Anything with no controllable or undefined market value is frowned upon and often criminalised.

Films which desensitise us to violence and depict it as some kind of video game free-for-all with blood, guts, and smiles everywhere is a long running profitable industry.. the subject of this post is far too new of a phenomenon to legislate and create an industry for, for now.

Extreme porn pollutes the culture in the same way that exhaust fumes pollute the environment.

Censorship, like clean air legislation, has a role to play but the State has to take care not to overstep the mark and infringe basic liberties.

It’s all about the quality of judgment calls….

‘Webster, aged 47, denies three charges of possessing extreme pornography depicting images likely to result in injury to a person’s breast and one similar charge depicting an act which threatens a person’s life.’

How the hell would faked images result in actual images?

And even the language sounds like something from the playground. A *person’s breast* – as opposed to what, a chicken breast?

‘Films which desensitise us to violence and depict it as some kind of video game free-for-all with blood, guts, and smiles everywhere is a long running profitable industry’

What ‘films which desensitise us to violence’? You can’t have it both ways, claiming that violent images you masturbate over are harmless but violent films you merely smile at are harmful.

‘How the hell would faked images result in actual images?’

Sorry, ‘actual harm’

‘It’s all about the quality of judgment calls….’

We live in a country where a Twitter joke can put you in prison so fuck ‘judgement calls’, free expression has to be put out of reach of the State.

While I believe porn is an inevitable part of society that should be accepted (in fact I’m blogging on this in more detail next week), I don’t think that porn in its current dominant, misogynistic incarnation should necessarily be excused out of hand. And this is a very good explanation as to why not:

I’m not saying arrests are the appropriate answer; in fact I think it’s a very short-sighted, ultimately damaging response. But neither is blanket defence of extreme porn either, and I think this article fails to acknowledge just how commonplace extreme porn is (cum shots, violent sodomy and the like being fairlly standard these days).

I encourage the porn debate without the Mary Whitehouse subtext, but it disappoints me how many usually liberal men unequivocally rush to defend their wanking material, at the possible expense of principles.

Whoops sorry, let me try that first paragraph again. While I believe porn is an inevitable part of society that should be accepted (in fact I’m blogging on this in more detail next week), I don’t think that porn in its current dominant, misogynistic incarnation should necessarily be excused out of hand. And this is a very good explanation as to why not:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2010/oct/25/men-believe-porn-is-wrong?INTCMP=SRCH

Incidentally, Pandora doesn’t actually make a strong case against censorship of extreme pornography by citing cases where such ‘offences’ are part of stronger cases of people also prosecuted for possession of class-A drugs (which should be legal in any case but which should be discussed elsewhere) or deserved prosecutions for child pornography (which, if the images are real, not faked, are actual abuse).

Flowerpower,

Would you trust me with those judgement calls about you? Because what you in effect said was that someone else can decide what is acceptable for you (or me) to read/watch/masturbate over.

Now since expert witnesses generally are used to show there is no link between violent pornography and actual violence (yes, there are cases of violent people who use violent pornography, but they are not statistically significant), in your world view (I am presuming your current views on global warming here) surely censorship on the basis of the public good is the opposite to clean air legislation, since the scientific evidence is weighted against it?

Put simply, people have fantasies. The vast majority of people can tell the difference between a fantasy and reality, because it is clearly different. Censorship of this nature is either the criminalisation of many in order to try and stop a few (unproven) cases where violent pornography may contribute to violence (despite the fact that making something illegal does not make it unavailable, and if there are those who are that unaware of the boundaries of reality that violent pornography pushes them to violent actions then they are unlikely to be particularly concerned by the legality of that pornography) or it is simply, as Pandora states, at attempt by ‘conservative’ (probably reactionary, but they really have nothing to hark back to) elements to introduce a forced morality on us all. Either way, it is undefensible.

Ellie Mae,

What you are suggesting is that pornography should only be allowed if it is suitable in your eyes, which you define as not dominant or misogynistic but which others (of both sexes) find satisfying.

Of course, there should be a wider range of pornography available, as the current grey situtation as to its acceptability does tend to encourage certain types of production, but I cannot see how you can claim to allow the idea of pornography (a material for fantasies) and then seek to regulate fantasies to fit your worldview. Either you believe in freedom of expression or you believe in totalitarian thought control. Any attempt at a middle ground is simply an excuse for totalitarianism.

