Note: Please bear in mind that whilst this topic does canvass opinions, it is not a fight club. You may disagree with other posters but we do ask you please to stick to our Talk Guidelines and to be civil. We don't allow personal attacks or troll-hunting. Do please report any. Thanks, MNHQ.

Banning simulated rape porn, AIBU to be...

(126 Posts)
ThingsThatMakeYouGoHmmmmmmmmm Mon 22-Jul-13 14:10:26

Uneasy ? Unpleasent -yes. Distasteful -yes. But, outwith arguments re trafficking and drug dependency, where participants consent is given, is this something government should be involved in ?

It feels a little bit like state limiting the boundaries of sexuality. What next ? Who decides ? Will rape in literature, films etc be next?

And what about murder ? What would Hollywood have to say about a ban on images of simulated murder?

Dunno what I think about it, really. Just, as I said, uneasy. confused

ThingsThatMakeYouGoHmmmmmmmmm Mon 22-Jul-13 15:08:57

Very much one of the things I am wondering about, meditrina.

Apparently has been law in Scotland for some time, with either zero or one prosecution.....

YoniMontanasLittleFriend Mon 22-Jul-13 15:09:19

Im on the fence on this as i agree i think its disgusting but surely if its banned then bd sm should also be banned as in it glamourises control and torture .

TunipTheVegedude Mon 22-Jul-13 15:10:26

Have you seen The Accused Meditrina?
Of course it won't be banned. It's not pornography. While there's some scope of variations between different definitions, a film that is neither explicit nor for the purpose of sexual gratification is not going to come under the heading of pornography.
There will no doubt be cases at the boundaries for lawyers to argue over but it's fairly clear what this law is intended to catch.

ThingsThatMakeYouGoHmmmmmmmmm Mon 22-Jul-13 15:12:09

"it's fairly clear what this law is intended to catch."

I don't think fairly clear laws are ever a good idea...........

I really struggle with where I sit on this. I am fundamentally a libertarian and get very frustrated with the slow erosion of our civil liberties. The problem with, for example, rape porn being banned is where is the line drawn and by whom.
I abhor this type of porn myself but in most cases it is performed by consenting adults for the entertainment of adults and no laws are broken.
By allowing that to be banned we give the gov't yet more power to tell us what to do, what to watch, what to think. Orwellian dystopia starts on this slippery slope...

I'd rather see the investment being made to improve education and awareness for sex industry workers of all types and education within the justice system to remove some of the obstacles to them reporting sex crimes as listed by a previous poster. Prostitutes are raped and ignored by the police or given short shrift in the courts too.

missinglalaland Mon 22-Jul-13 15:18:27

Flat pack -

Making laws and regulations is the process of making things illegal today that weren't yesterday based on our judgements. There isn't zero evidence of harm. There is growing academic evidence of a great deal of harm.

It seems to be me that the "patronising" argument is always called out as a final attempt to make us feel ashamed for caring about and protecting other people. Ultimately it comes down to my sense of responsibility as a participant in this society. Deep in my gut, I don't think these young women are leading wonderful, exciting, self actualised lives. I think they are being used. I wouldn't want it for the little girls I know and care about. Any amount of pseudo-intellectual hooey about it being a "choice" wouldn't sway me.

Who am I to have an opinion? Why I am an educated, informed, member of this society participating in the debate about how we should be governed, just like yourself!

I might be misunderstanding you, but your argument seems to be that consent is the magic ingredient that makes everything tickety boo. I agree with you that consent is an absolute necessity; I just don't agree that consent magically makes everything and anything ok.

happygirl87 Mon 22-Jul-13 15:18:39

ThingsThatMakeYouGoHmmmmmmmmm I am also on the fence about this- because the issue is that participants in porn depicting consensual acts could be in fact drugged, exploited, trafficked or coerced, whilst those in porn depicting rape may in fact be consenting and happy. I know it's somehting some people find odd, but some women get aroused by the idea of being a victim in a rape fantasy, and therefore may be happy to be in one of those videos (assuming that in reality they are consenting to be in the video and being properly paid, etc) I assume your average porn downloaded is not able to tell (and may not care?) whether the large-breasted, well-oiled, scantily clad woman on their screen is pretending to consent, or pretending not to.....

The law as it currently stands (from Wikipedia):

Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 is a law in the United Kingdom criminalising possession of what it refers to as "extreme pornographic images".[1] The law was enacted from 26 January 2009.[2][3] It refers to pornography (defined as an image "of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal") which is "grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character" and portrays "in an explicit and realistic way" any of the following:

- An act threatening a person's life
- An act which results (or is likely to result) in serious injury to a person's anus, breasts or genitals
- An act which involves (or appears to involve) sexual interference with a human corpse
- A person performing (or appearing to perform) an act of intercourse (or oral sex) with an animal (whether dead or alive)

-------
So currently, the depiction of quite a range of BDSM practices is already illegal. Also, note that the human corpse and animal clauses don't actually have to involve intercourse with a corpse or an animal, they only have to appear to.

I have absolutely no problem with simulated rape porn being added to that list.

