Jane Austen seems an unlikely standard-bearer for those who defend the right
to look at images depicting women being tortured and raped.
The novelist was quoted during a conference at Durham University this week,
which debated proposed legislation that would make possession of “extreme
pornography” a criminal offence carrying a three-year prison sentence.
The decision to introduce a new law followed a long campaign by a mother whose
daughter was killed in 2003 by a man who was said to have been a obsessive
viewer of violent porn sites.
Supporters of the new sanction, part of the Criminal Justice Bill that is due
to be brought before the Commons in the next few months, see it as a logical
extension of laws against child pornography.
The proposed offence covers explicit images of bestiality, necrophilia and
serious violence, defined as “acts that appear to be life-threatening or are
likely to result in serious, disabling injury”. Such material must have been
created solely or primarily for the purpose of sexual arousal, and must show
real scenes “or depictions which appear to be real acts”.
It is already illegal to publish or distribute such images in Britain. The
Home Office argues that making their possession illegal will give added
protection to the young and vulnerable. Opposition among politicians to the
new law is likely to be muted. Brave or foolish would be the MP prepared to
defend publicly the material shown on a website such as Necrobabes. The site
promises users “tastefully erotic death scenes through asphyxia, shooting,
knives and more”.
A sister website, Asphyxia, lures browers with the slogan: “Sexy strangled,
suffocated, hanged and drowned babes. It takes your breath away.” What sane
person could defend the rights of someone who gains arousal from the sight
of women being humiliated, degraded and — apparently — murdered?
Step forward Austen, or rather the eponymous heroine of Emma as she remarks to
her father: “One half of the world cannot understand the pleasures of the
other.” Those words went to the heart of the debate during the conference at
Durham, “Positions on the Politics of Porn”, which drew together a range of
groups — from law professors to bondage aficionados — with a special
interest in the proposed new offence.
The argument went something like this: I may not understand your sexuality,
indeed I may find the images you like to view grotesque and repugnant, but
is that sufficient reason to criminalise the act of viewing? All parties
agreed that possessing internet footage of, for example, a genuine
strangulation should be unlawful.
Far more contentious were scenes involving actors or consensual partners,
where the explicit footage appears to show a violent asphyxiation but is
actually the realistic playing out of a fantasy. Under the proposals, it
would be illegal to possess such images.
Rightly so, according to Jill Radford, of the University of Teesside, who
views all pornography as “the eroticisation of hate” and a symbol of “male
domination and exploitation of women and children”.
Porn was “a significant and pervasive factor in shaping our understanding of
sexuality”, she said, and when it came to images of extreme violence the
issue of consent was irrelevant because the message — that it was legitimate
to use violence against women — remained the same. Gavin Phillipson, of
Durham University, also backed the legislation. The actors may be consenting
participants, but if the scenes simulate nonconsensual acts, and are
produced solely for the purpose of arousing the viewer, the images are not a
legitimate use of freedom of expression.
Professor Phillipson said that the “very narrow and specific categories” of
the law would protect members of the BDSM (bondage, domination and
sado-masochism) community who held true to the “sacred principles” of safety
and consent.
Deborah Hyde was not convinced. A spokesperson for Backlash, a group formed to
fight the legislation, she described the proposal as “a law based on
prejudice rather than fact”. Backlash claims that “hundreds of thousands, if
not millions, of people engaged in nonabusive, consenting activities” would
be criminalised by a ban on extreme porn.
The suggestion that there may be a causal link between pornography and sexual
violence is not supported by any authoritative research, as the Government
has admitted.
For Avedon Carol, of Feminists Against Censorship, this means that “we’re
going to ruin people’s lives without a shred of evidence that it [viewing
extreme porn] harms anyone. We are trying to punish people who might have
fantasies that we don’t like. It’s a thought crime and that’s all it is.”
So as long as no one is physically harmed, pornography is acceptable? Not so,
according to Clare Phillipson, of Wearside Women in Need. “I’m not going to
sit here and be an apologist for a psychopath’s right to w***,” she said.
“This is about real women. You people need to get real.”
She went on to claim that hundreds of African women had been trafficked into
Europe, then sold, mutilated and murdered, their deaths being filmed and
photographed to cater for the market in extreme pornography.
