denny: Photo of my face in profile - looking to the right (Toon (with text))
Denny ([personal profile] denny) wrote2005-11-03 10:30 am

Violent Pornography - poll

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 [livejournal.com profile] libellum below).


[Poll #604149]

[identity profile] kissycat1000.livejournal.com 2005-11-03 10:44 am (UTC)(link)
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'.

[identity profile] kissycat1000.livejournal.com 2005-11-03 10:46 am (UTC)(link)
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.

[identity profile] dennyd.livejournal.com 2005-11-03 10:51 am (UTC)(link)
*adds another clarification re: consent*

[identity profile] dennyd.livejournal.com 2005-11-03 10:47 am (UTC)(link)
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.

[identity profile] kissycat1000.livejournal.com 2005-11-03 10:49 am (UTC)(link)
I suppose... it's a bit of a confusing sentence, a double negative etc.

[identity profile] dennyd.livejournal.com 2005-11-03 10:54 am (UTC)(link)
Taking out both negatives changes the meaning though... I couldn't see a clearer way to phrase it in the end.

That question is also headed 'personal preferences', so hopefully people will see it's just what you like yourself, not what you think other people should do. I was interested to see how many people felt that anything that they didn't like themselves should be banned, basically. I'm hoping not many of my friends would have that attitude, but I thought I'd ask, particularly as I'm hoping people will link this out a bit.

[identity profile] kissycat1000.livejournal.com 2005-11-03 11:00 am (UTC)(link)
That's just daft. There's so much out there that does nothing for me but I know other people who get off on it. For instance, popping ballloons with stiletto heels is either sexual to you, or not. So is fisting, scat, and lots of other stuff. Whether I personally find them sexual or not has no bearing on their appeal to others.

[identity profile] uberredfraggle.livejournal.com 2005-11-03 11:05 am (UTC)(link)
But there are some things (like popping balloons with stiletto heels) that you may do for a partner so would consider doing them, doesn't mean they turn you on. :) But that doesn't really apply to the options above.

[identity profile] kissycat1000.livejournal.com 2005-11-03 11:08 am (UTC)(link)
Yes, that is bit of a grey area. Not that important, but worth pointing out. :)

[identity profile] uberredfraggle.livejournal.com 2005-11-03 11:08 am (UTC)(link)
Yeah see my second comment. :)

[identity profile] uberredfraggle.livejournal.com 2005-11-03 11:08 am (UTC)(link)
btw I agree with what you said but was merely throwing another point in. :)

[identity profile] dennyd.livejournal.com 2005-11-03 11:20 am (UTC)(link)
Well yeah, you can see that, and I can see that, but it would appear that some people making legislation have severe difficulty with the concept of "Your kink is not my kink, but your kink is okay".