“I think this article fails to acknowledge just how commonplace extreme porn is”

I think you may have failed to realise that ‘extreme pornography’ has an exact legal definition in the context of this article and the legislation it refers to. Neither of the scenarios you mention fall within that definition, and I think it would be reasonable to say that the scenarios it does cover are not commonplace.

Watchman

That’s an incredibly black and white way of looking at it, and you’re doing exactly what I’m talking about: ‘Don’t take away my right to wank, you fascist!’

Read the article I link to: it’s about the effect that type of porn has on men as much as women.

Also I think I made it pretty clear that I’m not interested in banning porn (I’m rather partial to it, no less), but there needs to be honest conversation about the type of porn being produced and the effect it is having on consumers, and whether that is positive.

I just find this article too knee jerk in its defence of extreme porn.

On cultural divides, try this Wikipedia webpage on the often illustrious, if brief, professional careers of young women stars of “Adult Videos” (AV) in Japan where the stars are widely regarded as public celebrities, are interviewed on mainstream media and widely emulated in a youth culture:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AV_idol

Many stars later go on to other public careers and eventually to marry. Evidently, Japan doesn’t appear to share our hangups about pornography but then Japan has a centuries long historic tradition of popular erotic art in woodcuts – shunga – which could be remarkably graphic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shunga

For reasons I’ve never quite understood, distinctions are usually made nowadays between visual porn media and pornographic literature but they didn’t used to be in Britain. Our prosecution authorities seem to have completely given up on trying to police literary porn ever since the famous acquittal of Penguin Books in 1960 for publishing DH Lawrence’s Lady Chatterley’s Lover. As the chief prosecution lawyer, Mervyn Griffith-Jones, put it during the trial, is this is the kind of book “you would wish your wife or servants to read?”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Chatterley‘s_Lover

Btw please note that a Conservative government was in power at the time and through to the autumn of 1964. The acquittal of Penguin Books was not the outcome of some scurrilous liberal plot devised by the late Roy Jenkins.

The gutenberg text of DH Lawrence: Lady Chatterley’s Lover, is accessible here:
http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks01/0100181.txt

@Ellie Mae

“I just find this article too knee jerk in its defence of extreme porn.”

A bit rich when you keep accusing everyone who opposes censorship of extreme porn of using it.

I can see the point in the actual story. But in the linked examples below that? I’m not sure. These are in the main all people who have been convicted of possessing some seriously nasty material, including the ‘extreme’ porn.

I’m really not sure there is a great argument that faked extreme porn provides a pressure release valve either for people who are inclined towards violent sex, stopping them committing crime. I suspect, personally, its far more complex a psycological issue than that. Would faked child porn images do the same for a potential paedophile? Would that be acceptable? That’s a much more straight forward no.

Ellie Mae,

Yes, this is black or white. Anyone burning a book (or banning an image) is imposing their judgement on everyone – do you really believe you have the right to do that? Remember, every dictatorial regime in history has claimed its actions were for someone’s good, be it the people, the workers or whoever. Why give those who would be dictators the tools to be so?

Incidentally, I do defend people’s right to wank over whatever turns them on. It is called freedom – and I defend your right to wank over whatever turns you on equally as much. Is there a problem with my defence of freedom just because you do not like what other people do?

14

I wasn’t – I just meant that men who use any type of porn are often quick to unequivocally defend it, regardless of the nuances involved.

Ugh, I think I used all my eloquence up on Radio 5 this morning. Sorry everyone.

@13 Its a bit much comparing DHL’s sex scenes to violent pornography, whether staged or otherwise.

I’m Eastwood born and bred as it happens. Old folk round here really do still react quite strongly against DHL. I suspect its as much because he often describes them in very unflattering terms rather than just due to being a ‘filthy old bugger’ though.

“Would faked child porn images do the same for a potential paedophile? Would that be acceptable? That’s a much more straight forward no.”

To which question? If the answer to the first was proven to be ‘yes’*, then I would hope the answer to the second would be ‘yes’ too! Otherwise you’re saying fake images are more important than real abuse, which is crazy.