“Anyone turned on by the glorification of extreme violence is sick. It sends a
message to abohorrent individuals that it is acceptable. What [the
Government] are doing is censoring evil. I will not get lost in a debate
about human rights on this. There are some things that are just wrong.”
I'm a woman, and I'm utterly opposed to the law. When will the law stop deciding that women are weak and helpless and everything needs to be legislated to protect us?
Some of us enjoy safe, sane, consensual violence. I don't criticise your fantasies - what right have you to criminalise mine?
Anastasia, High Wycombe,
There` a general election coming up soon for an unpopular
government.This law should harvest them quite a few of the female vote.Maybe the death of the woman which provoked this new law was the end result of a sex game that went wrong.
I doubt if the victims mother would accept that for women
never engage in sex games do they ?
So the guy looked at extreme porn,so what so do a lot of people.but i suppose it strengthened the prosecution case as was the storage of the body.Now if you managed to kill someone during a sex game would you know what to do with the body or would you ponder for weeks until forced to act by the decay of it.
Willeby Johns, Bristol, uk
People who want to commit murder are going to murder anyway. Looking at violent porn doesnt 'make' a murderer.
This law, coupled with Englands ban on leaving marks on a person during sex that are anything more than 'trifling or insignificant' effectively makes all consensual acts of bdsm illegal, unless they are entirely not painful and non dangerous. There is danger in everything, with the proposed ban scenes which 'could cause serious injury or death' covers practically anything done consensually to a willing recipient, if not done safely, a flogging could damage an eye... unskilled bondage can cause nerve damage. And you know what? Because of the existing law, its actually ILLEGAL to teach people to do these things safely. You guys need to get a grip! Its going to be done anyway, and the existing laws put otherwise law abiding citizens in danger of blackmail, and discourage seeking medical help if things go wrong, in fear of prosecution. What ever happened to choice?
Masochistandhappy, Fife,
I could name plenty of mainstream movies that would be considered illegal by such legislation. All the Halloween movies,Friday the 13, The CSI TV franchise shows plenty of images of women being killed then their bodys posed afterwards. Just recently on the CBS TV series Criminal Minds they showed images of at least three women being shot by arrrows then showed their bodys after wards and in at least one they showed her right after being shot laying on the ground the arrow sticking out of her chest her body jerking as she lay dying.
Tifannii , Santa Clarita, United States
The legislation is purely against freedom of speech and human civil rights. If I as a woman so choose to be bound by my lover and derive pleasure from the careful, informed consensual, and controlled of pain who are the politicians to deny me?
Images of this are a Film! The actressess are just like the actresses in Scream or Mission impossible or any other Hollywood blockbuster film - they are actresses playing a role - they are not permanently harmed and they are not killed.
This is nothing more than propaganda - find someone to blame for the Government not being able to protect us from the people who want to cause us real harm. There is a difference between have consensual fun and being attacked by a raping murderer against your will. The government want to blame a groupd of society that has only recently become heard even though we have been around since the beginning of time and Jane Austen is just one proponent of common sense, for their shortcomings - it is outrageous.
FetishD
FetishD, London,
I don't think it does the argument for legislation any good to revive the concept of the snuff movie, as Clare Phillipson does. If it's real, such a movie is evidence of a criminal act.
But if it's not real? Has anyone yet come up with a real snuff movie that was made to distribute. Maybe a naked woman in a shower, being stabbed to death? Is "Psycho" exteme porn, then?
And that film is an example of one of the big problems. People remember far more of that scene than ever appears on the cinema screen. The whole sequence, pictures and music, is an emotional manipulation.
How much of the criticism of porn, of all sorts, is driven by false memories similarly evoked by an emotional response? How much of what we are being protected from only exists in the minds of campaigners and politicians?
Pornography is too often misogynistic, but is that cause, or symptom? Which should we try to cure?
Dave Bell, Scunthorpe,
It isn't illegal to publish or distribute such images. It's only illegal to publish if they fall under the Obscene Publications Act which requires that it would deprave or corrupt, unlike the new law. This is nothing to do with child porn.
Sites like Necrobabes are simulated and consensual. The Government hasn't cited an example of a site showing non-consensual violence. What sane adult would criminalise photos of people pretending to look dead?
Mark, Cambridge,
With YOU I meant YOU, not "the general public". I meant that people should stop the "mememe" posts and look a bit further than their nose is long.
