Today's mag in our "Love & Sex" series looks at taboos and tolerance, and it's hard to think of a topic more apposite than online pornography. I can't think of a form of "entertainment" – except perhaps QVC Shopping Channel? – that has such a colossal disparity between those that use it, and those that admit to using it.
Not one of the hundreds of questions we've received at the Cyberclinic have ever referred to it; not one of my friends ever drops casual references to eye-popping fetish sites into conversation; I never get sent emails from colleagues that highly recommend scenes of wild and uninhibited orgies – and yet the statistics you see, even taking colossal margins of error into account, point to an internet community for whom internet pornography is part of everyday life.
It's almost pointless quoting stats, because they're all inevitably out of date before they're even published and I don't have a sufficiently large focus group available to be able to check them for you right now. Suffice to say, billions of dollars are spent on online porn every year, millions of people access it on a daily basis – and it's not the narrow demographic you might expect, i.e. the cartoon image of the dirty old man; one third are likely to be women, and all adult age-groups seem to have a roughly equal predilection for it.
Clearly, these kinds of numbers would have been the stuff of a pornographer's dreams in a pre-internet age, but the web has revolutionised the distribution of porn just has it has every other kind of media. Suddenly, everyone has access to it. If you're a libertarian type, you'll applaud the ability this gives individuals to make choices for themselves. If you're a vocal supporter of pornography, you'll appreciate the way this has erased the shame associated with buying a magazine from the top shelf in your local petrol station. If you're a parent, you'll be wondering how to prevent your children from accidentally stumbling across it. And if you're a government, you'll take a look at your incredibly outdated statute book and wonder whether it's still possible to protect the morals of the nation.
In the UK, the original Obscene Publications Act 1959 was focused entirely on the producers of pornography, and the act of owning one of the publications in question carried no penalty. Since the Protection Of Children Act was introduced in 1978, you can be prosecuted for possessing indecent photographs of children – and several highly publicised cases in recent years have demonstrated the force of the law against those who, with a few clicks of the mouse, help to support the appalling child porn industry. But the OPA found itself to be powerless to control the viewing of online pornographic images that weren't covered by the PCA – the vast majority of which are produced in the United States.
And so we have the implementation of the Criminal Justice Act to look forward to in January 2009, which could force jail terms of up to three years for people who are found to be in the possession of the "wrong kind" of pornography. Lib Dem Home Affairs spokesperson Baroness Miller did her utmost to introduce amendments to the bill during its passage through Parliament, highlighting the tenuous link between possession of "extreme" pornographic images and acts of violence (despite the case of the murder of Jane Longhurst, which is widely regarded to have been the catalyst for the legislation). She also expressed great concern that police could target people in the hope of discovering images in their possession which were, in the words of the Act, "grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character" . (The presence of the word "disgusting" in a piece of legislation seems to me to be quite extraordinary.) As Labour peer, Lord McIntosh of Haringey commented during the debate: "What does it matter to the Government whether what we have in our homes for our own purposes is for sexual arousal or not? What is wrong with sexual arousal anyway? That is not a matter for Parliament or government to be concerned about."
But nevertheless, the bill received Royal Assent on 8 May. Groups such as the Consenting Adult Action Network are continuing to campaign against the legislation, while other commentators are astonished that a law exists that might criminalise someone for possessing an image depicting an act that, in itself, is not a criminal offence. There's another debate to be had over what actually constitutes possession, bearing in mind the way internet browsers cache images that you might view, unintentionally, just once. But come next year, a significant proportion of the British population might suddenly find that their online porn habit suddenly puts them on the wrong side of the law. Is that right?
CONFUSED ABOUT TECHNOLOGY? SUBMIT YOUR QUERIES TO CYBERCLINIC USING THE COMMENT FORM BELOW, OR EMAIL QUESTIONS HERE.
Whilst I chew over the implications of all this, I thought it might be worth pointing you in the direction of this excellent article:
http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_3_urbanities-all_sex.html
Posted by: Neil Scott | Wednesday, 17 September 2008 at 10:07 AM
I have no idea who Lord McIntosh of Haringey is but would just like to know why such a sensible chap isn't currently our Prime Minister. The puritanical vote-chasers we have at the moment have passed their use-by date.
Posted by: Flotsam | Wednesday, 17 September 2008 at 11:19 PM
Of course this idiotic law is "not right", but since when has that stopped politicians wanting to pander to the tabloid press?
The politicians know - or really ought to know - that Jane Longhurst was not murdered because Graham Coutts had looked at "extreme pornography"; he had been doodling nooses on pictures of women and experimenting with asphyxiation "play" for years before he even got a computer.
Just like the war against Iraq, this law was based on partial untruths, entire untruths, mistaken suppositions and simple, old-fashioned lies.
Posted by: Paul C. Dickie | Thursday, 18 September 2008 at 09:37 PM
This law is right and just. Anyone who protests about it has a potential sickness in themselves. We must have a society that protects us from the degeneration of the human species. Any porn that shows violence and rape and murder of women or children or men cannot be allowed to be made or shown. people who are invloved in this industry must receive the harshest penalty and if I 'ruled the world' I would have the death penalty for those who sold it or made it . I would also put the 'actors' in hard labour camps. If you think such pornography is normal and you are attracted to it, get therapy now.