If the answer to the first question is ‘no’* then the second question is obviously irrelevant.

* As far as I’m aware there’s no scientific consensus either way, although the most recent news I read on the subject was a ‘yes’:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-11/s-lcp113010.php

@Ellie Mae – I’ve read that article you linked to: of course there are men who don’t like porn – the fact that they don’t like it for ‘feminist’ reasons rather than ‘conservative’ ones doesn’t really change things all that much, especially given the tendency to conflate sexist representations with sexual ones. In another context, we could describe such people as ‘fellow travellers’ or – more pejoratively – ‘useful idiots’. Meanwhile the women who do want to produce porn which offers something different (for women and men) have to do so against a backdrop of feminist campaigners who just want them to stop altogether.

Japan and Denmark – two countries with few public restrictions on publication of porn – regularly feature in studies to show that wide availability of porn does little harm and may even yield some public benefits.

EllieMae:

I think this article fails to acknowledge just how commonplace extreme porn is (cum shots, violent sodomy and the like being fairlly standard these days).

‘Cum shots’ aren’t part of the legislation and are ‘standard’ only in the sense that hey occur at the end of a scene as ‘proof’ the participants area really having sex. Also: how hard does the man (or the women with a strap-on) have to thrusting for the anal sex to be deemed ‘acceptable’ rather than ‘violent’? What research have you actually been doing for your planned article?

Cum shots in ‘normal’ porn are not the issue here- this law targets extreme BDSM porn. Kinky types have a good culture of explicit consent which it would be great to see the rest of society emulate. Since half the submissives involved are men, and submissive women really really want said abuse, I don’t see a feminist issue.

Now BDSM stuff leaking into vanilla porn where the consumers don’t get the culture, and that it’s fundamentally make believe, is definitely problematic.

Hodge Podge,

Now BDSM stuff leaking into vanilla porn where the consumers don’t get the culture, and that it’s fundamentally make believe, is definitely problematic.

Why? I doubt anyone watching pornography believes it is real (either that, or some people have a lot more tiring lifestyles than I manage).

@19 Are you joking? Even if faked images of child abuse did divert paedophiles from abusing children for real, that’s still no argument to legalise or tolerate faked images of child abuse. The argument for, instead, catching and sentencing paedophiles or those who view images of child abuse, faked or real, still outweighs the supposed benefits of pandering to them, hoping against hope that they’ll be satisfied with hooky pictures and not go any further.

Not that this is any answer to @15 where the issue is less clear cut.

‘Why? I doubt anyone watching pornography believes it is real (either that, or some people have a lot more tiring lifestyles than I manage).’

Exactly – porn is on a continuum in any case. I remember an episode of The Avengers being effectively banned because Diana Rigg wore leather catsuit and spike dog collar. (‘The Hellfire Club’, for those interested )

@26: Good episode.

“Even if faked images of child abuse did divert paedophiles from abusing children for real, that’s still no argument to legalise or tolerate faked images of child abuse.”

Um, that’s exactly what it is. It may be an argument you disagree with, but it is indeed an argument for considering it as a harm-minimising tactic.

Omitted from the list in the OP:

In July 2010, the Sunderland Echo reported that Michael Nelson, 23, admitted possession of ‘extreme porn’ and was sentenced to 200 hours of community service and left with a criminal record:
http://www.sunderlandecho.com/news/local/porn_found_on_phone_1_1503344

This case is important because unlike most of the others listed Nelson was not charged with any other, more serious offences.

My mistake: ‘A Touch of Brimstone’ featuring the Hellfire Club. Peter Wyngarde was in it – reason enough to seek it out!

It seems that we are still struggling to leave our Victorian past behind.

We readily produce and consume images of every aspect of life on the planet, a process which forms an essential part of our education, communication and entertainment, but some still presume that a vacuum should exist when it comes to an area of sexual nature which is a key driver of human behaviour.

If we were truly free of that guilt the presumption would be toward a censorship free media with censorship only being considered appropriate when a proven link existed between actual harm and the production or consumption of those images.

Without a proven link the regulations are just taste masquerading as morality and we could really do with a little less of the ubiquitous, nicety-nice, middle class, middle age, suburban semi, vanilla-is-the-only-flavour control mechanisms infiltrating every nook and crany of this tired timid dull grey society.

