egafd.com

The government is referring to the proposed extreme pornography bill as a "violent pornography" bill. It is trying to give the impression that the government's anti porn bill is concerned with violence an not sex. The Video Recordings Bill was introduced as anti-violent imagery (Video Nasties) in the same way in 1984. Once in place it was used almost exclusively against sexual imagery.

Why the calculated deception? Simply because the government knows that the majority of the people do not want any more censorship of sexual imagery but are sympathetic towards the censorship of gross violence with which this society is saturated.

I believe that if pornography arouses one sexually then extremely violent imagery arouses violence in susceptible viewers and futhermore leads to an insensitivity towards the pain and suffering of others in general.

As a filmmaker I know that I can show images of murder, mutilation and torture as long as the content is asexual.
Mike Freeman.

The government are a little too late on that one Mike. Make it illegal by all means and force it more underground where people will seek it anyway.

I've always found it strange how some people equate the subject of sex with violence. We can put a man on the moon but we cant confront the basic fact that ultimately for all our civility that we are essentially animals...or for the more bourgoise of you out there...organic beings.

The government must realise thathtye cannot control free thought which is why violence and porn are outlets for release. My only problem is where they will draw the line but i htink you hit the nail squarely on the head that this bill will be used against pornography.

I can see a few people already just fighting for their freedom to express themselves

I find all the publicity around the new James Bond film amusing.

I don't know how many violent deaths it depicts, but it is promoted as "all round good family entertainment".

I notice it has a 12A Certificate.

I have no doubt that if any actress in the film dared to show her tits it would be a 15 and it would be an 18 for pubes.

I don't understand it at all.

Why do we need "protect" children from sex or naked bodies, but seeing someone beaten, mutilated or killed is family entertainment?

Jack,

Someone convinced me once that if you want to know why anyone does anything, look at who gains financially ! Ninety nine per cent you get the right answer. Now who gains if certain genres of porn become illegal here in the UK?

Let me know who ou think earns more money.

Mike.

Spider,
Because if you control a person's body then you control that person. You get accustomed to obeisance.
Mike.

If this law is passed it will mean that anyone selling or making C.P. films or downloading this type of material on the internet will be commiting an offence, which is a bit strange because a lot of M.Ps, Judges top ranking police and other professional types are into this kind of thing !love!

[quote]The government is referring to the proposed extreme pornography bill as a "violent pornography" bill.[/quote]

On this occasion, I can't see such madness getting passed. Sexual images that cause sexual arousal are natural. Certain parts of the brain are sensitive to stimulation that will cause arousal. The only ways to these parts of the brain are through the senses. Erotic images only work because our brain is constantly looking for the arousal.

Violence is different as most peoples brains aren't geared to be sensitive to such images. Violence is partly controlled by emotion, -rage for eg.- while sexual arousal is not. Violence may stimulate a psychopathic killer into murder, but these people are few and far between, and it's unproven as to whether violent porn has a bigger stimulation than violent entertainment.

Hopefully enough MP's will consult intelligent sources before making decisions, and the bill never gets passed. It would be madness -and probably unenforceable- otherwise.

The problem is getting MPs who may privately be opposed, to actually come out and defeat an anti-porn bill. I can see the headlines in their local papers and the letters from their god-bothering constituents now. And next election, 'My opponent voted against a bill to rid us of violent porn. Dont vote for him/her. Protect our children...blah blah blah...'

Sam,
Something interesting for you to read:



Mike.

The Home Office is fully aware of the relationship between watching violent imagery and actual violence, but ignore it and continually try to censor sexual imagery. Why?

I feel that the state needs more violence in society in order to justify its raison d' etre. The biggest fear in society is the fear of violence. If there was no violence then how would the government of the day justify its existence?
Mike.