'Extreme Pornography'

Sounds delightful, doesn't it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

However, I think it raises an interesting moral point.

Should 'extreme pornography' really be illegal? Surely it's better for a necrophiliac or sadist to get their sexual kicks from a staged scene rather than a real-life situation. Like it or not, these people exist, and their repressed urges are often much stronger than an average person's libido. Ever see the documentary with Louis Theroux? It appears to me sites such as 'necrobabes' (search on wiki, NOT on Google) that contain no explicit sexual images and contain photos of only consenting models pretending to be dead come under unfair censorship.

Or alternatively, will such pornography only serve to encourage the individual?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

are you talking about women who like to be restrained during sex, some women like to be strangled during sex, and some like to be bitten and slapped about

that should not be illegal, has long has they are two adults who ahve consented to that

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There are loads of images in mainstream films that would fall under the 'extreme' category...according to the definition posted.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There's no reason to make that kind of pornography illegal. As Lucifer said (no pun intended) there are plenty of men and women alike who are very into that kind of sex. I mean, what does "threaten the person's life" even mean? If I had typical sex on top of a washing machine, there's a chance one or both of us could fall off and break our necks. Should spin-cycle sex be illegal? Of course not.

I actually dated a girl who wanted to be beaten up during sex. It was a real turn-off for me, but she loved it. Needless to say, the relationship didn't last long.

 

Well, not if you throw in that little blurb "...It refers to pornography (defined as an image which "of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal").

But I essentially agree with your sentiments ...I've seen some regular ol' movies that are pretty ...ahhh, nasty and disgusting! And regular tv programming is becoming pretty nasty, too.

The problem, as I see it, is defining the difference between "art" and "pornography". Sorta' like what's the difference between "dancing" and "sex shows" at bars/clubs?

Baron Max

 

Ever seen that scene in one of the Saw films where that woman slashes up a person for sexual gratification?
It looks very real, and we only know it is not because it's in a big and expensive film. Yet if that were posted on the internet, having that on your computer could land you in serious trouble.

 

I don't see why it should be illegal if everyone in the film consents to what is happening in it and nothing illegal is being performed in the film like if someone actually dies, but other than that it shouldn't be illegal.

 

Its legally impossible...like trying to define what 'beauty' is.

Personally though, I'd like to see pornography become more artistic.

 

I think it was serial killer Ted Bundy that, once caught, said something to the effect of "Forget "Catcher in the Rye". Go after publications like Hustler Magazine."

And the cycle of sickness snowballs down the mountain.

 

No, it should definitely be illegal, as should mainstream pornography. I feel just as bad for necrophiliacs who cannot view their style of pornography as I do for men genuinely interested in child pornography; that is, I don't feel bad for them at all. Neither should be able to make a legal practice of their unnatural behaviours, and both should be executed.


Kadark

 

Oh stop trying to be so bloody extreme all the time. With all your pretences and ranting you have missed the essential point: in pornography where no-one is actually harmed, where's the damage? The major difference between child pornography and 'necrobabes' is that in one an innocent child is being raped, while in the other a porn star is 'playing dead'.
Although, if you don't agree with any pornography at all, I don't see what you can possibly add to a discussion of its finer points.

 

You have yet to take a position. If you think it should be legal, where do you draw the line? Do you have a limit?

 

My mind is not completely made up, hence the fact I started a fairly open discussion on the topic.
Although like I said, if no-one is actually being harmed and all parties are alive and consenting, I see no reason for pornography pandering to specialist tastes like sexual sadism or necrophilia to be incriminating.
I personally draw the line at 'zoo-porn' and anything involving children. I just think the blanket term of 'extreme pornography' is a little unfair.

 

I can't find a way to reconcile beastiality, unless there is some method of determining consent, but if there was then I wouldn't have a problem with it. Although I think it's really weird simulated child porn is legal though isn't it? Like someone who is over 18, but still looks like a child and pretends to be one. Just curious, I've heard yays and nays about it, but who's right?

 

They only need be over 16. Hardcore child pornography is a little more disturbing though and the participants much younger looking than say a 16-year-old girl pretending to be 12.
Unless Dr. Doolittle arrives bestiality can never be consensual.

What I'm talking about is consenting adults.

 

Same here. I like porn, but it could really do with being a bit more, I don't know, 'atmospheric'.

Exactly. I fail to see the harm in that.

Unless you're severely mentally ill, most people know where to stop regards sexual fantasies.

 

and what is the line? being tied up? Wearing a diaper? being a furry? golden showers? gay sex?
Which one is mentally ill?

 

This law is way too vague. I mean, who's anus are we talking about here? Some anuses are astoundingly accomodating in ways that would severely injure the average person. Who's to say what the intentions of a piece of art are? The British government has a troubling history with censorship. They banned the movie "A Clockwork Orange".

 

Tee-hee. Tee-hee.

~String

 

"Extreme"? I fear I am far too lenient, madam. For the likes of necrophiliacs and viewers of child pornography, I don't think any position I take could be considered "extreme".

Your inability to think critically is showing. Sure, the actors and actresses bringing the pornography to screen are not physically harmed during the making of a given film. However, you must ask yourself, "would a rational individual believe the process simply ended there?" Pornography corrupts individuals, and instills in them unrealistic notions of sex and relationships. It is wholly demeaning to women, and targets young and poor girls who have trouble with their families. This is the act of a predator, or more properly, pornography. Unfortunately, mainstream pornography is the "softest" type there is, nowadays. Can you believe that beastiality, incest, and child pornography can be viewed by virtually every individual, including children? They are all a mouse-click away. That, to me, is very unnerving.

If you believe you can allow certain versions of pornography to exist, yet resolutely reject the others, then you are sorely mistaken. As long as there is an audience, and the capability to produce the material exists, then you can rest assured that exist it will. Pornography thirty years ago was much milder, and much more tame than the pornography we see today. If you haven't already noticed, the content of porn, and the subjects it incorporates, perpetually worsens over time. Following this distinct trend, who is to say the concepts we fear and protest today will not be discreetly welcomed tomorrow? A few legal loopholes, and child pornography is allowed, under the pretense of "art". All things considered, it's not a farfetched notion. The more one views pornography, the more one wishes to see increased brutality, unnaturalness, etc. Once the regular content becomes boring, the mind demands something new. Unfortunately, that "new" content is in strict violation of every standard of morality and nature we know.

At some point or another, the question must inevitably be raised: "Does any of this seem natural?"


Kadark