Surely the issue with some of the arguments proposed in the comments is consent. Child pornography, whether faked or real cannot be justified because a child cannot be responsible to consent to it.

Extreme pornography, whether faked or even real, amongst consenting adults should not be an issue, regardless if individuals like the existence of it or not. Of course, if it’s forced without consent it’s abuse and a different matter.

Fake child porn isn’t made with real children – otherwise it would be real child porn.

Either it’s fake because it’s made with (young-looking) adults (who can consent), or it’s drawn/rendered… in which case, there are no people whose consent is required.

If they ban extreme pornography they’ll take your clown pornography next. Nobody wants to live in that world.

@denny apologies, I was thinking of photoshopping type scenarios, not really knowing if that is a common occurrence.

Shatterface: *grin*

Kirsty: Ooh, hadn’t thought of that one – in that case the child wasn’t actually involved in any sexual activity, right? So again, it’s icky that it exists, but not actually harmful to children as far as the creation of the images is concerned. Although there is potentially reputational harm to the child if there are images of them ‘having sex’ in existence, so I think you’re right that there’s a consent issue there. Also/relatedly, it occurs to me that you could possibly have real images of real children in fake porn poses, which would (presumably) be directly harmful.

Of course, we’re getting off-topic here a bit… there are other laws against creating child porn, of all sorts. What we’re discussing here with the ‘extreme porn’ legislation is whether possessing pre-existing images, even fake ones, is in some way societally harmful, such that it justifies a ban on possessing them. I’m not sure if consent is an issue there?

@Denny Yeah I went off-track to throw my tuppence in on some of the other comments rather than the matter of the article. With no facts to show a causal link between violent porn viewing and violent acts then those who think it’s ‘wrong’ have a simple option – don’t go looking at it.

Anyone can just as quite easily say that male-oriented ‘vanilla’ porn makes men unreasonably misogynistic, or that mainstream violent films make people commit violent acts, but they know they’d never find facts to back those claims up – sure those things may happen, but in the minority. These things are so far away from ever being made illegal, why should extreme porn be any different?

If that was you who posted here a month or so back I think you are a great writer but I am not sure how I feel about tentacle rape. A friend of my best friends sisters boyfriends brothers uncles son might once have clicked on one of those cartoon/hentai sites and told me about it.

Along with the tentacle rape and suchlike it is disturbing how quickly you reach cartoon images of sex with children. I, sorry he reported them. What else to do? Surely that isn’t right?

As I say I am not sure about any of this. I might look a bit weird but I am a straight boning on a bed sort of person. A mate of mine used to do a show crucifying himself and tells me sometimes about his deviant sexuality but I must admit I don’t like hearing about it. Fixing a friends computer I found out once that a very quiet person in their hose draws this tentacle rape sort of stuff for a living.

Where should you draw the line? Does paedophile cartoons stop paedophiles being paedophiles?

It’s an old joke with pornographic nuances that’s been around but maybe you’ve not heard it before.

In the way of our HM Prison service guardians, a sadist and a masochist were made to share a prison cell to see what would ensue.

“Go on,” said the masochist to the sadist, “please, hurt me.”

“No,” said the sadist.

Anti-porn campaigners have used the debate over extreme/violent porn in order to push for a ban on all porn.
The pressure group Mediawatch UK said in a report that the measures banning violent porn do not go far enough and that legislation should be extended to cover all R18 rated material with a 3 year prison sentance for possesion.

Would anybody care to join a sweepstake as to how long until one of the champions of the New Morality is found auto-erotically dead with an orange up their backside and a plastic bag over their head? This is Return to Victorian Values all over again. I hope we can at least look forward to Baxter Basics’ reappearance in Viz.

@39
“Where should you draw the line? Does paedophile cartoons stop paedophiles being paedophiles?”
If that were the case, once it has worked they would stop watching said cartoons. You’re equivocating paedophilia with sexual abuse of children. One is a state of mind determined by trait, the other is a physical act, in the same manner as heterosexuality and heterosexual rape.