Posted by: anne | Friday, 19 September 2008 at 08:21 AM
It is about time they start bringing in laws that make sense and that are clear and tie in with existing legislation. Its taxpayers money after all? This is one of those laws that makes no sense at all, things were more advanced even in Victorian or even Roman times. We are going backwards.
Posted by: Kitti Whittaker | Friday, 19 September 2008 at 04:10 PM
It is a sorry state of affairs when a government sees fit to introduce new legislation to try to dictate the morals of what consenting adults do in private. I suppose we can only thank our lucky stars that the world is not yet ruled by those who would put people to death just for taking photographs.
Posted by: Neil | Friday, 19 September 2008 at 04:40 PM
Anne @ 08:21 am, you would seriously want to kill people for enjoying having a different sexuality to yourself? I find that sort of thinking deeply worrying. You are aware that this new law doesn't just cover pornographers, it also covers images made by consenting adults engaged in a non-criminal activity. Or do you just think it's fine to want to kill people who you don't like? What other consensual acts between adults would you impose the death penalty for?
Posted by: Tony Holden | Friday, 19 September 2008 at 05:10 PM
yes Tony Holden i certainly could supoort a law that brings in the death penalty for a person who watches or makes a movie with a child being raped in a 'snuff' movie or any disgusting person who enjoys very violent porn because guess what - i think these kind of people do not deserve to have life - they are degenerates and if you observe the animal kingdom - animals are not tolerant of any other animal that endangers the safety of the 'group' . Why would you find it deeply worrying that a woman / a mother/ a protector of young human beings would not want to annihilate anyone or anything that endangers the young? As for people who may want to enjoy sex in the beautiful way it is meant to be NO PROBLEM, and by the way, pornography is a disease and a sickness of the human race. Don't try to justify it by saying it is people innocently enjoying their sexuality - it is not. There are so many ways to enjoy sex with another human being. But if you allow 'soft porn' ie women having sex/cunnilingus/anal/fallatio and all the other myriad of things that we can observe in porn then you open a gateway for the other more serious stuff. There is not such person as a 'nice' pornographer; either actors or film makers, it is very very dirty money catering for a sick mentality that unfortunately is rife in human behaviour. If you are disturbed by my views then i think YOU have a problem.
Posted by: anne | Friday, 19 September 2008 at 09:24 PM
Surely in the twenty first century we have the right to do as we wish, as long as no one is harmed by our actions and no laws are broken. Though the introduction of this law seams to wish to curtail public fredom of expression. Its victimisation of a minority much in the same way that they govenments previousaly legislated against homosexuality.
Not wishing to justify the actions that lead to the tragic death of Jane Longhurst. But had the man been looking at pictures of mainstreem pornogrophy, would the govenment have legislated against that?
The law inquestion is no better than any of the laws passed under some of the dictators the world has seen, it trys to impose a moral view that enjoying somthing that is slightly different is wrong.
Where will this eventualy lead to? Do we next ban gay porn, because only a minority of people like it? The civil libertys of the people in the uk are being eroded by legislation like this and many others. If people dont stand up against it then the govenment will just cary on introducing more and more laws like this.
Posted by: Jane | Friday, 19 September 2008 at 10:25 PM
@anne, It seems to me that you have a narrow minded view of life which sems to lack an sense of the real world. Tony Holden is not condoning child porn in his comment and the very fact you've introduced that into your reply wories me. There is no link between S&M images of consensual sexual activities, and to point the paedo finger at anyone who enjoys that sort of porn is a very low shot. You should be ashmed of yourself. This government is not interested in protectying the morals of the citizenary in general, it is only interested in spin and vote winning. If NuLabour thought it could get votes by forcing people who lived near dangerous road junctions to paint theirs houses oprange they'd introduce to a law forcing peopel to do so. I suggest you look at the background and the facts before talking complete twaddle. Inafct i sufggest you would amke an excellent spindoctor for NuLabour!
Posted by: Roger Daley | Friday, 19 September 2008 at 10:37 PM
If you want the death penalty you'll have to force us to leave the EU.
Posted by: Richard | Saturday, 20 September 2008 at 02:36 AM
@Anne: "Any porn that shows violence and rape and murder of women or children or men cannot be allowed to be made or shown."
This law targets images of consenting adults, even if the acts are depicted as openly consensual. Meanwhile, images of rape do not seem to be covered by the law. And children are irrelevant - child porn is already illegal; this is a law on adult porn, and will make the UK the only western country where possession of adult images can be a criminal offence.
I'm not sure why you put actors in scare quotes?
"But if you allow 'soft porn' ie women having sex/cunnilingus/anal/fallatio and all the other myriad of things that we can observe in porn then you open a gateway for the other more serious stuff."
So you support criminalisation of that too? Well, at least you are consistent.
Anne is the only one here who supports non-consensual violence against women and men, by suggesting that people be murdered or sent to hard labour camps (also, note that this is a law on _possession_, not those who make or sell it). She claims to disapprove of fictional depictions of "violence", whilst advocating killing them. Who is the one who really needs to get therapy now?
Judging by the vehemence of her words, I think it's clear she has some issues here. It's just sad that, whilst what consenting adults do or watch in private harms no one, views such as hers are going to cause real harm, by leading to abhorrent laws that will ruin the lives of innocent men and women.