Starling, Lancaster,
Many of us are aroused by viewing images of spanking and whipping. Huge numbers of people also consensually engage in those practices. It has always been so and always will be. Some people may find that strange, but so do I find certain things others do as strange. It has been as much a part of human sexuality as being gay is.
To criminalise the viewing of such materials even if they are line drawings or photographs of husband and wife taken by themselves, will make vast swathes of the British population criminals at a stroke. Human diversity is a wonderful thing and we are lucky to live on a planet where we are not all clones of each other and yet can live with tolerance in reasonable harmony.
Many Times readers will enjoy watching James Bond films. I doubt they go home and re-enact them causing murder and mayhem such that we ought to ban the films. There is no difference here.
Sarah, London,
It is not illegal to publish or distribute "such images” since there is no clear definition of “such images”. It is not illegal to possess adult pornography. The OPA criminalises publication and distribution of material “likely to deprave or corrupt those who have access to it”.
The argument that no “sane person could gain arousal from .........“ implies that everyone watching mainstream TV drama, most films and many cartoons is insane. THAT is the real problem. The truly “insane” will perform their attacks and murders regardless of the existence, non-existence or legality of pornography. Meanwhile the police will all be off cataloguing the computers they confiscate, desperate to find a single picture to validate the total waste of resource getting the case to court.
The government should be looking to deal with actual violence instead of criminalising those who do no harm. We live in a climate of fear and the Panopticon is probably high on the prison reform agenda
Jean Fox, London,
Nice point Deborah,
In fact, the crime figures for sexual assault and the likes seem to be falling, according to the government's own figures. Now given that UK internet access is rising, therefore by default access to this material is rising, if the effect was really to inspire 'some people' to commit these acts, then in fact figures for these crimes ought to be rising too.
Therefore the government's own crime statistics seem to contradict their very reason for introducing this law.
It's worth mentioning that some studies actually suggest that this material may have the opposite effect, providing potential psychopaths with alternative channels to dissipate their dangerous urges.
If this point were to be the case (and I'm not saying it is - we simply don't know), then by banning possession of this material you might actually make matters worse.
Meanwhile government even refuses to acknowledge this point, as it doesn't fit their overall argument in wanting to impose this law.
Franco, Carlisle,
I am an intelligent, capable, well educated, articulate female. I can make a logical, rational choice. If I wish to look at something or engage in an activity that the law may consider potentially life threatening as it's "against my will" seems preposterous, why shouldn't I? MY will, my right, my choice!
My life style is my choice, it does not endanger anyone. It liberates me and empowers me to be a better person within society as without it I would be less "able". I am a submissive female but that empowers me.
You will never stop those who wish to access images for the wrong reasons. Nor will you stop the rapists, murderers or paedophiles by denying access to imagery!
Why punish the person in the street who CAN make emotionally and socially safe choices because of those that cant. Instead TEACH those that cant and if that's not possible act upon their crimes.
You will never be able to think for all of us and quite frankly I do not wish you to dear government.
Deb0rah
Deb0rah, Brighton, Sussex
This proposed bill is an absolute disgrace and the kind of legislation one would expect from a regime such as that suffered by the Spanish under General Franco's fascist dictats, not a so called 'democracy' such as ours. It will give the Police powers to investigate and lock up people for the 'crime' of having legally published film books with illustrations of scenes from old horror films by directors such as Jess Franco (no relation of the above General) whose films feature S&M imagery and 'torture'. People who own such Arthouse or Underground films as 'Kissed' and 'Nekromantic' which feature necrophiliac themes and imagery will also be likely to be at risk I guess. How many extra prisons will need to be built for the thousands who will be criminalised by this ill-thought out and loosely-worded Bill? I say the government should "Get Real" themselves.
Nigel, Ely, UK
People that claim BDSM is antifeminist and/or degrades women always seem to ignore that BDSM is enjoyed not only by women who enjoy being topped by men, but also enjoyed by women who enjoy being topped by women, and men who enjoy being topped by women, and men who enjoy being topped by women, as well as by transgender people.
