January 1999

- http://www.swarb.co.uk/lisc/Wills_and_Probate.shtml

Which raises some interesting ideas...

[dennyd.livejournal.com]

Hrm, interesting.

I guess what I proposed would assert consent morally speaking... as the act is illegal (I think?) there's no way to assert consent legally, presumably.

Are you thinking it could be possible to own the body, and therefore use it as a 'prop'?

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

Surely this legislation is about what is portrayed, not how it was produced? So they don't care whether it's real bestiality, or fantastically realistic CGI. I'm curious to know what representations people think should be inherently illegal, not what real performances should not be allowed.

[ergotia.livejournal.com]

I almost prepared to stick my neck right out and say no simulations should be banned, but I wibble over CGI paedophilia. Irrational really, because I moved slowly and painfully as a feminist to an anti-censorship position and one of the reasons I made the move is because I am almost entirely convinced that pornography does not cause sexual abuse but almost entirely is just not enough on that one.

[simm42.livejournal.com]

I ticked the simulated violence should be banned but only in the case where its not clear it is not consensual.

Its not that I disagree with it, but I can see a valid case for the protection of victims that video footage should clearly show the consensual nature of the act (under existing law this makes the difference between X rated and 18 rated BDSM films)

[lovelyoliver.livejournal.com]

In which case how do you differentiate between a porn film which simulates non-consensual sexual violence and a film like 'once were warriors' or 'leaving las vegas'? by your current definition they should both be banned.

the only way round it is to come up with some meaningless and arbitrary definition of what constitutes pornography and history has shown time and time again that you cannot apply rigid definitions to art.

[lovelyoliver.livejournal.com]

This is such a tricky issue. I did not in the end tick the box saying that non-simulated violence should be banned but this is because once you get to the very extreme ends of human sexuality then the water gets very muddy indeed. I'd prefer to leave violent pornography under the various laws which already exist, those which make it illegal to commit assault, sexual assualt and rape as well as those which make it illegal to profit from crime. Its a mistake to try and legistlate against art in any form, you can only legistlate against what people do to each other (and animals).


As for necrophilia, I see no difference between shagging a corpse and using a large carrot as a dildo.

[simm42.livejournal.com]

depends if you had the consent of the person before they died - some people consider remains sacrosanct.

As for the rest I'd tend to agree but then again under current law you cant agree to being beating - the Dom(me) is still commiting ABH/GBH and technically the sub is guilty of inciting ABH/GBH though I've never heard of a case pressed.

[snoof.livejournal.com]

I said no to bestiality and necrophilia. Even though a corpse can't tell you're having sex with it and therefore won't mind, chances are that corpse has people who loved the person who used to inhabit it, and who would be emotionally scarred if they knew you were having sex with it. I would go ballistic if someone had had sex with my mother's corpse, or with my brother's.

Cruelty to animals, again, I don't believe animals can consent. But more than that, I don't think animals (lacking in the psychological dichotomies we humans are prone to) enjoy cruelty in any form. They lack the understanding and the pleasure-pain threshold we have - at least as far as we know. Doing it anyway because it could be ok is not on as far as I'm concerned.

I'm not into nearly all of the other ones, but that doesn't mean I think they should be banned. Consenting people of an appropriate age, the end.

[dennyd.livejournal.com]

Are you speaking against the activities, or against pornography featuring depictions of them, or both?

[fellcat.livejournal.com]

Clarification notes for my vote:

• If an act is non-consensual, it is not porn but is instead evidence of one or more crimes (assault, rape, &c); as such, to preserve the privacy of the victim, it should only be distributed to people who need to see it order to bring the perpetrator(s) of the crime(s) to justice.
• I think that necrophilia should be lawful provided that the deceased consented, in sound mind and in writing, prior to death.
• Bestiality, with the possible exception of sex with dolphins, is by definition non-consensual and so should be banned.

[jenova-red.livejournal.com]

I *completely* shagged up my answers and realised I didn't tick "bestiality" and "necrophilia"... >_<

So, yeah, uh... just pretend I *did* tick them! :-/

[dennyd.livejournal.com]

You can change poll answers - click the poll number at the top of the poll, then click on 'fill out poll'.

Nothing should be banned

[23haxor23.livejournal.com]

why do people always want to ban things or forbid things?

I mean every ban on something costs money. Writing a law costs money, thinking about it costs money, prosecuting costs money.

If nobody's rights are violated: why ban it?

Save money be liberal.