Posted by: Mark | Saturday, 20 September 2008 at 03:48 AM
just signed on and of course we have two more 'blokes' getting upset because a woman of decency is saying that the porn industry is sick and warped. You have deliberately ignored my most important point which is that the allowing of soft porn will invariably lead onto sicker more violent porn which indeed has happened. I say a total ban on all online pornography, and i am not a prude. I just do not agree with the exploitation of women and children for sexual fantasies. I am aware that many men (and women) are drawn to that kind of thing but it does not mean it is healthy. At the core of what i am writing, I am saying this in protection of children - the immense problem of internet pornography of child abuse could not be possible if this kind of thing was totally banned. I do not agree with women or men making money out of this kind of thing and yes, I would like there to be VERY STRONG laws preventing people from making a living from porn. Now, all you silly men who have written on this blog to say that I must be some kond of nut case because I believe in the protection of men and women and CHILDREN from this kind of thing - please go and ask yourself what are you reallly defending here? Your own sick warped fantasies and the right to act them out either directly or through the internet? Yes, I thought so. We need to be protected by law against men like you.
Posted by: anne | Saturday, 20 September 2008 at 03:38 PM
we can say that some people have a stronger sense of moral integrity and ethics than others. It seems that so many in modern democratic society are using their 'rights' to defend immoral and unethical practises. The fact that so many live without a moral compass now and defend all kinds of behaviours as their right to 'freedom'. All people wish to have their freedom to do as they please. But this does not mean that their choices are wise and good for society. Laws are made to protect society from 'itself' and many may feel very put out by not being able to have the right to watch very violent porn or to have the right to view any kind of pornography. Sometimes we need laws to reign in the darker side of human beings. People who are attracted to sexual images and need thme to feel well in their daily life probably have some kind of addictive quality. However, we need to protect society from itself at times, and the laws that are made do just that for the common good. The common good is not interested in how some people need to watch sexual images of whatever nature because it does not serve the greater good of society.
Posted by: josh | Saturday, 20 September 2008 at 04:10 PM
Anne (or is it Josh now?), I find it hard to believe that your puritanical views are genuine. I put it to you that you are 'trolling' for a rise out of the eminently reasonable people who have taken the time to speak up here in the name of common sense and freedom of expression. I shall not be giving you the satisfaction of reading any more of your incoherent rantings, and I bid you a good evening.
Posted by: Neil | Saturday, 20 September 2008 at 06:53 PM
Good luck with banning porn in every country in the entire world.
Posted by: Richard | Saturday, 20 September 2008 at 07:23 PM
Anne: But this law does not criminalise softcore or even hardcore porn in general. If the Government was going to criminalise possession of all sexual images, at least that would be consistent - but it would never happen, because so many people would oppose it - so instead they unfairly pick on the sexuality of small minority, and are able to get away with it.
Also, this covers more than "online pornography" - what do you think about a homemade image that a husband and wife make, for example, for their own amusement? What about screenshots someone takes from a legally available film? These will all come under the new law.
As people have already stated, this is nothing to do with children! Child porn is already illegal, and I'm sure everyone here would agree that that should be so. This is about images of adults.
You resort not only to conflating the issue with child porn, but also to using insults ("get therapy now", "silly men", "sick warped fantasies"). It's not just men btw, as can be seen from the comments on this thread.
You are already protected by law from people who might harm you. What we need is protection from those who are intolerant of or have a phobia of other people's sexuality, and who are, for example, calling for them to be executed or sent to labour camps.
Josh: The question I feel is not whether there is a "need" for sexual images, it's about whether there is a need to criminalise people for looking at images of consenting adults. People don't _need_ to have sex at all, beyond procreation, but I am very worried of any Government that wants to criminalise consensual adult sexual behaviour.
Believing that private acts between consenting adults that cause no harm to others should not be criminalised is not evidence of lacking a moral compass: rather, it is those who think the law should criminalise such acts merely because they find them distasteful, who lack a moral compass. They are offended by what other people do in private, but they think it okay to commit violent acts on them in return (locking them up, or in the case of Anne, suggesting they be executed or sent to labour camps).
May I ask, why do you think these things are "immoral and unethical"? (And just to clarify, we're talk images of consenting adults, including staged/fictional material, even screenshots from legally available films - I don't think anyone has any objection to criminalising porn involving abuse of non-consenting participants, if such a thing existed.)
Posted by: Mark | Saturday, 20 September 2008 at 10:39 PM
Richard: "Good luck with banning porn in every country in the entire world."
A good point. Unlike child porn which is rightly criminalised by most countries, few countries share the UK Government's stance on "extreme" adult material. This seems to be why the Government resorted to criminalising possession in the first place - they tried to shut down the sites, but countries like the United States had no desire, because they were all perfectly legal, and made with consenting actors.
In particular, the extreme porn law will not even apply to Scotland! (The law was only passed for England, Wales and NI.) In Gordon Brown's own constituency for example, such images will remain legal, yet head south of the border, and you're a criminal, liable to get three years in prison, and placed on the Sex Offender register...
Posted by: Mark | Saturday, 20 September 2008 at 10:44 PM
@anne, Yet again you have tried to link extreme ponr, violent porn to child porn! There is absolutely no evidence to link these at all. You are ahppy to procrastinate away, but your views lack any intelligence or substance. I would wholeheartedly suggest yopu get off your soap box, look at the CJIA 2008, section 62-67 which effect are in contention and instead of making links up actually look at the wealth of information online, which our government ignored as always as it doesn't get them votes! To date your rantings make me as a forensic psychologist believe that you have some serious issues to deal with.