Despite the unproven (and totally untrue in my experience) assertions of these Moral Guardians, BDSM is simply not about evil men abusing unwilling women. It is about people enjoying consensual sexuality that other people happen to hate and fear because of ignorance and prejudice.
russ, Wroclaw, PL
so if a couple indulge in 'unusual' practices in their own home, that's fine and dandy, but if they take pictures or film of themselves doing it, then they'll end up in prison? I personally don't understand such people, but I thought laws were supposed to protect victims. Where's the victim of grown adults' consensual private pleasures?
Marco, bhm, uk
Starling, Lancaster:..."isn't about 'US' (the general public)?" Oh? I think the law *is* about 'us', as it applies to us all. If laws were to be targeted at certain groups, that would be a different matter.
Marco, bhm, uk
It isn't illegal to publish or distribute such images. It's only illegal to publish if they fall under the Obscene Publications Act which requires that it would deprave or corrupt, unlike the new law. This is nothing to do with child porn.
Mark, Cambridge,
Bill Combs should realise that no one is arguing about the issue of non-consensual sex - the problem is that this law will criminalise images of consensual acts.
"It should be taken to the pillary and whip." - but just don't take a photo of that, else you'll spend 3 years in prison!
Starling says "Yes, lots of YOU might be able to tell the difference between fantasy and reality, but this isn't about you, this is about people who can't." - I'm sorry, did I miss the bit where this law said it would only apply to those people who can't tell the difference? It seems to me that the only people who can't tell the difference are those people arguing for this law.
"Or the horror movie obsessed boy who killed two mates?" - Yes, and? Should this mean possession of horror movies should be a criminal offence?
Mark, Cambridge,
Bill Combs should realise that no one is arguing about the issue of non-consensual sex - the problem is that this law will criminalise images of consensual acts.
"It should be taken to the pillary and whip." - but just don't take a photo of that, else you'll spend 3 years in prison!
Starling says "Yes, lots of YOU might be able to tell the difference between fantasy and reality, but this isn't about you, this is about people who can't." - I'm sorry, did I miss the bit where this law said it would only apply to those people who can't tell the difference? It seems to me that the only people who can't tell the difference are those people arguing for this law.
"Or the horror movie obsessed boy who killed two mates?" - Yes, and? Should this mean possession of horror movies should be a criminal offence?
Mark, Cambridge,
Yes, lots of YOU might be able to tell the difference between fantasy and reality, but this isn't about you, this is about people who can't.
Did you read the article about the three guys who were planning to kill a couple of girls because it turned them on? Or the horror movie obsessed boy who killed two mates?
Starling, Lancaster,
My main concern -
Is not that the sentence for possession of a photo is 3 years, which is longer then maximum sentence if found guilty of actually carrying out many of the acts being photographed.
Is not that a lot more innocent people will die as a result of it, then be protected by it. By committing suicide, before evening going to court, due to the breakup of their marriage, loss of job and bigots throwing bricks through their windows. How many innocent souls suffered due to the disaster that was Operation Ore?
Is not that we'd be filling our over stretched prisons with pale faced, overweight computer geeks, rather then hardened junkie thugs that mug our grannies for 5 pounds.
Is not that it's none of the governments damn business what it's populace gets off on as long as long as it's consensual and nobodies actually getting killed.
Is not that the governement is ignoring the public opinion against the law...
It's the 1000 letter limit censorship of my reply!
Martin, Aberdeen, UK
Why was my comment not posted? Is the Times censoring our opinions?
Again the images in question are not illegal as stated, each image or collection of images requires a jury to judge their obscenity before being declared illegal.
This proposed law pre-judges what a jury may decide under the OPA, this is clearly not just. Furthermore the law is worded in such a way as to bypass the need for those prosecuting to prove harm in order to secure a conviction, again not just.
If the government really does believe that most people would find these images unacceptable, as it has said many, many times, then why not allow a jury to judge their
acceptability (obscenity)?
Instead they deny the accused the same rights a publisher (a much more serious offence) would have under the OPA.
STEVENMD, Manchester,
So the government isn't doing anything to block access to these sites? Nor is it planning a national or international plan to protec women a risk. Instead it is going to punish people for looking at some pictures even if the proagonists featured are unharmed and consented because the content is abhorrent.
But it will be ok for us to look at mainstream porn if if the woman featured was forced or trafficked.And how will police know who is looking at these pictures? Like fare evading, will they rely on us reporting our neighbours?