Funnily enough, I view erotica and I’ve not stopped being attracted to sexually mature women. Neither have I started raping sexually mature women (or any other category of people). Does that surprise you?

@41 Baxter Basics happened to have a small strip in this years Viz Christmas annual “the five knuckle shuffle”. Spoofing the expenses business.

Here are some more:

May 2010 – http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/14/squid_image_charge/ – Andrew Dymond charged with extreme porn involving animals, though this case is worth noting as one of the images involved a dead animal (so hardly an worry of animal cruelty), a squid(!)

August 2010 – http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/8346808.Dorset_Dentist_spared_prison_over_pain_porn/ – David Hill sentenced for extreme porn (“depicting pain being inflicted” – “Mr Hill admitted downloading the material because he was participating in bondage acts”), no mention of any other crimes.

August 2010 – http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/news/Cannabis-deal-texts-mobile/article-2522261-detail/article.html – Ashley Thomas Johnstone sentenced for extreme porn and cannabis possession.

November 2010 – http://www.flintshirechronicle.co.uk/flintshire-news/local-flintshire-news/2010/11/11/man-admits-porn-charges-at-flintshire-magistrates-court-51352-27634947/ : Nicholas Price sentenced for extreme porn, no mention of any other crimes.

Sadly, there have been several cases where people have been done for extreme porn alone, at least some of which are known to not be with animals (and one case where the other crime was cannabis, rather than child porn). I bet these people weren’t even aware of the law until the police came.

If anyone’s interested, there’s an archive of media mentions of the law at http://www.seenoevil.org.uk/wiki/index.php?title=Template:Media (anyone can add entries to it). There are more cases I haven’t listed in this comment, that involve either animal porn, or child porn.

Even for those people who also possess child porn, I dislike that the media will now report “extreme” or “violent” adult porn alongside child porn, drawing a link between the two; and supporters of these kinds of laws will insist this shows that they are connected.

And whilst I perhaps wouldn’t lose any sleep over animal porn, the law there is still about criminalising “disgusting” images, rather than anything to do with animal cruelty. And in practice, I feel it will just catch unfortunate people looking at “shock” images who are unaware of the law.

@Ellie Mae: “I think this article fails to acknowledge just how commonplace extreme porn is (cum shots, violent sodomy and the like being fairlly standard these days).”

No sorry, those things aren’t at all covered by the “extreme porn” law. As Denny points out, the Labour Government misused the term “extreme porn” to create a pic-and-mix definition of material they wanted to criminalise. And that’s the problem. Yes, you can criticise mainstream misogynistic porn, but that remains unaffected, whilst this law criminalises people for having non-mainstream alternative porn, even if it isn’t misogynistic in the slightest.

And no one is making a blanket defence, The argument is that people shouldn’t be criminalised for it. If you want to otherwise criticise it, fine, but that’s another matter entirely.

“but it disappoints me how many usually liberal men unequivocally rush to defend their wanking material”

It disappoints me how many usually liberal people want to lock people up for wanking in private. Not to mention that this law has been used against people even when they didn’t have a sexual interest in the material.

Shatterface: I quote several cases only involving “extreme porn” above. But even if it was only ever used in combination with another crime – what’s the bloody point of the law?

Cynical/Realist: “I’m really not sure there is a great argument that faked extreme porn provides a pressure release valve either for people”

It doesn’t matter – that’s not an argument for making it illegal.

“Would faked child porn images do the same for a potential paedophile? Would that be acceptable? That’s a much more straight forward no.”

Straightfoward? Only if you’re not interested in debate. What on earth is a potential pedophile? I don’t see that fictional “child” porn should be illegal – however even if it is, it’s a fallacy to say that since that’s illegal, adult porn should be illegal to. Adults are not children. The first argument for criminalising fictional child porn is that it might be real – but whilst real child porn is a problem, no evidence of a trade in abusive adult porn have ever been found. The second argument is that people might be encouraged to do the real thing. But if people are encouraged by “extreme” porn to take part in consensual BDSM with adults, this is hardly the same thing as being encouraged to have sex with adults.

@Parasite: I propose you be locked up. It’s now up to you to prove that the benefits of letting you be free outweigh the benefits of you being locked up.

