It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Violent Pornography Outlawed In UK

page: 4
1
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 12:22 AM
link   
And the british think they are free.....




posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 01:29 PM
link   
Well, so do Americans.......for the most part. And I see the USA following suit. Or is it the UK following America's suit?



posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 01:41 PM
link   
Those of you who support banning of "violent" movies,
have you seen the movie "Army of Darkness"? It's very "violent" (and funny too). Would you want to ban it? If so, why? Where to draw the line and how to define "violence"?



posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by DYepes

for example, perhaps a newly married and confused young adult has a pregnant wife. This young man can be a little tempted due to a lack of sexual activity with the partner due to the pregnancy. It could be for religious beliefs, or it could simply be an agreement between the two. Maybe, just maybe though this kid begins watching porn to aleviate his tensions.

After awhile he may be interested to experiment with someone on the side, thus comitting adultery. Do you not agree cheating on your pregnant wife is a bad thing? And that perhaps all this recent tension, with pornagraphy as a trigger helped this young man to believe it would be ok until the baby came due. Of course imagine the dismay and hardship the discovery of thre affair will have on the relationship, not to mention the future of the child.


I think monogamy would be to blame in that situation.



posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 01:46 PM
link   
Or if the issue here is more about "violent pornography", would you ban Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho then? Because the shower scene makes people become serial killers? Hahaha, sorry but that's just not logic at all...



posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 02:43 PM
link   
There's no reason to ban violent movies, or violent pornography. (Such pornography is very, very rarely filmed using actual violence, 99% of the time it's staged for effect. Those people saying it takes advantage of people and legitimizes violence have to realize the actors are being paid for their time, and are consenting adults.)

Simply banning violent people solves the problem nicely.

We have laws against violence, so do the British. They have laws against rape, and murder, and various kinds of sexual abuse, just like we do. We both have laws already that cover our bases (in fact we have far more than we need) - this is just a feel-good measure to get some anti-freedom, anti-justice, anti-democracy folks to flood the polling booths, IMO.

Banning pornography will accomplish one thing and one thing only, it will drive it underground and remove it from the prying eyes of those with a vested interest in preventing exploitation and abuse. It's far better to regulate a thing than to outlaw it, if for no other reason than because regulation offers some measure of control over the production and distribution of the material.

The same exact solution could be applied to the drug war, I don't mind mentioning.



posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 02:51 PM
link   
*sigh*
I'm not necessarily for banning anything to adults. My personal beliefs haven't really made it into this thread, yet. My points are more to the why and how of this particular law...the reasoning behind it.
If "Psycho" was directly linked to a chain of murders, which some movies have been, they do need to be restricted...and are, from kids, at least.
On The Matrix

There's no such thing as pure freedom. If your freedom interferes with someone else's freedom, then it's not an area with which to be free.

I personally don't like everyone blaming something for what they did to kill/rape/pillage. Especially when its obvious that they are looking for an excuse, and not accepting what they did.

Certain things can trigger you to do certain things, but it is up to you to control those triggers. If violent porn unleashes the urge in you to make real violent porn, then you might need to lay off the porn all together.

If this drive is anyting like the drive that gets me on a stage (and I have stage fright) to sing in front of too many people, then such a compulsion is not easy to control, and most people don't have the will to fight against it, once that compulsion has laid a hand on them. It wouldn't surprise me if they were the same drive. Mine is creative, and theirs destructive...not much diffrence between the two. It is a serious issue for thse that know what it is like. If you have never had that compulsive drive, then you have no clue what to think of people who do...and in all honesty, you have no experience to judge with.

That still doesn't change the fact that porn is severely linked with serial killers. Find one that proveably doesn't and you'll be able to get rid of such laws. Until then, you have to abide by them when you ar eunder them, or face the consequences.



posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 04:34 PM
link   
Regardles, I congradulate Parliament for taking a wonderful step to removing this particular smut from the open in their society. Hopefully the same steps could be taken here, and I would be in full support of such an action



posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 08:06 PM
link   
Again they haven't - it's a proposal / attempt to gain support from 'middle England'. That's all.

A pound will get you ten it will never be passed into law as outlined in the press reports.



posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by DYepes
I think we can agree that a statue depicting the anatomical point of a human body in a pose is strikingly dissimilar to a recorded video of oh I don't know, one human being shoving a fist up anothers ones anal cavity? Or perhaps a baseball bat? Or someone hanging from chains being whipped naked until blood is drawn?

Granted if that is those people's fetish, they are very well entitled to the right and freedom to practice such, unusual hobbies in the privacy of their home. However to record these actions and disperse it across a population IMO shows an intent to coerce others to their beliefs? I would like to believe that all humans are unimpressionable, unfortunatey I also believe we can both agree many are not. This is where peoples line of thinking can be changed for the bad.

for example, perhaps a newly married and confused young adult has a pregnant wife. This young man can be a little tempted due to a lack of sexual activity with the partner due to the pregnancy. It could be for religious beliefs, or it could simply be an agreement between the two. Maybe, just maybe though this kid begins watching porn to aleviate his tensions.

After awhile he may be interested to experiment with someone on the side, thus comitting adultery. Do you not agree cheating on your pregnant wife is a bad thing? And that perhaps all this recent tension, with pornagraphy as a trigger helped this young man to believe it would be ok until the baby came due. Of course imagine the dismay and hardship the discovery of thre affair will have on the relationship, not to mention the future of the child.

Now that is only one example. And it could be anyone, a newlywed, a middle-aged wife with a family of four, a preacher, an unmarried couple, anyone.

We can argue the stabiltiy of such a young marriage for days, but the fact remains pornography was the tirgger that shot the bullet of adultery in that family.

Any thoughts?


The point about the staue is that reaction to images etc is a function of societal norms - maybe I found it wierd / shocking being a Brit where naked children or images / statues thereof are rare. Perhaps the Spanish visitor (if it was Spain, may have been Denmark) didn't react in a way at all similar to mine. Again it's not the image / statue that's the issue it's the person's reaction to it.

To a peado a kids' clothing catalogue is a 'jazz mag' - sad but true.

The acts you describe are perfectly legal if they are consensual - the key issue / problem with this proposal is that someone will decide if a particular scene is consensual or not - that's a pure judgement call (rather than the indisputable fact that a person in a film is a child - for example).

I don't get your example at all. You're presuming that monogamy is a natural state and that desire / sex-drive is a constant and doesn't ebb & flow. Many relationships survive as a result of an affair or pornography, granted some are destroyed but the determining factor is the people involved not the 'adultery' or visual stimulation.

Where would you draw the line? erotic films? sexy songs? tight tops? Some of the most troubling scenarios are those described in literature. Only totalitarian regimes fearful of their own survival (Nazis, PRC & the RC church for example) seek to cnsor the written word.

Also you seem to be working to the premise that it's only men that look at porn - what about the wife that looks at it and realise her perception of units of measure have been wrong all her married life? (you know the joke about parking!)



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join