Posted by: Roger Daley | Saturday, 20 September 2008 at 11:52 PM
Anne,
As a decent woman who holds a decent job and gains a decent wage from such, I find your comments disheartening to say the least. There hasn't ever been any evidence to show that people who look at adult porn have ever been interested in child porn. If you can find some sort of evidence, please quote it.
Pornographic material of adults in consensual situations (even fantasy rape scenarios) is enjoyable to watch, or at least I find it enjoyable. So, I ask you, why am I not allowed to watch such material?
Posted by: Jenny | Sunday, 21 September 2008 at 12:16 AM
then Jenny, as i have said, you may be one of those 'decent' people in society but from your comments it is clear that you have a certian degree of mental illness. No my dear Jenny, I find your commnets disheartening and maybe this is your wake up call - it is NOT normal to like to watch porn and most especially fantasy rape etc etc. Please tell your partner that he is leading you up the wrong way. Sounds like you are one of those many many women who are brainwashed into thinking they must participate in all kinds of sexual deviances in order to please their man sexually and to keep him. You may think it is your own choice but i doubt it, You are brainwashed,. Think about sex as an act of love and you will eventually find a man who can enjoy YOU for YOUR body, and not need to get his rocks off by having sex with you and then watching all other kinds of perversions at the same time. GET IT?
Posted by: anne | Sunday, 21 September 2008 at 09:00 AM
Gosh, Anne. This has got to be one of the most extreme and strangest views I've ever seen on this topic. I honestly hope its a wind-up (for your own sake). You sound like you want to do the right thing. Why not speak to 'Decent' people and see what 'Normal' people REALLY think. I hope your real friends or future partner will be able to tell you.
Alternatively, see what psychologists/psychiatric/sociological experts really think about the 'mental illness' you're talking about.
You sound really isolated and lonely. I don't think there's any shame in seeking help.
Posted by: isolde | Sunday, 21 September 2008 at 09:10 PM
Oh, God, Anne, I've just re-read what I wrote and it sound terrible. I didn't mean it to come out like that. It sounds really nasty. What I'm trying to say is that you obviously have strong views, but to just believe anyone that doesn't agree with your arguments is 'mentally-ill' is just silly.
I do think you are severely out of touch, with both facts and what 'Normal' people think. Why not do some research? You don't speak from any knowledge, only a biased opinion.
Posted by: isolde | Sunday, 21 September 2008 at 09:31 PM
that's realy kind of you Isolde - I do have VERY strong views on porn, I absolutely believe it is an evil. I don't think the world will agree with me and i expect to be called nutcase etc etc. But just because my views are unusual or considered not 'normal' does that make me the nutcase? I have heard that the 20 most popular internet sites in the WORLD are porn sites. Then i am told that what the American public spend per year on PORN could pay off the national debt of many poverty struck nations thousand times over. you see WESTERN society is rotton to the core and the liberal thinking is so deeply there that people like you and so many others, think it is totally natural to buy very debauched material and then say to the person who thinks it is totally not normal that she/he must be really nuts, isolated,out of touch etc etc. In fact, my view is the right view - that sex is a beautiful private thing between two people, it is private and because it is sacred and special , it should not be used to make money out of it. The perversions of the world such as pornography, prostitution, trafficking, female slavery, lack of human rights for women all stem from this. you may think that watching a porn movie is innocent but it is not, It is just the tip of the iceberg. Once you subscribe to this industry, pay for it and use it then you are also subscribing to everything else that goes with it. Please stop buying and accessing porn, it is evil. Women are to be respected. Sex is sacred. Men who watch women for sexual humiliation are warped. It is time to change the world - c'mon ladies! Lets do it for all the women out there who really do not have choice YET.
Posted by: anne | Monday, 22 September 2008 at 10:15 AM
I was re-reading Isolde's post to me and I think it is fascinating that a fellow woman must assume I am isolated and lonely because i do not agree with the porn industry and consider the use of porn as a form of mental illness. I am not angry so don't take my comments personally! But it does open up the debate that on a subconscious level other women will feel scared if a woman will speak out strongly against what is really abuse of women. It is the subconscious belief then that women who do not go along with what men want in the form of pornography either participating in it or watching it - then they will live on the edge of society alone and isolated. I think the more civilized society is, there will be less 'need' for such addictions.
It is also interesting that your code name is 'Isolde' - the medievil fable of Tristan and Isolde was about pure and true love between a man and a woman. It is interesting that you were drawn to that name as I doubt if it is your own. On some level you must yearn for that 'knight in shining armour' or at least a decent man. One would not imagine Tristan's love for Isolde included making love to her while watching a film of other people having anal sex or licking eachother's genitals etc etc or even having it off with an animal which is all part of the porn inductry. You see how far we have all strayed from 'normal' you all think that to accept degradation of women is now normal. That is why it is very important to have very strong laws to prevent this sickness in society becoming more of a cancer than it already is.
Posted by: anne | Monday, 22 September 2008 at 05:01 PM
"One would not imagine Tristan's love for Isolde included making love to her while watching a film of other people having anal sex or licking eachother's genitals"
He did, actually, but Wagner couldn't set it to a catchy enough tune, so he left it out.
