AIBU to be horrified by the new Porn Law?

Alyosha - By that rationale, anyone who places an individual in a position where they believe they are required to perform sex acts in order to place food on their table, should be legislated against, and subsequently punished.

If that is the case, in the case of an apparent free agent street prostitute, who or what is leading them to believe they have to service men in order to put food on the table, and why are they not legislated against and prosecuted?

And what of the the husband who bribes his wife with a new pair of shoes in exchange for an act she is a little less than happy to otherwise provide? Again, by your definition, we have coercion and not consensual sex.

The things that have been banned are just a tiny section of these acts.
Many of the acts are fine, they just have a few restrictions on them.
Squirting is fine, as long as it isn't consumed. Spanking is fine as long as it doesn't get too aggressive. Butt plugs are fine as they can be removed, but shoving a mobile phone up your arse wouldn't be OK.
I don't think it will make much difference to anyone in reality.

I think I'm not getting my point across that well - I'm not saying these women don't know what they're doing, or that they are mentally unable to consent. I'm saying that if porn is your job, and doing a scene you really don't want to do is the only way for you to pay your rent, it's not freely given consent.

It's why psychological research guidelines state that participants must be given the full incentive to take part even if they decide to drop out before or during the research.

There is a huge difference between being coerced into sex and being coerced into waiting tables in a job you don't like. I assume most people here don't think women should have take prostitution jobs rather than go on benefits, for example? Sex isn't just another job.

This autocorrect is driving me nuts.

I think porn is too readily available, there's too much free porn.

This is better than nothing.

The Public Disgrace films are Run by Women, mainly, there are really interesting discussions around Ethics and Bounderies on and instigated around these.

There will be no discussions or regulations around the stuff coming from the Poorer Eastern European countries.

Is there any such thing as pornography that is not the result of exploitation, degradation or coercion?

To be clear, I'm not expressing an opinion here, I'm trying to clarify the positions of others, as most of those objecting to, or explaining the need for regulation, are saying it is done to deter/remove the exploitation and coercion of those some filmed doing such things.

That argument either presupposes that that is always the case, or sets the precedent that all such consensual acts should be legislated against to protect the interests and well being of those who are coerced and exploited to do it without their consent.

By that rationale, we could legislate against all sorts of things on the grounds that we protect other who are coerced into doing those things. Line dancing for example. How many me are coerced or blackmailed by 'loving partners' into donning a bri-nylon shirt and a bootlaces tie and forced to humiliate themselves with their howdy doody bootslapping prance to Garth Brooks, out of fear of the silence or the spending spree his otherwise angry wife may punish him with? Yet we do not ban those who enjoy such things to protect the silent castrati amongst them who dare not say they do not wish to participate.

Maybe a poor analogy, but, of all those supporting legislation, it seems they are presuming all pornography on coerced, or that consensual sex should be legislated against in a blanket sweep in order to protect those too weak to stand up for themselves.

""That isn't what this is about though? It is about porn being dominated by men, driven by men. ""

But in the UK and US, there was a shift, small but happening. All this will do, is halt that and leave what is abuse available.

There was outrage on the Feminist Board because a former Hardcore Porn Actress had been accepted to read to children on a US reading scheme, there seemed to be a lot of ill feeling towards her because she was Mentally Well and showed she was just like other people in society.

Some Women do choose to work in the Industry, like it or not and many others would, if it actually paid what it should do and the stigma wasn't there.

The only way Women will be treated better within the Industry, is with Regulation.

We need the market to stop being flooded by the amount of free Porn.

These are the discussions that should of been taking place, not a rubber stamped nonsensical ban.

I grew up around strong women, all prostitutes (my GM was a Brothel keeper), when I looked at their lives and the lives of housewives during the 70's, I could see who was the ones not consenting to the life that they were living and who was being abused/exploited.

Are all these "damaged" women who aren't capable of deciding their working lives also going to be banned from Relationships and children? I'd put money on that these are the same issues that put women in a cycle of DA.

How far go we go to protect them from themselves?

That isn't what this is about though? It is about porn being dominated by men, driven by men.

Anyone who thinks that porn is primarily about women willingly doing x/y/z to their bodies is naïve. Yes you do get that but predominantly it isn't.

I suggest you do some research into the porn industry before making ridiculous statements.

does that somehow counter the statement that women should be allowed to do what they want with their bodies?

When we outright banned Rape Fantasy, we missed out on a chance to open up discussions on Setting and respecting boundaries and gaining consent without doubt.

It hasn't stopped the material being available, or much worse, in a simple search.

The point is that you can do it in the most unregulated porn, just not in the UK, where we could be putting safeguards in place, not banning it.

The young Women in fetish unregulated Porn are damaged permanently and sometimes die, this is what we can now only see in the UK.

What we can't see is acts which are consensual and don't leave permanent physical damage.

Women have the right to do as we wish with our bodies

I suggest you do some research into the porn industry before making ridiculous statements.

Yabu

I also wish they'd go more to restrict easy access to porn more generally.

YABVU the porn industry is vile as is porn and these acts in particular.

Babies every 9 months is fine. Fisting every other day is going to fuck up you fanny. And if you can do it in porn then the actresses will be asked to do it every other day.
"Squirting" is piss, well in porn it's definitely piss. That's why that is not allowed.

""YANBU. A good friend of mine is a pro domme and her online streaming business will really be affected by this.""

As has happened to lots of people in some states across the US. Even amateur couples doing live shows, are being told what they can and can't do.

So the most damaged, desperate, forced, coerced/trafficked women, will just be filmed outside the UK and US, where they had a level of protection.

The women (and myself) that I know who have worked in the sex industry in some way, are embarrassed to admit it, because there is the assumption that you have Self Esteem/MH issues. I see that statement all the time on the Feminist Board and it's bloody insulting.

The same is said about women who have multiple partners/ out of the ordinary sex.

It's already been said on here that we shouldn't pander to male fantasy, get rid of the blinkered misinformed views, these are apeoples fantasies (even lesbians, no men involved).

YANBU. A good friend of mine is a pro domme and her online streaming business will really be affected by this.

YANBU. We have a shit 3rd rate Govt. that governs by soundbite and values appearance over substance. Use your vote wisely at the next election is my advice.

there's a big difference between "self esteem problems" and being mentally unfit to consent.

I think we should take people's word as is unless we have serious doubts they are unfit or are being coerced.

Yeah, most people I know have serious self image and self esteem problems. I know people with shitty self esteem in min-wage jobs too. The problem with that is that at what point does mental illness take away the ability to consent or make a decision? If a mentally ill person can't consent to sex, can they consent to work, sign a contract?

It just seems like a dangerous statement to say mentally ill people can't truly be held accountable for themselves.