And fictional “child” porn is not simply an issue of pedophiles. There’s everything from joke “Simpsons” cartoons, South Park (the episode of Proper Condom Use depicts a child masturbating an animal), to things like young adults role-playing as school children. Not to mention the madness that “child” porn these days covers those aged (or depicted as) 16-17, over the age of consent…

There is a huge leap between the act of viewing/reading certain materials and in fact acting upon them. There is a huge sub culture of those who will engage in “cyber-sex” and this can involve supposedly grossly indecent acts. There are those who act upon them in real life. Drawing on my own experience. As a woman. A woman who does in fact get turned on by being subjected to humiliating and barbaric acts and sadly seen the bad end of the stick, in real life, from those who take this too far. You could argue that I asked for it. You can argue that when people engage in “morally questionable” acts consensually that there is a level of trust. This I agree with. When in the confines of a trusting (and I don’t want to say relationship in the conventional sense) but agreement then it can prove to be enjoyable sexually and be safe and a parameter in which individuals can explore their sexuality.
What the “moral superiors” often fail to realise is that people do not choose their sexual preferences. They only choose how to act upon them.
Which is why having “faked” images of sexual “depravity” is not wrong in my opinion.
In no way can I justify any acts of paedophilia but simply having the thoughts within you? Can that be a crime? Can having a lust for children that burns inside your groinal area on it’s own be an evil thing in itself?
Any man or woman who commits an act of sexual violence against a child deserves to be strongly accountable for their violating actions. I can say this because I don’t believe those who have desires that are wrong in society are inherently evil people. I had someone close to me molest me as a child and whilst that is a traumatic thing to happen I have been able to take a few steps back and see him as not just a paedophile but a loving person who did a lot of good in society. People often see that as a guise for their “evil”. I just see it as those who are unlucky enough to be cursed with such an abhorrent desire trying to make sense of their life.
Fake imagery is a preventative. Having access to it prevent me from seeking out masochistic experiences that would ultimately be spiritually damaging to me. A fan of “extreme porn” or paedophilia should also have access to such fake images.

This law was passed a few years ago in the aftermath of a murder – a middle class woman was murdered by a partner who watched extreme porn. The murder itself had some mild element of sado-masochistic behaviour. Rather than concluding that the boyfriend was a violent psychopath, and under pressure from the girls mother, the then labour govt made “extreme porn” illegal – presumably under the (disproved too many times to mention) idea that exposure to violent media “causes” violent behaviour. Theoretically some mainstream media (The “Hostel” film series for example) could fall under it’s remit.

Quick law rarely makes good law.

http://www.tentaclegrape.com/

That is all.

The assertion that there’s no evidence of an association between pornography and violence is false. The idea that viewing such material mitigates violent crime by providing an outlet for violent tendencies is also false. This is evidenced by police research and records that find that almost all pedophiles, rapists and sexual murderers are regular users of pornography, and often use it during their crimes, for example to groom children or to copy and inflict the violence that they see onto real women and children. Other research on pornography and it’s effects on our very pliable and susceptible brains finds similar effects. Most importantly, the court and personal testimony of women and children survivors of male violence, incest, sexual assault, rape and prostitution reveals the significant and often direct role that pornography plays in those crimes.

We’re currently having a debate about the impact of violent political rhetoric and imagery on the actions of violent men, with a general consensus that that kind of speech at the very least provides an atmosphere conducive to violence. I don’t see how an intensely violent, mysoginist, racist, homophobic and degrading material such as pornography can be immune from that kind of influence, particularly when it’s so pervasive and deeply entrenched in our culture.

Josepha: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

@48 @49

The assertion that there’s no evidence of an association between oxygen and violence is false. The idea that breathing such material mitigates violent crime by providing an outlet for violent tendencies is also false. This is evidenced by police research and records that find that almost all pedophiles, rapists and sexual murderers are regular users of oxygen, and often use it during their crimes, for example to groom children or to exhale the oxygen that they breathe onto real women and children. Other research on oxygen and it’s effects on our very pliable and susceptible brains finds similar effects. Most importantly, the court and personal testimony of women and children survivors of male violence, incest, sexual assault, rape and prostitution reveals the significant and often direct role that oxygen plays in those crimes.

(Sincerely,
–A social scientist)