Posted by: Jeff Thomas | Monday, 22 September 2008 at 05:09 PM
and looking back on posts from forensic psychologists and other such super intelligent men and women who are all saying that PORN IS NORMAL , that is is healthy and good to allow pornography in society IT IS NOT. You should be ashamed of yourselves. If you are a forensic psychologist god knows what kind of crimes you have been involved with and you still have the audacity to say that porn is good and should be allowed. It beggars belief. There is a limit to what human beings can handle because you as a scientist must see and know that human beings are deeply flawed, if we now have a society without religion and morals and ethics then what do we do? So Mr Forensic Scientist - hypothetically your 16 year old daughter decided she wants to supplement her pocket money while at school making a porn movie of some sort for the use of widespead distribution on the web for any Tom Dick or Harry? She is legally allowed to do it. You go to work, how do you know if your fellow colleagues have been watching your daughter having oral sex with someone online for money and your colleague has been masturbating over the image? Now is that normal right or good? No, thought not. But they are two consenting adults....even if she was 18 years old...do you feel good about it?
Posted by: anne | Monday, 22 September 2008 at 05:15 PM
Personally I'd say that worrying about what other consenting adults get up to is not normal. What is your definition of "NORMAL" anyway?
"if we now have a society without religion and morals and ethics"
I'm an atheist, and I have morals and ethics. My morals include not controlling other people's private lives, or calling for people to be murdered or sent to labour camps. You are welcome to be religious, but don't force it onto me.
"your 16 year old daughter decided she wants to supplement her pocket money while at school making a porn movie ... She is legally allowed to do it."
No she's not. The legal age limit for porn is 18. If his work colleagues were really looking at such images, they'd be guilty of possessing child porn.
You are confusing approval with legality. Parents may disapprove of all sorts of things that their offspring may do, even when they are grown up adults, but this is not an argument for criminalising it. And the law being proposed here also criminalises the viewer.
I don't know how a parent may feel if their adult son or daughter makes or simply watches porn. But what do you think they will think of you? You're the one calling for their child to be executed or sent to labour camps! Would you do that - send his 16 year old daughter to be executed or spend her days in a hard labour camp?
As for Tristan and Isolde, unsurprisingly they didn't have films in medieval times, but depictions of sexuality (including with animals) go back to ancient or even prehistoric times. And what's your view of Romeo and Juliet? Juliet was 13 - if it was written today, it would be demonised as a child porn story.
I'm sure you mean well, but you seem very out of touch with what the current law is, what this new law says, nor do you seem to base your views on evidence. You criticise other people's ethics, when your own ethics seem very dubious. I also don't see how you really have any concern for the actors in porn (children or not), when you are calling for them to be executed or sent to hard labour camps.
Posted by: Mark | Tuesday, 23 September 2008 at 02:50 AM
another meaningless answer to a very important issue - what you have written is absolutely meaningless. Because you have a typically male mind - you have sifted through every point i have made and then made a counter argument to justify the use of pornography. Of course I should not worry about what consenting adults do on a day to day basis - who should? That would be mad! Of course parents should not stick their nose in to their children's lives too much - that would be weird! I did write that 16 is not 18 but it is not that far away and many 16 year old do as 18 year olds. That is why we need to protect them.
What are you actually justifying Mark? I know that many medievil people probably were sexually depraved - history is full of them - but Tristan and Isolde is particularly a very beautiful story of the purity of love between a man and a woman - it seems to upset you that this could be without debauchery- why! As for Romeo and Juliet - they were both young lovers - that is why it is so beautiful! She was on love with someone her OWN AGE.
Now Mark, you have to look and see that i have upset you and you are again totally brainwashed and saturated with your so called ideas of human rights in a western world that truly believes that it is OUR RIGHT to be able to have all kinds of disgusting pornography online for anyone to access.
For the last time - I of course do not think the death penalty should be handed out to such people it was an expression but i do believe in pronography being STRICTLY controlled, for no access of it online and for it to be totally controlled and regulated and all violent porn to be criminalised. If you have a problem with my views and wish to make me look like a stupid idiot so be it - I know I AM RIGHT for the good of the human race.
Posted by: anne | Tuesday, 23 September 2008 at 08:36 AM
the saddest thing about his blog is to observe how deeply depressed everyone is - yes, i know you are all going to point the finger back at me because it must be me with the problem - but what I can observe is that all the people who have answered because they really feel it is human rights to be able to accept any kind of debauchery in human nature - citing 'consenting adults' etc etc, only shows to me how life must have become so lacking in innocence, so lacking in human decency, so lacking in beauty and respect and mystery that it would be an outcry to actaully say NO ENOUGH IS ENOUGH of this kind of madness in our society. I feel you are all deeply deeply depressed and have become totally brainwashed and consumed by images and stories that titillate you and give a temporary meaning and illusion of'freedom' to your lives- where is your own innocence gone? Religion has failed to give true meaning to society but onhce that is gone it does not mean we fill the vacuum with filth and demonic images which invariably DEPRESS the human race and lead to confusion. Yes, not only is there depression but also deep confusion
Posted by: anne | Tuesday, 23 September 2008 at 09:08 AM
Anyone fancy a pint?
Posted by: Jeff Thomas | Tuesday, 23 September 2008 at 09:31 AM
yes please
Posted by: anne | Tuesday, 23 September 2008 at 10:40 AM
As it happens I do love Arthurian Legend, ever since I first encounter it at school. However, I would like to say, I have not fear at all at your views Anne, quite the opposite, I have sympathy for you. I suspect its actually you that fear the vast majority of women that actually think we don't need 'saving' from out of touch lonely woman. I have no problem with pornography, and truth be told, I've drooled over men in uniform and don't see how that is any less objectifying.
