New UK Laws banning BDSM Pornography.

[slavemarissa]

That's the trouble. The wording (as you can see in post 1) is ambiguous enough to include anything really.

That's the thing with all laws really, they're always so vague, it never tells You what it does and doesn't include specifically...

 

[Etoile]

I seem to remember it's also illegal to consent to your own assault in the UK. Wasn't there a case where in addition to several tops being arrested, the bottom was arrested too for participating in receiving a beating or whatever?

 

[Harmony_1985]

I seem to remember it's also illegal to consent to your own assault in the UK. Wasn't there a case where in addition to several tops being arrested, the bottom was arrested too for participating in receiving a beating or whatever?

Yup, in the eyes of the law over here, whether you give consent for it to be done or not, its still assault.

Tho frankly, how on earth they can do anything about it unless the submissive actually presses charges is beyond me.

 

[naxalite0906]

Well here is some more info about the ban I think. http://news.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/hi/newsbeat/newsid_7389000/7389331.stm

It is as people have outlined already - animals, necrophilia, any image causing harm. The reason I think, is due to the woman mentioned in this article (Liz Longhurst), who's daughter was abused and killed by a man who they are sure was influenced by porn containing violence and rape.

Ok, I can see a point to it from that point of view. But everybody here is right, how can it be policed and there seem to be far too many grey areas for the whole thing. As far as I am aware, things like breath and knife play are also included under the new law. Does this mean that all horror/slasher films are going to be illegal too? Surely they can be more realistic and just as influencial, not to mention more accessible? Also, I watched a foreign film a few years ago called Irreversible (I think thats what it was anyway). This film included a 10 minute rape scene which was truly shocking. Obviously the point here was to show how bad it can be, but now I am guessing films like this may also fall into the ban too.

I really do hate our government sometimes.

 

[Sir_Winston54]

There's a reason a lot of people refer to the UK as "the nanny state." Of course, that same phrase seems to be applicable to more and more governments of late, including Australia and the U.S.

 

[Betticus]

Anyway, I realise the sort of thing we would look at you do want to sheild children from until they're old enough, but we need to stop wrapping kids in cotton wool. It's producing a generation of wimps.

Not necessarily so. As I understand it brain development and the gain of certain higher functions are not in place and mature before the age of 17 or so for both males and females. I read a piece somewhere that went into how children lack the ability to keep separate real vs. perceived events as the necessary experiences and cross connections for memory maps of a nature that protects the subconscious mind aren't strong enough.

The cliffs notes version was that children have a hard time with reality vs. fantasy and to them even the exposure to adult material may seem to be very real and personal to them on the subconscious level. If anyone remembers the cases here of child sex abuse that were brought about due to psych counselors creating vivid fake memories in some kids this is a good example. Just as kids can see a movie or read a book and get very into it as if it were real so also can they do the same with adult type of activities and materials.

So children do need to be protected from certain adult behaviours and materials and their development needs to be guided. They are not little adults at all as some people seem to think.

However, letting paranoid people use the "we have to protect the children" catch phrase to justify the subversion of human civil rights is just wrong. This kind of thing is supposed to be in place in the home and schools first and then in society at large.

Also, there are people out there that are into genital piercing... would this law make cock and clit piercing and nipple piercing illegal? What about play rape scenes?

 

[Betticus]

There's a reason a lot of people refer to the UK as "the nanny state." Of course, that same phrase seems to be applicable to more and more governments of late, including Australia and the U.S.

I'm surprised that no one has suggested that the population as a whole be subjected to limb paralysis just in case one of us should ever get the urge to try and harm another...

Obviously we all need to be protected from ourselves and only the governments and lawmakers are qualified to be allowed to roam free and oversee us.

 

[Sir_Winston54]

I'm surprised that no one has suggested that the population as a whole be subjected to limb paralysis just in case one of us should ever get the urge to try and harm another...

Obviously we all need to be protected from ourselves and only the governments and lawmakers are qualified to be allowed to roam free and oversee us.

The more of these things I see, the more I'm reminded of the late great Kurt Vonnegut's short story, "Harrison Bergeron." While it dealt with a different aspect of governmental protectionism, the parallels are unmistakable. I used to require my high school students to read the story and write an essay describing how they saw that type of governmental/societal action affecting their lives. Without exception, all of them who had more than three brain cells to rub together saw it as interference and strongly objected to anyone 'handicapping' them if they had ability. Those with two or fewer working brain cells thought it was at least somewhat reasonable, but exaggerated for the story. <SIGH>

 

[Homburg]

The more of these things I see, the more I'm reminded of the late great Kurt Vonnegut's short story, "Harrison Bergeron." While it dealt with a different aspect of governmental protectionism, the parallels are unmistakable. I used to require my high school students to read the story and write an essay describing how they saw that type of governmental/societal action affecting their lives. Without exception, all of them who had more than three brain cells to rub together saw it as interference and strongly objected to anyone 'handicapping' them if they had ability. Those with two or fewer working brain cells thought it was at least somewhat reasonable, but exaggerated for the story. <SIGH>

I'm not a fan of Vonnegut, but I absolutely love that story. It will be required reading for my kids when they get old enough, period. I wish more high school teacher would require it as you did.

 

[Netzach]

The cliffs notes version was that children have a hard time with reality vs. fantasy and to them even the exposure to adult material may seem to be very real and personal to them on the subconscious level. If anyone remembers the cases here of child sex abuse that were brought about due to psych counselors creating vivid fake memories in some kids this is a good example. Just as kids can see a movie or read a book and get very into it as if it were real so also can they do the same with adult type of activities and materials.

So children do need to be protected from certain adult behaviours and materials and their development needs to be guided. They are not little adults at all as some people seem to think.

I agree completely. There is some stuff that kids should not be exposed to. Which is why people should probably have to pass some kind of test to have them.

 

[mylaceratedheart]

I agree completely. There is some stuff that kids should not be exposed to. Which is why people should probably have to pass some kind of test to have them.

Wouldn't that be grand. To adopt a dog from an animal charity they check your home, income, working hours and other pets/kids/influencing factors. Just imagine how many fewer brain dead, walking corpses reared by utter fucking retards there would be if the government refused people without a double figure IQ and some form of potential the right to procreate.

Take a recent case in point - UK Mother of the year, Karen Matthews. If anyone's a postergirl for radically reforming the nanny, welfare state that has allowed idle, feckless wastes of O2 to go through 3 or more generations with out a single close relative holding down a job. then she is.