Violent porn legislation

[ciphergoth]

This is the best written, most cogent, clearest exposition of the issues around this legislation around violent porn I have read. It's long, but please read it all - AFAICT it never falters.

(props to angelmine)

Comments

[syllopsium.livejournal.com]

It's not a bad article, but I think in parts it's somewhat unhelpful.

There's far too much emphasis on necrophilia and it doesn't address the issue that consent is the critical point, not whether it offends humanity.

The difference between a real act of violence which causes sexual arousal, and a simulated one by a porn company is not in fact about reality IMO, it's about presentation and packaging.

Possible logical conclusions are :

1) If the packaging explicitly makes sexual references, it is likely to be porn.

2) If someone is sexually excited at two equivalent films - one real, one simulated then either both are pornographic, or neither is.

Assuming that output from a porn company is porn, or output from a film company is not porn is discriminatory, and is in any case easily worked around via seperate companies.

Therefore, to have any real effect, there will need to be more censorship on violent films.