For you EVERYONE else is 'mentally ill' or 'brainwashed' is it not even possible that infact, YOU ARE? As I said before, why not go out there, and find out what people think, normal people. Whilst its possible the whole world is wrong and you are right, doesn't mean there really are mind controlling lizards out there.
Posted by: isolde | Tuesday, 23 September 2008 at 04:40 PM
now now Isolde, what are you angry about? I have said that i do not like the exploitation of women in pornography and I believe it is a very very deep seated problem in society and from the use of women in pornography stems all kind of other more deeper social ills, I also believe that there must be very very strict laws against and that a society who feels that it is just fine and dandy to consume porn (even so called decent people in society) that it shows how deep the sickness goes. And it truly is a sickness because you are contributing to the abuse by subscribing to it on a very subtle level. That is a very clear cut argument and because it is quite clear that SO MANY people believe now that the using of porn for their sex lives is normal is shows how ill they are. People can no longer enjoy themselves for sex, they have to consume other people's exploitation for their own pleasure. Weird and sick.
I do not quite understand what you mean by mind controlling lizards out there but in fact you have used a very appropriate metaphor....about the way aociety thinks.
I am also perplexed by why you assume I must be lonely and isolated. That reflects your own fear of abandonement. I am a mother, i live in an urban environment, I work and I have a partner. Just like all the rest of society. Because I think porn is a very very bad thing, means i should be lonely and isolated? Does it bring you a sense of community? I would change your friends then xxxx
Posted by: anne | Wednesday, 24 September 2008 at 08:13 AM
"another meaningless answer to a very important issue - what you have written is absolutely meaningless. Because you have a typically male mind - you have sifted through every point i have made and then made a counter argument to justify the use of pornography."
We're having a discussion - that involves making counter argument's to the other person's argument. Instead, you resort to dismissing my words as "meaningless", and then write me off because of my gender (anyhow, other commenters have disagreed with this law and you, who are female, so this is not an issue). Can I not ask for some courtesy in this debate?
"What are you actually justifying Mark?" - I do not mean to justify anything, I'm concerned about a law that seeks to criminalise me and many my friends (including women), as well as many others - I'm not even into porn, but we are still at risk if partners snap a private photo of themselves for their own private acts. Meanwhile, all the sexist mainstream porn (from page 3 of The Sun to hardcore) will remain legal. At least you are consistent in your views, but this law isn't, unfairly picking on and criminalising those with minority sexual interests (in particular, many of those adults into consensual BDSM).
What are you actually justifying Anne? The burden is upon those who support this new law to justify it - and if you are going to do that, I would ask that you please first understand what it actually proposes. People here are trying to explain that - it's not about "violence", it's a law that covers images between consenting adults, even non-published private images that are nothing to do with the porn industry. The Government picks words like "violent" and "extreme" to get people to think it must be really really bad and that it's only talking about abusive material.
"Of course I should not worry about what consenting adults do on a day to day basis - who should? That would be mad!" - yet you are, by arguing they should be criminalised for making or viewing pictures of each other, even if in private. Just as the Government is - for example, in the 90s, a group of gay men were sent to prison for engaging in acts of consensual BDSM in private. I am not sure what your views on this are (?), but the Government now quotes this case as a justification for this new law. This law isn't about regulating the industry or protecting victims from abuse, it's about criminalising people for images of consensual acts (even images of themselves!).
"truly believes that it is OUR RIGHT to be able to have all kinds of disgusting pornography online for anyone to access." - this is not a law about publication, it is a law on possession, hence criminalises the viewer, as well as applying to non-published images, or those extracted from legally available films. The question is not about rights to view porn, the question is whether you have the right to decide what other people can do or view, when it comes to consenting adults.
Consider, if an image is legally available in a film, why should it be a criminal offence if someone took a screenshot from that film, even if they never distributed that image? I'm not concerned with why someone might do that - I'm just asking why such a law makes sense?
"I know I AM RIGHT for the good of the human race." - Can you explain why?
As for Romeo and Juliet, Romeo's age is never specified, but my point is that history is full of literature and depictions of all sorts of sexual acts, including animals and underage sex (not that that makes it okay, but I am disputing your earlier claim that this is something new in society; degradation of women is also nothing new, when you consider how awful women have been treated throughout history, and I feel it is ridiculous to lay the blame on consenting adults who do things you disapprove of). I find it curious that you think sex under the age of consent is "beautiful", but sex between consenting adults when it's something you disapprove of is "disgusting" and that they need to be sent to prison or hard labour camps.
This law will do nothing to tackle exploitation of women in porn, I'm afraid.
Posted by: Mark | Wednesday, 24 September 2008 at 12:05 PM
listen mark, it is very hard to put things across coherently on an internet site. The law is an ass as we all know. I do not think anyone should be prosecuted for sexual activity within their own home but why do we need to photograph sex and put it into pictures anyway - it is very very ridiculous and people need to grow up however what is within the home is within the home and as long as it is not used for commercial purposes I am sure that no law would be made to prohibit people doing it. As for page 3 girls...well it is all part of the money making market isn't it that has commercialized women's bodies and it is not right is it? I mean if the Sun can make money out of two breasts on a page then why hasn't there been a picture of a penis? I do not want to see a penis or a breast but why is there one law for women's private parts and another for men? The law is an ass. I very very much believe that INTERNET pornography must be banned and made illegal - all porn sites should be shut down. What is wrong with that?