How will the police know what is meant by extreme given the government says it is not up to it to offer a definition? What if a couple take pictures of themselves and both are consenting, do we really want to waste already streched police and prison resources by sending couples hrough the courts and to prison?
Maybe the police should be focussing on protecing us from things that we know do cause harm instead of censoring our fantasies.
Deborah Hyde, london,
Torture,rape,sodomy,nonconsentual and abhorrant sex with any adult or child should be punished harshly.
Many time I see notes from people that want to temper down the sex laws and pooh poh the crusaders that are for harder actions. These people to me are probably the people we need to take a harder look at.
Pedophilia, rape,and criminal sex is not something we should take with the daily aspirin. It should be taken to the pillary and whip.
To me any written materials that celebrate these harsh acts need to be monitered,not gotten rid of, but kept in an area where you have to have not been a sex offender to read these materials. Drivers licenses and/or I. D.'s can be made to verify this. Too socialistic? No,just protecting my children and grandchildren from another form of hate.
Bill combs, Omaha, USA/Nebraska
I personally think half the films rated 15, that I’ve watched recently at the cinema would need to be include, but cinema or film are not under any threat despite containing extreme subject matter.
Now take a single frame from a movie, then put it on to a PC as a single image, will it then in turn change the average person in to into a criminal.
After seeing the fantastically hilarious West End musical Q recently with their puppet sex scenes, and contentious subject matters on race, porn and homosexuality.
personally none of the above made me feel like rushing out to nail a puppet that night or commit any crimes or shout 'squeal piggy', for me what you see is not what you become.
Is this the return of Mary Whitehouse from beyond the grave?
mick, London,
(since my last comment seems not to have been posted, I'll try again with a shorter version)
I'd like to point out that Clare Phillipson is calling all my past girlfriends (and me) psychopaths.
But perhaps she thinks that women who enjoy extreme porn don't exist or aren't real women?
Also - it is a matter of fact that no police force has ever detected a genuine case of snuff movies (that is, movies made of the actual murder of an individual for the purpose of sexual gratification). If they do exist, they certainly aren't as widespread as she seems to imagine.
In the meantime, almost all the "extreme porn" sites I've ever seen have been based in the USA, and therefore have carried 18 USC 2257 compliance statements. That means that they have proof that the men and women in their material were over 18 at the time of filming, and gave their full consent. The European sites, while not having that legal requirement, are just as conscientious.
Oliver Thornton, Crowborough, UK
I am a sexually submissive feminist, and I enjoy images of consensual roleplay. I am perfectly capable of telling the difference between reality and fantasy, and if I came across images of genuine non-consensual abuse, I would find them as abhorrent as anyone else does.
I am most certainly a ‘real woman’ and my sexuality is not going to go away because anti-sex extremists would like it to. If Claire Philipson has evidence of the trafficking and murder she describes then I strongly urge her to take it to the police so these appalling crimes can be investigated. If not, I would equally strongly suggest that she reconsider her apparent determination to turn the cause of feminism into a laughing stock.
Am I really supposed to find comfort in the reassurance that it is not my practice of BDSM that is to be made illegal, merely images of it? How very kind and sensible of the government.
Penny , London,
These new proposals are deeply ill-considered and unjustified; a classic example of sentiment ruling over reason. If the people involved in the material were consenting, it should be allowed, irrespective of the distaste of "most people". The claims of these sites featuring real abuses is simply not founded in reality; most of them originating in the US, under tight and independently regulated health & safety laws. I would strongly agree with the sentiments of Avedon Carol, in that what the government are proposing here is basically a thought crime and the proposed penalties are ludicrously diproportionate. The police and CPS have got better things to be dealing with; e.g. real crime! Finally, I am curious that the supporters of this think it is male consumers who will be the sole targets; this shows an incredible naivety and ignorance of the human condition. I fear the lives of many decent and harmless men and women will, indeed, by ruined by these authoritarian proposals.
Edward Smith, Cambridge, UK
People are getting hysterical about this and making judgments on over-excited claims.
Most of this stuff is harmless.
If you took a look at Necrobabes you would see it is no more offensive than a 'naughty' Hammer Horror film.
If the proposed law simply said it would only include sites without disclaimers saying they are fantasies only and scenes that did not claim to be 'acted', then much of the opposition would go away.