Policing it is of course another issue altogether.

happygirl87 Mon 22-Jul-13 15:20:11

Obviously there are also issues of liberty, nanny state etc- but I meant specifically just in terms of the laws (presumed) aim of preventing exploitation and titilation via victims of crime

missinglalaland Mon 22-Jul-13 15:21:46

ThingsThatMakeYouGoHmmm -

I agree with you. I wouldn't want to see an intrusion into people's private emails. That would clearly be disproportionate.

happygirl87 Mon 22-Jul-13 15:22:23

Plenty, I'd be interested to see cas elaw on what constitutes "serious" in context opf that law.... (in terms of S&M). However, at law school many years ago I was taught that you can't technically consent to GBH, only ABH, so many activities that go on in S&M relationships are technically criminal- this is clearly not policed.

meditrina Mon 22-Jul-13 15:23:46

Yes, I've seen The Accused. It includes the rape scene. Would that scene have to be removed for the rest of the film to be shown? This is exactly why definitions are crucial.

A rape in film A is just as much a rape as that in film B.

if you start bringing in concepts of "acceptable depictions of rape" then the task of building a clear definition that would stand up in court is unlikely to be productive.

JessicaBeatriceFletcher Mon 22-Jul-13 15:27:33

meditrina - and I have no doubt there are people out there who have masturbated to that scene. As you say, what becomes "acceptable depictions"?

Dahlen Mon 22-Jul-13 15:28:11

It's all about the issue of consent isn't it? Which is why children/animals/corpses are banned - because they cannot consent.

Rape denies consent. Whether in practise or simulation is surely irrelevant because the act depicted on screen for titillation purposes is non-consensual.

There is a wider debate to be had on the depiction of rape/murder etc in mainstream Hollywood type films as these could be argued to be just as titillating, but those scenes tend to form part of a bigger plot rather than being the point of the film IYSWIM.

TunipTheVegedude Mon 22-Jul-13 15:30:01

Firstly the rape scene in The Accused is nothing like as explicit as rape scenes in porn.
Secondly there is no way the purpose of the scene is for the sexual gratification of the viewer.

If Cameron was talking about banning all depictions of rape ever you'd have a point, but he's not, he's talking about porn.

FobblyWoof Mon 22-Jul-13 15:30:58

Porn, especially more of the hardcore variety, normalises things. Things that would/could potentially evolve into something consenting between two loving parties. Unfortunately the other side of that is that because these things are so very readily available it normalises things to an extent where you have people first experiencing real life sex and thinking things like asking to cum on a girls face is normal and acceptable when first starting out. And when the girl disagrees there's then the pressure (be it being called a prude, or something more jokey etc, etc).

That effect will bleed over in far more serious categories such as rape etc if it's not only normalised in this way but also depicted how it is. "oh, she's up for it, look at the way she's dressed." "you'll enjoy it once I get started." etc etc.

missinglalaland Mon 22-Jul-13 15:30:59

meditrina -
I think an attempt could be made at drawing a line between rape in art or literature, where it is part of a larger story that encourages thought, debate, or a greater understanding of the human condition, and pornography where it really nothing more complex than masturbation material.

missinglalaland Mon 22-Jul-13 15:31:44

Dahlen - Well put!

missinglalaland Mon 22-Jul-13 15:34:23

FobblyWoof - Yes! This is the concern; and where I think teenagers are vulnerable. It's not just the young women being used in the filming, it's the adolescents who watch it as well who might be harmed.

ThingsThatMakeYouGoHmmmmmmmmm Mon 22-Jul-13 15:57:50

missinglalaland , yy, but then , surely, we are back to " a tendency to deprave or currupt, the Oz trial, and all that brings with it.

missinglalaland Mon 22-Jul-13 16:01:55

Things -
You are right, the line is hard to draw. The people drawing it look silly. Sometimes it is drawn in the wrong place.

For me, it is better to keep struggling to draw the line and having the ongoing debate then to have no line at all and just let everything rip.

ThreeTroikas Mon 22-Jul-13 16:08:19

But access to porn has always been restricted. Its just the internet that's opened it up lately. And you can build an argument for that opening up of internet porn for bringing down moral barriers.

TunipTheVegedude Mon 22-Jul-13 16:08:19

'missinglalaland , yy, but then , surely, we are back to " a tendency to deprave or currupt, the Oz trial, and all that brings with it.'

Yes, I think we are, Things, but I think the kneejerk libertarian preference for free expression in every possible way that our generation tends to start off with is harder to justify than it used to be, given the nature and spread of porn now.

In the 60s it will have seemed ridiculous that people were talking about viewers being corrupted by the mere sight of naked bodies, or by a film of two people having a mutually enjoyable shag. But what we've ended up with is kids getting their sex education from rape porn. If it was easier to stop children and teenagers accessing it I'd be more tolerant of its existence (though still pretty dubious about the motives of those who get off on images of women being raped). Teaching kids that sex is about hurting women probably could reasonably be called depraving or corrupting them.

missinglalaland Mon 22-Jul-13 16:13:11

What does "yy" stand for?

missinglalaland Mon 22-Jul-13 16:13:45

TunipTheVegedude -
Thank you. That is just what I would like to say if I were more articulate!

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now