It is open to abuse as we well know.
I am not a prude and I do not have a problem wiht young people falling for eachother - that is natural and beautiful. I do not have a problem with homosexuals enjoying themselves in the privacy of their own home. I do have a problem with someone like George Michael who takes drugs and has sex in public toilets. Why you may ask, he is a free human being. Not really, he has a RESPONSIBILITY to himself and the public as he is a public figure. I am talking about him as an example of why society is really sick. He is sick mentally to do it and we can see that is it obvious but so many people have the saem kind of illness in their heads. Laws must be made to protect the general public from itself - people are generally good in their hearts but it is very easy to brainwash people. We live in a society whereby it is already normal to see very degrading images of women on TV and online - 50 years ago those images would have been classed as sordid and depraved. So do you think society has progressed with all its freedoms? No , so laws may put infringement on sexual activity and I really do not have a problem with that as I believe society needs to be re educated.
Posted by: anne | Friday, 26 September 2008 at 08:29 AM
It comes as no suprise that the people most in favour of this bill are the ones in favour of banning any and all pornography in all its forms. Especially since no pornography is safe from this law. One of the most mainstream, harmless porn sites recently featured a woman playing with a replica gun. As Americans, this no doubt seemed totally harmless, under this law it is now considered on a par with raping children. But people no longer care about safeguarding children. Protecting adults from themselves is the new watchword.
During the debates on this law Gordon Brown asked if combining pain and sexuality had any place in a civilised society. I now ask another question.
Do people who recklessly risk unwanted pregnancies on an almost daily basis have any place in a civilised society?
We don't need to ask the Labour party on this one, both their most recent leaders have had unplanned children, their opinions are there in the facts, but really the evils of unplanned pregnancy are there to see. Abortion is up, more and more children are being born out of wedlock. This is the evil which this law will only serve to worsen.
No doubt several people are already screaming "Condoms" at the screen. Sorry, they don't work. Figures released by the American Journal of Public Health indicate that their actual success rate is closer to 90% than the 99%+ claimed by manufacturers.
To clarify that claim, the claim of 99%+ comes based on the premise that condoms never break or slip unless used wrongly. Thus anyone who became pregnant on that trial was removed from the data if they conceded a condom slipped or broke.
There is one form of contraception in the world that works. That is any sexual activity that does not involve putting a penis into a vagina. Abstinence does not work because people lack the willpower but alternatives do.
In truth, the choice here is not between action and inaction, it is between minor bruising and unwanted pregnancy. What sane person will choose the latter?
Posted by: Mike | Monday, 29 September 2008 at 10:29 PM
what a silly man - you are very confused. You are watching too much pornography and I advise you to stop. It is making your thoughts run into eachother and you are not clear. Get rid of that site that has the lady with the gun - (subliminal hatred of women = shooting herself in the vagina etc) now you are rambling on about preganancy....see how this pornography works...first it starts with looking at 'innocent playful images of a woman with a gun'...oh nothing wrong with that you say...then you start rambling on about the evils of unwanted pregnancy, minor bruising, condoms and the evil of children born out of wedlock- you are very very confused. Don't confuse the problem. Pornography is totally unnecessary and leads to perversion. Pregnancy is natural and part of having sex. Problems arise from it but not evil ones. Sexual diseases and AIDS are the by-product of sexual activity and science is dealing with them. Same as cancer is the by product of having a body - not preferable but part of life. Unwanted pregnancy can be terminated thank goodness. Children are born into this world for a myriad of reasons. Abortion is not evil and a child is ALWAYS a blessing. We must protect children ALL THE TIME.
Pornography is not useful to us at all and encourages the very worst by-product of sexual activity - exploitation and abuse.
Grow up Mark
Posted by: anne | Tuesday, 30 September 2008 at 09:29 AM
Anne, you have gone from justifying killing adults over pornography to justifying killing babies over convenience. For your own sake get off the internet and spend some time in the real world.
Unwanted pregnancy is a death penalty. Either you kill an unborn defenceless child, you give up on life as you knew it or you condemn a child to grow up without a real family. None of these is moral.
Posted by: Mike | Tuesday, 30 September 2008 at 08:17 PM
the blog started about pornography, you have brought in unrelated subjects. There are many many problems in the world and wer could spend the next 300 years blogging about them. I have said that pornography is a very destructive force and I have used strong language to illustrate how i feel about it, I do believe that the death penalty would be very good for people who peddle the worse kind of violent porn and make it using women and children. That is where my comments on the death penalty end. You have deliberately choosen to misrepresent my views because I seriously believe you are addicted to pornography yourself and you are very uncomfortable about it. Stay with the point. There is no point harping on anymore about his subject. Just try to give up your addiction - it is destructive.
Posted by: anne | Tuesday, 30 September 2008 at 10:29 PM
No, this blog started about the singling out of one kind of sexual act in porn for legislation.