Why would a commercial site owner really hurt adults when it is easier and legal to pay them to act it out?
No, the real bad stuff is quite rare and not the norm at all, if that was all this law covered no one would be opposing it.
We surrender our rights to a minority of maniacs?
What about those who kill in the name of the bible (Peter Sutcliffe) or get off on holocaust images (Ian Brady), to ban anything that might trigger a maniac to commit a crime would result in a sterile world.
The argument is irrational.
Gareth, Salford,
So, according to Clare Phillipson African women are being trafficked and their murders filmed? So she has evidence to that extent? Else it would be a complete fabrication, no? It is somewhat telling to see one party grasping so desperately for an argument.
Emotions may run high on this issue but we cannot escape the fact that the government is seeking to ban the possession of intellectual property of no proven harm on the basis of disapproval alone. That it's pornography is immaterial in my mind. One or two amendments to this bill by a future government could extend their right to ban any 'extreme' material they disapprove of, be it pornographic or otherwise. Islamic literature perhaps, or pictures 'gloryfying' animal cruelty (i.e. depictions of fox hunting), or depictions which 'glamorise' smoking. In short the legal scope for this, once we allow such a precedent, is vast.
I my view to grant government the right to ban material on the mere basis of disapproval is simply foolish.
Franco, Carlisle,
Well, one more case of today's 'Relativism' gone wild...'One half of the world cannot understand the pleasures of the other.” The arguement that Jane would condone paedophilia and murderous sex is extremely tenuous...maybe she was talking about people preferring sports over theater. To extend this argument to condone violent porn is illogical and insane. Maybe someone prefers to have sex with his daughter than his wife, are we to just shrug it away?
gabe, dublin, ireland
Firstly, I found Jill Radford's comments rather offensive. Extreme pornography does not exclusively involve women and certainly not children. There are plenty of examples of male submission websites available.
Secondly, most arguments against extreme pornography suggest that it is only potential dominants who wish to view it. The extremely large population of submissive men and women seems to have been overlooked.
Dan, Canterbury, UK
'Ruin people's lives' is accurate. The likelihood that these sites harm `actors`, users, and (indirectly) the public is sufficient reason to censor them, while this hypothesis is researched. But 3 years in prison, and being stigmatised as a sex offender, for what Avendon Carol rightly calls a thought crime? This would certainly ruin lives, and those of vulnerable people `prone to addictions and lack of self esteem'. The answer is to prevent access, not punish it. The lazy slogan 'get real' is evidence of a blinkered unwillingness to think about the issues.
Colm, Norwich,
'Ruin peoples' lives by banning dark porn'? I think the debate is going outside of the arena where it was confined: particularly offensive websites looking to profit. There have to be some restrictions. The energies and well-being of men and women may be becoming devalued by modern technology ...like never before?...I love the message 'Get Real' because it should become the slogan of today, in a western culture saturated by quick fixes. Nevermind what Austen said, such sites should be universally condemed and raunch culture exposed for its shallowness and promotion of dark porn. Well-balanced people find them amusing and free, but those prone to addictions and lack of self esteem will not. This is why we surrender some rights.
Will, cheshire, uk
The "BDSM community"? Any day now, we'll see a reference to the "cuddle up on the sofa while the girl-friend watches Jane Austen on telly community". Each to his or her own, after all.
John R, Bishop's Stortford, HERTS
False claims like those made by Clare Phillipson hardly help this debate. The FBI and other authorities have spent countless manhours investigating claims of so called snuff movies, only to conclude that none has ever been made. In fact snuff movies frequently feature on urban legend debunking sites.
None of the claims in favour of this legislation stand up to the light of day. There is no research, no evidence, no credible links between violent pornography, and criminal acts. There are just consenting adults, trying to carry out their private lives, without living in fear of this legislation, and the fear that if they speak out for their rights, they will be labled as psychopaths or paedophiles .
Bill Burman, Welwyn Garden City, United Kingdom
Claire Phillipson should go to the police and inform hem of these women who are traffic and murdered for pornograhic purposes.
Finding such snuff films is the holy grail for vice teams and in over 5 decades of searching not a single one has been discovered/seied by police.
1 in 4 adults accessed porn on the internet last year (including 1.4m women). And 42% have used pornography as some point. If you couple this with the 38% of people who have used some form of BDSM to ‘spice up’ their personal relationships, then you begin to get a feel for how many people this law may effect.
