denny | Violent Pornography - poll

Current Mood: curious

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

libellum below).

[Poll #604149]

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

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.

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 :)

No. I don't think it would, not because I don't think it's appropriate (I can see your point) but because I'm not sure who would own your bones in the first place.

Actually, wasn't there a case of an artist who used corpses robbed from graves as a piece of sculpture? I think the family eventually let the piece remain, but asked him to change the title....(Runs to google.)

I dont know if you mean Robert Lenkiwewicz (sp)http://www.robertlenkiewicz.co.uk/

But he kept a dead tramp in his artists studio for 18 years...

Actually, no - it was in Siberia. http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/news/story/0,11711,1130611,00.html

As far as I'm aware, bodies belong to no-one in law. This makes things rather tricky.

Se the "We accept that however questionable..." point below? Apparantly nobody owns a corpse "but the earth", but there's recent legal wranglings that prove exceptions...

Absolutely. The bestiality/consent thing is worth avoiding, as it will become a quagmire. Suffice to say that in nearly 8 years of being veggie, I know where I stand on such issues ;-) - I don't expect others to agree, however.

The release form is interesting. I mean, it's possible in forms of all of the other things to have consent agreed in advance, and also to have safewords/safeactions (this applies even when gagged, or similar, of course) if the acts go beyond what they were expecting, or if these acts are not something they can deal with at the time (even if they thought they could 5 minutes before). Having said this, there's another question of whether you believe that there is any kind of soul - I don't - but that could come into the equation. I'm just not sure there's sufficient ability to determine consent at the point that the action takes place.

I'm reading back over old content for various reasons, and something just occurred to me here as a consequence of reading this comment:

I don't think it's relevant that all the other things permit you to agree consent in advance, because that's something you can arguably do with necrophilia too. The difference is that all the other things allow you to withdraw your consent before or during - which I imagine would be quite tricky with necrophilia.

I may reverse my position on whether consensual necrophilia is theoretically okay now. *ponders*

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only