If anyone actually cares, the reason most men find, for instance, the sight of two women fighting sexually arousing is that their instincts are telling them to put an end to the violence. Intervene, stop the violence and then try to seduce one of the combatants. That's all and it's a perfectly reasonable impulse to have. Better to intervene than to look away because it's "indecent"
Posted by: Mike | Thursday, 02 October 2008 at 09:26 AM
@ Anne, so basically, you are saying that any male who disagrees with your views are addicted to porn? And you keep on talking about the children, to be frank, why don't you shut up about the children. There is already a law in most countries banning that. As for your views on pornography, pornography is a part of many people's sex lives. Does that mean that they are perverted or any of the other choice terms that you have used? NO! Maybe some people want to enjoy themselves without killing a baby. Have you ever thought about that? I think not and as for your abortion is not evil bull, you yourself said that children are a blessing. So why in the world are you saying that it is ok to kill a blessing? And as for your Romeo and Juliet and young lovers stint, child porn doesn't just mean an adult having sex with a child, it can also mean 2 children messing around, I AM JUST STATING A POINT, I AM NOT SAYING THAT IT IS RIGHT SO DON'T START RANTING. Not to mention that Romeo was NOT Juliet's age, it was heavily implied that he was around 2-4 years older than her. And Juliet's mother who had her at the age of 14 with a husband that was much much older.
Posted by: Romulus | Saturday, 11 October 2008 at 10:47 PM
oh romulus, you are soooo mixed up - why are so many men into hard core pornography and anti abortion? Sounds very sick to me - wathcing women humiliate themselves in pornography and then getting all upset when a woman may want her choice of not being pregnant - women have this right because in the past so many women had to have countless children against their will. So in a perfect Romulus world there would be unlimited porn to drool over and countless women to inseminate. Get real you idiot.
The reason why you guys get upset over my blog is because you can't live without porn and your daily dose of oggling naked women doing humiliating things - it gives you a sense of power. You must be really weak men. The idea that a woman may say, no to pornography really upsets you. As for the Romeo and Juliet thing - I did not bring it up in the first place - but it really shows how stupid and thick you all are - it is a story about young love - it has nothing to do with the debauchery of pornography so lets drop it out of the argument shall we.
And getting back to the main argument - if you need porn to have a good sex life and to find enjoyment with your partner then you really are lacking as a human being and as a man. you cannot satisfy your partner without looking at someone else doing a sexual act -weird and shows how inadequate you must be in your ability to love and share your body and your feelings. You need outside stimulus based on humiliation and voyeurism. What a sad man.
Posted by: anne | Sunday, 12 October 2008 at 01:16 PM
Are you freaking kidding me? You are just making a bunch of assumptions! I don't even watch porn, I am just stating my opinion that adults should be allowed to do what they want in their private time as long as it isn't something extreme such as rape, child pornography, etc. So you are the stubborn idiot and why do you make the assumption that people who watch porn only do it when they are having sex with their partner. Your arguments are based on a bunch of assumptions and you rely on other topics to back up your argument. You are an ignorant woman who doesn't know what she is talking about. And as for my statement on pregnancy, is it my fault that I am a Pro-Life Christian, is it wrong for me not to want to kill a baby? And maybe some people do need outside stimulus, not everyone is the same, does that mean they are inferior? NO! And what about the man? Why is it always the women that are humiliating themselves? Not to mention the fact that it is NONE of YOUR business how others make a living. You are a sexist woman that enjoys feeling that you're some type of righteous lady and the anonymity of being on the internet.
YOU NEED A LIFE, LADY!!!!
Posted by: Romulus | Sunday, 12 October 2008 at 07:10 PM
The previous statement was @ Anne and while it was a bit harsh, Anne, you are full of it.
Posted by: Romulus | Sunday, 12 October 2008 at 07:12 PM
I stumbled on to a pron. site and they hide there pronography with a lot of commuiity pages and other means and I am sick to think that a 10-12-14 year old child could have found it and maybe have???
I know as a parent I would not want any child to see what i have. If an adult wants to watch pron. then go get it off the shelf at a store or movie house. To have no laws to protect our youth from seeing grown men and women show erections and virginas to innocent children makes me feel sick. When a child finds this, their youth is spoiled and who knows what effects this will have on them for the rest of their lives.
Why do you want to display your selves in public? for that is what the internet is, If groups want the internet as a pronography site than there should be laws made so those things are placed on speical sites so only adults can have use of them. people don't care about our children or how they scare them as long as they can get their way no matter what the cost to others.
What about the right of our children to look up information and to learn? we may have blockers but some day if what I found spreads we will have everything blocked just so the people who want pron. can have it. When you hide pron. with youth groups, churches, community events where can a child be on the internet????
And why do you have to hide it if it's not wrong? why not have your site and proudly displat it? I already know why. because those people know that parents would block it and they would'nt have childrens lives to destroy.
Posted by: Martha weekly | Saturday, 21 February 2009 at 03:05 AM
DId you know that married men are the ones most likely to get hooked on pron. did you know that pron. distroys families. men lose jobs, and it is as any other addiction they can't stop.
also after a while thats not enough and they then turn to children.
Pronography pros make big money off you and all you really need is to love your wife as you do your self and the rewards will be much greater then a short time in lust. or maybe thats why they loose there jobs and families for after a while they can't do any thing except support those pronography pros.
Posted by: bo | Saturday, 21 February 2009 at 03:24 AM
ftouimlac qiabywuhx upzn gjaqpnbz gqod nghfixtab ohujkm
Posted by: mesgy jkcfg | Tuesday, 17 March 2009 at 06:49 AM