A conservative estimate, (38% of the 42%) then that means a possible 9.5 million Britons may view/own BDSM porn. If you make a realistic assumption that interest in BDSM is more prevalent in those who are more sexually liberated and therefore view more pornography; this figure rises substantially.
There is no statistical evidence of harm and given the large numbers about to be criminalised, this is a bad law
Spike, Essex, England
Many of us are aroused by viewing images of spanking and whipping. Huge numbers of people also consensually engage in those practices. It has always been so and always will be. Some people may find that strange, but so do I find certain things others do as strange. It has been as much a part of human sexuality as being gay is.
To criminalise the viewing of such materials even if they are line drawings or photographs of husband and wife taken by themselves, will make vast swathes of the British population criminals at a stroke. Human diversity is a wonderful thing and we are lucky to live on a planet where we are not all clones of each other and yet can live with tolerance in reasonable harmony.
Many Times readers will enjoy watching James Bond films. I doubt they go home and re-enact them causing murder and mayhem such that we ought to ban the films. There is no difference here.
Sarah, London,
There is a word for images, still and video, which "appear" to depict what is not real. That word is fiction.
This law is quite simple in it's intention. It intends to jail people for owning works of fiction. If another country jailed people for having the "wrong" novels on their shelves there would be an outcry, and rightly so.
This proposal has EXACTLY the same intention.
Being "disgusted" by a work of fiction is not a valid reason for jailing people for owning it. You jail people for DOING HARM.
John Chew
John Chew, Horley, Surrey
I think the Jane Austin quote hits the mark.
The proposed law is not a logical extension of child pornography law's, for pictures of animals and children clearly violate informed consent.
This new law makes possession of an image that may not be breaking any laws illegal. There is now burden of proof, just assumption of guilt.
Therefore this law is introducing both thought crime and the need to prove innocence into British legal code.
Further more by looking at basic demographics this would criminalize activities shared by 11% of the population (from the Kinsey report) do we really want the police pulled away from serious crime like child abuse and rape to investigate people who are only looking at porn some people find distasteful. This at a time when police figures put only 5% of rapes successfully prosecuted, and the key reason due to lack of resources
Ultimately this law will not protect anyone, and will put many people, most children, at risk.
Ben, Birmingham,
Well said Clare Phillipson, I agree totally with her. The modern view on subjectivity is long overdue for renewal. There are some things which are just plain wrong, and it is about time people had the balls to stand up and say so.
We constantly hear about the 'rights' of perverts and people who gain sexual pleasure from viewing violence against women! What about the 'rights' of women to feel safe, to live in a society which does not tolerate perverts and violent ones at that
Rights comes together with responibilites, the two go hand in hand..
A C Wylie, Cheltenham, England
Why would you want to look at images of women being raped and murdered if it didn't turn you on? And if it turns you on, isn't looking at the images more likely to make you enact your fantasies in real life, not less? Millions of women got a 'Rachel' haircut after seeing it on TV - human beings imitate what they see - simple.
eugenia, manchester, england
I know many men who are turned on by the sight of women dominating other men. To characterise this whole issue of porn as poor women who are victims of male violence is to ignore the reality that much of the porn that we are discussing is made consentingly by women and men who enjoy what they do. Both men and women have fantasies, and the use of porn by women is growing. Whilst I am horrified by images of death and torture of unwilling victims, I don't see any reason for banning images that are clearly made by consenting adults. Making otherwise law abiding people into criminals is not going to stop bad things happening to good people, in fact it will increase it.
Corriander, Preston,
Presumably the only reason my copy of "A Clockwork Orange"" would not be affected by this is that clause "Such material must have been created solely or primarily for the purpose of sexual arousal"
And there's the problem: this seems to be a loophole through which one could drive a coach and horses. Many people who describe themselves as either submissive or dominant describe it as a part of their lives entirely divorced from sex, and a fair number sustain both "vanilla" and "sub/dom" relationships with different people, both relationships long-term.
The point is that any good lawyer could successfully argue that any given set of images had been produced to sate this particular part of the viewers' psyches, and not for the purposes of sexual arousal at all. It would be up the personal prejudices of the jury to decide in each case.
Ian Kemmish, Biggleswade, UK